Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MICHAEL D. SPRENGER IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,589,642
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2003
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2019-01612
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS .............................................................................................................. 2
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED .............................................................................................. 9
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ......................................................................................................... 10
`A.
`Priority ............................................................................................................................ 11
`B. Anticipation .................................................................................................................... 11
`C. Obviousness ................................................................................................................... 12
`D. Claim Construction ........................................................................................................ 13
`V.
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................................. 13
`VI. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 15
`A.
`Technology Background ................................................................................................ 15
`1. Remote Control of Electronic Devices ....................................................................... 15
`2. Universal Remote Controls ........................................................................................ 22
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,589,642 .............................................................................................. 23
`C.
`Prosecution History ........................................................................................................ 28
`1. Applicant distinguished translating or converting a control signal from “receiving a
`keystroke indicator signal” and then “generating a key code within a key code generator
`device using the keystroke indicator signal” ....................................................................... 28
`2. Applicant distinguished “a key code signal” from “a codeset” .................................. 30
`3. Appeal Board rejected Examiner’s argument that prior art disclosed modulating a key
`code onto a carrier signal ..................................................................................................... 31
`D.
`Prior Denial of Institution for Inter Partes Review of ’642 Patent (IPR2014-01082) .. 32
`VII. Decision to Institute the Present Inter Partes Review ....................................................... 33
`VIII.
`ASSERTED PRIOR ART REFERENCES .................................................................... 36
`A. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0005197 (“Mishra”) ............................. 36
`B. U.S. Patent No. 8,132,105 (“Dubil”).............................................................................. 38
`C. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0080428 (“Rye”) .................................. 40
`D. U.S. Patent No. 7,562,128 (“Caris”) .............................................................................. 42
`E. U.S. Patent No. 4,426,662 (“Skerlos”) ........................................................................... 43
`IX. OPINIONS........................................................................................................................... 44
`A.
`Terms for Claim Construction........................................................................................ 44
`1.
`“key code” .................................................................................................................. 44
`
`i
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2003
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2019-01612
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`2.
`“keystroke indicator signal” ....................................................................................... 45
`3.
`“key code signal” ........................................................................................................ 46
`4.
`“key code generator device” ....................................................................................... 48
`5.
`“generating a key code within a key code generator device using the keystroke
`indicator signal” ................................................................................................................... 49
`B. Ground 1: Mishra and Dubil .......................................................................................... 51
`1. A POSITA would not have combined Mishra with Dubil ......................................... 51
`2. Mishra and Dubil do not render obvious Claim 1 ...................................................... 56
`a. Mishra and Dubil do not disclose [1.1]: “receiving a keystroke indicator signal from a
`remote control device, wherein the keystroke indicator signal indicates a key on said
`remote control device that a user has selected” ................................................................... 57
`b. Mishra and Dubil do not disclose [1.2]: “generating a key code within a key code
`generator device using the keystroke indicator signal” ....................................................... 62
`c. Mishra and Dubil do not disclose [1.3]: “modulating said key code onto a carrier
`signal, thereby generating a key code signal” ..................................................................... 64
`d. Mishra and Dubil do not disclose [1.4]: “transmitting said key code signal from said
`key code generator device to said remote control device” .................................................. 72
`3. Mishra and Dubil do not render obvious claim 3: “The method of claim 1, wherein
`said key code consists of a binary number” ........................................................................ 73
`4. Mishra and Dubil do not render obvious claim 4: “The method of claim 1, wherein
`said key code comprises a binary number and timing information, and wherein said timing
`information defines how said binary number is modulated in (c) onto said carrier signal” 74
`5. Mishra and Dubil do not render obvious Claim 6 ...................................................... 77
`a. Mishra and Dubil do not disclose [6.P]: “The method of claim 1, wherein said carrier
`frequency is in a radio frequency band, wherein said key code signal is received by said
`remote control device, and wherein said method further comprises:” ................................ 77
`b. Mishra and Dubil do not disclose [6.1]: “modulating said key code onto a second
`carrier signal, thereby generating a second key code signal, said modulating being
`performed on said remote control device wherein said second carrier signal is in an infrared
`frequency band” ................................................................................................................... 81
`c. Mishra and Dubil do not disclose [6.2]: “transmitting said second key code signal
`from said remote control device to an electronic consumer device” ................................... 83
`6. Mishra and Dubil do not render obvious claim 8: “The method of claim 1, wherein
`said key code generated in (b) is part of a codeset, and wherein said remote control device
`does not store said codeset” ................................................................................................. 84
`7. Mishra and Dubil do not render obvious claim 9: “The method of claim 8, wherein
`said codeset comprises timing information and a plurality of key codes, and wherein said
`timing information describes a digital one and a digital zero” ............................................ 87
`C. Ground 2: Rye and Dubil ............................................................................................... 90
`
`ii
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2003
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2019-01612
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`1. A POSITA would not have combined Rye with Dubil .............................................. 91
`2. Rye and Dubil do not render obvious Claim 2 ........................................................... 97
`Rye and Dubil do not disclose [2.1]: “receiving a keystroke indicator signal from a
`a.
`remote control device, wherein the keystroke indicator signal indicates a key on said
`remote control device that user has selected” ...................................................................... 98
`b. Rye and Dubil do not disclose [2.2]: “generating a key code within a key code
`generator device using the keystroke indictor signal” ....................................................... 103
`Rye and Dubil do not disclose [2.3]: “modulating said key code onto a carrier signal,
`c.
`thereby generating a key code signal” ............................................................................... 105
`d. Rye and Dubil do not disclose [2.4]: “transmitting said key code signal from said key
`code generator device to an electronic consumer device” ................................................. 111
`3. Rye and Dubil do not render obvious Claim 22: “The method of claim 2, wherein
`said key code consists of a binary number” ...................................................................... 112
`4. Rye and Dubil do not render obvious Claim 23: “The method of claim 2, wherein
`said key code comprises a binary number and timing information, and wherein said timing
`information defines how said binary number is modulated in (c) onto said carrier signal”
`
`112
`5. Rye and Dubil do not render obvious Claim 24: “The method of claim 2, wherein
`said key code generated in (b) is part of a codeset, and wherein said remote control device
`does not store said codeset” ............................................................................................... 114
`6. Rye and Dubil do not render obvious Claim 25: “The method of claim 24, wherein
`said codeset comprises timing information and a plurality of key codes, and wherein said
`timing information describes a digital one and a digital zero” .......................................... 115
`D. Ground 3: Caris and Skerlos ........................................................................................ 119
`1. A POSITA would not have combined Caris with Skerlos ....................................... 120
`2. Caris and Skerlos do not render obvious Claim 1: ................................................... 124
`Caris and Skerlos do not disclose [1.2]: “generating a key code within a key code
`a.
`generator device using the keystroke indicator signal” ..................................................... 125
`b. Caris and Skerlos do not disclose [1.3]: “modulating said key code onto a carrier
`signal, thereby generating a key code signal” ................................................................... 127
`Caris and Skerlos do not disclose [1.4]: “transmitting said key code signal from said
`c.
`key code generator device to said remote control device” ................................................ 131
`3. Caris and Skerlos do not render obvious claim 3: “The method of claim 1, wherein
`said key code consists of a binary number” ...................................................................... 132
`4. Caris and Skerlos do not render obvious claim 4: “The method of claim 1, wherein
`said key code comprises a binary number and timing information, and wherein said timing
`information defines how said binary number is modulated in (c) onto said carrier signal”
`
`132
`5. Caris and Skerlos do not render obvious Claim 6 .................................................... 134
`
`iii
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2003
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2019-01612
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`Caris and Skerlos do not disclose [6.P]: “The method of claim 1, wherein said carrier
`a.
`frequency is in a radio frequency band, wherein said key code signal is received by said
`remote control device, and wherein said method further comprises:” .............................. 135
`b. Caris and Skerlos do not disclose [6.1]: “modulating said key code onto a second
`carrier signal, thereby generating a second key code signal, said modulating being
`performed on said remote control device wherein said second carrier signal is in an infrared
`frequency band” ................................................................................................................. 137
`Caris and Skerlos do not disclose [6.2]: “transmitting said second key code signal
`c.
`from said remote control device to an electronic consumer device” ................................. 139
`6. Caris and Skerlos do not render obvious claim 8: “The method of claim 1, wherein
`said key code generated in (b) is part of a codeset, and wherein said remote control device
`does not store said codeset” ............................................................................................... 140
`7. Caris and Skerlos do not render obvious claim 9: “The method of claim 8, wherein
`said codeset comprises timing information and a plurality of key codes, and wherein said
`timing information describes a digital one and a digital zero” .......................................... 141
`8. Caris and Skerlos do not render obvious Claim 2: ................................................... 143
`Caris and Skerlos do not disclose [2.2]: “generating a key code within a key code
`a.
`generator device using the keystroke indictor signal” ....................................................... 144
`b. Caris and Skerlos do not disclose [2.3]: “modulating said key code onto a carrier
`signal, thereby generating a key code signal” ................................................................... 147
`Caris and Skerlos do not disclose [2.4]: “transmitting said key code signal from said
`c.
`key code generator device to an electronic consumer device” .......................................... 147
`9. Caris and Skerlos do not render obvious claim 22: “The method of claim 2, wherein
`said key code consists of a binary number” ...................................................................... 147
`10. Caris and Skerlos do not render obvious claim 23: “The method of claim 2, wherein
`said key code comprises a binary number and timing information, and wherein said timing
`information defines how said binary number is modulated in (c) onto said carrier signal”
`
`147
`11. Caris and Skerlos do not render obvious claim 24: “The method of claim 2, wherein
`said key code generated in (b) is part of a codeset, and wherein said remote control device
`does not store said codeset” ............................................................................................... 148
`12. Caris and Skerlos do not render obvious claim 25: “The method of claim 24, wherein
`said codeset comprises timing information and a plurality of key codes, and wherein said
`timing information describes a digital one and a digital zero” .......................................... 149
`X. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 149
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2003
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2019-01612
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`I, Michael D. Sprenger, declare that:
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Universal Electronics Inc., which I may refer
`
`to as either the “Patent Owner” or “UEI,” for this inter partes review proceeding,
`
`which I may refer to as an “IPR.” I understand that this IPR proceeding involves
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,589,642, which I may refer to as “the ’642 patent” for shorthand.
`
`I understand that the claims challenged in this IPR are Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, and 22-
`
`25 of the ’642 patent.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the ’642 patent is assigned to UEI.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Roku, Inc., which I may also refer
`
`to as the “Petitioner,” filed a Petition for review of Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, and 22-25 of
`
`the ’642 patent.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that the above claims are challenged on the following
`
`three grounds:
`
`References
`Claims Challenged Basis
`1, 3-4, 6, 8-9
`Obviousness Ground 1: Mishra, Dubil
`2, 22-25
`Obviousness Ground 2: Rye, Dubil
`1-4, 6, 8-9, 22-25
`Obviousness Ground 3: Caris, Skerlos
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`I have been asked to provide my objective, independent analysis of
`
`the ’642 patent in view of the asserted prior art references cited in the Petition and
`
`1
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2003
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2019-01612
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`to provide my opinion regarding the allegations in the Petition, as well as the
`
`supporting opinions of Dr. Samuel H. Russ.
`
`6.
`
`I am not currently, nor have I ever been, an employee of UEI. I
`
`received no compensation for this declaration beyond my normal hourly
`
`compensation based on my time actually spent analyzing the ’642 patent, the
`
`asserted prior art references cited herein and in the Petition, and any related issues.
`
`I will not receive any added compensation based on the outcome of this IPR, any
`
`other IPR, or any other proceeding involving the ’642 patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`7. My general qualifications can be found in my curriculum vitae
`
`attached as Exhibit 1. It includes my educational and professional background,
`
`published books, articles, publications, public lectures and conference proceedings.
`
`A section details my assignments as an expert witness.
`
`8.
`
`I have over 30 years of experience in engineering, communications,
`
`and consumer electronics, including set-top box technologies, smart televisions,
`
`video streaming devices and services, broadband technologies and standards, in-
`
`home networking, transmission protocols and circuit design. My expertise
`
`includes hardware and software architecture and prototyping, video coding and
`
`processing, display technologies, data compression, security, user interfaces and
`
`experiences, and system design.
`
`2
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2003
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2019-01612
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`9.
`I received my undergraduate Electrical Engineering degree from the
`
`Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich in 1988, and my M.S. and
`
`Ph.D. degrees in the same field from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1991
`
`and 1998, respectively. In university research environments during the 1980s and
`
`1990s, I have studied computer architecture, computer graphics and image
`
`processing, network communication technologies and protocols, and carried out
`
`research in microprocessor design, multiprocessor systems and high-speed fiber-
`
`optic interconnection networks for large-scale parallel processing architectures. In
`
`the telecom and cable TV industry, over a 20 year period starting in the late 1990s,
`
`I have worked in areas covering video and communication technology, broadband
`
`and long-haul fiber networks, streaming video architectures, video head-end
`
`design, storage, distribution and delivery to the end-user as well as playback at the
`
`user's premises.
`
`10.
`
`In 1991, I started working as a Research Assistant at the
`
`Optoelectronic Computing Systems center (OCS), a research and education center
`
`of the University of Colorado at Boulder, where I worked on simulation, design,
`
`and implementation of optical deflection routing and Wavelength Division
`
`Multiplexing (WDM) in fiber-optic interconnects for ultra-highspeed shared
`
`memory multiprocessors. While at this position, I carried out key research and
`
`3
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2003
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2019-01612
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`development of a novel adaptive wavelength-tracking WDM system, which was
`
`ultimately awarded a patent.
`
`11. Entering the telecom industry in 1998, I started at U.S. West
`
`Communications in the company's Advanced Technologies organization. U.S
`
`West later merged with Qwest Communications International, Inc. in 2000, which
`
`ultimately merged with CenturyLink, Inc. in 2011 to become the third largest
`
`telecommunications operator in the U.S. At U.S. West/Qwest/CenturyLink, I was
`
`responsible for broadband technology evolution, fiber-optic transmission
`
`technologies and video encoder Requests for Information/Requests for Proposal
`
`(RFIs/RFPs), evaluation and vendor selection (a formalized process in the industry
`
`to ensure a level playing field across prospective suppliers of hardware, software,
`
`and network management systems).
`
`12.
`
`I was a key technical lead in multiple rounds of IPTV system
`
`requirements (IPTV was an early form of streaming video) and coordinated
`
`standards activities in the IPTV, broadband access technology, home networking &
`
`consumer electronics space (DLNA) with other groups and organizations. My
`
`responsibilities also included the specification of technical requirements for set-top
`
`boxes and media-enabled consumer electronics devices for large-scale video
`
`deployments. It is worth noting that some of the early video services at US-West
`
`and Qwest featured a mix of IR- as well as RF-based remote controls.
`
`4
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2003
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2019-01612
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`13. While at Qwest/CenturyLink, I served as editor and contributor to the
`
`Technical Advisory Board (TAB), periodically reporting to the Chief Technology
`
`Officer (CTO) and interfacing with large U.S. government customers, covering
`
`emerging technologies (e.g., fiber-optic networking, security, quantum
`
`communication, network traffic optimization, video technologies), assessing their
`
`impact onto CenturyLink and government customers’ network and services as well
`
`as making recommendations for the eventual adoption of certain technologies. I
`
`also represented the company in several important telecommunications standards
`
`bodies, including the Full Service Access Network initiative (FSAN) for Fiber-To-
`
`The-Home (FTTH) Passive Optical Networks (PON), extending existing standards
`
`(BPON, GPON), and defining new high-speed, long-reach PON standards (XG-
`
`PON1, NG-PON2, XGS-PON). I further represented the company in the ITU-T,
`
`Broadband Forum, ATIS T1E1.4 Network Interface, Power & Protection (NIPP) /
`
`Network Access Interfaces committees (NIPP-NAI) and Full Service Very high
`
`speed Digital Subscriber Loop (FS-VDSL) standards bodies, defining new
`
`standards to improve rate and reach of xDSL technologies over existing twisted
`
`pair copper infrastructure (defining specifications for VDSL2, Dynamic Spectrum
`
`Management, cross-talk cancellation (“vectoring”), MIMO, G.fast). In 2013, I
`
`received the CenturyLink Government Services Award for Outstanding
`
`Contributions.
`
`5
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2003
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2019-01612
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`14. After over 16 years with US-West/Qwest/CenturyLink, I started in a
`
`new position as Principal Architect of Optical Technologies at CableLabs in 2014.
`
`At CableLabs, I established a new fiber optic lab and carried out extensive fiber-
`
`optic lab testing, setting up and verifying novel network configurations, conducting
`
`physical layer tests, and analyzing results. As part of my work in the fiber-optic
`
`lab, I discovered a unique noise signal characteristic suitable for detection of a
`
`detrimental effect in RF-over-Glass (RFoG) networks, known as Optical Beat
`
`Interference (OBI), and developed basic principles for multiple approaches to
`
`detect OBI via dedicated hardware and signal processing algorithms. I also
`
`developed a novel approach for intermediate-distance, low-complexity
`
`implementation of coherent modulation schemes for ultra-high-speed fiber-optic
`
`communication (based on 4-QAM, 8-QAM, 16-QAM and higher order
`
`modulation).
`
`15. After returning to CenturyLink as a Principal Video Architect in 2016,
`
`I worked on Over-The-Top (OTT) video architectures, System-on-Chip (SoC)
`
`specification for next-generation Over-The-Top (OTT) Set-Top Box (STB), and
`
`was responsible for evaluation and vendor selection RFPs for High Efficiency
`
`Video Codec (HEVC) / H.265 video encoder/transcoder applications. I also
`
`specified and upgraded CenturyLink’s Video Demo & Evaluation Lab setup to
`
`support full 4K and High Dynamic Range (HDR) as well as emerging Wide Color
`
`6
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2003
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2019-01612
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`Gamut (WCG) specifications using a multi-display setup and advanced projection
`
`system in a dedicated evaluation environment. I again served as CenturyLink
`
`representative for video-based standards bodies, including MPEG-DASH
`
`(Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP) Interoperability Forum, CMAF
`
`(Common Media Application Format) and SVA (Streaming Video Alliance).
`
`16. Over the course of my career, I have acquired broad experience in
`
`computer programming, communication network architectures and protocols,
`
`digital and analog circuit design & technology, computer graphics, video
`
`processing and display technologies.
`
`17.
`
`In holding my various positions in research and industry, I have
`
`gained extensive experience in image acquisition, display technologies, associated
`
`circuitry, and processing algorithms. I also have broad hands-on experience with
`
`video technology including extensive laboratory and field testing, configuration,
`
`calibration and evaluation of a range of devices in the video area. These include
`
`encoders and decoders for carrier deployment; video processors for image
`
`enhancements, video switching matrices, as well as displays and projectors for
`
`internal testing. I have designed laboratory setups and selected displays suitable to
`
`evaluate video encoders and video delivery configurations, while internally
`
`training staff to compare and assess the visual quality of encoded video. In 2010, I
`
`7
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2003
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2019-01612
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`started giving bi-annual lectures on video encoding technologies in the University
`
`of Colorado's ITL program.
`
`18.
`
`I am currently a consultant offering expertise in digital video and
`
`audio encoding/transcoding/decoding technologies and standards (e.g., MPEG-2,
`
`MPEG-4, H.264/AVC, H.265/HEVC, Google VP8/VP9, AV1, Dolby Digital/AC-
`
`3, AAC, DTS), 2D and 3D video, imaging and encoding technologies, including
`
`stereoscopic/multiview/free-view 3D video display technologies, as well as
`
`consumer electronics. Additional consulting areas include broadband architectures
`
`and technologies (including Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), coaxial cable and
`
`Hybrid Fiber-Coax (HFC) networks, fiber optics, point-to-point free-space optics),
`
`as well as video head-ends and broadcast systems.
`
`19.
`
`I am an inventor with 10 granted U.S. patents and 9 pending
`
`applications, covering the areas of visualization, enhanced graphical user interfaces
`
`(GUIs) and GUI navigation methods, novel content navigation methods, video
`
`streaming, dynamic high dynamic range and wide color gamut signaling, media
`
`processing, time-/place-shifting applications for set top boxes and in-home
`
`integration, Fiber-To-The-Home operational status, streaming broadband network
`
`health, advanced audio control mechanisms, video encoding artifact detection,
`
`agile digital rights management (DRM) for video content and secure imaging. I
`
`have approximately a dozen publications, was featured on the cover of OSP
`
`8
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2003
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2019-01612
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`Magazine (a widely read trade publication in the telecom industry), and wrote an
`
`article as part of the main cover story (OSP Magazine May 2013 issue, entitled
`
`“Game Changers 2013”).
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`20.
`
`I have reviewed the ’642 patent, including the challenged claims, and
`
`its prosecution history. I have also reviewed the Petition for inter partes review
`
`filed by Petitioner, as well as the Exhibits attached, including:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1003: Declaration of Dr. Samuel Russ in Support of Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,589,642 (“Russ Decl.”)
`
`EX1005: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0005197 to
`Mishra (“Mishra”)
`
`EX1006: U.S. Patent No. 8,132,105 to Dubil et al. (“Dubil”)
`
`EX1007: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0080428 to
`Rye (“Rye”)
`
`EX1008: U.S. Patent No. 7,562,128 to Caris et al. (“Caris”)
`
`EX1009: U.S. Patent No. 4,426,662 to Skerlos et al. (“Skerlos”)
`
`
`
`21.
`
`I have also reviewed the Patent Owners Preliminary Response (which
`
`I may refer to as “POPR”), the Patent Owner Response (which I may refer to as
`
`“POR”), any associated exhibits, and the decision by the PTAB or “Board” to
`
`institute the present IPR.
`
`9
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2003
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2019-01612
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`22.
`I understand that the ’642 patent is related to U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,004,389, which I may refer to as “the ’389 patent.” I understand that the ’389
`
`patent is also the subject of a Petition for inter partes review by the Petitioner and
`
`is also supported by the same expert as this Petition, Dr. Russ.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the ’642 patent is also related to U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,911,325, which I may refer to as “the ’325 patent.” I understand that the ’325
`
`patent is also the subject of a Petition for inter partes review by the Petitioner and
`
`is also supported by the same expert as this Petition, Dr. Russ.
`
`24.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have considered the materials listed above
`
`and any documents cited in this declaration. I have also relied on my own
`
`education, knowledge, and experience in the relevant art.
`
`25.
`
`I have also considered the understanding of a person of ordinary skill
`
`around the time of the invention the ’642 patent.
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`26.
`
`I am not an attorney and will not offer opinions on the law.
`
`27.
`
`In forming the analyses and conclusions expressed in my declaration,
`
`I have applied the legal principles described in the following paragraphs, which
`
`were provided to me by counsel for the Patent Owner.
`
`10
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2003
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2019-01612
`
`

`

`Case IPR2019-01612
`U.S. Patent 7,589,642
`A. Priority
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a patent may claim the benefit of the filing day of an
`
`earlier filed application if the earlier filed application provides adequate disclosure
`
`of the patent’s claims. I understand that the disclosure requirement is satisfied if a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art could clearly conclude that the inventor invented
`
`the claimed subject matter as of the earlier filing date sought. I understand that the
`
`earlier filed application does not need to describe the claimed subject matter in
`
`precisely the same terms as found in the claims at issue.
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if each and every element of a claim, as properly construed,
`
`is found either explicitly or inherently in a single prior art reference. Under the
`
`principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or
`
`includes the claimed elements, it anticipates.
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that a