IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Trevor A. Fiatal, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.:
`9,608,968
`March 28, 2017
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 14/623,514
`Filing Date:
`February 17, 2015
`Title:
`CONNECTION ARCHITECTURE FOR A MOBILE NETWORK
`
` Attorney Docket No.: 39521-0076IP2
`
`DECLARATION OF MR. EDWARD R. TITTEL
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1003
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Professional Societies, Committee Memberships, and Teaching Experience
`
`ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................................. 4
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................................... 4
`A. General Work Experience and Professional Background ............................. 4
`B. Education ....................................................................................................... 6
`C.
`6
`D.
`Publications ................................................................................................... 7
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES .................................................................................... 10
`A. Anticipation ................................................................................................. 10
`B. Obviousness ................................................................................................. 11
`C. Claim Construction Standard ...................................................................... 15
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 16
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ....................................................................... 17
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE ’968 PATENT ..................................................... 20
`A.
`Subject Matter Overview............................................................................. 20
`B.
`File History of the ’968 Patent .................................................................... 24
`C. Non-Described Claim Features ................................................................... 26
`1.
`’968 Patent Specification And Non-Provisional Priority Applications ...................... 27
`2.
`Provisional Applications............................................................................................. 31
`VII. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED .............................................. 34
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES ............................................. 35
`A.
`Fiatal ............................................................................................................ 35
`B. Kiss .............................................................................................................. 35
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Spacey .......................................................................................................... 40
`C.
`D. Outlook2000 ................................................................................................ 45
`E. Boyle ............................................................................................................ 45
`F. Yamamoto ................................................................................................... 50
`G.
`Stevens ......................................................................................................... 54
`IX. ANALYSIS OF COMBINATION BASED ON FIATAL, KISS, SPACEY,
`AND OUTLOOK2000.................................................................................... 55
`A.
`Introduction ................................................................................................. 55
`B. Mapping Of Claim Elements ....................................................................... 70
`X. ANALYSIS OF COMBINATION BASED ON FIATAL, KISS, SPACEY,
`OUTLOOK2000 AND BOYLE ..................................................................... 98
`A.
`Introduction ................................................................................................. 98
`B. Mapping Of Claim Elements .....................................................................100
`XI. ANALYSIS OF COMBINATION BASED ON FIATAL, KISS, SPACEY,
`OUTLOOK2000, AND YAMAMOTO .......................................................101
`A.
`Introduction ...............................................................................................101
`B. Mapping Of Claim Elements .....................................................................103
`XII. ANALYSIS OF COMBINATION BASED ON FIATAL, KISS, SPACEY,
`OUTLOOK2000, AND STEVENS ..............................................................105
`A.
`Introduction ...............................................................................................105
`B. Mapping Of Claim Elements .....................................................................109
`XIV. ADDITIONAL REMARKS .........................................................................115
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`I, Edward R. Tittel, of Round Rock, Texas, declare that:
`
`I.
`
`ASSIGNMENT
`1.
`I have been retained on behalf of Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”)
`
`to offer technical opinions related to U.S. Patent No. 9,608,968. (the ’968 patent)
`
`(Ex-1001). I understand that Apple is requesting that the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding of
`
`the ’968 patent.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent analysis of the ’968
`
`patent in light of the prior art publications cited below.
`
`3.
`
`I am not, and never have been, an employee of Apple. I received no
`
`compensation for this declaration beyond my normal hourly compensation based
`
`on my time actually spent analyzing the ’968 patent, the prior art publications cited
`
`below, and issues related thereto, and I will not receive any added compensation
`
`based on the outcome of any IPR or other proceeding involving the ’968 patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`I am over the age of 18 and am competent to write this declaration. I
`
`have personal knowledge, or have developed knowledge of these technologies
`
`based upon education, training, or experience, of the matters set forth herein.
`A. General Work Experience and Professional Background
`5.
`I am currently a business and computing technology author and
`
`consultant, focusing on information security, markup languages, web development,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`e-commerce, and related technologies. I have more than thirty (30) years of
`
`technical experience in the computer and engineering field, including experience as
`
`a software developer. I have also worked as a course developer and training
`
`manager, a technical marketing manager, a director of technical marketing, a
`
`technical evangelist, a networking consultant, and editor-in-chief for an official
`
`company website. All this experience is covered in my professional résumé
`
`(attached as Appendix A), which provides a more detailed recitation of my
`
`employment history and tenure at various jobs.
`
`6.
`
`I have held numerous technical positions in the computer industry,
`
`including at NetQoS, Inc. (2006–2007) and Novell, Inc. (1988–1994). I worked as
`
`an instructor for the Adult & Continuing Education program at Austin Community
`
`College from 1997 to 2001, where I taught Introductory & Intermediate HTML
`
`(1997–2001), Introductory & Advanced TCP/IP for WebMasters (1999–2001),
`
`Windows NT Administration for WebMasters (1999–2001), and Networking for
`
`WebMasters (2000–2001). I am conversant with several computer languages (for
`
`example, C, C++, FORTRAN, Pascal, Perl, and Java), scripting languages (various
`
`Unix/Linux shells, JavaScript, PowerShell, and TcL), markup languages (HTML,
`
`XHTML, XML, and numerous XML applications), operating systems (NetWare;
`
`Windows NT; Windows 2000, XP, Vista, Windows 7, 8, and 10, and Windows
`
`Server 2003, 2008, 2012, and 2016), and network communication protocols
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`(TCP/IP IPv4 and IPv6, plus numerous older stacks including IPX/SPX,
`
`NetBIOS/NetBEUI, and AppleTalk).
`B.
`Education
`7.
`I graduated from Princeton University with an AB in Anthropology in
`
`1973, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, having attended as a National Merit Scholar.
`
`I studied at The University of Texas at Austin from 1976 to 1982, during which
`
`time I earned an MA in Anthropology in 1979, and a Bachelor’s Equivalency in
`
`Computer Science in 1981. I also completed all course requirements for a PhD in
`
`Anthropology along with the comprehensive exams, and accumulated at least 18
`
`hours toward a Master’s in Computer Science by May 1982.
`C.
`Professional Societies, Committee Memberships, and Teaching
`Experience
`8.
`I have been involved in coordinated research efforts with my peers in
`
`the field and with professional societies in the computer science field. I have held
`
`several committee memberships throughout my career.
`
`9.
`
`I was a member of the Program Committee for Education at Interop
`
`from 1993 until 2000, during which time I researched course topics, helped set the
`
`curriculum, and recruited faculty. I also taught several courses on HTML,
`
`Windows security, and Windows performance optimization as a member of the
`
`Interop Faculty from 1996 to 2001.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`10.
`
`I was an adjunct member of the Program Committee for The Internet
`
`Security Conference (TISC) from 1998 to 2001, where I also helped research
`
`course topics and set the curriculum. I taught a course on Windows Server security
`
`topics, with an emphasis on the web, on that faculty from 1998 to 2001 as well.
`
`11.
`
`I was on the adjunct faculty for Austin Community College from 1997
`
`to 2001 in the Adult and Continuing Education program, wherein I taught courses
`
`on HTML, TCP/IP, Windows NT Server administration, and networking, all aimed
`
`at practicing and aspiring webmasters. During this time frame, I also developed
`
`and wrote textbooks on networking, TCP/IP, and various versions of Windows
`
`Server and desktop operating systems (among other similar topics) aimed at the
`
`community college market for Course Technology, Inc.
`D.
`Publications
`12.
`I have contributed to more than 100 computer textbooks and trade
`
`books, thousands of articles, and numerous white papers, technical briefs, and
`
`online courses. Most recently, I finished Guide to TCP/IP: IPv6 and IPv4, Fifth
`
`Edition (Cengage Learning, June 2016). I also completed Beginning HTML5 and
`
`CSS3 For Dummies (Wiley Publishing, Inc., September 2013); this is the
`
`fourteenth edition of this title, whose first edition appeared in 1995).
`
`13. Some specific book titles I authored or contributed to that are relevant
`
`to the subject matter of the ’968 patent include Building Web Commerce Sites
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`(IDG Books Worldwide, December 1996), The CGI Bible (IDG Books Worldwide,
`
`December 1996), Foundations of WWW Programming, with HTML and CGI (IDG
`
`Books Worldwide, August 1995), XML For Dummies, 4th Edition (John Wiley &
`
`Sons, May 2005; 1st edition published May 11, 1998), XML In Record Time
`
`(Sybex Books, December 1998), XML Schemas (Sybex Books, January 2002),
`
`HTML Style Sheets Design Guide (The Coriolis Group, January 1998), Dynamic
`
`HTML Black Book (The Coriolis Group, February 1998), Mastering XHTML
`
`Premium Edition (Sybex Books, November 2001), More HTML for Dummies
`
`(IDG Books Worldwide, 2nd ed., 1997), The Intranet Bible (John Wiley & Sons,
`
`March 1997), Schaum’s Easy Outline of XML (McGraw-Hill, May 2002), The
`
`World Wide Web Encyclopedia, CD-ROM (Charles River Media, January 1996),
`
`Discover Java (Wiley Publishing, March 1997), The 60-Minute Guide to Java
`
`(IDG Books Worldwide, October 1995), and Visual Café for Java Explorer:
`
`Database Development Edition (Coriolis Group, February 1998).
`
`14.
`
`I have also worked and published extensively about TCP/IP
`
`networking protocols and services throughout my professional career. I learned
`
`TCP/IP protocol analysis on the job, starting in 1988 at Excelan (acquired in 1989
`
`by Novell). Working as a network consultant, I carried a Compaq Portable II PC
`
`running LANalyzer software to capture and analyze TCP/IP packets for diagnosis
`
`and troubleshooting. I have written numerous articles about TCP/IP protocol
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`analysis for various websites, and have been the principal author of a community
`
`college textbook called Guide to TCP/IP (now in its 5th edition, published in
`
`2017). The first edition of that book appeared in October 2001, and shows a
`
`copyright date of 2002 (see Amazon product page1). Starting with the freeware
`
`protocol analysis tool initially known as Ethereal, now known as Wireshark, this
`
`textbook teaches TCP/IP networking protocols and fundamentals through off-the-
`
`wire packet capture, analysis and exposition.
`
`15. Overall, I have contributed to at least 20 books for each of the
`
`following publishers: Coriolis, J. Wiley and Sons, Course Technology, and
`
`Pearson Publishing, and a lesser number of titles for other publishers that include
`
`Syngress Media (Elsevier), Que, Academic Press, Charles River Media,
`
`Osborne/McGraw-Hill, Addison-Wesley, Sybex, and others.
`
`16.
`
`I am a regular contributor/expert for numerous TechTarget.com
`
`websites that focus on security, networking, Windows systems, web services, and
`
`IT certification. I blog three times weekly on Windows enterprise desktop topics
`
`for TechTarget and Win10.Guru, once a week on IT certification and career topics
`
`for GoCertify.com, and intermittently for CompTIA and similar outlets. In the past
`
`
`1 Guide to TCP/IP 1st edtion: https://www.amazon.com/Guide-TCP-IP-Laura-
`
`Chappell/dp/0619035307/, accessed on 11/4/2019.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`12 months, I have contributed online content to CompTIA.org, Business.com,
`
`Business News Daily’s website, Network World’s website, CIO Magazine’s
`
`website, Global Knowledge, numerous TechTarget websites, and other online
`
`content providers.
`
`17.
`
`In all, I have written widely and voluminously for a broad range of
`
`computing publications and computing-oriented websites. My curriculum vitae
`
`(attached as Appendix B) provides as comprehensive a record of these
`
`publications as I have been able to assemble.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`18.
`In forming my analysis and conclusions expressed in this declaration,
`
`I have applied the legal principles described in the following paragraphs, which
`
`were provided to me by counsel for the Petitioner.
`A. Anticipation
`19.
`I understand that patents or printed publications that qualify as prior
`art can be used to invalidate a patent claim as anticipated or as obvious.
`20.
`I understand that, once the claims of a patent have been properly
`
`construed, the second step in determining anticipation of a patent claim requires a
`
`comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art on a
`limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`21.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted claim,
`
`and thus renders the claim invalid, if all limitations of the claim are disclosed in
`that prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently (i.e., necessarily present).
`22.
`I understand that anticipation in an inter partes review must be proven
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence.
`B. Obviousness
`23.
`I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if
`
`the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time
`
`the invention was made.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`claimed invention provides a reference point from which the prior art and claimed
`
`invention should be viewed. This reference point is applied instead of someone
`
`using his or her own insight or hindsight in deciding whether a claim is obvious.
`
`25.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the
`
`consideration of various factors such as: (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the asserted claims, (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the existence of secondary considerations
`
`such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, etc.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`26.
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a
`
`combination of multiple prior art references. I understand further that prior art
`
`references themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine,
`
`but that at other times the linkage between two or more prior art references is
`
`simple common sense.
`
`27.
`
`I further understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that market
`
`demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device,
`
`and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
`
`similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
`
`application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that practical and common sense considerations
`
`should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I further understand that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art looking to overcome a problem through invention will
`
`often be able to fit together the teachings of multiple publications. I understand that
`
`obviousness analysis therefore takes into account the inferences and creative steps
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ under the circumstances.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`30.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious
`
`merely by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example, when
`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, a POSITA has good reason to pursue
`
`the known options within his or her technical grasp because the result is likely the
`
`product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`31. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. When a
`
`work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market
`
`forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, the patent
`
`claim is likely obvious.
`
`32.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis
`
`focuses on what was known or obvious to a POSITA, not just the patentee.
`
`Accordingly, I understand that any need or problem known to those of ordinary
`
`skill in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent
`
`can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference,
`
`without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the common
`
`sense of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that secondary indicia of non-obviousness may include
`
`(1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the invention of
`
`the patent; (2) commercial success of processes covered by the patent; (3)
`
`unexpected results achieved by the invention; (4) praise of the invention by others
`
`skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent by others; (6) deliberate
`
`copying of the invention; (7) failure of others to find a solution to the long felt
`
`need; and (8) skepticism by experts. I understand that evidence of secondary
`
`indicia of non-obviousness, if available, should be considered as part of the
`
`obviousness analysis.
`
`35.
`
`I also understand that there must be a relationship between any such
`
`secondary considerations and the invention. I further understand that
`
`contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary consideration
`
`supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`36.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a person of ordinary skill in the art having the understanding and
`
`knowledge reflected in the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing
`
`the inventor, would have been led to make the combination of elements recited in
`
`the claims. Under this analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a
`
`reason for combining the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that obviousness in an inter partes review must be
`
`proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
`C. Claim Construction Standard
`38.
`I understand that terms appearing in the patent claims are to be
`
`interpreted according to their “ordinary and customary meaning” in an inter partes
`
`review proceeding. In determining the ordinary and custom meaning, the words of
`
`a claim are first given their plain meaning as they would have been understood by
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. The
`
`structure of the claims may breathe additional meaning into the claims, and the
`
`specification and file history also may be used to inform the meaning of a claim
`
`term insofar as the plain meaning cannot be understood. I understand that even
`
`treatises and dictionaries may be consulted, albeit under limited circumstances, to
`
`determine the meaning attributed by a person of ordinary skill in the art to a claim
`
`term at the time of the alleged invention. I have followed this approach in my
`
`analysis, and have applied the ordinary and customary meaning of those terms
`
`throughout my analysis in this declaration.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`39.
`
`I understand that the words of the claims should be interpreted as they
`
`would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`alleged invention was made (not today). Counsel has instructed me that for the
`
`purpose of this declaration, I should assume that the ’968 patent is not entitled to
`
`the benefit of priority to any earlier-filed application, and I should instead apply
`
`the filing date of the ’968 patent (i.e., February 17, 2015) as the date of the alleged
`
`invention. I have followed this instruction for purpose of this declaration.
`
`However, the plain meanings/interpretations that I employed in my analysis below
`
`would have also been correct if the date of invention was anywhere from the early
`
`2000s to the mid-2010s (consistent with the actual filing date of the ’968 patent of
`
`February 17, 2015).
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`40.
`I have been informed that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a
`
`hypothetical person who is presumed to have the skill and experience of an
`
`ordinary worker in the field at the time of the alleged invention. Based on my
`
`knowledge and experience in the field and my review of the ’968 patent and file
`
`history, I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art in this matter would have
`
`had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an
`
`equivalent degree, and commensurate industry experience of at least two years’ in
`
`computer programming and software development, including the development of
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`software for communication with other computers over a network. Additional
`
`education related to networking protocols and services, web site development, or
`
`additional work experience in this field, may compensate for a deficit in the other.
`
`41. My analysis and conclusions as expressed herein are based on the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art having this level of knowledge
`
`and skill as of the date of the alleged invention of the’968 patent (“POSITA”).
`
`Based on instruction from counsel, I have applied February 17, 2015, as the date of
`
`the alleged invention of the ’968 patent. However, my analysis of the prior art and
`
`the conclusions I have formed as set forth herein would also apply even if the date
`
`of the alleged invention as claimed was anywhere from the early 2000s to the mid-
`
`2010s (consistent with the actual filing date of the ’968 patent of February 17,
`
`2015).
`
`42. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical POSITA defined above, my analysis and opinions regarding the ’968
`
`patent is based on the perspective of a POSITA as of February 17, 2015.
`
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`43. My analysis and conclusions set forth in this declaration are based on
`
`my educational background and experiences in the field (see Section II). Based on
`
`my above-described experience, I believe that I am considered to be an expert in
`
`the field. Also, based on my experiences, I understand and know of the capabilities
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`of persons of ordinary skill in the field during the 2000s – 2010s (including the
`
`time leading up to the filing of the ’968 patent on February 17, 2015), and I taught,
`
`participated in organizations, and worked closely with many such persons in the
`
`field during that time frame.
`
`44. As part of my independent analysis for this declaration, I have
`
`considered the following: the background knowledge/technologies that were
`
`commonly known to persons of ordinary skill in this art during the time before the
`
`earliest claimed priority date for the ’968 patent; my own knowledge and
`
`experiences gained from my work experience in the field of the ’968 patent and
`
`related disciplines; and my experience in working with others involved in this field
`
`and related disciplines. In addition, I have analyzed the following publications and
`
`materials:
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`EX-1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,608,968 to Fiatal, et al. (“the ’968 patent”)
`
`EX-1002
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution File History of the ’968 Patent
`(“the File History”)
`
`EX-1004 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2003/0157947 (“Fiatal”)
`
`EX-1005 U.S. Pat. No. 8,326,940 (“Yamamoto”)
`
`EX-1006 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0038371 (“Spacey”)
`
`EX-1007 U.S. Pat. No. 6,138,158 (“Boyle”)
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`EX-1008 W. Richard Stevens, TCP/IP Illustrated: The Protocols (Vol. 1)
`(1994) (“Stevens”)
`
`EX-1011 U.S. Pat. No. 6,981,041 (“Araujo”)
`
`EX-1012 U.S. Pat. No. 7,801,959 (“Lennie”)
`
`EX-1013 U.S. App. Pub. No. 2002/0068559 (“Sharma”)
`
`EX-1014 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2005/0201320 (“Kiss”)
`
`EX-1016
`
`Bill Dyszel, Microsoft Outlook 2000 For Windows For Dummies
`(1999) (“Outlook2000”)
`
`EX-1017 U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/403,249 (“’249 Provisional”)
`
`EX-1018 U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/346,881 (“’881 Provisional”)
`
`EX-1019 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2013/0190032 (“Li”)
`
`EX-1020
`
`RFC3261: Session Initiation Protocol (“RFC3261”)
`
`EX-1021 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2007/0027832 (“’832 Publication”)
`
`EX-1022
`
`RFC3428: Session Initiation Protocol Extension For Instant
`Messaging (“RFC3428”)
`
`EX-1023
`
`RFC5923: Connection Reuse in the Session Initiation Protocol
`(“RFC5923”)
`
`EX-1024
`
`RFC5626: Managing Client-Initiated Connections in the Session
`Initiation Protocol (“RFC5626”)
`
`EX-1025 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2013/0163428 (“Lee”)
`
`EX-1026
`
`European Patent Application 0 998 098 (“Orsic”)
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`45. Although this declaration refers to certain portions of the cited
`
`references for the sake of brevity, it should be understood that these are examples,
`
`and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the references cited
`
`herein in their entireties and in combination with other references cited herein or
`
`cited within the references themselves. The references used in this declaration,
`
`therefore, should be viewed as being incorporated herein in their entireties.
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE ’968 PATENT
`A.
`Subject Matter Overview
`46. The ’968 patent describes the architecture of a system that facilitates
`
`communication between mobile devices on a mobile network and remote modules
`
`on an enterprise network. See EX-1001, 1:59-65, 2:32-3:7, Abstract, FIGS. 1, 2, 6.
`
`Below, I have provided an annotated version of one embodiment of the ’968
`
`patent’s communication architecture based on Figure 1:
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`EX-1001, FIG. 6.
`
`47. As shown in Figure 1, the ’968 patent provides a mobile device 21
`
`that operates in a mobile network 14 and a personal computer (PC) 38 that operates
`
`in a private enterprise network 18, which is protected by a firewall. EX-1001, 2:44-
`
`59. A communication management system 16 is situated between networks 14 and
`
`18, and includes a management server 28 to which the mobile device 21 and
`
`personal computer 38 both connect. Id., 2:24-43. Through these connections 23
`
`and 25, the mobile device 21 and personal computer 38 can exchange data
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`transactions with each other via management server 28. Id., 2:60-3:7; generally id.,
`
`3:10-4:27, 7:42-8:36, FIGS. 1, 2, 6.
`
`48. PC 38 runs personal client software 40 that continuously holds open a
`
`connection 25 to the management server 28. Id., 3:34-4:27. When the mobile
`
`device 21 checks for new emails that may have arrived for a user of the mobile
`
`device 21 (which are stored at email server 34), the mobile device 21 initiates a
`
`connection 23 to the management server 28 and sends a transaction to the
`
`management server 28 that indicates a request to view emails in the user’s
`
`mailbox. Id., 4:67-5:5 (“[T]he mobile device 21 may send a transaction request 62
`
`to the personal client 40 to view emails in the users mailbox 60. The transaction
`
`request 62 is sent from the mobile device 21 to the management server 28 over the
`
`mobile connection 23.”). In response, the management server 28 authenticates the
`
`mobile device 21 and forwards the transaction to the client software 40 on personal
`
`computer 38 over continuous connection 25. Id., 5:5-14. Upon receiving the
`
`forwarded transaction, the client software 40 checks for any emails available in the
`
`user’s account at email server 34, and if emails are identified, returns an email list
`
`64 to the management server 28. Id., 5:7-13. In turn, the management server 28
`
`forwards the email list 64 (e.g., a “forth message”) to the mobile device 21. Id.,
`
`5:7-13, 4:59-62 (“The management server 28 … operates a transactional routing
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`engine for routing transactions between the mobile devices 21 and the enterprise
`
`network 18.”); see also id., 7:43-53 and FIG. 6.
`
`49. The ’968 patent further describes a capability for the mobile device 21
`
`to synchronize a local version 122 of data stored on the mobile device 21 with
`
`another version 136 stored on the email server 34 in the enterprise network 18. Id.,
`
`7:43-53; generally id., 7:43-8:60, FIG. 6. In one embodiment, “the mobile device
`
`periodically sends out synchronization requests 134 to the personal client 40.” Id.,
`
`7:49-51. In another embodiment, “[t]riggers can be used to notify the mobile
`
`device 21 when new emails arrive on the email server 34.” Id., 7:54-55. For
`
`example, the personal client 40 may be programmed with filters 138 “that identify
`
`the types of emails or other types of events that cause the mobile device 21 to send
`
`a trigger 132.” Id., 7:54-58. “If a new email is detected, the personal client 40
`
`sends a trigger 132 to the mobile device 21 through the management server 28,”
`
`and “[t]he trigger 132 causes the mobile device 21 to establish the mobile
`
`connection 23 with the management server 28 and then send a synchronization
`
`request transaction 134 to the personal client 40.” Id., 7:62-8:3. In some cases, a
`
`Short Messages Service (SMS) message 126 is sent to the mobile device 21 to
`
`prompt it to establish the mobile connection 23 and send the synchronization
`
`request transaction 134. Id., 8:4-14.
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`B.
`File History of the ’968 Patent
`50. As part of my preparation of this declaration, I have reviewed the file
`
`history of the ’968 patent (EX-1002). I understand that the application that led to
`
`the ’968 patent was filed on February 17, 2015, claimed priority to applications
`
`filed as early as January 8, 2002, and issued on March 28, 2017.
`
`51.
`
` To briefly summarize the prosecution history, I understand that a
`
`series of preliminary amendments were filed before examination commenced, after
`
`which the application