`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MAXEL, LTD.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent No. 10,084,991
` ____________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ANDREW LIPPMAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
` Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`I.
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`
`
`4
`9
`
`10
`A. ANALOGOUS ART
`10
`B. OBVIOUSNESS
`C.
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS 15
`D.
`17
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`III. OPINION REGARDING LEVEL OF SKILL OF A PERSON
`HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`IV. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`V. OPINIONS REGARDING THE ’991 PATENT AND
`ANALAGOUS ART
`
`17
`19
`
`25
`
`26
`27
`30
`31
`32
`33
`35
`102
`104
`106
`
`34
`35
`
`102
`
`A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE
`B. OPINIONS REGARDING ASMUSSEN
`C. OPINIONS REGARDING BEAR
`D. OPINIONS REGARDING MARLEY
`E.
`F.
`A.
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`’991 PATENT
`
`OPINIONS REGARDING DEFAZIO
`OPINIONS REGARDING LINDSTROM
`VI. OPINIONS REGARDING GROUND 1: COMBINATION OF
`ASMUSSEN AND BEAR
`VII. GROUND 1: THE COMBINATION OF ASMUSSEN AND BEAR
`CLAIM 1
`VIII. OPINIONS REGARDING GROUND 2: THE COMBINATION
`OF ASMUSSEN, BEAR, AND MARLEY
`CLAIM 1(C)
`CLAIM 2
`CLAIM 3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
` Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`E.
`F.
`A.
`B.
`
`CLAIM 4
`CLAIM 5
`CLAIM 12
`IX. OPINIONS REGARDING GROUND 3: THE COMBINATION
`OF ASMUSSEN, BEAR, MARLEY AND DEFAZIO
`CLAIM 5
`CLAIM 12
`X. OPINIONS REGARDING GROUND 4: THE COMBINATION
`OF ASMUSSEN, LINDSTROM, AND BEAR
`XI. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`107
`111
`118
`121
`124
`
`121
`
`125
`135
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
` Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`
`I, Dr. Andrew Lippman, hereby declare the following:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1. My name is Andrew Lippman, and I am over 21 years of age and
`
`otherwise competent to make this Declaration. I make this Declaration based on facts
`
`and matters within my own knowledge and on information provided to me by others,
`
`and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters set
`
`forth herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert witness in this matter by
`
`Counsel for the Petitioner, Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) to provide my independent
`
`opinions on certain issues requested by Counsel for Petitioner relating to the
`
`accompanying Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991 (“the
`
`’991 Patent”). I am being compensated at an hourly rate of $650.00. My
`
`compensation in this matter is not based on the substance of my opinions or on the
`
`outcome of this matter. I have been informed that Maxell, Ltd. is the purported
`
`owners of the ’991 Patent. I note that I have no financial interest in Maxell, Ltd. or
`
`Petitioner, and I have no other interest in the outcome of this matter.
`
`3.
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, career
`
`history, and other qualifications relevant to this matter. I have also included a current
`
`version of my curriculum vitae, attached as Appendix B.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`I earned my undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering from MIT
`
`4.
`
`in 1971. I earned a Master of Science degree in Computer Graphics from MIT in
`
`1978. I earned a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the École Polytechnique
`
`Fédérale de Lausanne (Switzerland) in 1995. My thesis was on scalable video, a
`
`technique for representing visual data in a fluid and variable networking and
`
`processing environment, similar to what we call streaming today.
`
`5.
`
`I am currently a Senior Research Scientist at the Massachusetts Institute
`
`of Technology (“MIT”) and Associate Director of the MIT Media Laboratory, an
`
`approximately $80 million per year research and teaching facility at MIT, which I
`
`helped establish in the early 1980s.
`
`6.
`
`At MIT, I have supervised over 50 Masters and Ph.D. theses in the
`
`Media Arts and Sciences program and have taught courses such as Digital Video and
`
`MIT’s freshman physics seminar. Through the course of my career, I have directed
`
`and served as principal investigator of research projects supported by the Defense
`
`Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Office of Naval Research
`
`(ONR), The National Science Foundation (NSF), and over 50 industrial
`
`companies. I have never precisely calculated my net research volume, but it is in
`
`excess of $50 million.
`
`7.
`
`I am named as an inventor on six patents in the area of video and digital
`
`processing and have served on the advisory boards for technology companies in
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`fields ranging from video conferencing to music analysis. I have authored or co-
`
`authored over 65 published papers in the fields of interactivity, communications,
`
`video coding, and television. I served on the editorial board of the Image
`
`Communication Journal between 1989 and 2003. I have served as an expert witness
`
`in patent cases since 2001, addressing diverse features of interactive television,
`
`electronic program guides, and user interaction.
`
`8.
`
`I have worked generally on video interaction systems since the
`
`1970s. In the early 1970s, I developed font representations that permitted high
`
`quality display of text on standard broadcast television receivers. In 1978, I directed
`
`a DARPA-funded project called the “Movie-Map” that used computing and optical
`
`video and image storage to create an “experiential map” that featured “surrogate
`
`travel,” the ability to recreate the visual experience of traveling through a real place,
`
`a city. This is similar to Google’s Street-View and mapping systems.
`
`9.
`
`In the 1980s, I was principal investigator of Office of Naval Research
`
`funded programs in video and graphics computer systems for interactive learning
`
`dedicated
`
`to maintenance and repair. I also developed networked video
`
`communications systems
`
`that
`
`included scripting
`
`languages for specifying
`
`audiovisual content and representing it on various monitoring terminals.
`
`10.
`
`In 1991, I created the “Media Bank” program at MIT, the purpose of
`
`which was to allow a diverse set of networked devices to access appropriate forms
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`of content for which they had the bandwidth and processing power to display. This
`
`entailed maintaining state information about terminal devices at a server and using
`
`that to determine the best representation of the audiovisual material to deliver to
`
`them. In addition, it included and developed cryptographic distribution methods that
`
`ensured secure delivery of information on the network. Related to this work, I also
`
`supervised Masters theses on networked distribution of video and coding specifically
`
`for diverse uses on the Internet. My colleagues and I created demonstrations of
`
`interactive television systems for news that combined the evening newscast with
`
`additional data from print sources so the viewer could learn more about the story
`
`than was available in the live broadcast.
`
`11. Also in 1991, I created the Television of Tomorrow program at MIT.
`
`This program addressed the digital representation and delivery of video at diverse
`
`scales and through diverse networks. This program built on work on scalable
`
`representations of images that were standards-independent and interactive.
`
`12.
`
`In 1993, I was invited to be a member of Robert Kahn’s “Cross Industry
`
`Working Group” the goal of which was to develop the ideas for a National
`
`Information Infrastructure. At DARPA, Kahn had initiated the research to develop
`
`the Arpanet and the Internet. Throughout this period, my students and I worked on
`
`distributed interactive systems for consumer use (television, electronic newspapers,
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`learning) including the basic technology of the network and the client-server
`
`interactions.
`
`13.
`
`I was a member of the Motion Picture Experts Groups, an ISO standards
`
`committee effort that defined the standards for common distribution of “MP3” music
`
`and storage and distribution of “MPEG Video.” I co-wrote the paper defining the
`
`requirements for the MPEG-2 standard with Okubo and McCann in 1995. MPEG
`
`standards remain the predominant encoding for distribution of digital video to this
`
`day. I was also the principal investigator on industry-funded programs addressing
`
`digital motion pictures — the “Movies of the Future” program at MIT, and high
`
`definition television, “Television of Tomorrow.” At MIT, I created the “Digital Life”
`
`consortium, the purpose of which was to explore and develop ideas relevant to an
`
`Internet-connected society.
`
`14. Based on my experiences described above, and as indicated in my
`
`Curriculum Vitae, I am qualified to provide the following opinions with respect to
`
`the patents in this case. Additionally, I was at least a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art as of the priority date of the ’991 Patent.
`
`15.
`
`I am being compensated for my time spent in connection with this case.
`
`I have no financial interest in the outcome of this case. The opinions provided in this
`
`report are my own and my compensation does not depend in any way on the
`
`substance of my opinions.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`16. As part of my work and in forming my opinions in connection with this
`
`proceeding, I have reviewed the following materials. For any prior art listed below,
`
`it is my opinion persons of ordinary skill in my field would reasonably rely upon
`
`such prior art in forming opinions regarding the subject matter of this proceeding:
`
`• Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991;
`• U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991 (Ex. 1001);
`• File History for U.S. Patent 10,084,991 (Ex. 1002);
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,565,680 to Asmussen (Ex. 1004);
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,548,255 to Bear (Ex. 1005);
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0139514 to Marley (Ex. 1006)
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,940,484 to DeFazio (Ex. 1007).
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 2004/0031064 to Lindstrom (Ex. 1008)
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,493,020 to Stevenson (Ex. 1012)
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,134,223 to Burke (Ex. 1013)
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,458,756 to Rodriguez (Ex. 1014)
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,373,650 to Rodriguez (Ex. 1015)
`• Explorer® Digital Video Recorder - Users Guide (Ex. 1016)
`• “So far, interactive TV is no match for the mall” - Tampa Bay Times (St.
`Petersburg, Florida) June 5, 1995 (Ex. 1017); and
`• “Comcast rolls out video on demand” - Sunday News (Lancaster,
`Pennsylvania) Nov. 3, 2002 (Ex. 1018)
`
`
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`17.
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However, I
`
`have been informed about certain legal principles regarding patentability and related
`
`matters under United States patent law, which I have applied in performing my
`
`analysis and arriving at my technical opinions in this matter.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`
`A. Analogous Art
`18.
`I have been informed by counsel that for prior art to be used to establish
`
`the unpatentability of a patent based on obviousness, the prior art must be “analogous
`
`art” to the claimed invention. I have also been informed by counsel that a prior art
`
`reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the
`
`same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, even if it addresses a different
`
`problem; or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the
`
`invention, even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
`
`B. Obviousness
`19.
`I have been informed that a person cannot obtain a patent on an
`
`invention if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). I have been informed
`
`that a conclusion of obviousness may be founded upon more than a single item of
`
`prior art. I have been further informed that obviousness is determined by evaluating
`
`the following factors: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claim at issue, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. In addition, the
`
`obviousness inquiry should not be done in hindsight. Instead, the obviousness
`
`inquiry should be done through the eyes of a POSITA at the time of the alleged
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`
`invention.
`
`20.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent claim
`
`obvious, I have been informed that I can consider the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, including the fact that one of skill in the art would regularly look to the
`
`disclosures in patents, trade publications, journal articles, conference papers,
`
`industry standards, product
`
`literature and documentation,
`
`texts describing
`
`competitive technologies, requests for comment published by standard setting
`
`organizations, and materials from industry conferences, as examples. I have been
`
`informed that for a prior art reference to be proper for use in an obviousness analysis,
`
`the reference must be “analogous art” to the claimed invention. I have been informed
`
`that a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from
`
`the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different
`
`problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the
`
`inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In
`
`order for a reference to be “reasonably pertinent” to the problem, it must logically
`
`have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem. In
`
`determining whether a reference is reasonably pertinent, one should consider the
`
`problem faced by the inventor, as reflected either explicitly or implicitly, in the
`
`specification. I believe that all of the references I considered in forming my opinions
`
`in this IPR are well within the range of references a POSITA would have consulted
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`to address the type of problems described in the Challenged Claims.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed that, in order to establish that a claimed invention
`
`was obvious based on a combination of prior art elements, a clear articulation of the
`
`reason(s) why a claimed invention would have been obvious must be provided.
`
`Specifically, I am informed that, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s KSR decision, a
`
`combination of multiple items of prior art renders a patent claim obvious when there
`
`was an apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention,
`
`to combine the prior art, which can include, but is not limited to, any of the following
`
`rationales: (A) combining prior art methods according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (B) substituting one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; (C) using a known technique to improve a similar device in the
`
`same way; (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; (E) trying a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable potential solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F)
`
`identifying that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`(G) identifying an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`
`the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention. I am also informed that
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`where there is a motivation to combine, claims may be rejected as prima facie
`
`obvious provided a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success
`
`regarding the proposed combination.
`
`22.
`
`I am informed that the existence of an explicit teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine known elements of the prior art is a sufficient, but not a
`
`necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness. This so-called “teaching-
`
`suggestion-motivation” test is not the exclusive test and is not to be applied rigidly
`
`in an obviousness analysis. In determining whether the subject matter of a patent
`
`claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`patentee controls. Instead, the important consideration is the objective reach of the
`
`claim. In other words, if the claim extends to what is obvious, then the claim is
`
`invalid. I am further informed that the obviousness analysis often necessitates
`
`consideration of the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands
`
`known to the technological community or present in the marketplace, and the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. All of
`
`these issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason
`
`to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent.
`
`23.
`
`I also am informed that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a precise
`
`teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim need not be
`
`sought out because it is appropriate to take account of the inferences and creative
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`steps that a POSITA would employ. The prior art considered can be directed to any
`
`need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and can
`
`provide a reason for combining the elements of the prior art in the manner claimed.
`
`In other words, the prior art need not be directed towards solving the same specific
`
`problem as the problem addressed by the patent. Further, the individual prior art
`
`references themselves need not all be directed towards solving the same problem. I
`
`am informed that, under the KSR obviousness standard, common sense is important
`
`and should be considered. Common sense teaches that familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.
`
`24.
`
`I also am informed that the fact that a particular combination of prior
`
`art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious
`
`even if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it is
`
`likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. I am
`
`further informed that in many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious
`
`techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather
`
`than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an invention. I am
`
`informed that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do more than yield
`
`predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`25.
`
`I am informed that for a patent claim to be obvious, the claim must be
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`obvious to a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention. I am informed that the
`
`factors to consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include (1) the
`
`educational level and experience of people working in the field at the time the
`
`invention was made, (2) the types of problems faced in the art and the solutions
`
`found to those problems, and (3) the sophistication of the technology in the field.
`
`26.
`
`I am informed that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I am informed that a reference may
`
`be said to teach away when a POSITA, upon reading the reference, would be
`
`discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
`
`direction divergent from the path that was taken by the patent applicant. In general,
`
`a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from
`
`the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the
`
`patentee. I am informed that a reference teaches away, for example, if (1) the
`
`combination would produce a seemingly inoperative device, or (2) the references
`
`leave the impression that the product would not have the property sought by the
`
`patentee. I also am informed, however, that a reference does not teach away if it
`
`merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not
`
`criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.
`
`C.
`27.
`
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness
`I am informed that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an invention
`
`would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which include: (a)
`
`commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a
`
`long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of others to find the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention
`
`by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the
`
`invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of independent simultaneous invention
`
`within a comparatively short space of time; (h) teaching away from the invention in
`
`the prior art.
`
`28.
`
` I am further informed that secondary-considerations evidence is only
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art features.
`
`The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. While I understand that the Patent
`
`Owner here has not offered any secondary considerations at this time, I will
`
`supplement my opinions in the event that the Patent Owner raises secondary
`
`considerations during the course of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`
`D. Claim Construction
`29.
`I have been informed by counsel that the first step in an unpatentability
`
`analysis involves construing the claims, as necessary, to determine their scope.
`
`Second, the construed claim language is then compared to the disclosures of the prior
`
`art. I am informed that claims are generally given their ordinary and custom meaning
`
`as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light
`
`of the patent specification.
`
`30. For purposes of this proceeding, I have applied the claim constructions
`
`set forth in the claim construction section of the Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991 (the “Petition”) that this declaration accompanies when
`
`analyzing the prior art and the claims. For any claim terms not construed, I have
`
`applied the meaning of the claim terms of the ’991 Patent that are generally
`
`consistent with the terms’ ordinary and customary meaning, as a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood them at the time of the invention. I have been
`
`instructed to assume for purposes of this proceeding that the time of the invention is
`
`September 25, 2008.
`
`III. OPINION REGARDING LEVEL OF SKILL OF A PERSON HAVING
`ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`31.
`I was asked to provide my opinion as to the level of skill of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) of the ’991 Patent at the time of the
`
`claimed invention, which I have been instructed to assume is September 25, 2008.
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`In determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`of the ’991 Patent at the time of the claimed invention, I was told to consider several
`
`factors, including the type of problems encountered in the art, the solutions to those
`
`problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made in the field, the
`
`sophistication of the technology, and the education level of active workers in the
`
`field. I also placed myself back in the time frame of the claimed invention and
`
`considered the colleagues with whom I had worked at that time.
`
`32.
`
`In my opinion, a person having ordinary skill in the art of the ’991
`
`Patent at the time of its filing would have been a person having, as of September 25,
`
`2008, a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or
`
`Computer Science, or an equivalent degree with at least two years of experience in
`
`digital video systems and networking, human-computer interaction, or related
`
`technologies. Additional education may substitute for lesser work experience and
`
`vice-versa. Such a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of
`
`understanding the ’991 Patent and the prior art references discussed herein.
`
`33. Based on my education, training, and professional experience in the
`
`field of the claimed invention, I am familiar with the level and abilities of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. Additionally, I met
`
`at least these minimum qualifications to be a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`at least as of September 25, 2008. Further, although my qualifications may exceed
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`those of the hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my
`
`analysis and opinions regarding the ’991 Patent have been rendered from the
`
`perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`34. My opinions provided in this Declaration are made as of the priority
`
`date of the ’991 Patent (which counsel has informed me is September 25, 2008),
`
`unless expressly stated otherwise. To the extent that any verb tense used in this
`
`Declaration or any deposition or testimony provided in this matter is a present tense,
`
`e.g., “would reasonably understand,” such verb tense should be understood to be my
`
`opinion as of the ’991 Patent’s priority date (again, unless expressly stated
`
`otherwise). I merely use the present verb tense for ease of reading.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`35.
`I was asked to briefly summarize the background of the prior art from
`
`the standpoint of a POSITA prior to September 25, 2008.
`
`36. Performing video phone calls over existing communications networks
`
`has been part of the consumer market for decades. Specifically, one of the first
`
`commercial videophones to hit the public market was the PicturePhone® researched
`
`and produced by AT&T Bell Labs. The PicturePhone® first debuted at the 1964
`
`World’s Fair that took place in Queens, NY, and became commercially available in
`
`Pittsburgh Pennsylvania with the first call taking place between the then current
`
`mayor Pete Flaherty and John Harper, the chairman of a company called Alcoa
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`(Aluminum Co. of America). However, being primarily aimed at large corporations
`
`and due to the exorbitant cost of both the units and placing video calls, the service
`
`did not garner the wide spread popularity envision by AT&T and eventually the
`
`service was discontinued by the late 1970s. AT&T again entered the market in 1992
`
`introducing the VideoPhone 2500TM aimed for use by the general public. This new
`
`and improved video phone looked like a standard telephone with a built-in camera
`
`and fold-up screen. This unit could call any phone in the world and perform a
`
`standard voice only call, but if calling other VideoPhone 2500 units could also
`
`transmit video. However, this video phone was still limited in its success due to its
`
`cost (roughly $1500 per unit), and low quality. See Marley (Ex. 1006), ¶¶ [0002]-
`
`[0003].
`
`37. By the mid 1990s, with the ever increasing use of the Personal
`
`Computer (“PC”), Internet-based videophones systems began making an
`
`appearance. One of the first internet based systems was called “CU-Seeme” and was
`
`developed and distributed for free over the internet by Cornell University. However,
`
`even this system was not truly user friendly, due to the fact that in order to use it, the
`
`user had to be in the vicinity of their PC, and most PCs were located in less
`
`frequently used rooms in a home. Also placing or receiving calls to a particular
`
`recipient was inconvenient because a user would have to arrange such a call in
`
`advance. See Stevenson (Ex. 1012), 1:10–2:22.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
` Additionally, PCs could only provide this functionality if they had the
`
`38.
`
`correct network connections and equipment such as a camera, microphone, and
`
`necessary hardware and software. Burke (Ex. 1013), 1:26–2:43.
`
`39. At this time PC systems were not an overly desirable product to most
`
`consumers. Because of these drawbacks, other ways were being developed to
`
`implement video phone systems in the home. One solution to this was to use pre-
`
`existing networks and devices that were readily available in the home and familiar
`
`to a consumer. Such a network was the cable system and the devices were a
`
`consumer’s television and a set-top box. See Marley, ¶¶ [0003]-[0005].
`
`40. One patent from the mid 2000s, such as U.S. Patent No. 8,458,756 to
`
`Rodriguez et al. (“Rodriguez”) contemplates using existing cable television (CATV)
`
`networks to “transport videophone signals to subscribers of the cable television
`
`system in an efficient and inexpensive manner.” Rodriguez, 1:14-18, 1:67-2:4, see
`
`also 2:4-9 (disclosing “[m]odern digital cable television (CATV) transmission
`
`technology offers many advantages over conventional videophone and video
`
`conferencing technology,” and that “much of the existing infrastructure of
`
`conventional CATV systems may be reused for videophone”). Rodriguez also
`
`teaches that “videophone signals are transported over a CATV network to user of
`
`the CATV system.” Rodriguez, 2:56-58. Rodriguez depicts its CATV system in Fig.
`
`1 shown below.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`
`
`
`Rodriguez, Fig. 1. Here Rodriguez depicts multiple users (101-104) all connected to
`
`a headend 110 via a cable 120. Rodriguez, 5:22-27. More specifically Rodriguez
`
`teaches that the cable 120 “may include various media, such as, for example, fiber
`
`optic, copper, or hybrid-fiber-coax- (HFC).” Id.
`
`41. Rodriguez utilizes a set top terminal with an integrated videophone unit
`
`that receives videophone data intended for a user and transmits the data to a display
`
`device such as the television. Rodriguez 3:51-56. Rodriguez also teaches that the
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 22
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman
`U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991
`video