`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NEODRON LTD.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,432,173
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Contents
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 1
`II.
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED ................................................................. 13
`III.
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................... 14
`A.
`Claim Interpretation ............................................................................ 14
`B.
`Perspective of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................. 14
`C.
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 15
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 17
`V.
`VI. SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS ................................................................. 18
`VII. TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................ 19
`A.
`Capacitive Touch Sensors Were Well-Known And Widely
`Used In Electronic Devices At The Time Of The Alleged
`Invention .............................................................................................. 20
`Software Engineering Practices And The Irrelevance Of
`Particular Sensing Technology ............................................................ 22
`User Input Disambiguation ................................................................. 24
`C.
`D. Adjusting User Interface Parameters Based On Duration Of
`Touch Was Well-Known At The Time Of The Alleged
`Invention .............................................................................................. 30
`VIII. THE CHALLENGED PATENT ................................................................... 32
`IX. PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY ......................................................... 34
`X.
`PRIORITY DATE ......................................................................................... 35
`XI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 35
`
`B.
`
`-i-
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 2
`
`

`

`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`“a sensing element that comprises a sensing path that comprises
`a length” .............................................................................................. 35
`“object” ................................................................................................ 36
`“displacement” .................................................................................... 36
`“the range of parameter values being associated with the length
`of the sensing path” (Claims 1, 10, 19) ............................................... 37
`“the sensing path comprises a closed loop” (Claims 2, 11) ................ 37
`E.
`XII. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................ 37
`A.
`Trent .................................................................................................... 37
`B.
`Engholm .............................................................................................. 39
`C.
`Bryan ................................................................................................... 43
`XIII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE UNPATENTABILITY
`GROUNDS .................................................................................................... 45
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 8-11, and 17-19 are rendered obvious by
`Trent in light of the knowledge of a POSITA. .................................... 45
`1.
`Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are unpatentable over
`Trent. ......................................................................................... 45
`Claims 2, 11: “wherein the sensing path comprises a
`closed loop” ............................................................................... 61
`Claims 8, 17: “wherein the parameter is selected from the
`group consisting of temperature, volume, contrast,
`brightness, and frequency” ........................................................ 62
`Claims 9, 18: “wherein [the media and] the sensing
`element [is/are] part of an electronic appliance selected
`from the group consisting of a cooking oven, microwave
`oven, television, washing machine, MP3 player, mobile
`phone, and multimedia device”................................................. 63
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 3
`
`

`

`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-19 are rendered obvious by
`Trent in view of Engholm, and further in light of the knowledge
`of a POSITA. ....................................................................................... 64
`1.
`One of skill in the art would be motivated to combine the
`teachings of Trent and Engholm, and would have a
`reasonable expectation of success in doing so. ......................... 64
`Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are unpatentable over
`Trent in view of Engholm. ........................................................ 66
`Claims 2, 11: “wherein the sensing path comprises a
`closed loop” ............................................................................... 72
`Claims 3, 12: “[switching/operable to switch] from a first
`mode of operation to a second mode of operation in
`response to one or more of the second signals if the
`displacement corresponding to the second capacitive
`coupling indicated by the second signals exceeds a pre-
`determined threshold, the second mode of operation
`being for adjusting the parameter within the range of
`parameter values based on the displacement of the object
`along the sensing path, the first mode of operation being
`for setting the parameter to the initial value” ........................... 73
`Claims 5, 14: “wherein adjusting the parameter
`comprises effecting an incremental change in the
`parameter from the initial value based on an amount of
`the displacement exceeding a pre-determined
`displacement threshold” ............................................................ 77
`Claims 6, 15: “wherein adjusting the parameter
`comprises changing the parameter from the initial value
`by a number of units based on a number of times an
`amount of the displacement exceeds a pre-determined
`displacement threshold” ............................................................ 79
`Claims 7, 16: “[mapping/operable to map] all or a portion
`of the range of parameter values onto the sensing path
`around the initial value” ............................................................ 80
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 4
`
`

`

`8.
`
`9.
`
`C.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`Claims 8, 17: “wherein the parameter is selected from the
`group consisting of temperature, volume, contrast,
`brightness, and frequency” ........................................................ 82
`Claims 9, 18: “wherein [the media and] the sensing
`element [is/are] part of an electronic appliance selected
`from the group consisting of a cooking oven, microwave
`oven, television, washing machine, MP3 player, mobile
`phone, and multimedia device”................................................. 83
`Ground 3: Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-19 are rendered obvious by
`Bryan in view of Trent and Engholm, and further in light of the
`knowledge of a POSITA. .................................................................... 83
`1.
`One of skill in the art would be motivated to combine the
`teachings of Bryan, Trent, and Engholm, and would have
`a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. ...................... 83
`Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are unpatentable over
`Bryan in view of Trent and Engholm. ...................................... 85
`Claims 2, 11: “wherein the sensing path comprises a
`closed loop” .............................................................................101
`Claims 3, 12: “switch[ing/operable to switch] from a first
`mode of operation to a second mode of operation in
`response to one or more of the second signals if the
`displacement corresponding to the second capacitive
`coupling indicated by the second signals exceeds a pre-
`determined threshold, the second mode of operation
`being for adjusting the parameter within the range of
`parameter values based on the displacement of the object
`along the sensing path, the first mode of operation being
`for setting the parameter to the initial value” .........................101
`Claims 5, 14: “wherein adjusting the parameter
`comprises effecting an incremental change in the
`parameter from the initial value based on an amount of
`the displacement exceeding a pre-determined
`displacement threshold” ..........................................................102
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 5
`
`

`

`6.
`
`7.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`Claims 6, 15: “wherein adjusting the parameter
`comprises changing the parameter from the initial value
`by a number of units based on a number of times an
`amount of the displacement exceeds a pre-determined
`displacement threshold” ..........................................................102
`Claims 7, 16: “[mapping/operable to map] all or a portion
`of the range of parameter values onto the sensing path
`around the initial value” ..........................................................102
`Claims 8, 17: “wherein the parameter is selected from the
`group consisting of temperature, volume, contrast,
`brightness, and frequency” ......................................................103
`Claims 9, 18: “wherein [the media and] the sensing
`element [is/are] part of an electronic appliance selected
`from the group consisting of a cooking oven, microwave
`oven, television, washing machine, MP3 player, mobile
`phone, and multimedia device”...............................................103
`XIV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................103
`
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`I, Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`2.
`I have been retained by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung” or “Petitioner”) as an
`
`independent expert consultant in this inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding
`
`before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked by Samsung Counsel (“Counsel”) to consider
`
`whether certain references teach or suggest the features recited in Claims 1-3, 5-12,
`
`and 14-19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173 (“the ’173 Patent”) (Ex-1001)1. My
`
`opinions and the bases for my opinions are set forth below.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at my ordinary and customary consulting rate
`
`for my work, which is $600 per hour. My compensation is in no way contingent
`
`on the nature of my findings, the presentation of my findings in testimony, or the
`
`outcome of this or any other proceeding. I have no other financial interest in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`All of my opinions stated in this declaration are based on my own
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Where appropriate, I refer to exhibits that I understand are attached to the petition
`
`for IPR of the ’173 Patent.
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`personal knowledge and professional judgment. In forming my opinions, I have
`
`relied on my knowledge and experience in designing, developing, researching, and
`
`teaching the technology referenced in this declaration.
`
`6.
`
`I am over 18 years of age and, if I am called upon to do so, I would be
`
`competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein. I understand that a copy of
`
`my current curriculum vitae, which details my education and professional and
`
`academic experience, is being submitted as Ex-1003. The following provides a
`
`brief overview of some of my experience that is relevant to the matters set forth in
`
`this declaration.
`
`7.
`
`I am currently Professor Emeritus of Computer Science at the
`
`University of Maryland (“UMD”). From 2014 to 2018, I was the Associate
`
`Provost of Learning Initiatives and Executive Director of the Teaching and
`
`Learning Transformation Center at the UMD. I am a member and previous
`
`director of the Human-Computer Interaction Lab (“HCIL”), the oldest and one of
`
`the best known Human-Computer Interaction (“HCI”) research groups in the
`
`country. I was also co-founder and Chief Scientist of Zumobi, Inc. from 2006 to
`
`2014, a Seattle-based startup that is a publisher of content applications and
`
`advertising platforms for smartphones. I am also co-founder and co-director of the
`
`International Children’s Digital Library (“ICDL”), a web site launched in 2002 that
`
`provides the world’s largest collection of freely available online children’s books
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`from around the world with an interface aimed to make it easy for children and
`
`adults to search and read children’s books online. I am also cofounder and Chief
`
`Technology Officer of Hazel Analytics, a data analytics company to improve food
`
`safety and better public health whose product sends alerts in warranted
`
`circumstances. In addition, I have for more than 15 years consulted for numerous
`
`companies in the area of user interfaces, including Microsoft, the Palo Alto
`
`Research Center, Sony, Lockheed Martin, Hillcrest Labs, and NASA Goddard
`
`Space Flight Center.
`
`8.
`
`The devices and methods claimed in the ’173 Patent generally relate
`
`to user interface technology for electronic devices. For more than 30 years, I have
`
`studied, designed, and worked in the field of computer science and HCI. My
`
`experience includes 30 years of teaching and research, with research interests in
`
`HCI and the software and technology underlying today’s interactive computing
`
`systems. This includes the design and implementation of hardware and software
`
`systems including the use of capacitive and other sensors, and interactive
`
`applications on a range of devices, including embedded systems, controllers, smart
`
`phones and PDAs.
`
`9.
`
`At UMD, I am focused primarily on the area of HCI, a field that
`
`relates to the development and understanding of computing systems to serve users’
`
`needs. Researchers and practitioners in this field are focused on making
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`universally usable, useful, efficient, and appealing systems to support people in
`
`their wide range of activities. My approach is to balance the development of
`
`innovative technology that serves people’s practical needs. Example systems
`
`following this approach that I have built include Cortex-I (1992 embedded
`
`computer vision system that sensed licensed plates with custom motor, camera and
`
`controller), Audio Augmented Reality (1995 embedded system for sensing a user’s
`
`location and playing audio suited to that location), Fisheye Menus (2000 software
`
`for sensing movement within and selection of linear list of items in a menu),
`
`PhotoMesa (2001 software for end users to browse personal photos), DateLens
`
`(2002 software for end users to use their mobile devices to efficiently access their
`
`calendar information), SlideBar (2005 linear sensor to control scrolling),
`
`LaunchTile (2005 “home screen” software for mobile devices to allow users to
`
`navigate apps in a zoomable environment), SpaceTree (2001 software for end users
`
`to efficiently browse very large hierarchies), ICDL (as described above), and
`
`StoryKit (a 2009 iPhone app for children to create stories).
`
`10. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, I worked on a range of “zoomable
`
`user interfaces,” which are systems that support the multi-scale and spatial
`
`organization of and magnification-based navigation among multiple documents or
`
`visual objects. I built several different “ZUI” systems over the years, including
`
`Pad++, Jazz and Piccolo. In those systems, I used a range of solutions to allow
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`users to control zooming through the information space. The most common
`
`approach for systems with 3 button mice was to use the middle button for zooming
`
`in and the right button for zooming out. The user would hold the button down, and
`
`the system would smoothly animate zooming in or out – so that the user controlled
`
`how much the system zoomed based on the duration that the button was pressed.2
`
`11.
`
`In 1995 and 1996, I supervised graduate student David Rogers and
`
`other students in the development of a user interface approach that allowed a user
`
`to “toss” an object across long distances on their screen with their mouse.
`
`Motivated by increasingly large computer screens, we recognized a need to help
`
`users move items long distances without necessarily having to drag the item that
`
`entire distance manually. Instead, we calculated the speed and direction that the
`
`user dragged an object with their mouse. When a user released the mouse button, if
`
`the speed was greater than a threshold, our code calculated the path of where to
`
`animate the object based on several factors including the speed and direction of the
`
`mouse at the time of mouse button release. The figure below from a paper we
`
`wrote in 1996 shows the path of a tossed object. This resulted in David Rogers’s
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Benjamin B. Bederson & James D. Hollan, Pad++: A Zooming Graphical
`Interface for Exploring Alternate Interface Physics, USIT ‘94Proceedings of the
`7th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology 17
`(1994), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/192426.192435 (Ex-1016).
`5
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`masters thesis in 1995 and a paper that we submitted to the 1996 Conference on
`
`Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 1996)3.
`
`Exemplar Figure of Tossing4.
`
`12.
`
`In 1999 and 2000, I worked on a mechanism to address the challenge
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
` David Rogers et al., Tossing Objects in a Desktop Environment, submitted to
`Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (1996) (Ex-1017).
`4 David Rogers et al., Exemplar Figure of Tossing from Tossing Objects in a
`Desktop Environment, submitted to Conference on Human Factors in Computing
`Systems (1996) (Ex-1018).
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`that users faced when selecting one item from a long menu. As I described in a
`
`paper entitled “Fisheye Menus” that I published in the 2000 Proceedings of the
`
`ACM symposium on User Interface Software and Technology,5 existing techniques
`
`typically involved lengthy and slow scrolling techniques. I created an alternative
`
`solution that fit all of the elements onto a single screen thereby completely
`
`eliminating the need to scroll. This approach used the concept of “fisheye
`
`distortion” to shrink some of the elements, while keeping the elements that are
`
`under the cursor to be full size so the user could easily see and select them. The
`
`fisheye menu operated in two modes. The first mode allowed the user to access the
`
`full range of options by moving their finger from top to bottom on the screen. The
`
`second “focus lock” mode (accessed by using the right side of the menu)
`
`effectively magnified the items being selected by increasing the amount of
`
`movement needed to select each item. This approach as depicted in the figure
`
`below and described further at Ex-1019, was later used in a number of commercial
`
`products such as the Apple MacOS Dock.
`
`
`
` 5
`
` Benjamin B. Bederson, Fisheye Menus, UCIT ’00 Proceedings of ACM
`Conference on User Interface Software and Technology 217 (2000), DOI:
`10.1145/354401.317382 (Ex-1019).
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`
`
`
`Ex-1019, Figure 4.
`
`13. Starting in 2000, I supervised graduate student Leslie Chipman who
`
`was working on a general solution to improve the user experience of people
`
`scrolling long documents on computers. Our solution relied on a passive haptic
`
`physical linear input device we called the “SlideBar.” The SlideBar was designed
`
`to sit on either side of the keyboard to be used with the non-dominant hand for
`
`scanning and rough positioning, and then if the user wanted to switch to reading,
`
`the dominant hand could be used for more accurate positioning. With a physical
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`range of motion of approximately two inches, the full range could be accessed by
`
`moving just the fingers without moving the entire hand. This took advantage of
`
`human proprioception – the fact that people have excellent ability to know where
`
`their body is and allowed the user to scroll long documents completely eyes-free.
`
`They did not need to look at the device or the screen to, for example, move a
`
`mouse pointer to a graphical scroll bar. Instead they could focus on their primary
`
`task of reading. Because the document could be scrolled by a mechanism other
`
`than the SlideBar, I explained that “The control software has been designed so that
`
`as soon as the SlideBar is moved at all, the document viewing windows jumps to
`
`the position that corresponds to the SlideBar.” See page 3 of a paper I published
`
`describing this work in 2004.6
`
`14.
`
`In April 2000, I visited Professors Wayne Westerman and John Elias
`
`at the University of Delaware and gave a talk entitled “Zoomable User Interfaces
`
`and Single Display Groupware.” This resulted in a collaboration with Professor
`
`Westerman, graduate student Hilary Browne, and others where we used their
`
`FingerWorks capacitive Multi-Touch Surface as the input device for a multi-touch
`
`finger painting program for children. The project used this input device to support
`
`
`
` 6
`
` Leslie E Chipman et al., SlideBar: Analysis of a Linear Input Device, 23
`Behaviour & Info. Tech. 1 (2004), DOI: 10.1080/01449290310001638487 (Ex-
`1020).
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`a computer painting program that allowed children to paint with their fingers by
`
`directly touching the sensing surface. In contrast to the mouse input more typically
`
`used in this time period, this approach enabled us to create a more natural
`
`interaction environment. This work, depicted in the figure below, was published in
`
`a September 2000 technical report.7
`
`Ex-1021, Figure 1.
`
`
`
`15. LaunchTile led to my creation of Zumobi in 2006, where I was
`
`responsible for investigating new software platforms and developing new user
`
`interface designs that provide efficient and engaging interfaces to permit end users
`
`to access a wide range of content on mobile platforms (including the iPhone and
`
`
`
` 7
`
` Hilary Browne et al., Designing a Collaborative Finger Painting Application for
`Children, HCIL-2000-17, CS-TR-4184, UMIACS-TR-2000-66 (Sept. 2000),
`available at https://hcil.umd.edu/pub-perm-link/?id=2000-17 (Ex-1021).
`10
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`Android-based devices). For example, I designed and implemented software
`
`called “Ziibii,” a “river” of news for iPhone that used a capacitive sensor for
`
`controlling linear movement through news, software called “ZoomCanvas,” a
`
`zoomable user interface for several iPhone apps, and iPhone apps including “Inside
`
`Xbox” for Microsoft and Snow Report for REI. At the ICDL, I have since 2002
`
`been the technical director responsible for the design and implementation of the
`
`web site, www.childrenslibrary.org (originally at www.icdlbooks.org). In
`
`particular, I have been closely involved in designing the user interface as well as
`
`the software architecture for the web site since its inception in 2002.
`
`16. Beginning in the mid-1990s, I have been responsible for the design
`
`and implementation of numerous other web sites in addition to the ICDL. For
`
`example, I designed and built my own professional web site when I was an
`
`Assistant Professor of Computer Science at the University of New Mexico in 1995
`
`and have continued to design, write the code for, and update both that site (which I
`
`moved to the UMD in 1998, currently at http://www.cs.umd.edu/~bederson/) as
`
`well as numerous project web sites, such as Pad++,
`
`http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/pad++/. I received the Janet Fabri Memorial Award
`
`for Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation for my Ph.D. work in robotics and computer
`
`vision. I have combined my hardware and software skills throughout my career in
`
`HCI research, building various interactive electrical and mechanical systems that
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`couple with software to provide an innovative user experience.
`
`17. My work has been published extensively in more than 160 technical
`
`publications, and I have given about 100 invited talks, including 9 keynote
`
`lectures. I have won a number of awards including the Brian Shackel Award for
`
`“outstanding contribution with international impact in the field of HCI” in 2007,
`
`and the Social Impact Award in 2010 from the Association for Computing
`
`Machinery’s (“ACM”) Special Interest Group on Computer Human Interaction
`
`(“SIGCHI”). ACM is the primary international professional community of
`
`computer scientists, and SIGCHI is the primary international professional HCI
`
`community. I have been honored by both professional organizations. I am an
`
`“ACM Distinguished Scientist,” which “recognizes those ACM members with at
`
`least 15 years of professional experience and 5 years of continuous Professional
`
`Membership who have achieved significant accomplishments or have made a
`
`significant impact on the computing field.” I am a member of the “CHI
`
`Academy,” which is described as follows: “The CHI Academy is an honorary
`
`group of individuals who have made substantial contributions to the field of HCI.
`
`These are the principal leaders of the field, whose efforts have shaped the
`
`disciplines and/or industry, and led the research and/or innovation in human-
`
`computer interaction.” The criteria for election to the CHI Academy are: (1)
`
`cumulative contributions to the field; (2) impact on the field through development
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`of new research directions and/or innovations; and (3) influence on the work of
`
`others.
`
`18.
`
`I have appeared on radio shows numerous times to discuss issues
`
`relating to user interface design and people’s use and frustration with common
`
`technologies, web sites, and mobile devices. My work has been discussed and I
`
`have been quoted by mainstream media around the world over 120 times, including
`
`by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Newsweek,
`
`the Seattle Post Intelligencer, the Independent, Le Monde, NPR’s All Things
`
`Considered, New Scientist Magazine, and MIT’s Technology Review.
`
`19.
`
`I have designed, programmed, and publicly deployed dozens of user-
`
`facing software products that have cumulatively had millions of users. My work is
`
`cited by several major companies, including Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google,
`
`and Microsoft. I am a named inventor on 12 U.S. patents and 18 U.S. patent
`
`applications. The patents are generally directed to user interfaces/experience.
`
`20.
`
`I received a B.S. degree in Computer Science with a minor in
`
`Electrical Engineering in 1986 from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. I
`
`received M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Computer Science in 1989 and 1992, both
`
`from New York University.
`
`III.
`
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`21.
`In preparation for this declaration, I have considered the materials
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 19
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`discussed in this declaration, including, for example, the ’173 Patent, the
`
`references cited by the ’173 Patent, the prosecution histories of the ’173 Patent and
`
`applications from which it derives (including the references cited therein), various
`
`background articles and materials referenced in this declaration, and the prior art
`
`references identified in this declaration. In addition, my opinions are further based
`
`on my education, training, experience, and knowledge in the relevant field.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`22.
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions. For the purposes of
`
`this Declaration, I have been informed about certain aspects of the law that are
`
`relevant to my analysis, as summarized below.
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`23.
`I have been informed and understand that in an IPR proceeding,
`
`claims are to be interpreted according to the Phillips claim construction standard. I
`
`have been informed and understand that claim construction is a matter of law and
`
`that the final claim constructions for this proceeding will be determined by the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).
`
`B.
`24.
`
`Perspective of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I have been informed and understand that a patent is to be understood
`
`from the perspective of a hypothetical “person of ordinary skill in the art”
`
`(“POSITA”). Such an individual is considered to possess normal skills and
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 20
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`knowledge in a particular technical field (as opposed to being a genius). I
`
`understand that in considering what the claims of a patent require, what was known
`
`prior to that patent, what a prior art reference discloses, and whether an invention
`
`is obvious or not, one must use the perspective of such a POSITA.
`
`C. Obviousness
`25.
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and therefore invalid, if the claimed subject matter, as a
`
`whole, would have been obvious to a POSITA as of the priority date of the patent
`
`based on one or more prior art references and/or the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis must consider (1) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the claims and the prior art,
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations,
`
`if any, of non-obviousness (such as unexpected results, commercial success, long-
`
`felt but unmet need, failure of others, copying by others, and skepticism of
`
`experts).
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference may be combined with other
`
`references to disclose each element of the invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103. I
`
`understand that a reference may also be combined with the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA, and that this knowledge may be used to combine multiple references. I
`
`further understand that a POSITA is presumed to know the relevant prior art. I
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002, Page 21
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson
`U.S. Patent No. 8,432,173
`understand that the obviousness analysis may take into account the inferences and
`
`creative steps that a POSITA would employ.
`
`28.
`
`In determining whether a prior art reference would have been
`
`comb