throbber
U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`Sling TV L.L.C.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`Patent
`
`Patent No. 8,407,609
`_______________
`Inter Partes Review No. __________
`____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JAMES A. STORER
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS, ........................................................................................... vii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`A.
`Educational Background ....................................................................... 2
`B.
`Career History ....................................................................................... 2
`C.
`Publications and Patents ........................................................................ 3
`D.
`Other Relevant Qualifications ............................................................... 4
`II. MATERIALS AND OTHER INFORMATION CONSIDERED ............ 5
`III.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS........................................................................ 6
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW .......................................................... 6
`A.
`Legal Standard for Prior Art .................................................................. 6
`B.
`Legal Standard for Anticipation ............................................................ 7
`C.
`Legal Standard for Obviousness ........................................................... 8
`D.
`Legal Standard for Claim Construction ..............................................11
`RELEVANT TIMEFRAME ...................................................................... 14
`V.
`VI. LEVEL OF SKILL OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART . 14
`VII. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ........................................................... 15
`A. Webpage and Internet Technology, Generally....................................16
`1.
`The Internet’s Client/Server Architecture .................................16
`2.
`How Web Pages Work ..............................................................17
`3.
`How Markup Languages Work .................................................18
`4.
`How URLs Work ......................................................................19
`5.
`How Web Host Servers Work...................................................20
`6.
`How Web Sites Work with Databases ......................................20
`7.
`FTP and Downloading Files .....................................................21
`Brief History of Java ...........................................................................22
`1.
`Java Applets ..............................................................................23
`2.
`Applets, Generally ....................................................................24
`VIII. THE ’609 Patent ......................................................................................... 24
`A.
`Summary of the ’609 Patent ................................................................24
`
`B.
`
`ii
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 2
`
`

`

`’609 Patent Prosecution History ..........................................................28
`B.
`Patent Owner Uniloc’s Statements Concerning the ’609 Patent ........30
`C.
`The Challenged Claims .......................................................................30
`D.
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... 31
`A.
`“applet” (Claim 1) ...............................................................................31
`B.
`“computer system” (Claim 1) ..............................................................33
`C.
`Timing-related limitations (Claim 1) ..................................................33
`1.
`“amount of time the digital media presentation is streamed”
`(element 1[g]) ............................................................................34
`“cumulative time the corresponding web page was displayed by
`the user’s computer” (element 1[h]) .........................................37
`OVERVIEW OF THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART
` ...................................................................................................................... 39
`A.
`The Knowledge of a POSA at the Time of the Invention ...................39
`B.
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0254887 to Jacoby (“Jacoby”)
` .............................................................................................................40
`PCT Pub. No. WO01/89195 to Mcternan et al. (“Mcternan”) ............44
`EP Patent Application Pub. No. 939,516 to Robinson et al.
`(“Robinson”) .......................................................................................46
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,218 to Bland et al. (“Bland”) ..........................50
`E.
`XI. Ground 1: Jacoby in view of Bland renders obvious each of the
`challenged claims 1-3 .................................................................................. 53
`A.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................53
`1.
`Claim element 1 [pre]: “A method for tracking digital media
`presentations delivered from a first computer system to a user’s
`computer via a network.” ..........................................................53
`Claim element 1[a]: “providing a corresponding web page to
`the user’s computer for each digital media presentation to be
`delivered using the first computer system.”..............................58
`Claim element 1[b]: “providing identifier data to the user’s
`computer using the first computer system.” .............................60
`Claim element 1[c]: “providing an applet to the user’s computer
`for each digital media presentation to be delivered using the
`
`C.
`D.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`iii
`
`X.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 3
`
`

`

`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`B.
`
`first computer system, wherein the applet is operative by the
`user’s computer as a timer.” ......................................................62
`Claim element 1[d]: “receiving at least a portion of the
`identifier data from the user’s computer responsively to the
`timer applet each time a predetermined temporal period elapses
`using the first computer system.” .............................................71
`Claim element 1[e]: “storing data indicative of the received at
`least portion of the identifier data using the first computer
`system.” .....................................................................................73
`Claim element 1[f]: “wherein each provided webpage causes
`corresponding digital media presentation data to be streamed
`from a second computer system distinct from the first computer
`system directly to the user’s computer independent of the first
`computer system.” .....................................................................80
`Claim element 1[g]: “wherein the stored data is indicative of an
`amount of time the digital media presentation data is streamed
`from the second computer system to the user’s computer.” .....83
`Claim element 1[h]: “wherein each stored data is together
`indicative of a cumulative time the corresponding web page
`was displayed by the user’s computer.” ....................................86
`Claim 2: “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the storing comprises
`incrementing a stored value dependently upon the receiving.” ..........87
`Claim 3: “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein the received data is
`indicative of a temporal cycle passing.” .............................................88
`XII. Ground 2: Mcternan in view of Robinson renders obvious each of the
`challenged claims 1-3 .................................................................................. 89
`A.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................89
`1.
`Claim element 1 [pre]: “A method for tracking digital media
`presentations delivered from a first computer system to a user’s
`computer via a network.” ..........................................................89
`Claim element 1[a]: “providing a corresponding web page to
`the user’s computer for each digital media presentation to be
`delivered using the first computer system.”..............................94
`Claim element 1[b]: “providing identifier data to the user’s
`computer using the first computer system.” .............................96
`
`C.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`iv
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 4
`
`

`

`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim element 1[c]: “providing an applet to the user’s computer
`for each digital media presentation to be delivered using the
`first computer system, wherein the applet is operative by the
`user’s computer as a timer.” ....................................................100
`Claim element 1[d]: “receiving at least a portion of the
`identifier data from the user’s computer responsively to the
`timer applet each time a predetermined temporal period elapses
`using the first computer system.” ...........................................105
`Claim element 1[e]: “storing data indicative of the received at
`least portion of the identifier data using the first computer
`system.” ...................................................................................108
`Claim element 1[f]: “wherein each provided webpage causes
`corresponding digital media presentation data to be streamed
`from a second computer system distinct from the first computer
`system directly to the user’s computer independent of the first
`computer system.” ...................................................................110
`Claim element 1[g]: “wherein the stored data is indicative of an
`amount of time the digital media presentation data is streamed
`from the second computer system to the user’s computer.” ...113
`Claim element 1[h]: “wherein each stored data is together
`indicative of a cumulative time the corresponding web page
`was displayed by the user’s computer.” ..................................115
`Claim 2: “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the storing comprises
`incrementing a stored value dependently upon the receiving.” ........117
`Claim 3: “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein the received data is
`indicative of a temporal cycle passing.” ...........................................118
`XIII. Motivation to Combine ............................................................................ 119
`A.
`The Jacoby-Bland combination .........................................................119
`1.
`Combining Bland’s teaching of an applet...............................119
`2.
`Combining Bland’s teaching of tracking an object and Bland’s
`timing mechanism ...................................................................121
`The Mcternan-Robinson Combination ..............................................124
`1.
`Combining Robinson’s teaching of an applet .........................124
`2.
`Combining Robinson’s teaching of tracking time on a page ..125
`XIV. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ................................................................ 128
`
`C.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`v
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 5
`
`

`

`XV. OATH ......................................................................................................... 129
`Appendix A (listing of challenged claims) ............................................................ 1
`
`vi
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 6
`
`

`

`LIST OF EXHIBITS1, 2
`Brief Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609 (“the ’609 Patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. James A. Storer [this document]
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. James A. Storer (“Storer CV”)
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609 (“the ’609 File History”)
`First Amended Complaint, Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Sling TV L.L.C., Case
`No. 1:19-cv-00278-RBJ-MEH, Dkt. No. 37 (Apr. 10, 2019) (“FAC”)
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0254887 to Jacoby (“Jacoby”)
`PCT Pub. No. WO01/89195 to Mcternan et al. (“Mcternan”)
`EP Patent Application Pub. No. 939,516 to Robinson et al.
`(“Robinson”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,218 to Bland et al (“Bland”)
`Gralla, How the Internet Works, Millennium Edition, Que 1999
`(“Gralla”)
`Bruce R. Maxim et al., The Internet Encyclopedia (Hossein Bidgoli ed.,
`John Wiley & Sons Inc. 2004) (“Bidgoli”)
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0198781 to Cobley (“Cobley”)
`
`Ex.
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1 I have been asked to refer to the various exhibits I discuss herein by numbers set
`forth in this table and understand that each such exhibit has been marked
`accordingly. I understand that this declaration is intended to be marked as Exhibit
`1002.
`2 Citations to exhibits 1001, 1007, 1009, and 1012 are made by column and line
`number; citations to exhibits 1002, 1005, 1006, and 1008 are made by paragraph
`number; citations to the other exhibits are made with reference to the Bates-
`stamped pagination.
`
`vii
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 7
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`My name is James A. Storer. I am a Professor of Computer Science at
`
`Brandeis University and a member of the Brandeis Center for Complex Systems. I
`
`have been retained Baker Botts L.L.P. (“Counsel”) on behalf of Sling TV L.L.C.
`
`(“Petitioner”) to provide technical assistance in connection with the inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609 (“the ’609 Patent”). This declaration sets
`
`forth my opinions on issues related to patentability of claims 1-3 of the ’609 Patent
`
`(collectively, the “challenged claims”). I provide technical bases for these
`
`opinions as appropriate.
`
`2.
`
`This declaration contains statements of my opinions formed to date
`
`and the bases and reasons for those opinions. I make this declaration based upon
`
`my own personal knowledge and, if called upon to testify, would testify
`
`competently to the matters contained herein.
`
`3.
`
`For my efforts in connection with the preparation of this declaration I
`
`have been compensated at my standard rate of $785 per hour. My compensation is
`
`in no way contingent on the results of these or any other proceedings relating to the
`
`above-captioned patent.
`
`Page | 1
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 8
`
`

`

`A.
`4.
`
`Educational Background
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, career
`
`history, publications, and other relevant qualifications. My full curriculum vitae is
`
`attached as Ex. 1003 (Storer CV).
`
`5.
`
`I am an expert in the field of computer algorithms, including data
`
`communications and network computing, data compression, data and image
`
`retrieval, storage and processing of large data sets, and image/video processing. I
`
`have studied, taught, practiced, and researched in the field of Computer Science for
`
`over thirty years. Currently, I am Professor of Computer Science at Brandeis
`
`University in Waltham, Massachusetts, where I have been on the faculty since
`
`1981.
`
`6.
`
`I received my Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in the field of
`
`Computer Science from Princeton University in 1979. I received my Masters of
`
`Arts (M.A.) degree in Computer Science from Princeton University and my
`
`Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree in Mathematics and Computer Science from
`
`Cornell University.
`
`B.
`7.
`
`Career History
`After receiving my Ph.D. degree, I worked in industry as a researcher
`
`at AT&T Bell Laboratories from 1979 to 1981 before joining the faculty of
`
`Brandeis University.
`
`Page | 2
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 9
`
`

`

`8.
`
`I have been involved in computer science research since 1976. My
`
`research has been funded by a variety of governmental agencies, including the
`
`National Science Foundation
`
`(NSF), National Aeronautics and Space
`
`Administration (NASA), and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
`
`(DARPA). In addition, I have received government Small Business Innovation
`
`Research (SBIR) funding, as well as numerous industrial grants.
`
`9.
`
`I regularly teach courses in software and hardware technology for data
`
`compression and communications (including text, images, video, and audio) at
`
`both the undergraduate and graduate level, and in my capacity as co-chair of the
`
`Annual Data Compression Conference, I regularly referee academic papers in these
`
`areas. In addition, much of my consulting activity has been in the areas of software
`
`and hardware for consumer electronic devices, including cell phones/PDAs
`
`(including cellular technology), smartphones, digital cameras, digital video and
`
`audio recorders, and personal computers (“PCs”), as well as devices for
`
`communications over the Internet.
`
`C.
`10.
`
`Publications and Patents
`I am the author of two books: An Introduction to Data Structures and
`
`Algorithms and Data Compression: Methods and Theory. Both books have been
`
`used as references for undergraduate
`
`level computer science courses in
`
`Page | 3
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 10
`
`

`

`universities. I am the editor or co-editor of four other books, including
`
`Hyperspectral Data Compression and Image and Text Compression.
`
`11.
`
`I have three issued U.S. patents that relate to computer software and
`
`hardware (two for which I am sole inventor and one for which I am co-inventor). I
`
`am the author or co-author of well over 100 articles and conference papers.
`
`D.
`12.
`
`Other Relevant Qualifications
`In 1991, I founded the Annual Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (IEEE) Data Compression Conference (DCC),
`
`the first major
`
`international conference devoted entirely to data compression and have served as
`
`the conference chair since then. This conference continues to be the world’s
`
`premier venue devoted to data compression research and development.
`
`13.
`
`I routinely serve as referee for papers submitted to journals such as,
`
`for example, JACM, SICOMP, Theoretical CS, Computer Journal, J. Algorithms,
`
`Signal Processing, JPDC, Acta Informatica, Algorithmicia, IPL, IPM, Theoretical
`
`CS, J. Algorithms, Networks, IEEE J. Robotics & Automation, IEEE Trans.
`
`Information Theory, IEEE Trans. Computers, IEEE Trans. Image Processing,
`
`Proceedings of the IEEE, IBM J. of R&D, and J. Computer and System Sciences.
`
`14.
`
`I have served as guest editor for a number of professional journals,
`
`including Proceedings of the IEEE, Journal of Visual Communication and Image
`
`Representation, and Information Processing and Management. I have served as a
`
`Page | 4
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 11
`
`

`

`program committee member for various conferences, including IEEE Data
`
`Compression Conference, IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory,
`
`Combinatorial Pattern Matching (CPM), International Conference on String
`
`Processing and Information Retrieval (SPIRE), Conference on Information and
`
`Knowledge Management (CIKM), Conference on Information Theory and
`
`Statistical Learning (ITSL), Sequences and Combinatorial Algorithms on Words,
`
`Dartmouth Institute for Advanced Graduate Studies Symposium (DAGS),
`
`International Conference on Language and Automata Theory and Applications
`
`(LATA), DIMACS Workshop on Data Compression
`
`in Networks and
`
`Applications, and Conference on Combinatorial Algorithms on Words.
`
`II. MATERIALS AND OTHER INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`15.
`I have considered information from various sources in forming my
`
`opinions. My opinions are based on my review of documents as well as my
`
`education, training, research, knowledge, and experience. I have reviewed and
`
`considered the following documents in forming my opinions:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,407,609 (“the ’609 Patent”) (Ex. 1001) and its file history
`(Ex. 1004);
`
`First Amended Complaint, Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Sling TV L.L.C., Case No.
`1:19-cv-00278-RBJ-MEH, Dkt. No. 37 (Apr. 10, 2019) (“FAC”) (Ex. 1005);
`
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0254887 to Jacoby (“Jacoby”) (Ex.
`1006);
`
`PCT Pub. No. WO01/89195 to Mcternan et al. (“Mcternan”) (Ex. 1007);
`
`Page | 5
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 12
`
`

`

`EP Patent Application Pub. No. 939,516 to Robinson et al. (“Robinson”)
`(Ex. 1008);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,218 to Bland et al (“Bland”) (Ex. 1009);
`
`Gralla, How the Internet Works, Millennium Edition, Que 1999 (“Gralla”)
`(Ex. 1010);
`
`Bruce R. Maxim et al., The Internet Encyclopedia (Hossein Bidgoli ed.,
`John Wiley & Sons Inc. 2004) (“Bidgoli”) (Ex. 1011);
`
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0198781 to Cobley (“Cobley”) (Ex.
`1012)
`
`III.
`
`All documents cited or discussed herein.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`16.
`For the reasons set forth herein, it is my opinion that:
`
`Claims 1-3 are rendered obvious by Jacoby in view of Bland.
`
`Claims 1-3 are rendered obvious by Mcternan in view of Robinson.
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`17.
`I have applied the following legal principles provided to me by
`
`Counsel in arriving at the opinions set forth in this declaration.
`
`A.
`18.
`
`Legal Standard for Prior Art
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as
`
`prior art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to an
`
`asserted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is prior to the invention of the
`
`asserted patent. I further understand that a printed publication, such as a book or
`
`Page | 6
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 13
`
`

`

`an article published in a magazine or trade publication, qualifies as prior art to an
`
`asserted patent if the date of publication is prior to the invention of the asserted
`
`patent.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to an
`
`asserted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is more than one year before the
`
`filing date of the asserted patent. I further understand that a printed publication,
`
`such as a book or an article published in a magazine or trade publication,
`
`constitutes prior art to an asserted patent if the publication occurs more than one
`
`year before the filing date of the asserted patent.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a U.S. patent qualifies as prior art to the asserted
`
`patent if the application for that patent was filed in the United States before the
`
`invention of the asserted patent.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that documents and materials that qualify as prior art can
`
`be used to invalidate a patent claim as anticipated or as obvious.
`
`B.
`23.
`
`Legal Standard for Anticipation
`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.
`
`Page | 7
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 14
`
`

`

`24.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted claim,
`
`and thus renders the claim invalid, if all elements of the claim are disclosed in that
`
`prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently (i.e., necessarily present or
`
`implied).
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a patent is anticipated if before such person’s
`
`invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who
`
`had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it.
`
`26.
`
`I have written this report with the understanding that in an inter partes
`
`review anticipation must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`C.
`27.
`
`Legal Standard for Obviousness
`I have been instructed by counsel on the law regarding obviousness
`
`and 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 at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art (“POSA”).
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a POSA provides a reference point from which the
`
`prior art and claimed invention should be viewed. This reference point prevents a
`
`POSA from using one’s insight or hindsight in deciding whether a claim is
`
`obvious.
`
`Page | 8
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 15
`
`

`

`29.
`
`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 challenged 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.
`
`30.
`
`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
`
`found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the common
`
`sense of one of skill in the art.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a
`
`combination of multiple prior art references. I understand that the prior art
`
`references themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine,
`
`but other times the nexus linking two or more prior art references is simple
`
`common sense. 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.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device,
`
`and a POSA would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
`
`Page | 9
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 16
`
`

`

`way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
`
`her skill.
`
`33.
`
`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 POSA
`
`looking to overcome a problem will often be able to fit the teachings of multiple
`
`publications together like pieces of a puzzle, although the prior art need not be like
`
`two puzzle pieces that must fit perfectly together. I understand that obviousness
`
`analysis therefore takes into account the inferences and creative steps that a POSA
`
`would employ under the circumstances.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious 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 POSA 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.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that the combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods may be proven 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
`
`Page | 10
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 17
`
`

`

`field or a different one. If a POSA can implement a predictable variation,
`
`obviousness likely bars its patentability.
`
`36.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis
`
`focuses on what was known or obvious to a POSA not just the patentee.
`
`Accordingly, I understand that any need or problem known 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.
`
`37.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a POSA having the understanding and knowledge reflected in the
`
`prior art, 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
`
`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.
`
`38.
`
`I have written this report with the understanding that in an inter partes
`
`review obviousness must be shown by a preponderance of evidence.
`
`D.
`39.
`
`Legal Standard for Claim Construction
`I understand that before any invalidity analysis can be properly
`
`performed, the scope and meaning of the challenged claims must be determined by
`
`claim construction.
`
`Page | 11
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 18
`
`

`

`40.
`
`I understand that a patent may include two types of claims,
`
`independent claims and dependent claims. I understand that an independent claim
`
`stands alone and includes only the limitations it recites. I understand that a
`
`dependent claim depends from an independent claim or another dependent claim. I
`
`understand that a dependent claim includes all the limitations that it recites in
`
`addition to the limitations recited in the claim (or claims) from which it depends.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that the claims of a patent define the scope of the rights
`
`conferred by the patent. I understand that because the claims point out and
`
`distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventors regard as their invention,
`
`claim construction analysis must begin with and is focused on the claim language
`
`itself.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that words or terms should be given their ordinary and
`
`accepted meaning unless it appears that the inventors were using them to mean
`
`something else. I understand that to determine whether a term has special
`
`meaning, the claims, the patent specification, and the prosecution history are
`
`particularly important, and may show that the inventor gave a term a particular
`
`definition or intentionally disclaimed, disavowed, or surrendered claim scope.
`
`43.
`
`In comparing the challenged claims to the prior art, I have carefully
`
`considered the patent and its file history in light of the understanding of a POSA at
`
`the time of the alleged invention.
`
`Page | 12
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 19
`
`

`

`44.
`
`I understand that, in construing a claim term, one should primarily
`
`rely on intrinsic patent evidence, which includes the words of the claims
`
`themselves, the remainder of the patent specification, and the prosecution history.
`
`I understand that extrinsic evidence, which is evidence external to the patent and
`
`the prosecution history, may also be useful in interpreting patent claims when the
`
`intrinsic evidence itself is insufficient. I understand that extrinsic evidence may
`
`include principles, concepts, terms, and other resources available to those of skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that a claim should be construed not only in the context
`
`of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the
`
`entire patent, including the entire specification.
`
`46.
`
`I understand that the prosecution history of the patent as well as art
`
`incorporated by reference or otherwise cited during the prosecution history are also
`
`highly relevant in construing claim terms. For instance, art cited by or
`
`incorporated by reference may indicate how the inventor and others of skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention understood certain terms and concepts.
`
`Additionally, the prosecution history may show that the inventors disclaimed or
`
`disavowed claim scope or further explained the meaning of a claim term.
`
`47. With regard to extrinsic evidence, I understand that all evidence
`
`external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor
`
`Page | 13
`
`IPR2020-00677
`Vudu Ex. 1002, Page 20
`
`

`

`testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, can also be considered. For example,
`
`technical dictionaries may indicate how one of skill in the art used or understood
`
`the claim terms. However, I understand that extrinsic evidence is considered to be
`
`less reliable than intrinsic evidence, and for that reason is generally given less
`
`weight than intrinsic evidence.
`
`V.
`
`RELEVANT TIMEFRAME
`48. As mentioned above, I understand that claim construction and
`
`obviousness must be considered through the perspective of one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art “at the time the invention as made.” In this case, I see from the front page
`
`of the ’609 Patent that the patent application leading to the ’609 Patent was filed on
`
`August 21, 2009 and claimed priority to a provisional patent application filed on
`
`August 21, 2008. I considered the level of ordinary skill in the art on August 21,
`
`2008, the earliest claimed priority date for the ’609 Patent.3 I am not aware of any
`
`claim by the Patent Owner that the ’609 Patent is entitled to an earlier priority date.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF SKILL OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`49.
`In determining the character

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket