IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Patent No. 7,200,855
`Filing Date: May 24, 2001
`Issue Date: April 3, 2007
`
`Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS OF MULTIPLEXING A PLURALITY OF
`CHANNELS IN A MULTIMEDIA SYSTEM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2020-00787
`
`________________
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VERNON THOMAS RHYNE, III
`
`
`Declaration in Support of Petition 1 of 3
`
`
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`

`

` 
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MY PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ........... 2 
`  My Education and Certifications ................................................................ 2 
`  My Experience ............................................................................................ 3 
`III.  MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 6 
`IV.  MY OPINIONS ............................................................................................... 6 
`V. 
`THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................. 8 
`VI.  THE RELEVANT ART AND THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ....... 11 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13 
`VIII.  STATE OF THE ART AND AN OVERVIEW OF THE ’855 PATENT .... 25 
`  Overview .................................................................................................. 25 
`The ’855 Patent Prosecution History ........................................................ 38 
` 
`The State of the Art .................................................................................. 47 
`  Multiplexing ........................................................................................ 48 
`Time-Division Multiplexing / Frequency Division Multiplexing ...... 49 
` 
`Compression and MPEG ..................................................................... 51 
`Encryption, Decryption, and Conditional Access Systems ................ 56 
`User Control of Content ...................................................................... 57 
`Additional Prior Art Known to a PHOSITA ....................................... 58 
`a. 
`U.S. Patent No. 6,493,873 (“Williams”) ................................... 58 
`b. 
`U.S. Patent No. 6,400,280 (“Osakabe”) ................................... 63 
`c. 
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,519 (“Hicks”) ........................................ 63 
`d. 
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,218,864 / PCI Local Bus Specification, Rev. 2.2
`(“PCI”) ...................................................................................... 64 
`e.  Wireless LANs (“Grier”) .......................................................... 69 
`f. 
`MPEG-2 (“Watkinson”) ............................................................ 70 
`g. 
`U.S. Patent No. 5,808,694 (“Usui”) .......................................... 72 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`i
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`IX.  FACTS AND OPINIONS RELEVANT TO THE UNPATENTABILITY
`GROUNDS ASSERTED IN THE PETITION.............................................. 72 
`Summary of My Analysis of the Unpatentability of the ’855 Claims ..... 72 
`Hicks in View of PCI (Ground 1), and Hicks in view of PCI and Usui
`(Ground 2) ................................................................................................ 74 
`Claims 1-17 ......................................................................................... 76 
`a. 
`Independent Claim 1 (Grounds 1 and 2) ................................... 76 
`Element [1A] ........................................................................ 76 
`i. 
`Element [1B] ........................................................................ 84 
`ii. 
`Element [1C] ........................................................................ 89 
`iii. 
`Element [1D] ......................................................................100 
`iv. 
`Element [1E] ......................................................................104 
`v. 
`Element [1F] ......................................................................121 
`vi. 
`vii.  Element [1G] ......................................................................132 
`viii.  Element [1H] ......................................................................135 
`ix. 
`Summary Opinion Regarding Claim 1 ..............................139 
`Dependent Claims 2 and 5 (Grounds 1 and 2) .......................139 
`b. 
`Dependent Claim 3 (Grounds 1 and 2) ...................................148 
`c. 
`Dependent Claim 4 (Grounds 1 and 2) ...................................151 
`d. 
`Dependent Claim 6 (Grounds 1 and 2) ...................................155 
`e. 
`Dependent Claim 7 (Grounds 1 and 2) ...................................161 
`f. 
`Dependent Claim 8 (Grounds 1 and 2) ...................................164 
`g. 
`Dependent Claim 9 (Grounds 1 and 2) ...................................170 
`h. 
`Dependent Claim 10 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................172 
`i. 
`Dependent Claim 11 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................178 
`j. 
`Dependent Claim 12 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................185 
`k. 
`Dependent Claim 13 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................191 
`l. 
`m.  Dependent Claim 14 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................196 
`n. 
`Dependent Claim 15 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................200 
`o. 
`Dependent Claim 16 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................203 
`ii
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`Dependent Claim 17 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................205 
`p. 
`Claims 18-27 .....................................................................................207 
`a. 
`Independent Claim 18 (Ground 1) ..........................................208 
`Element [18A] ....................................................................208 
`i. 
`Element [18B] ....................................................................208 
`ii. 
`Element [18C] ....................................................................209 
`iii. 
`Element [18D] ....................................................................211 
`iv. 
`Element [18E] ....................................................................211 
`v. 
`Element [18F] ....................................................................212 
`vi. 
`vii.  Summary Opinion Regarding Claim 18 ............................212 
`Dependent Claim 19 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................212 
`b. 
`Dependent Claims 20 (Grounds 1 and 2) and 21 (Ground 1) .214 
`c. 
`Dependent Claim 22 (Ground 1) ............................................215 
`d. 
`Dependent Claim 23 (Ground 1) ............................................215 
`e. 
`Dependent Claim 24 (Ground 1) ............................................216 
`f. 
`Dependent Claim 25 (Ground 1) ............................................217 
`g. 
`Dependent Claim 26 (Ground 1) ............................................217 
`h. 
`Dependent Claim 27 (Ground 1) ............................................218 
`i. 
`Claims 28-36 .....................................................................................218 
`a. 
`Independent Claim 28 (Ground 1) ..........................................218 
`Element [28A] ....................................................................219 
`Element [28B] ....................................................................220 
`Element [28C] ....................................................................220 
`Element [28D] ....................................................................221 
`Element [28E] and [28F] ...................................................222 
`Summary Opinion Regarding Claim 28 ............................226 
`Dependent Claim 29 (Ground 1) ............................................227 
`Dependent Claim 30 (Ground 1) ............................................228 
`Dependent Claim 31 (Ground 1) ............................................229 
`
`i. 
`ii. 
`iii. 
`iv. 
`i. 
`ii. 
`
`b. 
`c. 
`d. 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Dependent Claim 32 (Ground 1) ............................................230 
`e. 
`Dependent Claim 33 (Ground 1) ............................................231 
`f. 
`Dependent Claim 34 (Ground 1) ............................................232 
`g. 
`Dependent Claim 35 (Ground 1) ............................................233 
`h. 
`Dependent Claim 36 (Ground 1) ............................................234 
`i. 
`Claims 37-52 .....................................................................................235 
`a. 
`Independent Claim 37 (Ground 1) ..........................................235 
`Element [37A] ....................................................................236 
`i. 
`Element [37B] ....................................................................236 
`ii. 
`Element [37C] ....................................................................237 
`iii. 
`Element [37D] and [37[E] .................................................237 
`iv. 
`Element [37F] ....................................................................238 
`v. 
`Element [37G] ....................................................................239 
`vi. 
`vii.  Summary Opinion Regarding Claim 37 ............................239 
`Dependent Claim 38 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................240 
`b. 
`Dependent Claims 39 (Grounds 1 and 2) and 42 (Ground 1) .242 
`c. 
`Dependent Claim 40 (Ground 1) ............................................243 
`d. 
`Dependent Claim 41 (Ground 1) ............................................244 
`e. 
`Dependent Claim 43 (Ground 1) ............................................245 
`f. 
`Dependent Claim 44 (Ground 1) ............................................246 
`g. 
`Dependent Claim 45 (Ground 1) ............................................246 
`h. 
`Dependent Claim 46 (Ground 1) ............................................247 
`i. 
`Dependent Claim 47 (Ground 1) ............................................248 
`j. 
`Dependent Claim 48 (Ground 1) ............................................249 
`k. 
`Dependent Claim 49 (Ground 1) ............................................249 
`l. 
`m.  Dependent Claim 50 (Ground 1) ............................................251 
`n. 
`Dependent Claim 51 (Ground 1) ............................................251 
`o. 
`Dependent Claim 52 (Ground 1) ............................................252 
`Claims 53-63 .....................................................................................253 
`
`iv
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`a. 
`
`Independent Claim 53 (Ground 1) ..........................................253 
`Element [53A] ....................................................................254 
`i. 
`Element [53B] ....................................................................254 
`ii. 
`Element [53C] ....................................................................255 
`iii. 
`Element [53D] ....................................................................256 
`iv. 
`Element [53E] ....................................................................258 
`v. 
`Element [53F] ....................................................................261 
`vi. 
`vii.  Element [53G] ....................................................................261 
`viii.  Summary Opinion Regarding Claim 53 ............................262 
`Dependent Claim 54 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................262 
`b. 
`Dependent Claims 55 and 56 (Ground 1) ...............................263 
`c. 
`Dependent Claim 57 (Ground 1) ............................................264 
`d. 
`Dependent Claim 58 (Ground 1) ............................................265 
`e. 
`Dependent Claim 59 (Ground 1) ............................................266 
`f. 
`Dependent Claim 60 (Ground 1) ............................................267 
`g. 
`Dependent Claim 61 (Ground 1) ............................................268 
`h. 
`Dependent Claim 62 (Ground 1) ............................................269 
`i. 
`Dependent Claim 63 (Ground 1) ............................................269 
`j. 
`Hicks in View of PCI, and Grier (Ground 3) Render Obvious Claims
`2, 5, 20-21, 29, 39, 42, and 53-63, and Hicks in View of PCI, Usui,
`and Grier (Ground 4) Render Obvious Claims 2, 5, 20, 39, and 54 ......270 
`A PHOSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Grier with
`Hicks and PCI, and with Hicks, PCI, and Usui .................................270 
`Dependent Claim 2 (Grounds 3 and 4) .............................................272 
`Dependent Claim 5 (Grounds 3 and 4) .............................................274 
`Dependent Claim 20 (Grounds 3 and 4) ...........................................274 
`Dependent Claim 21 (Ground 3) .......................................................275 
`Dependent Claim 29 (Ground 3) .......................................................276 
`Dependent Claim 39 (Grounds 3 and 4) ...........................................276 
`Dependent Claim 42 (Ground 3) .......................................................277 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`v
`
`

`

` 
`
`Claims 53-63 (Ground 3), Claim 54 (Ground 4) ..............................278 
`a. 
`Claims 53-54 and 57-63 (Ground 3), Claim 54 (Ground 4) ...278 
`b. 
`Claims 55 and 56 (Ground 3) ..................................................278 
`  Hicks in View of PCI, and Watkinson (Ground 5) Render Obvious
`Claims 6-11, 13, 22-24, 26, 31-32, 34, 43-48, 50, 57-60, and 62, and
`Hicks in View of PCI, Usui, and Watkinson (Ground 6) Render
`Obvious Claims 6-11 and 13 ..................................................................279 
`Dependent Claims 6-11 and 13 (Grounds 5 and 6) ...........................279 
`Dependent Claims 22-24, 26, 31, 32, 34, 43-48, 50, 57-60, and 62
`(Ground 5) .........................................................................................289 
`Grounds 7-12: Grounds 1-6 Further Combined with Osakabe ..............292 
` 
`X.  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...........................................................................303 
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1001:
`Exhibit 1002:
`Exhibit 1003:
`Exhibit 1004:
`
`Exhibit 1005:
`Exhibit 1006:
`
`Exhibit 1007:
`Exhibit 1008:
`Exhibit 1009:
`Exhibit 1010:
`
`Exhibit 1011:
`Exhibit 1012:
`Exhibit 1013:
`Exhibit 1014:
`
`Exhibit 1015:
`
`Exhibit 1016:
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,200,855 (“the ʼ855 patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III
`Excerpts from the File History of U.S. App. No. 09/864,602
`
`In re Certain Digital Video Receivers, Broadband Gateways,
`and Related Hardware and Software Components, Investigation
`No. 337-TA-1158 (U.S.I.T.C.), July 17, 2019 – Complainants’
`Notice of Patent Priority Dates / Conception Dates
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,519 (“Hicks”)
`Excerpts from PCI Local Bus Specification, Revision 2.2, PCI
`Special Interest Group, December 18, 1998 (“PCI”)
`Declaration of Doanh Vu
`Declaration of Stephen Kunin
`Reserved
`Extending PCI Performance Beyond the Desktop, Shlomo
`Weiss and Ehud Finkelstein, Computer, June 1999, pp. 80-87
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,864 (“Young”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,808,694 (“Usui”)
`Declaration of Carrie Gardner
`Excerpts from Computer Networks, Andrew S. Tanenbaum,
`Prentice Hall, Third Edition, 1996 (“Tanenbaum”)
`Excerpts from Communication Systems, Simon Haykin, John
`Wiley & Sons, Fourth Edition, 2001 (“Haykin”)
`Excerpts from MPEG-2, John Watkinson, Focal Press, 1999
`(“Watkinson”)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1017:
`
`Exhibit 1018:
`
`Exhibit 1019:
`Exhibit 1020:
`Exhibit 1021:
`
`Exhibit 1022:
`
`Exhibit 1023:
`
`Exhibit 1024:
`
`Exhibit 1025:
`
`Exhibit 1026:
`
`Excerpts from Digital Video: An Introduction to MPEG-2, B.
`Haskell et al., Chapman & Hall, 1997 (“Haskell”)
`Excerpts from Cable Television Handbook, Eugene R. Bartlett,
`McGraw-Hill Video/Audio Professional, First Edition, 2000
`(“Bartlett”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,870,474 (“Wasilewski”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,493,873 (“Williams”)
`Excerpts from In re Certain Digital Video Receivers,
`Broadband Gateways, and Related Hardware and Software
`Components, Investigation No. 337-TA-1158 (U.S.I.T.C.),
`January 14, 2020 – Transcript of Telephonic Conference
`Excerpts from In re Certain Digital Video Receivers,
`Broadband Gateways, and Related Hardware and Software
`Components, Investigation No. 337-TA-1158 (U.S.I.T.C.),
`January 28, 2020 – Transcript of Administrative Hearing
`Volume VI
`
`In re Certain Digital Video Receivers, Broadband Gateways,
`and Related Hardware and Software Components, Investigation
`No. 337-TA-1158 (U.S.I.T.C.), October 21, 2019 – Joint Claim
`Construction Chart
`
`In re Certain Digital Video Receivers, Broadband Gateways,
`and Related Hardware and Software Components, Investigation
`No. 337-TA-1158 (U.S.I.T.C.), January 22, 2020 – Comcast
`Respondents’ Notice of Withdrawal of Claim Terms
`
`In re Certain Digital Video Receivers, Broadband Gateways,
`and Related Hardware and Software Components, Investigation
`No. 337-TA-1158 (U.S.I.T.C.), March 20, 2020 – Order No.
`35: Initial Determination Granting Complainants’ Third
`Unopposed Motion for Partial Termination of the Investigation
`Without Prejudice [Motion Docket No. 1158-033]
`Excerpts from Telecommunications Engineer’s Reference Book,
`Fraidoon Mazda, Editor, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, 1993
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1027:
`
`Exhibit 1028:
`
`Exhibit 1029:
`Exhibit 1030:
`
`Exhibit 1031:
`Exhibit 1032:
`Exhibit 1033:
`
`Exhibit 1034:
`
`Exhibit 1035:
`Exhibit 1036:
`Exhibit 1037:
`Exhibit 1038:
`Exhibit 1039:
`Exhibit 1040:
`Exhibit 1041:
`Exhibit 1042:
`Exhibit 1043:
`
`Excerpts from Dictionary of Computing, Oxford University
`Press, Fourth Edition, 1996
`Excerpts from Switched, Fast, and Gigabit Ethernet, Robert
`Breyer and Sean Riley, Macmillan Technical Publishing, Third
`Edition, 1999
`Reserved
`Excerpts from Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, Telecom Books,
`Sixteenth Edition, 2000
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,021 (“Kokudo”)
`Reserved
`Excerpts from Internetworking With TCP/IP Vol I: Principles,
`Protocols, and Architecture, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Third Edition,
`1995
`Excerpts from Wireless LANs: Implementing Interoperable
`Networks, Jim Geier, Macmillan Technical Publishing, 1999
`(“Geier”)
`Reserved
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent No. 4,386,436 (“Kocher”)
` U.S. Patent No. 6,487,362 (“Yuen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,408,128 (“Abecassis”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,452,923 (“Gerszberg”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,990,927 (“Hendricks”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,031,380 (“Cheng”)
`Excerpts from The MPEG Handbook MPEG-1, MPEG-2,
`MPEG-4, John Watkinson, Focal Press, 2001
`(“Watkinson2001”)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1044:
`
`Exhibit 1045:
`Exhibit 1046:
`
`Exhibit. 1047
`
`
`
`Excerpts from In re Certain Digital Video Receivers,
`Broadband Gateways, and Related Hardware and Software
`Components, Investigation No. 337-TA-1158 (U.S.I.T.C.),
`Verified Complaint Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of
`1930, as Amended
`U.S. Patent No. 6,400,280 (“Osakabe”)
`Excerpts from FireWire® System Architecture: IEEE 1394a,
`Don Anderson, Addison-Wesley, Second Edition, 1999
`(“Anderson”)
`PCI System Architecture, Fourth Edition, Tom Shanley and
`Don Anderson, Addison-Wesley, 1999 (“Shanley”)
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`APPENDICES TO THE DECLARATION
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III
`
`Appendix A:
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`
`
`MY DECLARATION
`
`1.
`
`I, Dr. Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III, declare that I have personal
`
`knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called to testify as a
`
`witness, could and would do so competently.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`2.
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of the Petitioner,
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC (“Petitioner”).
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`I reside in Austin, Texas.
`
`I have been asked to provide testimony regarding multiplexing and
`
`systems for multiplexing of television channels in a multimedia system, as well as
`
`the relevant industry knowledge and practices in that field during the 2001 time-
`
`frame. I have also been asked to render opinions regarding certain matters pertaining
`
`to U.S. Patent No. 7,200,855 (“the ʼ855 patent”) and the unpatentability grounds set
`
`forth in the Petition associated with this proceeding.
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated for my work on this matter at my usual
`
`consulting rate of $695 per hour. My compensation is not dependent upon my
`
`opinions or testimony as set forth herein, or on the outcome of this matter.
`
`6.
`
`The facts set forth below are known to me personally and I have
`
`firsthand knowledge of them. I am a U.S. citizen over eighteen years of age. I am
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`fully competent to testify as to the matters addressed in this Declaration.
`
`II. MY PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`7.
`A detailed account of my work experience and qualifications, and a list
`
`of my publications, is included in my Curriculum Vitae which is attached as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`8.
`
`I believe that my extensive academic and industry experience, as well
`
`as my electrical and computer engineering background, qualify me as an expert in
`
`distributed multimedia computing systems, and particularly in the relevant field of
`
`in-home local area networking, I am also knowledgeable of the relevant skill set
`
`that would have been possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art (a
`
`“PHOSITA”) as of the date of the alleged invention of the ’855 patent which, I
`
`understand, was May 24, 2001, the filing date for that patent.
`
` My Education and Certifications
`9.
`I hold degrees from Mississippi State University (Bachelor of Science
`
`in Electrical Engineering with Honors, 1962), the University of Virginia (Master of
`
`Electrical Engineering, 1964), and the Georgia Institute of Technology (Ph.D. in
`
`Electrical Engineering, 1967).
`
`10.
`
`I have been a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Texas
`
`since 1969 (Reg. No. 28,728). I have been a Registered Patent Agent with the
`
`USPTO since 1999 (Reg. No. 45,041).
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
` My Experience
`11.
`I am currently self-employed as a consulting engineer to the industrial,
`
`educational, and legal communities, having previously taught and practiced
`
`electrical and computer engineering for more than fifty years.
`
`12.
`
`I taught electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer
`
`architecture, and computer science at the undergraduate and graduate levels full-time
`
`at Texas A&M University from 1967 to 1983 and part-time at the graduate level at
`
`the University of Texas from 1983 to 1991. My twenty-plus years of industrial
`
`experience include work at the Electric Power Research Institute, Texas Instruments,
`
`Control Data Corporation, NASA, Texas Digital Systems, Inc. (a company I co-
`
`founded to produce microprocessor-based computer peripherals in 1976), the
`
`Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (“MCC”), and Motorola,
`
`Inc.
`
`13.
`
`I have extensive experience with computer technology, including
`
`design and
`
`teaching experience with a variety of computer systems,
`
`microcomputer/microprocessor systems, and microcontrollers. I have participated
`
`in the design of several computer systems and microprocessors, and I have designed
`
`systems which made use of those devices as controllers. I am familiar with a variety
`
`of computer architectures, and I am an experienced programmer in a variety of
`
`programming languages as well as assembly-level language on a number of different
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`computers and microprocessors.
`
`14.
`
`I have more than a decade of experience with television transmission
`
`systems, television set-top boxes, and interactive electronic television program
`
`guides (“EPGs”), including the use of the blanking interval for transmitting data such
`
`as program descriptions, closed captions, and parental-control information as part of
`
`the broadcast television signal. I also have extensive hands-on experience with a
`
`variety of set-top boxes including the Scientific-Atlanta Explorer® 2000, 3000, and
`
`8600X set-top boxes (including visiting the Scientific-Atlanta R&D facilities to meet
`
`with their engineers regarding the design and deployment of those products), the
`
`Pioneer BD-V3000 set-top box, and the Cisco 8742HDC set-top box, and have
`
`studied other manufacturers’ set-top boxes and satellite receivers in the course of my
`
`consulting practice over the past ten years. I have also owned or rented several other
`
`set-top boxes and have owned a TiVo digital video recorder from its introduction in
`
`1999 through to 2005. I am also familiar with the AT&T U-verse system for delivery
`
`of television programming and an EPG.
`
`15.
`
`I have chaired and otherwise participated in a number of national and
`
`international IEEE and ISO/IEC standards committees. During my academic career,
`
`I authored thirty technical papers. I have also presented papers at thirty-seven
`
`conferences and authored an award-winning textbook, Fundamentals of Digital
`
`System Design, published by Prentice-Hall in 1973 and adopted at over thirty-five
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. and international universities during its lifetime. My textbook has been cited
`
`as a reference by the USPTO. I have also served as a technical reviewer for Prentice-
`
`Hall, the IEEE Transactions on Computers, and IEEE Spectrum.
`
`16.
`
`I was elected to serve on the IEEE Board of Directors for two terms
`
`representing the engineering education community and the IEEE Computer Society.
`
`I was also elected to two terms as the IEEE Treasurer and served one term on the
`
`Board of Governors of the IEEE Computer Society. I also represented the IEEE for
`
`five years on the Engineering Accreditation Commission and for six years on the
`
`Board of Directors of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
`
`(“ABET”).
`
`17. My experience and qualifications have been recognized by the Texas
`
`Society of Professional Engineers (Young Engineer of the Year in Texas, 1973), the
`
`American Society for Engineering Education (Terman Awardee as the “Outstanding
`
`Young Electrical Engineering Educator in the U.S.,” 1980), the Institute of Electrical
`
`and Electronics Engineers (IEEE Fellow, 1990, recognizing my contributions to
`
`“computer engineering and computer engineering education”), the Accreditation
`
`Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET Fellow, 1992), and the IEEE
`
`Computer Society (Golden Core Awardee, 1996).
`
`18.
`
`I retired from full-time work as of 1997. In addition to the work
`
`described above and in my Curriculum Vitae (Appendix A), I have worked part-time
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`as a consulting engineer for the past fifty years doing computer systems design,
`
`application-specific system design, and expert witness work in intellectual property
`
`litigation.
`
`19.
`
`I believe that my industrial experience (including experience with
`
`content delivery over cable systems, local area networks, and the Internet) and my
`
`educational background qualify me as an expert in the relevant field of distributed
`
`computing systems such as multimedia systems, including in-home local area
`
`networking. I am also knowledgeable of the relevant skill set that would have been
`
`possessed by a PHOSITA at as of the filing date of the ʼ855 patent (May 24, 2001)
`
`for the purposes of this proceeding.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`20.
`In connection with my study of this matter and reaching the opinions
`
`stated herein, I have reviewed the exhibits accompanying this Declaration as well as
`
`the following documents:
`
` (A) the ʼ855 patent;
`
`(B) the prosecution history of the ʼ855 patent; and,
`
`(C) the prior art and other materials identified in this Declaration.
`
`IV. MY OPINIONS
`21. Based on my study, knowledge, and experience, it is my opinion that
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`claims 1-63 of the ’855 patent are unpatentable because they are obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hicks in view of PCI (Ground 1) as I explain in Section IX.B
`
`below, and claims 1-17, 19-20, 38-39, and 54 of the ’855 patent are further
`
`unpatentable because they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hicks in view
`
`of PCI and Usui (Ground 2) as I also explain in that same section.
`
`22.
`
`It is also my opinion that claims 2, 5, 20-21, 29, 39, 42, and 53-63 are
`
`unpatentable as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Hicks in view of
`
`PCI and Grier (Ground 3) as I explain in Section IX.C below, and claims 2, 5, 20,
`
`39, and 54 are further unpatentable as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
`
`on Hicks in view of PCI, Usui, and Grier (Ground 4) as I also explain in that same
`
`section.
`
`23.
`
`It is also my opinion that claims 6-11, 13, 22-24, 26, 31-32, 34, 43-48,
`
`50, 57-60, and 62 are unpatentable as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
`
`on Hicks in view of PCI and Watkinson (Ground 5) as I explain in Section IX.D
`
`below, and claims 6-11, and 13 are further unpatentable as being obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Hicks in view of PCI, Usui, and Watkinson (Ground 6) as
`
`I also explain in that same section.
`
`24.
`
`It is also my opinion that the ’855 patent claims are unpatentable as
`
`being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) further based on the same grounds 1-6 as
`
`noted above with each of these grounds further combined with Osakabe.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`V. THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`25.
`I understand that my assessment of the patentability of the above-
`
`identified claims must be undertaken from the perspective of what would have been
`
`known or understood by a PHOSITA upon reading the ’855 patent as of its relevant
`
`priority date, and in light of the specification and file history of the ’855 patent.
`
`Although I am not an attorney, as an experienced expert witness and patent agent I
`
`have a general understanding of the applicable legal standards pertaining to the
`
`patentability issues addressed in this Declaration.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that in this inter partes review Petitioner has the burden of
`
`proving that each challenged claim is unpatentable by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence.
`
`27.
`
`I also understand that to be valid, a patent claim must be “novel,” and
`
`is invalid if “anticipated” by a single prior art reference. I further understand that a
`
`reference anticipates if it discloses each and every element as arranged in the claim,
`
`so as to enable a PHOSITA to make and use the claimed invention without undue
`
`experimentation.
`
`28.
`
`I also understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if, at the time of
`
`the alleged invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine the
`
`teachings of the prior art to yield the patent claim. I also understand that it is not
`
`required (although it is acceptable) that each element/limitation of a patent claim be
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`found in a single reference in order to find a patent claim obvious. For a patent claim
`
`to be found obvious, all the elements/limitations of the claim may be found in a
`
`combination of references at which a PHOSITA would have been reasonably
`
`expected to arrive. I also understand that a proper analysis of whether an invention
`
`is unpatentable for obviousness includes a review of the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, the differences between the patent claims at issue and the prior art, the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time of the invention, and other
`
`objective considerations identified below.
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that a showing of obviousness based on a combination
`
`of references requires some articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to
`
`support the combination of the references. I also understand that in consideration of
`
`the issue of obviousness it is important to identify whether a reason existed at the
`
`time of the invention that would have led a PHOSITA to combine elements of the
`
`references in a way that yields the claimed invention.
`
`30.
`
`I also understand that a patent claim may be considered unpatentable
`
`for obviousness for various reasons. I have been informed that the following
`
`exemplary rationales may support a finding of obviousness:
`
`(A)
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`(B)
`
`simply substituting one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results;
`
`(C) use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way;
`
`(D)
`
`applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
`(E)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success;
`
`(F)
`
`known work in a field that prompts variations in the work in the same or a
`
`different field that leads to predictable results; and
`
`(G)
`
`some teaching, suggesti