`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
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2020-00788
`________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VERNON THOMAS RHYNE, III
`
`
`
`Declaration in Support of Petition 2 of 3
`
`Ex. 1102
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` 
`
`
`MY DECLARATION ................................................................................................ 1 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MY PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ........... 2 
`A.  My Education and Certifications ........................................................... 2 
`B.  My Experience ...................................................................................... 3 
`III.  MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 7 
`IV.  MY OPINIONS ............................................................................................... 7 
`V. 
`THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................. 8 
`VI.  THE RELEVANT ART AND THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ....... 12 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 14 
`VIII.  THE STATE OF THE ART AND AN OVERVIEW OF THE ’855
`PATENT .................................................................................................................. 26 
`A.  Overview ............................................................................................. 26 
`B. 
`The ’855 Patent Prosecution History .................................................. 38 
`C. 
`The State of the Art ............................................................................. 48 
`i. 
`Multiplexing .............................................................................. 49 
`ii. 
`Time-Division Multiplexing / Frequency Division Multiplexing
` ................................................................................................... 49 
`iii.  Compression and MPEG ........................................................... 51 
`iv. 
`Encryption, Decryption, and Conditional Access Systems ...... 56 
`v. 
`User Control of Content ............................................................ 57 
`vi.  Additional Prior Art Known to a PHOSITA ............................ 59 
`U.S. Patent No. 6,493,873 (“Williams”) ........................ 59 
` 
`U.S. Patent No. 6,889,385 (“Rakib”) ............................. 64 
`U.S. Patent No. 5,933,192 (“Crosby”) ........................... 65 
`Don Anderson, FireWire System Architecture, Second
`Ed. (“Anderson”) ............................................................ 66 
`U.S. Patent No. 6,275,588 (“Videcrantz”) ..................... 66 
`John Watkinson, MPEG-2 (“Watkinson”) ..................... 67 
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,519 (“Hicks”) .............................. 69 
` 
`IX.  FACTS AND OPINIONS RELEVANT TO THE UNPATENTABILITY
`GROUNDS ASSERTED IN THE PETITION ........................................................ 70 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`i
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Summary of My Analysis of the Unpatentability of the ’855 Patent
` 
`Claims ............................................................................................................ 70 
`Claims 1-4 and 6-17 (Ground 1) ......................................................... 71 
` 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 (Ground 1) .............................................. 72 
`Element [1A] .................................................................. 72 
` 
`Element [1B] ................................................................... 78 
`Element [1C] ................................................................... 82 
`Element [1D] .................................................................. 91 
`Element [1E] ................................................................... 95 
`Element [1F] .................................................................107 
`Element [1G] ................................................................117 
`Element [1H] ................................................................117 
`Summary Opinion Regarding Claim 1 .........................119 
` 
`Dependent Claim 2 (Ground 1) ..............................................119 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 3 (Ground 1) ..............................................124 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 4 (Ground 1) ..............................................125 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 6 (Ground 1) ..............................................127 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 7 (Ground 1) ..............................................129 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 8 (Ground 1) ..............................................130 
`7. 
`Dependent Claim 9 (Ground 1) ..............................................137 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 10 (Ground 1) ............................................140 
`9. 
`10.  Dependent Claim 11 (Ground 1) ............................................146 
`11.  Dependent Claim 12 (Ground 1) ............................................148 
`12.  Dependent Claim 13 (Ground 1) ............................................149 
`13.  Dependent Claim 14 (Ground 1) ............................................152 
`14.  Dependent Claim 15 (Ground 1) ............................................153 
`15.  Dependent Claim 16 (Ground 1) ............................................155 
`16.  Dependent Claim 17 (Ground 1) ............................................157 
`Claims 18-20 and 22-27 (Grounds 1 and 2) ......................................158 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 18 (Ground 2) ..........................................159 
`Element [18A] ..............................................................159 
` 
`Element [18B] ...............................................................159 
`Element [18C] ...............................................................160 
`Element [18D] ..............................................................161 
`Element [18E] ...............................................................162 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`ii
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Element [18F] ...............................................................162 
`Summary Opinion Regarding Claim 18 .......................163 
` 
`Dependent Claim 19 (Ground 1) ............................................163 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 20 (Ground 1) ............................................166 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 22 (Ground 2) ............................................167 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 23 (Ground 2) ............................................168 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 24 (Ground 2) ............................................168 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 25 (Ground 2) ............................................169 
`7. 
`Dependent Claim 26 (Ground 2) ............................................170 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 27 (Ground 2) ............................................171 
`9. 
`Claims 28, 30-34, and 36 (Ground 2) ...............................................171 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 28 (Ground 2) ..........................................172 
`Element [28A] ..............................................................172 
` 
`Element [28B] ...............................................................173 
`Element [28C] ...............................................................174 
`Element [28D] ..............................................................175 
`Element [28E] ...............................................................176 
`Element [28F] ...............................................................177 
`Summary Opinion Regarding Claim 28 .......................180 
` 
`Dependent Claim 30 (Ground 2) ............................................180 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 31 (Ground 2) ............................................181 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 32 (Ground 2) ............................................183 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 33 (Ground 2) ............................................184 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 34 (Ground 2) ............................................186 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 36 (Ground 2) ............................................187 
`7. 
`Claims 37-41, 43-50, and 52 (Grounds 1 and 2) ...............................190 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 37 (Ground 2) ..........................................191 
`Element [37A] ..............................................................191 
` 
`Element [37B] ...............................................................191 
`Element [37C] ...............................................................193 
`Elements [37D] and [37E] ............................................193 
`Element [37F] ...............................................................194 
`Element [37G] ..............................................................195 
`Summary Opinion Regarding Claim 37 .......................195 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`iii
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Dependent Claim 38 (Ground 1) ............................................196 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 39 (Ground 1) ............................................199 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 40 (Ground 2) ............................................200 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 41 (Ground 2) ............................................201 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 43 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................202 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 44 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................203 
`7. 
`Dependent Claim 45 (Ground 2) ............................................204 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 46 (Ground 2) ............................................205 
`9. 
`10.  Dependent Claim 47 (Ground 2) ............................................206 
`11.  Dependent Claim 48 (Ground 2) ............................................207 
`12.  Dependent Claim 49 (Ground 2) ............................................208 
`13.  Dependent Claim 50 (Ground 2) ............................................210 
`14.  Dependent Claim 52 (Ground 2) ............................................211 
`Claims 53-55 and 57-62 (Grounds 1 and 2) ......................................212 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 53 (Ground 2) ..........................................212 
`Element [53A] ..............................................................212 
` 
`Element [53B] ...............................................................213 
`Element [53C] ...............................................................214 
`Element [53D] ..............................................................215 
`Element [53E] ...............................................................218 
`Element [53F] ...............................................................221 
`Element [53G] ..............................................................222 
`Summary Opinion Regarding Claim 53 .......................222 
` 
`Dependent Claim 54 (Ground 1) ............................................223 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 55 (Ground 2) ............................................225 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 57 (Ground 2) ............................................226 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 58 (Ground 2) ............................................227 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 59 (Ground 2) ............................................228 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 60 (Ground 2) ............................................229 
`7. 
`Dependent Claim 61 (Ground 2) ............................................230 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 62 (Ground 2) ............................................231 
`9. 
`Rakib in View of Crosby, Anderson, and Videcrantz (Ground 3), and
` 
`Rakib in View of Anderson and Videcrantz (Ground 4) .............................232 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 5 (Ground 3) ..............................................242 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 14 (Ground 3) ............................................243 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 21 (Ground 4) ............................................244 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 29 (Ground 4) ............................................245 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Dependent Claim 35 (Ground 4) ............................................247 
`5. 
`Dependent Claim 42 (Ground 4) ............................................248 
`6. 
`Dependent Claim 51 (Ground 4) ............................................249 
`7. 
`Dependent Claim 56 (Ground 4) ............................................250 
`8. 
`Dependent Claim 63 (Ground 4) ............................................251 
`9. 
`Rakib in View of Crosby, Anderson, and Watkinson (Ground 5), and
` 
`Rakib in View of Anderson and Watkinson (Ground 6) .............................252 
`1. 
`Dependent Claims 8-11 (Ground 5) ........................................252 
`2. 
`Dependent Claims 22-24, 31-32, 45-48, and 57-60 (Ground 6)
` .................................................................................................263 
`Rakib in View of Crosby, Anderson, and Hicks (Ground 7), and Rakib
` 
`in View of Anderson and Hicks (Ground 8) ...............................................265 
`1. 
`Dependent Claim 14 (Ground 7) ............................................265 
`2. 
`Dependent Claim 35 (Ground 8) ............................................269 
`3. 
`Dependent Claim 51 (Ground 8) ............................................271 
`4. 
`Dependent Claim 63 (Ground 8) ............................................272 
`X.  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...........................................................................274 
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1101:
`Exhibit 1102:
`Exhibit 1103:
`
`Exhibit 1104:
`
`Exhibit 1105:
`Exhibit 1106:
`Exhibit 1107:
`
`Exhibit 1108:
`
`Exhibit 1109:
`Exhibit 1110:
`Exhibit 1111:
`Exhibit 1112:
`Exhibit 1113:
`Exhibit 1114:
`
`Exhibit 1115:
`
`Exhibit 1116:
`
`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. Application 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. 6,889,385 (“Rakib”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,933,192 (“Crosby”)
`Excerpts from FireWire System Architecture, Don Anderson,
`Mindshare, Inc., Second Edition, 1999 (“Anderson”)
`Excerpts from PCI Local Bus Specification, Revision 2.2, PCI
`Special Interest Group, December 18, 1998
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent No. 7,162,145 (“Na”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,601,519 (“Hicks”)
`Reserved
`Declaration of Carrie Gardner
`Excerpts from Computer Networks, Andrew S. Tanenbaum,
`Prentice-Hall, Inc., Third Edition, 1996 (“Tanenbaum”)
`Excerpts from Communication Systems, Simon Haykin, John
`Wiley & Sons, Inc., Fourth Edition, 2001 (“Haykin”)
`Excerpts from MPEG-2, John Watkinson, Focal Press, 1999
`(“Watkinson”)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1117:
`
`Exhibit 1118:
`
`Exhibit 1119:
`Exhibit 1120:
`Exhibit 1121:
`Exhibit 1122:
`
`Exhibit 1123:
`
`Exhibit 1124:
`
`Exhibit 1125:
`
`Exhibit 1126:
`
`Exhibit 1127:
`
`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 Companies, Inc., First Edition, 2000 (“Bartlett”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,870,474 (“Wasilewski”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,493,873 (“Williams”)
`U.S. Published Application No. 2004/0172658 (“Rakib ʼ658”)
`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
`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
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1128:
`
`Exhibit 1129:
`Exhibit 1130:
`
`Exhibit 1131:
`Exhibit 1132:
`Exhibit 1133:
`
`Exhibit 1134:
`
`Exhibit 1135:
`Exhibit 1136:
`Exhibit 1137:
`Exhibit 1138:
`Exhibit 1139:
`Exhibit 1140:
`Exhibit 1141:
`Exhibit 1142:
`Exhibit 1143:
`
`
`
`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
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent No. 6,275,588 (“Videcrantz”)
`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”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,865,681 (“Nuutinen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,365 (“Bellovin”)
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent No. 6,487,362 (“Yuen”)
`Reserved
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent No. 5,990,927 (“Hendricks”)
`Reserved
`Excerpts from The MPEG Handbook, John Watkinson, Focal
`Press, 2001
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

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

`

`
`
`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
`
`fully competent to testify as to the matters addressed in this Declaration.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`A. 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
`
`

`

`
`
`B. 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
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`programming languages as well as assembly-level language on a number of different
`
`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, and with the satellite-based television
`
`delivery system of DIRECTV,1 including the program guide they provide.
`
`
`1 This is the proper name for the satellite-based television distribution company,
`
`but I note that the Rakib reference identifies it as “DirecTV.” When referring to
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`Rakib I have used that nomenclature.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`claims 1-63 of the ’855 patent are unpatentable because they would have been
`
`obvious to a PHOSITA under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`22. Grounds 1 and 2: It is my opinion that claims 1-4, 6-17 19-20, 38-39,
`
`43-44, and 54 are unpatentable because they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over Rakib in view of Crosby and Anderson (Ground 1). It is also my opinion that
`
`claims 18, 22-28, 30-34, 36-37, 40-41, 43-50, 52-53, 55, and 57-62 are unpatentable
`
`because they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rakib in view of Anderson
`
`(Ground 2).
`
`23. Grounds 3 and 4: It is my opinion that claims 5 and 14 are unpatentable
`
`because they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rakib in view of Crosby,
`
`Anderson, and Videcrantz (Ground 3). It is also my opinion that claims 21, 29, 35,
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`42, 51, 56, and 63 are unpatentable because they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) over Rakib in view of Anderson and Videcrantz (Ground 4).
`
`24. Grounds 5 and 6: It is my opinion that claims 8-11 are unpatentable
`
`because they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rakib in view of Crosby,
`
`Anderson, and Watkinson (Ground 5). It is also my opinion that claims 22-24, 31-
`
`32, 45-48, and 57-60 are unpatentable because they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) over Rakib in view of Anderson and Watkinson (Ground 6).
`
`25. Grounds 7 and 8: It is my opinion that claim 14 is unpatentable because
`
`it is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rakib in view of Crosby, Anderson, and
`
`Hicks (Ground 7). It is also my opinion that claims 35, 51, and 63 are unpatentable
`
`because they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rakib in view of Anderson
`
`and Hicks (Ground 8).
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`(RESERVED).
`
`(RESERVED).
`
`V.
`
`THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`28.
`
`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.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`29. 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.
`
`30.
`
`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.
`
`31.
`
`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.
`
`32.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`33.
`
`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.
`
`34.
`
`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;
`
`(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;
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`(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, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have
`
`led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a prior art reference or
`
`combine multiple prior art references or teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that various objective or “real world” factors may be
`
`indicative of non-obviousness. I understand that such factors include:
`
`(A)
`
`the commercial success of the claimed invention;
`
`(B)
`
`the existence of a long-felt, unresolved need for a solution to the problem
`
`solved by t