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.: IPR2020-00789
`________________
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VERNON THOMAS RHYNE, III
`
`
`Declaration in Support of Petition 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Comcast, Ex. 1202
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` 
`
`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 ............................................................................................... 7 
`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”) .......................................... 71 
`h. 
`U.S. Patent No. 5,677,905 (“Bigham”) ..................................... 71 
`
` 
`
`i
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,778,550 (“Blahut”) ....................................... 73 
`i. 
`U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0110245 (“Gruia”) .................................... 73 
`j. 
`U.S. Patent No. 6,182,094 (“Humpleman”) ............................. 74 
`k. 
`IX.  FACTS AND OPINIONS RELEVANT TO THE UNPATENTABILITY
`GROUNDS ASSERTED IN THE PETITION.............................................. 74 
`Summary of My Analysis of the Unpatentability of the ’855 Patent
`Claims ....................................................................................................... 74 
`Bigham in View of Blahut (Ground 1), and Bigham in View of Blahut
`and Usui (Ground 2) ................................................................................. 76 
`Claims 1-4 and 6-17 ............................................................................ 78 
`a. 
`Independent Claim 1 (Grounds 1 and 2) ................................... 78 
`Element [1A] ........................................................................ 78 
`i. 
`Element [1B] ........................................................................ 90 
`ii. 
`Element [1C] ........................................................................ 96 
`iii. 
`Element [1D] ......................................................................101 
`iv. 
`Element [1E] ......................................................................106 
`v. 
`Element [1F] ......................................................................124 
`vi. 
`vii.  Element [1G] ......................................................................151 
`viii.  Element [1H] ......................................................................155 
`ix. 
`Summary Opinion Regarding Claim 1 ..............................158 
`Dependent Claim 2 (Grounds 1 and 2) ...................................159 
`Dependent Claim 3 (Grounds 1 and 2) ...................................166 
`Dependent Claim 4 (Grounds 1 and 2) ...................................169 
`Dependent Claim 6 (Grounds 1 and 2) ...................................172 
`Dependent Claim 7 (Grounds 1 and 2) ...................................177 
`Dependent Claim 8 (Grounds 1 and 2) ...................................182 
`Dependent Claim 9 (Grounds 1 and 2) ...................................188 
`Dependent Claim 10 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................196 
`Dependent Claim 11 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................202 
`Dependent Claim 12 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................208 
`
`b. 
`c. 
`d. 
`e. 
`f. 
`g. 
`h. 
`i. 
`j. 
`k. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`Dependent Claim 13 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................212 
`l. 
`m.  Dependent Claim 14 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................214 
`n. 
`Dependent Claim 15 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................218 
`o. 
`Dependent Claim 16 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................222 
`p. 
`Dependent Claim 17 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................224 
`Claims 18-20 and 22-27 ....................................................................226 
`a. 
`Independent Claim 18 (Ground 1) ..........................................226 
`Element [18A] ....................................................................227 
`i. 
`Element [18B] ....................................................................227 
`ii. 
`Element [18C] ....................................................................228 
`iii. 
`Element [18D] ....................................................................230 
`iv. 
`Element [18E] ....................................................................230 
`v. 
`Element [18F] ....................................................................231 
`vi. 
`vii.  Summary Opinion Regarding Claim 18 ............................231 
`Dependent Claim 19 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................231 
`b. 
`Dependent Claim 20 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................233 
`c. 
`Dependent Claim 22 (Ground 1) ............................................234 
`d. 
`Dependent Claim 23 (Ground 1) ............................................234 
`e. 
`Dependent Claim 24 (Ground 1) ............................................235 
`f. 
`Dependent Claim 25 (Ground 1) ............................................235 
`g. 
`Dependent Claim 26 (Ground 1) ............................................236 
`h. 
`Dependent Claim 27 (Ground 1) ............................................236 
`i. 
`Claims 28 and 30-36 .........................................................................236 
`a. 
`Independent Claim 28 (Ground 1) ..........................................237 
`Element [28A] ....................................................................237 
`Element [28B] ....................................................................238 
`Element [28C] ....................................................................239 
`Element [28D] ....................................................................240 
`Element [28E] and [28F] ...................................................241 
`
`i. 
`ii. 
`iii. 
`iv. 
`v. 
`
`iii
`
`

`

` 
`
`vi. 
`
`Summary Opinion Regarding Claim 28 ............................244 
`Dependent Claim 30 (Ground 1) ............................................244 
`b. 
`Dependent Claim 31 (Ground 1) ............................................246 
`c. 
`Dependent Claim 32 (Ground 1) ............................................246 
`d. 
`Dependent Claim 33 (Ground 1) ............................................247 
`e. 
`Dependent Claim 34 (Ground 1) ............................................248 
`f. 
`Dependent Claim 35 (Ground 1) ............................................249 
`g. 
`Dependent Claim 36 (Ground 1) ............................................250 
`h. 
`Claims 37-41 and 43-52 ....................................................................251 
`a. 
`Independent Claim 37 (Ground 1) ..........................................252 
`Element [37A] ....................................................................252 
`i. 
`Element [37B] ....................................................................252 
`ii. 
`Element [37C] ....................................................................253 
`iii. 
`Element [37D] and [37E] ...................................................254 
`iv. 
`Element [37F] ....................................................................255 
`v. 
`Element [37G] ....................................................................255 
`vi. 
`vii.  Summary Opinion Regarding Claim 37 ............................256 
`Dependent Claim 38 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................256 
`b. 
`Dependent Claim 39 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................259 
`c. 
`Dependent Claim 40 (Ground 1) ............................................260 
`d. 
`Dependent Claim 41 (Ground 1) ............................................261 
`e. 
`Dependent Claim 43 (Ground 1) ............................................262 
`f. 
`Dependent Claim 44 (Ground 1) ............................................263 
`g. 
`Dependent Claim 45 (Ground 1) ............................................264 
`h. 
`Dependent Claim 46 (Ground 1) ............................................265 
`i. 
`Dependent Claim 47 (Ground 1) ............................................266 
`j. 
`Dependent Claim 48 (Ground 1) ............................................267 
`k. 
`Dependent Claim 49 (Ground 1) ............................................268 
`l. 
`m.  Dependent Claim 50 (Ground 1) ............................................269 
`
`iv
`
`

`

` 
`
`Dependent Claim 51 (Ground 1) ............................................270 
`n. 
`Dependent Claim 52 (Ground 1) ............................................271 
`o. 
`Claims 53-55 and 57-63 ....................................................................272 
`a. 
`Independent Claim 53 (Ground 1) ..........................................272 
`Element [53A] ....................................................................273 
`i. 
`Element [53B] ....................................................................273 
`ii. 
`Element [53C] ....................................................................274 
`iii. 
`Element [53D] ....................................................................275 
`iv. 
`Element [53E] ....................................................................277 
`v. 
`Element [53F] ....................................................................279 
`vi. 
`vii.  Element [53G] ....................................................................280 
`viii.  Summary Opinion Regarding Claim 53 ............................280 
`Dependent Claim 54 (Grounds 1 and 2) .................................281 
`b. 
`Dependent Claim 55 (Ground 1) ............................................282 
`c. 
`Dependent Claim 57 (Ground 1) ............................................283 
`d. 
`Dependent Claim 58 (Ground 1) ............................................284 
`e. 
`Dependent Claim 59 (Ground 1) ............................................285 
`f. 
`Dependent Claim 60 (Ground 1) ............................................287 
`g. 
`Dependent Claim 61 (Ground 1) ............................................288 
`h. 
`Dependent Claim 62 (Ground 1) ............................................289 
`i. 
`Dependent Claim 63 (Ground 1) ............................................290 
`j. 
`Bigham in View of Blahut, and Gruia (Ground 3), and Bigham in View
`of Blahut, Usui, and Gruia (Ground 4) ...................................................291 
`Dependent Claim 5 (Grounds 3 and 4) .............................................291 
`Dependent Claim 21 (Ground 3) .......................................................300 
`Dependent Claim 29 (Ground 3) .......................................................301 
`Dependent Claim 42 (Ground 3) .......................................................301 
`Dependent Claim 56 (Ground 3) .......................................................302 
` 
`  Grounds 5-8: Grounds 1-4 Further Combined with Humpleman ..........302 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`v
`
`

`

`Humpleman Combined with Grounds 1-4 ........................................302 
` 
`X.  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...........................................................................313 
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1201:
`Exhibit 1202:
`Exhibit 1203:
`
`Exhibit 1204:
`
`Exhibit 1205:
`Exhibit 1206:
`
`Exhibit 1207:
`Exhibit 1208:
`Exhibit 1209:
`Exhibit 1210:
`
`Exhibit 1211:
`
`Exhibit 1212:
`Exhibit 1213:
`Exhibit 1214:
`
`Exhibit 1215:
`
`Exhibit 1216:
`
`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. 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
`U.S. Patent No. 5,677,905 (“Bigham”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,778,550 (“Blahut”)
`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, Ph.D.
`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 1217:
`
`Exhibit 1218:
`
`Exhibit 1219:
`Exhibit 1220:
`Exhibit 1221:
`Exhibit 1222:
`
`Exhibit 1223:
`
`Exhibit 1224:
`
`Exhibit 1225:
`
`Exhibit 1226:
`
`Exhibit 1227:
`
`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”)
`U.S. Published Application No. 2002/0110245 (“Gruia”)
`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
`Reserved
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1228:
`
`Exhibit 1229:
`Exhibit 1230:
`
`Exhibit 1231:
`Exhibit 1232:
`Exhibit 1233:
`Exhibit 1234:
`
`Exhibit 1235:
`Exhibit 1236:
`Exhibit 1237:
`Exhibit 1238:
`Exhibit 1239:
`Exhibit 1240:
`Exhibit 1241:
`Exhibit 1242:
`Exhibit 1243:
`
`Exhibit 1244:
`
`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, Harry Newton,
`Telecom Books, Sixteenth Edition, 2000
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,021 (“Kokudo”)
`Reserved
`Reserved
`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”)
`Reserved
`Excerpts from The MPEG Handbook MPEG-1, MPEG-2,
`MPEG-4, John Watkinson, Focal Press, 2001
`(“Watkinson2001”)
`Excerpt of 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
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1245:
`Exhibit 1246:
`Exhibit 1247:
`
`Exhibit 1248:
`Exhibit 1249:
`Exhibit 1250:
`Exhibit 1251:
`Exhibit 1252:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,400,280 (“Osakabe”)
`Reserved
`Excerpts from PCI System Architecture, Fourth Edition, Tom
`Shanley and Don Anderson, Addison-Wesley, 1999
`(“Shanley”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,438,368 (“Phillips”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,457,681 (“Gaddis”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,946,313 (“Allan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,182,094 (“Humpleman”)
`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
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

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

`

`
`
`MY DECLARATION
`
`
`
`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
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of the Petitioner,
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC (“Petitioner”).
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`II. MY PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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
`
`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).
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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).
`
` My Experience
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`computers and microprocessors.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`I have chaired and otherwise participated in a number of national and
`
`international IEEE and ISO/IEC standards committees. During my academic career,
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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”).
`
` 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
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET Fellow, 1992), and the IEEE
`
`Computer Society (Golden Core Awardee, 1996).
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`(C) the prior art and other materials identified in this Declaration.
`
`IV. MY OPINIONS
` Based on my study, knowledge, and experience, it is my opinion that
`
`claims 1-4, 6-20, 22-28, 30-41, 43-55, and 57-63 of the ’855 patent are unpatentable
`
`because they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bigham in view of Blahut
`
`(Ground 1) as I explain in Section IX.B below, and claims 1-4, 6-17, 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 Bigham in view of Blahut and Usui (Ground 2) as I also
`
`explain in that same section. It is also my opinion that claims 1-4, 6-17, 19-20, 38-
`
`39, and 54 of the ’855 patent are unpatentable as being obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) further based on the same grounds 1-2 as noted above with each of these
`
`grounds further combined with Humpleman.
`
`
`
`It is also my opinion that claims 5, 21, 29, 42, and 56 are unpatentable
`
`as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Bigham in view of Blahut and
`
`Gruia (Ground 3) as I explain in Section 391 below, and claim 5 is further
`
`unpatentable as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Bigham in view
`
`of Blahut, Usui, and Gruia (Ground 4) as I also explain in that same section. It is
`
`also my opinion that claims 5, 21, 29, 42, and 56 of the ’855 patent are unpatentable
`
`as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the same grounds 3-4 as noted
`
`above with each of these grounds further combined with Humpleman.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`V. THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`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, 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.
`
`
`
`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 the claimed invention;
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`(C)
`
`failed attempts to solve the problem solved by the claimed invention;
`
`(D)
`
`copying of the claimed invention;
`
`(E)
`
`unexpected results of the claimed invention;
`
`(F)
`
`praise for the claimed invention by others in the relevant field; and
`
`(G) willingness of others to accept a license under the patent because of the
`
`merits of the claimed invention.
`
`VI. THE REL