`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`LBT IP I LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2020-01192
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,421,618
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF SCOTT ANDREWS
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................ 5
` LEGAL FRAMEWORK .......................................................................... 11
` ANALOGOUS ART .............................................................................. 11
` OBVIOUSNESS .................................................................................... 11
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ....................... 17
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................... 18
` OPINION REGARDING LEVEL OF SKILL OF A PERSON
`HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 19
` BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY ................................................... 20
` GPS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................ 21
` ACCELEROMETERS ............................................................................. 23
` DEAD RECKONING ............................................................................. 25
`
`COMMUNICATION WITH A MONITORING STATION ............................... 30
`
`RELIABILITY OF GPS SIGNALS ........................................................... 31
`
`POWER CONSUMPTION OF GPS RECEIVERS ........................................ 34
` OPINIONS REGARDING THE ’618 PATENT AND
`ANALOGOUS ART ................................................................................. 37
` OPINIONS REGARDING SAKAMOTO ...................................................... 37
` OPINIONS REGARDING LEVI ................................................................ 38
` OPINIONS REGARDING CERVINKA ....................................................... 40
` OPINIONS REGARDING VAGANOV ........................................................ 41
`OPINIONS REGARDING KRASNER ......................................................... 42
`
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ’618 PATENT ...... 43
` OPINIONS OF THE COMBINATION OF SAKAMOTO AND LEVI ................. 46
` Motivation to Combine Sakamoto and Levi ............................. 46
`Obviousness of Modifying Electronic Hardware and
`
`Software to Be Circuitry ......................................................... 54
`Sakamoto’s Multiple Embodiments and Motivation to
`Combine the Embodiments ...................................................... 57
`Physical Components Shared by Claim Elements ................... 60
`
` OPINIONS REGARDING GROUND 1: SAKAMOTO IN VIEW
`OF LEVI .................................................................................................... 61
` OVERVIEW OF GROUND 1, CLAIM 1 MAPPING ..................................... 61
`Overview of Sakamoto Combined with Levi ............................ 61
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
`The ’618 Patent’s claimed “transceiver circuitry” and
`“location tracking circuitry” .................................................. 63
`CLAIM 1 ............................................................................................ 66
`Claim 1[Preamble] ................................................................. 66
`
`Claim 1(a) ............................................................................... 70
`
`Claim 1(b) ............................................................................... 73
`
`Claim 1(c) ............................................................................... 76
`
`Claim 1(d) ............................................................................... 90
`
`CLAIM 3 ............................................................................................ 94
`CLAIM 9 ............................................................................................ 96
`CLAIM 10 .......................................................................................... 97
`CLAIM 11 .......................................................................................... 98
`CLAIM 14 .......................................................................................... 99
`CLAIM 15 ........................................................................................ 100
`Claim 15(Preamble) ............................................................. 100
`
`Claim 15(a) ........................................................................... 101
`
`Claim 15(b) ........................................................................... 101
`
`Claim 15(c) ........................................................................... 101
`
`Claim 15(d) ........................................................................... 101
`
`CLAIM 16 ........................................................................................ 101
`CLAIM 19 ........................................................................................ 102
`CLAIM 20 ........................................................................................ 102
`CLAIM 21 ........................................................................................ 102
` CLAIM 24 ........................................................................................ 102
` OPINIONS REGARDING GROUND 2: SAKAMOTO IN VIEW
`OF LEVI IN FURTHER VIEW OF VAGANOV ................................. 103
`
`CLAIM 4 .......................................................................................... 103
`
`CLAIM 5 .......................................................................................... 104
`
`CLAIM 6 .......................................................................................... 106
` OPINIONS REGARDING GROUND 3: SAKAMOTO IN VIEW
`OF LEVI IN FURTHER VIEW OF CERVINKA ................................ 106
`
`CLAIM 7 .......................................................................................... 106
`
`CLAIM 12 ........................................................................................ 108
`
`CLAIM 13 ........................................................................................ 110
`
`CLAIM 17 ........................................................................................ 111
`
`CLAIM 22 ........................................................................................ 112
`
`CLAIM 23 ........................................................................................ 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 3
`
`

`

`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
` OPINIONS REGARDING GROUND 4: SAKAMOTO IN VIEW
`OF LEVI IN FURTHER VIEW OF KRASNER .................................. 112
`
`CLAIM 2 .......................................................................................... 112
` OPINIONS REGARDING GROUND 5: SAKAMOTO IN VIEW
`OF LEVI IN FURTHER VIEW OF CERVINKA AND
`KRASNER............................................................................................... 114
`
`CLAIM 8 .......................................................................................... 114
`
`CLAIM 18 ........................................................................................ 116
` CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 117
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 4
`
`

`

`I, Scott Andrews, hereby declare the following:
`
`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1. My name is Scott Andrews, and I am over 21 years of age and otherwise
`
`competent to make this Declaration. I make this Declaration based on facts and
`
`matters within my own knowledge and on information provided to me by others,
`
`and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters set
`
`forth herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert witness in this matter by
`
`Counsel for the Petitioner, Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) to provide my independent
`
`opinions on certain issues requested by Counsel for Petitioner relating to the
`
`accompanying Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,618 (“the
`
`’618 Patent”). I am being compensated at an hourly rate of $450.00. My
`
`compensation in this matter is not based on the substance of my opinions or on the
`
`outcome of this matter. I have been informed that LBT IP I LLC is the purported
`
`owners of the ’618 Patent. I note that I have no financial interest in LBT IP I LLC
`
`or Petitioner, and I have no other interest in the outcome of this matter.
`
`3.
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, career
`
`history, and other qualifications relevant to this matter. I have also included a current
`
`version of my curriculum vitae, attached as Appendix B.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
`I have over 30 years of professional experience in the field of mobile
`
`4.
`
`devices and technologies and systems, including handheld communications and
`
`navigation devices, vehicle information systems and vehicle safety and control
`
`systems, and the sensor system that are used in these devices. Further, I have
`
`authored numerous published technical papers and am a named inventor on 15 U.S.
`
`and foreign patents.
`
`5.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from
`
`University of California, Irvine in 1977 and a Master of Science degree in Electronic
`
`Engineering from Stanford University in 1982.
`
`6.
`
`From 1977 to 1979, I worked at Ford Aerospace where I designed,
`
`tested and delivered microwave radar receiver systems.
`
`7.
`
`From 1979 to 1983, I worked at Teledyne Microwave, where I
`
`developed high reliability microwave components and developed CAD tools.
`
`8.
`
`From 1983 to 1996, I worked at TRW, Inc., having held various
`
`positions. From 1983 to 1985, I was a Member of the technical staff and a
`
`Department Manager in the Space Electronics sector. Between 1985 and 1990 I was
`
`a project manager working on various communications systems projects including
`
`the US DoD Advanced Research Projects Administration (ARPA) MIMIC Program.
`
`Between 1990 and 1993 I was the Manager of MMIC (monolithic-microwave-
`
`integrated-circuit) Products Organization. In this role, I developed business strategy
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
`and managed customer and R&D programs. During this time, I also developed the
`
`first single chip 94 GHz Radar, used for automotive cruise control and anti-collision
`
`systems. In 1993, I transferred to the TRW Automotive Electronics Group, and
`
`managed about 30 engineers in the Systems Engineering and Advanced Product
`
`Development organization. In this role, I managed advanced development programs
`
`such as automotive radar, adaptive cruise control, occupant sensing, automatic crash
`
`notification systems,
`
`in-vehicle
`
`information systems, and other emerging
`
`transportation products.
`
`9.
`
`During this time, I also worked with various types of accelerometers.
`
`For example, I developed a system that sampled the acceleration signal over time,
`
`and applied this time series of samples as inputs to a neural network. We then
`
`adjusted the weights of the neural network so that the system would correctly
`
`discriminate between crash events and the events, for airbag activation. We also used
`
`accelerometers to determine and control airbag deployment parameters and timing,
`
`and to provide information about the crash severity to first responders.
`
`10.
`
`I was employed as a Project General Manager in the Electronics
`
`Division of Toyota Motor Corporation at Toyota headquarters in Toyota City, Japan
`
`from April 1996 to around April 2000. In this position, I was responsible for leading
`
`the development of vehicle telematics systems, infotainment systems, including on-
`
`board and off-board navigation systems, mobile device integration systems, traffic
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
`information systems, vehicle communications systems, safety applications, and
`
`automated vehicle control systems. For example, while I was working at Toyota, I
`
`was awarded a Japanese patent related to determining the relative orientation of a
`
`user’s eyepiece (i.e. glasses) relative to their eye axis and a display screen in order
`
`to determine where on the screen the user was looking.
`
`11.
`
`I am currently a consultant for Cogenia Partners, LLC, focusing on
`
`systems engineering, business development and technical strategy supporting
`
`automotive and information technology. I have been in this position since 2001. In
`
`one of my active engagements, I served as the technical lead on a project funded by
`
`the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop
`
`requirements for connected vehicle safety systems in preparation for NHTSA
`
`regulations governing such systems. I also served as a technical consultant on
`
`multiple projects sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
`
`related to connected vehicle technology research.
`
`12.
`
`In the various positions mentioned above, I was responsible for research
`
`and development projects relating to numerous mobile information systems, user
`
`interface systems, sensory systems, control systems and safety systems, and also had
`
`the opportunity to collaborate with numerous researchers and suppliers to the auto
`
`industry. I therefore believe that I have a detailed understanding of the state of the
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
`art during the relevant period, as well as a sound basis for opining how persons of
`
`skill in the art at that time would have understood the technical issues in this case.
`
`13.
`
`I am being compensated for my time spent in connection with this case.
`
`I have no financial interest in the outcome of this case. The opinions provided in this
`
`report are my own and my compensation does not depend in any way on the
`
`substance of my opinions.
`
`14. As part of my work and in forming my opinions in connection with this
`
`proceeding, I have reviewed the following materials. For any prior art listed below,
`
`it is my opinion persons of ordinary skill in my field would reasonably rely upon
`
`such prior art in forming opinions regarding the subject matter of this proceeding:
`
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`
`•
`•
`
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,421,618;
`U.S. Patent No. 8,421,618 (Ex. 1001);
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,421,618 (Ex. 1002);
`JP 2004-37116 to Sakamoto (“Sakamoto”) (Ex. 1004);
`U.S. Patent App. No. 2003/0217070 to Gotoh et al. (“Gotoh”) (Ex.
`1005)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,583,776 to Levi et al. (“Levi”) (Ex. 1006);
`U.S. Patent App. No. 2006/0272413 to Vaganov et al. (“Vaganov”) (Ex.
`1008);
`U.S. Patent No. 7,053,823 to Cervinka et al. (“Cervinka”) (Ex. 1009);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,799,050 to Krasner (“Krasner”) (Ex. 1010;)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,902,347 to Backman et al. (“Backman”) (Ex.1013);
`U.S. Patent No. 7,106,189 to Burneske et al. (“Burnseske”) (Ex. 1014);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,308,134 to Croyle et al. (“Croyle”) (Ex. 1015);
`U.S. Patent No. 7,024,321 to Deninger et al. (“Deninger”) (Ex. 1016);
`U.S. Patent No. 7,196,661 to Harvey (“Harvey”) (Ex. 1017);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,257,195 to Hirata (“Hirata”) (Ex. 1018)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0167647A1 to Krumm et
`al. (“Krumm”) (Ex. 1019);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,173 to Lau et al. (“Lau”) (Ex. 1020);
`
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
`U.S. Patent No. 7,430,675 to Lee (“Lee”) (Ex. 1021);
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,804 to Lindquist (“Lindquist”) (Ex. 1022);
`U.S. Patent No. 7,760,137 to Martucci et al. (“Martucci”) (Ex. 1023);
`U.S. Patent No. 7,181,192 to Panasik et al. (Ex. 1024);
`U.S. Patent No. 7,126,536 to Rabinowitz et al. (Ex. 1025)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,797,214 to Taylor et al. (“Taylor”) (Ex. 1026);
`U.S. Patent No. 7,239,271 to Vyas et al. (“Vyas”) (Ex. 1027);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,850,844 to Walters et al. (“Walters”) (Ex. 1028);
`U.S. Patent No. 7,439,907 to Wang et al. (“Wang”) (Ex. 1029);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,491,486 to Welles, II et al. (“Welles”) (Ex. 1030);
`Analog Devices ADXL320 Data Sheet (“ADXL320”) (Ex. 1031)
`Vehicle Location and Navigation Systems, pp. 43-81 (“Zhao”) (Ex.
`1032);
`CV of Scott Andrews (Ex. 1035);
`LBT IP I LLC v. Apple Inc., 1:19-cv-01245, No. 1 (D. Del. July 1, 2019)
`(“LBT Complaint”) (Ex. 1036);
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/005243A1 to Horvitz et
`al. (“Horvitz”) (Ex. 1039);
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0005363A1 to Cucerzan
`et al. (“Cucerzan”) (Ex. 1040);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,067,046 to Nichols (“Nichols”) (Ex. 1041);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,522,266 to Soehren et al. (“Soehren”) (Ex. 1042);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,546,336 to Matsuoka et al. (“Matsuoka”) (Ex. 1043);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,657,587 to Mohan et al. (“Mohan”) (Ex. 1044);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,853,909 to Scherzinger et al. (“Scherzinger”) (Ex.
`1045);
`U.S. Patent No. 7,953,327 to Pereira et al. (“Pereira”) (Ex. 1046);
`U.S. Patent No. 7,970,412 to Pande et al. (“Pande”) (Ex. 1047);
`U.S. Patent No. 8,068,984 to Smith et al. (“Smith”) (Ex. 1048);
`International Patent Application Publication No. WO2007/101724 to
`Deurwaarder (“Deurwaarder”) (Ex. 1049);
`Resnick et al., Volume One Physics Fourth Edition, John Wiley &
`Sons, pp. 37-42 (1992) (“Physics”) (Ex. 1050);
`Any other materials I cite in support of this Declaration.
`
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`
`•
`•
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 10
`
`

`

` LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`15.
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However, I
`
`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
`
`have been informed about certain legal principles regarding patentability and related
`
`matters under United States patent law, which I have applied in performing my
`
`analysis and arriving at my technical opinions in this matter.
`
` ANALOGOUS ART
`16.
`I have been informed by counsel that for prior art to be used to establish
`
`the unpatentability of a patent based on obviousness, the prior art must be “analogous
`
`art” to the claimed invention. I have also been informed by counsel that a prior art
`
`reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the
`
`same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, even if it addresses a different
`
`problem; or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the
`
`invention, even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
`
` OBVIOUSNESS
`17.
`I have been informed that a person cannot obtain a patent on an
`
`invention if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). I have been informed
`
`that a conclusion of obviousness may be founded upon more than a single item of
`
`prior art. I have been further informed that obviousness is determined by evaluating
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
`the following factors: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claim at issue, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. In addition, the
`
`obviousness inquiry should not be done in hindsight. Instead, the obviousness
`
`inquiry should be done through the eyes of a POSITA at the time of the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`18.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent claim
`
`obvious, I have been informed that I can consider the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, including the fact that one of skill in the art would regularly look to the
`
`disclosures in patents, trade publications, journal articles, conference papers,
`
`industry standards, product
`
`literature and documentation,
`
`texts describing
`
`competitive technologies, requests for comment published by standard setting
`
`organizations, and materials from industry conferences, as examples. I have been
`
`informed that for a prior art reference to be proper for use in an obviousness analysis,
`
`the reference must be “analogous art” to the claimed invention. I have been informed
`
`that a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from
`
`the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different
`
`problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the
`
`inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In
`
`order for a reference to be “reasonably pertinent” to the problem, it must logically
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
`have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem. In
`
`determining whether a reference is reasonably pertinent, one should consider the
`
`problem faced by the inventor, as reflected either explicitly or implicitly, in the
`
`specification. I believe that all of the references I considered in forming my opinions
`
`in this IPR are well within the range of references a POSITA would have consulted
`
`to address the type of problems described in the ’618 Patent.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that, in order to establish that a claimed invention
`
`was obvious based on a combination of prior art elements, a clear articulation of the
`
`reason(s) why a claimed invention would have been obvious must be provided.
`
`Specifically, I am informed that, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s KSR decision, a
`
`combination of multiple items of prior art renders a patent claim obvious when there
`
`was an apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention,
`
`to combine the prior art, which can include, but is not limited to, any of the following
`
`rationales: (A) combining prior art methods according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (B) substituting one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; (C) using a known technique to improve a similar device in the
`
`same way; (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; (E) trying a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable potential solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F)
`
`identifying that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`(G) identifying an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`
`the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention. I am also informed that
`
`where there is a motivation to combine, claims may be rejected as prima facie
`
`obvious provided a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success
`
`regarding the proposed combination.
`
`20.
`
`I am informed that the existence of an explicit teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine known elements of the prior art is a sufficient, but not a
`
`necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness. This so-called “teaching-
`
`suggestion-motivation” test is not the exclusive test and is not to be applied rigidly
`
`in an obviousness analysis. In determining whether the subject matter of a patent
`
`claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`patentee controls. Instead, the important consideration is the objective reach of the
`
`claim. In other words, if the claim extends to what is obvious, then the claim is
`
`invalid. I am further informed that the obviousness analysis often necessitates
`
`consideration of the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands
`
`known to the technological community or present in the marketplace, and the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. All of
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
`these issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason
`
`to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent.
`
`21.
`
`I also am informed that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a precise
`
`teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim need not be
`
`sought out because it is appropriate to take account of the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a POSITA would employ. The prior art considered can be directed to any
`
`need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and can
`
`provide a reason for combining the elements of the prior art in the manner claimed.
`
`In other words, the prior art need not be directed towards solving the same specific
`
`problem as the problem addressed by the patent. Further, the individual prior art
`
`references themselves need not all be directed towards solving the same problem. I
`
`am informed that, under the KSR obviousness standard, common sense is important
`
`and should be considered. Common sense teaches that familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.
`
`22.
`
`I also am informed that the fact that a particular combination of prior
`
`art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious
`
`even if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it is
`
`likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. I am
`
`further informed that in many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
`techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather
`
`than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an invention. I am
`
`informed that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do more than yield
`
`predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`23.
`
`I am informed that for a patent claim to be obvious, the claim must be
`
`obvious to a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention. I am informed that the
`
`factors to consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include (1) the
`
`educational level and experience of people working in the field at the time the
`
`invention was made, (2) the types of problems faced in the art and the solutions
`
`found to those problems, and (3) the sophistication of the technology in the field.
`
`24.
`
`I am informed that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I am informed that a reference may
`
`be said to teach away when a POSITA, upon reading the reference, would be
`
`discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
`
`direction divergent from the path that was taken by the patent applicant. In general,
`
`a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from
`
`the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the
`
`patentee. I am informed that a reference teaches away, for example, if (1) the
`
`combination would produce a seemingly inoperative device, or (2) the references
`
`leave the impression that the product would not have the property sought by the
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
`patentee. I also am informed, however, that a reference does not teach away if it
`
`merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not
`
`criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.
`
`
`25.
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS
`
`I am informed that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an invention
`
`would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which include: (a)
`
`commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a
`
`long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of others to find the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention
`
`by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the
`
`invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of independent simultaneous invention
`
`within a comparatively short space of time; (h) teaching away from the invention in
`
`the prior art.
`
`26.
`
`I am further informed that secondary-considerations evidence is only
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art features.
`
`The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. While I understand that the Patent
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
`Owner here has not offered any secondary considerations at this time, I will
`
`supplement my opinions in the event that the Patent Owner raises secondary
`
`considerations during the course of this proceeding.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`27.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the first step in an unpatentability
`
`analysis involves construing the claims, as necessary, to determine their scope.
`
`Second, the construed claim language is then compared to the disclosures of the prior
`
`art. I am informed that claims are generally given their ordinary and custom meaning
`
`as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light
`
`of the patent specification.
`
`28. For purposes of this proceeding, I have applied the claim constructions
`
`set forth in the claim construction section of the Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,421,618 (the “Petition”) that this declaration accompanies when
`
`analyzing the prior art and the claims. For any claim terms not construed, I have
`
`applied the meaning of the claim terms of the ’618 Patent that are generally
`
`consistent with the terms’ ordinary and customary meaning, as a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood them at the time of the invention. I have been
`
`instructed to assume for purposes of this proceeding that the time of the invention is
`
`January 6, 2008.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01192
`Apple EX1003 Page 18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Scott Andrews
`Patent No. 8,421,618
` OPINION REGARDING LEVEL OF SKILL OF A PERSON HAVING
`ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`29.
`
`I was asked to provide my opinion as to the level of skill of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) of the ’618 Patent at the time of the
`
`claimed invention, which I have been instructed to assume is January 6, 2008. In
`
`determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art of
`
`the ’618 Patent at the time of the claimed invention, I was told to consider several
`
`factors, including the type of problems encountered in the art, the solutions to those
`
`problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made in the field, the
`
`sophistication of the technology, and the education level of active workers in the
`
`field. I also placed myself back in the time frame of the claimed invention and
`
`considered the colleagues with whom I had worked at that time.
`
`30.
`
`In my opinion, a person having ordinary skill in the art of the ’618
`
`Patent at the time of its filing would have been a person having, as of January 6,
`
`2008, a Bachelor’s degree in Ele