UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.
`Petitioners,
`v.
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`Patent No. 9,219,780
`Issued: December 22, 2015
`Filed: February 16, 2015
`Inventor: Sheng Tai Tsao
`METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR WIRELESS DEVICE ACCESS TO
`EXTERNAL STORAGE
`________________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01270
`________________________
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 9,219,780
`________________________
`
`Title:
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, Cover
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and HP INC.
`Petitioners,
`v.
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`Patent No. 9,219,780
`Issued: December 22, 2015
`Filed: February 16, 2015
`Inventor: Sheng Tai Tsao
`METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR WIRELESS DEVICE ACCESS TO
`EXTERNAL STORAGE
`________________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01270
`________________________
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 9,219,780
`________________________
`
`Title:
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, Cover
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`I, Henry Houh, do hereby declare and state, that all statements made herein of my
`own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`or imprisonment, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`Executed on: July 20, 2019
`______________________
`
`Henry Houh
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. i
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Engagement ........................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................. 1
`Compensation and Prior Testimony ...................................................... 4
`C.
`D.
`Information Considered ......................................................................... 4
`II.
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY .......................................... 5
`A. Anticipation ........................................................................................... 7
`B.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 8
`III. THE 780 PATENT ........................................................................................ 14
`A.
`Effective Filing Date ........................................................................... 14
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 15
`C.
`Overview of 780 Patent ....................................................................... 16
`D.
`Prosecution History of 780 Patent ....................................................... 20
`E.
`Challenged Claims of the 780 Patent .................................................. 20
`F.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 27
`“cache storage . . .” ................................................................... 27
`1.
`“utilizing download information . . . ” ...................................... 31
`2.
`“folder structure” ....................................................................... 33
`3.
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`4.
`“a pool of a plurality of storage spaces” ................................... 34
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 35
`A. McCown (EX1005) ............................................................................. 35
`B.
`Dutta (EX1006) ................................................................................... 40
`Coates (EX1007) ................................................................................. 42
`C.
`V.
`COMPARISON OF THE 780 PATENT TO THE PRIOR ART .................. 46
`A.
`The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Over McCown in View of
`Dutta, or McCown in view of Dutta, in Further View of Coates ........ 46
`1.
`Claim 1 is Unpatentable ............................................................ 46
`a.
`Preamble ........................................................................................................ 46
`Cache Storage ................................................................................................ 47
`b.
`Non-transitory Computer Readable Medium ................................................ 54
`c.
`Program Instructions .................................................................................. 55
`(i)
`(ii) Cause the Wireless Device Remotely Access to the Storage Space .......... 57
`d.
`The Claimed Program Instructions ................................................................ 58
`(i)
`Establishing a Wireless Link ...................................................................... 60
`Storage Space Allocated Exclusively by a Storage Server to a User of
`(a)
`the Wireless Device ................................................................................ 62
`Presenting the Remote Storage Space ........................................................ 73
`(ii)
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. iii
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`b.
`c.
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`(iii) Coupling with the First Server ................................................................... 79
`(iv) The Wherein Clause ................................................................................... 84
`(a)
`Storing/Retrieving Data .......................................................................... 87
`(b) Downloading a File from a Remote Server the Internet ......................... 88
`(c) Utilizing Information .............................................................................. 91
`(d)
`In Response to the User ........................................................................ 100
`2.
`Claim 2 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 101
`3.
`Claim 3 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 102
`Obtaining the Information ........................................................................... 105
`Transmitting the Information ....................................................................... 106
`Cause the Server to Download the File ....................................................... 110
`4.
`Claim 4 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 111
`5.
`Claim 5 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 117
`6.
`Claim 6 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 122
`7.
`Claim 7 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 128
`8.
`Claim 8 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 128
`Claim 9 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 130
`9.
`Preamble ...................................................................................................... 130
`Pool of a Plurality of Storage Spaces .......................................................... 130
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. iv
`
`a.
`b.
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`c.
`Non-transitory Computer-Readable Storage Medium ................................ 131
`(i)
`Program Instructions ................................................................................ 132
`(ii) Causes the Server Delivering Storage Service ......................................... 134
`d.
`The Claimed Program Instructions .............................................................. 136
`(i)
`Exclusive Allocation ................................................................................ 138
`(ii) Establishing Communication Link ........................................................... 151
`(iii) Sending Information to the First Wireless Device ................................... 155
`(iv) Updating the Storage Space ..................................................................... 158
`(a)
`In response to the user .......................................................................... 169
`(b)
`Performed an Operation ........................................................................ 173
`(v) The Wherein Clause ................................................................................. 174
`(a)
`Storing Data/Retrieving Data................................................................ 175
`(b) Download a File from a Remote Server ............................................... 175
`(c) Utilizing Information ............................................................................ 177
`(d)
`In Response to the User from the Wireless Device .............................. 191
`10. Claim 10 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 191
`Obtaining the Information ........................................................................... 192
`Transmitting the Information ....................................................................... 193
`Cause the Server to Download the File ....................................................... 197
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. v
`
`a.
`b.
`c.
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`11. Claim 11 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 198
`12. Claim 12 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 204
`13. Claim 13 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 215
`14. Claim 14 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 216
`15. Claim 15 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 222
`16. Claim 16 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 224
`Preamble ...................................................................................................... 224
`a.
`At Least One Storage Server and One Wireless Device ............................. 225
`b.
`The First Wherein Clause ............................................................................ 226
`c.
`A Plurality of Storage Spaces, One of which Being Allocated ................ 226
`(i)
`(ii) Causes Presenting to the User ................................................................. 233
`(iii) Updates the Storage Space....................................................................... 234
`(a)
`In Response to the User ........................................................................ 242
`(b)
`Performed an Operation ........................................................................ 246
`d.
`The Second Wherein Clause ........................................................................ 248
`e.
`The Third Wherein Clause .......................................................................... 251
`Storing/Retrieving Data ........................................................................... 251
`(i)
`(ii) Download a File From a Remote Server .................................................. 252
`(iii) Utilizing Download Information .............................................................. 253
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. vi
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`(iv)
`In Response to the User ............................................................................ 259
`17. Claim 17 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 259
`a.
`Obtaining the Information ........................................................................... 260
`b.
`Transmitting the Information ....................................................................... 261
`c.
`Causing the Server to Download the File .................................................... 265
`18. Claim 18 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 266
`19. Claim 19 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 267
`20. Claim 20 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 279
`
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. vii
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`A.
`Engagement
`1.
`I, Henry Houh, make this declaration. All statements herein made of
`my own knowledge are true, and all statements herein made based on information
`and belief are believed to be true. I am over 21 and otherwise competent to make
`this declaration. Although I am being compensated for my time in preparing this
`declaration, the opinions herein are my own.
`2.
`I have been retained by counsel for Microsoft Corporation and HP
`Inc. as an expert witness in the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to
`provide my opinion about the state of the art of the technology described in U.S.
`Patent No. 9,219,780 (“the 780 Patent”) and on the patentability of claims 1-20 of
`the 780 Patent. The following is my written testimony on these topics.
`B.
`Background and Qualifications
`3.
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1998. I also received a Master
`of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1991, a
`Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in
`1990, and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Physics in 1989.
`As further indicated in my C.V., I have worked in the electrical
`4.
`engineering and computer science fields, including web site and web server
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`development, on several occasions. As part of my doctoral research at MIT from
`1991-1998, I worked as a research assistant in the Telemedia Network Systems
`(TNS) group at the Laboratory for Computer Science. The TNS group built a high
`speed gigabit network and applications which ran over the network, such as remote
`video capture, processing and display on computer terminals. In addition to
`helping design the core network components, designing and building the high
`speed links, and designing and writing the device drivers for the interface cards, I
`also set up the group’s web server, which at the time was one of the first several
`hundred web servers in existence.
`5.
`I authored or co-authored twelve papers and conference presentations
`on our group’s research. I also co-edited the final report of the gigabit networking
`research effort with the Professor (David Tennenhouse) and Senior Research
`Scientist of the group (David Clark), who is generally considered to be one of the
`fathers of the Internet Protocol.
`6.
`I started building web servers in 1993, having set up the web server
`for the MIT Telemedia, Networks, and Systems Group, to which I belonged. It
`was one of the first several hundred web servers in existence, and went on to
`provide what was likely one of the first live Internet video initiated from a web
`site. In 1994, I founded a company called Agora Technology Group which set up
`advertising-supported web sites service for college recruiting called HIRES
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`(Hypermedia Internet Recruitment and Employment Services). Agora also
`provided web consulting services to companies; Agora set up web sites for Bay
`Networks (later purchased by Nortel) and Data Communications Magazine, among
`others. 7.
`From 1997 to 1999, I was a Senior Scientist and Engineer at NBX
`Corporation, a start-up that made business telephone systems that streamed
`packetized audio over data networks instead of using traditional phone lines. NBX
`was later acquired by 3Com Corporation, and the phone system is still available
`and being used at tens of thousands of businesses or more. As part of my work at
`NBX, I designed the core audio reconstruction algorithms for the telephones, as
`well as the packet transmission algorithms. I also designed and validated the core
`packet transport protocol used by the phone system. The protocol is used millions
`of times daily currently. Two of the company founders and I received US Patent
`No. 6,697,963 titled “Telecommunication method for ensuring on-time delivery of
`packets containing time sensitive data,” for some of the work I did there.
`8.
`Starting in 2001, I was architect for the next generation of web testing
`product by Empirix known as e-Test Suite. e-Test Suite is now owned by Oracle
`Corporation. e-Test provided functional and load testing for web sites. e-Test
`emulated a user’s interaction with a web site and provided web developers with a
`method of creating various scripts and providing both functional testing (e.g., did
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`the web site provide the correct response) and load testing (e.g., could the web site
`handle 5000 users on its web site simultaneously). Among Empirix’s customers
`was H&R Block, who used e-Test Suite to test the tax filing functionality of their
`web site as whether the web site could handle a large expected load prior to the
`filing deadline.
`9.
`I have also continued to develop web sites for various business
`projects, as well as setting up web sites on a volunteer basis for various groups that
`I am associated with.
`10.
`I am the author of several publications devoted to a wide variety of
`technologies in the fields of electrical engineering and computer science. These
`publications are listed on my C.V. (EX1004).
`C.
`Compensation and Prior Testimony
`11.
`I am being compensated at a rate of $620 per hour for my study and
`testimony in this matter. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary
`expenses associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My
`compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my
`testimony. D.
`Information Considered
`12. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`my opinions, I have considered the materials I identify in this report and those
`listed in the Exhibit List at the end of this report.
`13.
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`to arguments raised by the Patent Owner. I may also consider additional
`documents and information in forming any necessary opinions, including
`documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`14. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This report
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`15.
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`claims of the 780 Patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that have
`been explained to me.
`16. First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be
`found patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what
`was known before the invention was made.
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`17.
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art” and
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`generally includes patents and printed publications (e.g., books, journal
`publications, articles on websites, product manuals, etc.).
`18.
`I understand that in this proceeding Microsoft has the burden of
`proving that the claims of the 780 Patent are anticipated by or obvious from the
`prior art by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a preponderance
`of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more likely true than it
`is not. 19. As I discuss further in the claim construction section below, I
`understand that the 780 Patent claims must be interpreted in accordance with the
`Phillips standard of claim construction, my understanding of which is set forth in
`greater detail below. The claims after being construed are then to be compared to
`the information in the prior art.
`20.
`I understand that in this proceeding, the prior art that may be
`evaluated as a basis for unpatentability are limited to patents and printed
`publications. My analysis below compares the claims to patents and printed
`publications that are prior art to the claims.
`21.
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the
`claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`person of ordinary skill in the art. My understanding of the two legal standards is
`set forth below.
`A. Anticipation
`22.
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`23.
`I have applied these standards in my evaluation of whether the claims
`of the patent would have been anticipated by the prior art.
`24.
`I understand that the “prior art” includes patents and printed
`publications that existed before the earliest filing date (the “effective filing date”)
`of the claim in the patent. I also understand that a patent will be prior art if it was
`filed before the invention date of the claimed invention, while a printed publication
`will be prior art if it was publicly available before that date or more than one year
`before the effective filing date.
`25.
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior
`art, each and every requirement of the claim must be found, expressly or
`inherently, in a single prior art reference as recited in the claim. I understand that
`claim limitations that are not expressly described in a prior art reference may still
`be there if they are “inherent” to the thing or process being described in the prior
`art. For example, an indication in a prior art reference that a particular process
`complies with a published standard would indicate that the process must inherently
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`perform certain steps or use certain data structures that are necessary to comply
`with the published standard.
`26.
`I understand that if a reference incorporates other documents by
`reference, the incorporating reference and the incorporated reference(s) should be
`treated as a single prior art reference for purposes of analyzing anticipation.
`27.
`I understand that it is acceptable to consider evidence other than the
`information in a particular prior art document to determine if a feature is
`necessarily present in or inherently described by that reference.
`B. Obviousness
`28.
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`the invention was made.
`29.
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`statute (35 U.S.C. § 103(a)) as follows:
`A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
`disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented 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 to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall
`not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`30.
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these standards in my
`evaluation of whether the asserted claims of the patent at issue here would have
`been considered obvious as of the relevant priority date. I have been asked to
`assume that the priority date for the claims at issue here is December 4, 2003.
`31.
`I understand that to find a claim in a patent obvious, one must
`consider certain factual questions regarding the claimed invention and the prior art.
`Specifically, I understand that the obviousness question requires consideration of
`four factors (although not necessarily in the following order):
`
`The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art;
`and
` Whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`obviousness may be present in any particular case.
`32.
`In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`done based on hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of
`ordinary skill in the relevant art as of the priority date of the patent claim.
`I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`33.
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 9
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by those in the field; the taking
`of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by experts and those
`skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee proceeded
`contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art. I also understand that any of this
`evidence must be specifically connected to the invention rather than being
`associated with the prior art or with marketing or other efforts to promote an
`invention. I am not presently aware of any evidence of “objective factors”
`suggesting the claimed methods are not obvious, and reserve my right to address
`any such evidence if it is identified in the future.
`34.
`I understand the combination of familiar elements according to known
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`I also understand that an example of a solution in one field of endeavor may make
`that solution obvious in another related field. I also understand that market
`demands or design considerations may prompt variations of a prior art system or
`process, either in the same field or a different one, and that these variations will
`ordinarily be considered obvious variations of what has been described in the prior
`art.
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`35.
`I also understand that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a
`predictable variation, that variation would have been considered obvious. I
`understand that for similar reasons, if a technique has been used to improve one
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`improve similar devices in the same way, using that technique to improve the other
`device would have been obvious unless its actual application yields unexpected
`results or challenges in implementation.
`36.
`I understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but
`instead can take account of the “ordinary innovation” and experimentation that
`does no more than yield predictable results, which are inferences and creative steps
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`37.
`I understand that sometimes it will be necessary to look to interrelated
`teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
`community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. I understand that all 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 at issue.
`I understand that the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
`38.
`formalistic conception of the words “teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” I
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 11
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`understand that in 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision in KSR Int'l Co. v.
`Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), where the Court rejected the previous
`requirement of a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine” known elements
`of prior art for purposes of an obviousness analysis as a precondition for finding
`obviousness. It is my understanding that KSR confirms that any motivation that
`would have been known to a person of skill in the art, including common sense, or
`derived from the nature of the problem to be solved, is sufficient to explain why
`references would have been combined.
`39.
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a
`problem will not be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the
`same problem. I understand that under the KSR standard, steps suggested by
`common sense are important and should be considered. Common sense teaches
`that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond the particular application being
`described in a reference, that if something can be done once it is obvious to do it
`multiple times, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the
`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. As such, the prior art
`considered can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor
`as of the effective filing date and can provide a reason for combining the elements
`of the prior art in the manner claimed. In other words, the prior art does not need
`to be directed towards solving the same problem that is addressed in the patent.
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780
`Further, the individual prior art references themselves need not all be directed
`towards solving the same problem.
`40.
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`variation or modification of the prior art may be considered non-obvious if one or
`more prior art references discourages or lead away from the line of inquiry
`disclosed in the reference(s). A reference does not “teach away” from an invention
`simply because the reference suggests that another embodiment of the invention is
`better or preferred. My understanding of the doctrine of teaching away requires a
`clear indication that the combination should not be attempted (e.g., because it
`would not work or explicit statements saying the combination should not be made).
`41.
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`creativity. 42.
`I further understand that in many fields, it may be that there is little
`discussion of obvious techniques or combination, and it often may be the case that
`market demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive design
`trends. When there is such a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of
`ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical
`grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
`innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
