`
`Title:
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 9,239,686
`Issued: January 19, 2016
`Filed: September 25, 2013
`
`Inventor: Sheng Tai Tsao
`
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR WIRELESS DEVICE ACCESS
`TO EXTERNAL STORAGE
`________________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01271
`________________________
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 9,239,686
`________________________
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, Cover
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`
`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 16, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Henry Houh
`
`
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. i
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`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 686 PATENT ........................................................................................ 14
`A.
`Effective Filing Date ........................................................................... 14
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 15
`C.
`Overview of 686 Patent ....................................................................... 15
`D.
`Prosecution History of 686 Patent ....................................................... 20
`E.
`Challenged Claims of the 686 Patent .................................................. 20
`F.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 24
`“cached” .................................................................................... 24
`1.
`“utilizing download information . . . ” ...................................... 28
`2.
`“folder structure” ....................................................................... 30
`3.
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 31
`A. McCown (EX1005) ............................................................................. 31
`B.
`Dutta (EX1006) ................................................................................... 36
`C.
`Coates (EX1007) ................................................................................. 38
`V.
`COMPARISON OF THE 686 PATENT TO THE PRIOR ART .................. 42
`A.
`The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable Over McCown in View of
`Dutta, or McCown in view of Dutta, in Further View of Coates ........ 42
`1.
`Claim 1 is Unpatentable ............................................................ 42
`a.
`Preamble ........................................................................................................ 42
`Plurality of Storage Spaces ............................................................................ 43
`b.
`Non-transitory Computer Readable Medium ................................................ 43
`c.
`Program Instructions .................................................................................. 44
`(i)
`(ii) Cause the Server Delivering the Storage Space ......................................... 47
`d.
`The Claimed Program Instructions ................................................................ 48
`(i)
`Exclusive Allocation .................................................................................. 50
`(ii) Establishing a Communication Link .......................................................... 57
`(iii) Presenting the Remote Storage Space ........................................................ 60
`(iv) Updating the Storage Space ....................................................................... 65
`In response to the user ............................................................................ 76
`(a)
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. iii
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`b.
`c.
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`(b)
`Performing the Operation ....................................................................... 81
`(v) The Wherein Clause ................................................................................... 82
`(a)
`Storing/Retrieving Data .......................................................................... 82
`(b) Downloading a File from a Remote Server the Internet ......................... 83
`(c) Utilizing Information .............................................................................. 84
`(d)
`In Response to the User .......................................................................... 95
`2.
`Claim 2 is Unpatentable ............................................................ 96
`Obtaining the Information ............................................................................. 96
`Transmitting the Information ......................................................................... 97
`Cause the Server to Download the File ....................................................... 102
`3.
`Claim 3 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 103
`4.
`Claim 4 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 103
`5.
`Claim 5 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 105
`6.
`Claim 6 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 110
`7.
`Claim 7 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 116
`8.
`Claim 8 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 121
`Claim 9 is Unpatentable .......................................................... 125
`9.
`10. Claim 10 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 134
`11. Claim 11 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 135
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. iv
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`12. Claim 12 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 144
`a.
`Preamble ...................................................................................................... 144
`b.
`Plurality of Storage Spaces .......................................................................... 145
`c.
`Non-transitory Computer-Readable Storage Medium ................................ 145
`Program Instructions ................................................................................ 146
`(i)
`(ii) Causes the Server to Deliver Storage Service .......................................... 148
`d.
`The Claimed Program Instructions .............................................................. 150
`(i)
`Exclusive Allocation ................................................................................ 152
`(ii) Establishing Communication Link ........................................................... 161
`(iii) Sending Information to the First Wireless Device ................................... 165
`(iv) Updating the Storage Space ..................................................................... 168
`(a)
`In response to the user .......................................................................... 178
`(b)
`Performing the Operation ..................................................................... 182
`(v) The Wherein Clause ................................................................................. 183
`(a) Creating a folder structure .................................................................... 183
`(b)
`Folder Structure Operations .................................................................. 189
`13. Claim 13 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 195
`(i) Download a File From a Remote Server .................................................. 195
`(ii) Utilizing Information ............................................................................... 197
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. v
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`(iii)
`In Response to the User ............................................................................ 202
`14. Claim 14 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 203
`a.
`Obtaining the Information ........................................................................... 203
`b.
`Transmitting the Information ....................................................................... 204
`c.
`Cause the Server to Download the File ....................................................... 209
`15. Claim 15 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 210
`16. Claim 16 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 215
`17. Claim 17 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 217
`18. Claim 18 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 222
`19. Claim 19 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 223
`20. Claim 20 is Unpatentable ........................................................ 232
`
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. vi
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`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. 9,239,686 (“the 686 Patent”) and on the patentability of claims 1-20 of
`the 686 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. 9,239,686
`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. 9,239,686
`(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. 9,239,686
`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. 9,239,686
`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 686 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. 9,239,686
`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 686 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 686 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. 9,239,686
`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. 9,239,686
`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. 9,239,686
`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. 9,239,686
`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. 9,239,686
`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. 9,239,686
`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. 9,239,686
`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. 1003, p. 13
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious. 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.
`III. THE 686 PATENT
`A.
`Effective Filing Date
`43.
`I understand that the 686 Patent issued from U.S. Application No.
`14/036,744, which was filed on September 25, 2013. EX1001, Face. The 744
`application was a continuation of U.S. Application No. 10/726,897, filed
`December 4, 2003, which later became U.S. Patent No. 8,606,880. Id.
`44.
`I understand that a “continuation” application is a patent application
`that is related to an earlier filed patent application and does not add to, change or
`delete information relative to what was in the previous application.
`45.
`I understand that a “continuation” application may not describe an
`invention that is not described in the earlier application, and that this may result in
`a patent claim being evaluated using the filing date of the continuation application,
`rather than the earlier related application.
`Petitioners Microsoft Corporation and HP Inc. – Ex. 1003, p. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,239,686
`46.
`I understand that Claims 1 and 12 of the 686 Patent are independent
`claims. The effective filing date of claims 1 and 12 of