UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT & BMW OF
`
`NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`
`V.
`
`PAICE LLC & The ABELL FOUNDATION, INC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent Case Review No.2 To Be Assigned
`US. Patent No. 8,630,761
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF SYLVIA HALL-ELLIS, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION
`
`BMW1055
`
`Page 1 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 1 of 142
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT & BMW OF
`
`NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`
`V.
`
`PAICE LLC & The ABELL FOUNDATION, INC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent Case Review No.2 To Be Assigned
`US. Patent No. 8,630,761
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF SYLVIA HALL-ELLIS, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION
`
`BMW1055
`
`Page 1 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 1 of 142
`
`
`
`I, Sylvia D. Hall—Ellis, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`My name is Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis. I have been retained as an expert by
`
`Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschafi and BMW of North America, LLC
`
`(“BMW”) who I am informed are the Petitioners to this inter partes review (IPR)
`
`proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I have written this declaration at the request of the Petitioners to
`
`provide my expert opinion regarding the authenticity and public availability of the
`
`publication identified in Section V below. My declaration sets forth my opinions in
`
`detail and provides the basis for my opinions regarding the authenticity and public
`
`availability of this publication. If called to testify in the above-captioned matter, I
`
`will testify with regard to the opinions and bases set forth below.
`
`3.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement or amend my opinions, and bases for
`
`them, in response to any additional evidence, testimony, discovery, argument,
`
`and/or other additional information that may be provided to me after the date of
`
`this declaration.
`
`4.
`
`As of the preparation and signing of this declaration, libraries across
`
`the nation are closed pursuant to an order of the federal and state governments due
`
`to the COVID-l9 virus. However, were the libraries open, I would expect to be
`
`able to obtain paper copies of the documents in this declaration. Additionally, it is
`
`_ 1
`
`..
`
`BMW1055
`Page 2 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 2 of 142
`
`
`
`my typical practice to obtain a paper copy of each publication to further confirm
`
`my opinions. I reserve the right to supplement my declaration when the libraries
`
`reopen to provide such information. Libraries are not fully open; therefore, getting
`
`materials remains a challenge. The book in this proceeding is available from the
`
`British Library — which is closed. The Governor of Colorado has issued a return to
`
`more restrictions, stay at home guidance, and required wearing of masks.
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated for my time spent working on this matter at
`
`my normal consulting rate of $300 per hour, plus reimbursement for any additional
`
`reasonable expenses. My compensation is not in any way tied to the content of this
`
`report, the substance of my opinions, or the outcome of this proceeding. I have no
`
`other interests in this proceeding or with any of the parties.
`
`6.
`
`All of the materials that I considered and relied upon are discussed
`
`explicitly in this declaration.
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`7.
`
`I am currently an Adjunct Professor in the School of Information at
`
`San José State University in San José, California. I obtained a Masters of Library
`
`Science from the University of North Texas in 1972 and a PhD. in Library Science
`
`from the University of Pittsburgh in 1985. Over the last fifty years, I have held
`
`various positions in the field of library and information resources. I was first
`
`employed as a librarian in 1966 and have been involved in the field of library
`
`_ 2 ..
`
`BMW1055
`
`Page 3 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 3 of 142
`
`
`
`sciences since, holding numerous positions.
`
`8.
`
`I am a member of the American Library Association (ALA) and its
`
`Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS) Division, and I
`
`served on the Committee on Cataloging: Resource and Description (which wrote
`
`the new cataloging rules) and as the chair of the Committee for Education and
`
`Training of Catalogers and the Competencies and Education for a Career in
`
`Cataloging Interest Group. I also served as the Chair of the ALCTS Division’s
`
`Task Force on Competencies and Education for a Career in Cataloging.
`
`Additionally, I have served as the Chair for the ALA Office of Diversity’s
`
`Committee on Diversity, as a member of the REFORMA National Board of
`
`Directors, and as a member of the Editorial Board for the ALCTS premier
`
`cataloging journal, Library Resources and Technical Services.
`
`9.
`
`I have also given over one hundred presentations in the field,
`
`including several on library cataloging systems and Machine-Readable Cataloging
`
`(“MARC”) standards. My current research interests include library cataloging
`
`systems, metadata, and organization of electronic resources.
`
`10.
`
`I have been deposed eleven times: (1) Symantec Corp. vs. Finjan,
`
`Ina, Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 7,613,926, May
`
`26, 2016, on behalf of Symantec Corp.; (2) Symantec Corp. vs. Finjcm, Ina,
`
`14—cv—299-HSG (ND. Cal.), on behalf of Symantec Corp., September 14,
`
`- 3 -
`
`BMW1055
`
`Page 4 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 4 of 142
`
`
`
`2017; (3) one deposition for ten matters: Intellectual Ventures I LLC vs. A T&T
`
`Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., SEC
`
`Internet Services, Inc., Wayport, Inc., and Cricket Wireless LLC, C.A. No. 12-193
`
`(LPS); Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. A T&TMobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II
`
`LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., SEC Internet Services, Inc., Wayport,
`
`Inc., and Cricket Wireless LLC, CA. No. 13-1631 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I
`
`LLC vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc, CA. No. 13-1632 (LPS);
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T~Mobile US, Inc, CA.
`
`No. 13—1633 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC, vs. Nextel Operations, Ina, Sprint
`
`Spectrum L.P., Boost Mobile, LLC and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., CA. No. 13-1634
`
`(LPS); Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. Nextel Operations, Ina, Sprint Spectrum
`
`L.P., Boost Mobile, LLC and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., CA. No. 13~l635 (LPS);
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC, vs. United States Cellular Corporation, C.A. No. 13-
`
`1636 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC vs. United States Cellular Corporation,
`
`CA. No. 13-1637 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures IILLC vs. AT&TM0bility LLC,
`
`AT&T Mobility II LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc, CA. No. 15-799
`
`(LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T—Mobile US, Inc,
`
`CA. No. 15-800 (LPS), on behalf of AT&T Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II
`
`LLC, Boost Mobile, LLC Cricket Wireless LLC, Nextel Operations, Inc., New
`
`Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., SEC Internet Services, Inc., Sprint Spectrum
`
`- 4 -
`
`BMW1055
`Page 5 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 5 of 142
`
`
`
`L.P., T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., United States Cellular Corporation
`
`Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., and Wayport, Inc., November 15, 2016; (4) Hitachi
`
`Maxell, LTD, v. Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co. Ltd, et al., 2:14-CV-l 121
`
`JRG-RSP (ED. Texas), on behalf of Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co. LTD,
`
`et. 61]., January 20, 2016; (5) Sprint Spectrum, LP. vs. General Access Solutions,
`
`Ltd., Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 7,173,916, on behalf of
`
`Sprint Spectrum L.P., July 13, 2018; (6) Nichia Corporation vs. Vizio, Inc., 8: 16-
`
`cv—00545; on behalf of Vizio, Inc., October 12, 2018; (7) Intellectual Ventures I
`
`LLC, vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., Ericsson Inc., and
`
`Telefonoktiebolaget LMEricsson, 2:17-cv-00557 (JRG), on behalf of T-Mobile
`
`USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., Ericsson Inc., and Telefonaktiebolaget LM
`
`Ericsson, October 19, 2018; (8) Pfizer, Inc. vs. Biogen, Inc., Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of US. Patent No. 8,821,873, on behalf of Pfizer, November 3,
`
`2018; (9) Finjan, Inc. vs. ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL. S.R.O., 3:17-cv-00183—
`
`CAB-BGS, on behalf of ESET, January 15, 2019; (10) Finjan, Inc. vs. Cisco
`
`Systems, Inc., 5:17-cv—00072-BLF-SVK, on behalf of Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`
`September 6, 2019; and, (11) Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC and Whatsapp Inc.
`
`vs. Blackberry Limited, Petition for Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No.
`
`9,349,120 B2, on behalf of Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC and Whatsapp Inc.
`
`December 20, 2019.
`
`- 5 -
`
`BMW1055
`
`Page 6 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 6 of 142
`
`
`
`1 I. My full curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Attachment 1.
`
`III.
`
`PRELIMINARIES
`
`A.
`
`Scepe of Declaration and Legal Standards
`
`12.
`
`I am not an attorney and will not offer opinions on the law. I am,
`
`however, rendering my expert opinion on the authenticity of the documents
`
`referenced herein and on when and how each of these documents was disseminated
`
`or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily
`
`skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, could have
`
`located the documents before the dates discussed below with respect to the specific
`
`documents.
`
`13.
`
`I am informed by counsel that a printed publication qualifies as
`
`publicly accessible as of the date it was disseminated or otherwise made available
`
`such that a person interested in and ordinarily skilled in the relevant subject matter
`
`could locate it through the exercise of ordinary diligence.
`
`14. While I understand that the determination of public accessibility under
`
`the foregoing standard rests on a case-by—case analysis of the facts particular to an
`
`individual publication, I also understand that a printed publication is rendered
`
`“publicly accessible” if it is cataloged and indexed by a library such that a person
`
`interested in the relevant subject matter could locate it (i.e., I understand that
`
`cataloging and indexing by a library is sufficient, though there are other ways that
`
`— 6 —
`
`BMW1055
`
`Page 7 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 7 of 142
`
`
`
`a printed publication may qualify as publicly accessible). One manner of sufficient
`
`indexing is indexing according to subject matter category. I understand that the
`
`cataloging and indexing by a single library of a single instance ofa particular
`
`printed publication is sufficient, even if the single library is in a foreign country. I
`
`understand that, even if access to a library is restricted, a printed publication that
`
`has been cataloged and indexed therein is publicly accessible so long as a
`
`presumption is raised that the portion of the public concerned with the relevant
`
`subject matter would know of the printed publication. I also understand that the
`
`cataloging and indexing of information that would guide a person interested in the
`
`relevant subject matter to the printed publication, such as the cataloging and
`
`indexing of an abstract for the printed publication, is sufficient to render the
`
`printed publication publicly accessible.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that routine business practices, such as general library
`
`cataloging and indexing practices, can be used to establish an approximate date on
`
`which a printed publication became publicly accessible.
`
`B.
`
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`16.
`
`I am told by counsel that the subject matter of this proceeding
`
`generally relates to relates to the control of hybrid vehicles.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a “person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention” (POSITA) is a hypothetical person who is
`
`- 7 -
`
`BMW1055
`Page 8 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 8 of 142
`
`
`
`presumed to be familiar with the relevant field and its literature at the time of the
`
`inventions. This hypothetical person is also a person of ordinary creativity, capable
`
`of understanding the scientific principles applicable to the pertinent field.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that a POSA in the art ot‘the ’761 patent would
`
`have either: (1) a graduate degree in mechanical, electrical or automotive
`
`engineering with at least some experience in the design and control of combustion
`
`engines, electric or hybrid electric vehicle propulsion systems, or design and
`
`control of automotive transmissions, or (2) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical,
`
`electrical or automotive engineering and at least five years of experience in the
`
`design of combustion engines, electric vehicle propulsion systems, or automotive
`
`transmissions. I have been further informed by counsel that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been familiar with and able to understand the
`
`information known in the art relating to these fields, including the publications
`
`discussed in this declaration.
`
`C.
`
`Use of Authoritative Databases
`
`19.
`
`In preparing this report, I used authoritative databases, such as the
`
`OCLC bibliographic database and the Library of Congress Online Catalog, to
`
`confirm citation details of the publication discussed. Unless I note otherwise below
`
`in reference to a specific serial publication, it is my expert opinion that this
`
`standard protocol was followed for the publications discussed in Section V below.
`
`- 8 -
`
`BMW1055
`Page 9 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 9 of 142
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Indexing. A researcher may discover material relevant to his or her
`
`topic in a variety of ways. One common means of discovery is to search for
`
`relevant information in an index of periodical and other publications. Having found
`
`relevant material, the researcher will then normally obtain it online, look for it in
`
`libraries, or purchase it from the publisher, a bookstore, a document delivery
`
`service, or other provider. Sometimes, the date of a document’s public accessibility
`
`will involve both indexing and library date information.
`
`21.
`
`Indexing services use a wide variety of controlled vocabularies to
`
`provide subject access and other means of discovering the content of documents.
`
`The formats in which these access terms are presented vary from service to service.
`
`22. Online indexing services and digital repositories commonly provide
`
`bibliographic information, abstracts, and full-text copies of the indexed
`
`publications, along with a list of the documents cited in the indexed publication.
`
`These services also often provide lists of publications that cite a given document.
`
`A citation of a document is evidence that the document was publicly available and
`
`in use by researchers no later than the publication date of the citing document.
`
`23.
`
`Google Scholar. Google Scholar] is a freely accessible web search
`
`engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array
`
`of publishing formats and disciplines. Released in beta in November 2004, the
`
`' https://scholar.google.com
`
`- 9 -
`
`BMW1055
`
`Page 10 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 10 of 142
`
`
`
`Google Scholar index includes a significant number of peer-reviewed
`
`online academic journals, books, conference papers, selected theses and
`
`dissertations, preprints, abstracts, technical reports, and other scholarly
`
`literature. While Google does not publish the size of Google Scholar's database,
`
`scientometric researchers estimated it to contain roughly 389 million documents
`
`including articles, citations and patents making it the world's largest academic
`
`search engine in January 2018.
`
`24.
`
`Because many of Google Scholar's search results link to commercial
`
`journal articles, searchers will be able to access only an abstract and the citation
`
`details of an article and may have to pay a fee to access the entire article. The most
`
`relevant results for the searched keywords will be listed first, in order of the
`
`author‘s ranking, the number of references that are linked to it and their relevance
`
`to other scholarly literature, and the ranking of the publication that the journal
`
`appears in. Through its "cited by” feature, Google Scholar provides access to
`
`abstracts of articles that have cited the article being viewed. Through its "Related
`
`articles" feature, Google Scholar presents a list of closely related articles, ranked
`
`primarily by how similar these articles are to the original result, but also taking into
`
`account the relevance of each paper.
`
`- 10 -
`
`BMW1055
`Page 11 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 11 of 142
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`LIBRARY CATALOGING PRACTICES
`
`A. MARC Records and OCLC
`
`25.
`
`I am fillly familiar with the library cataloging standard known as the
`
`MARC standard, which is an industry-wide standard method of storing and
`
`organizing library catalog information. MARC was first developed in the 1960’s
`
`by the Library of Congress. A MARC-compatible library is one that has a catalog
`
`consisting of individual MARC records for works made available at that library.
`
`26.
`
`Since at least the early 19705 and continuing to the present day,
`
`MARC has been the primary communications protocol for the transfer and storage
`
`of bibliographic metadata in libraries.2 As explained by the Library of Congress:
`
`You could devise your own method of organizing the bibliographic
`
`information, but you would be isolating your library, limiting its options,
`
`and creating much more work for yourself. Using the MARC standard
`
`prevents duplication of work and allows libraries to better share
`
`bibliographic resources. Choosing to use MARC enables libraries to acquire
`
`cataloging data that is predictable and reliable. If a library were to develop a
`
`“home-grown” system that did not use MARC records, it would not be
`
`2 A complete history of the development of MARC can be found in MARC: Its
`History and Implications by Henrietta D. Avram (Washington, DC: Library of
`Congress, 1975) and available online from the Hathi Trust
`(htt s://babel.hathitrust.or
`c i/ t?id=md .39015034388556'view=1u 'se =1; last
`
`
`visited May 20, 2020).
`
`- 11 -
`
`BMW1055
`Page 12 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 12 of 142
`
`
`
`taking advantage of an industry-Wide standard whose primary purpose is to
`
`foster communication of information.
`
`Using the MARC standard also enables libraries to make use of
`
`commercially available library automation systems to manage library
`
`operations. Many systems are available for libraries of all sizes and are
`
`designed to work with the MARC format. Systems are maintained and
`
`improved by the vendor so that libraries can benefit from the latest advances
`
`in computer technology. The MARC standard also allows libraries to replace
`
`one system with another with the assurance that their data will still be
`
`compatible.
`
`Why Is a MARC Record Necessary? LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.3
`
`27.
`
`Thus, almost every major library in the world is MARC-compatible.
`
`See, e.g., MARC Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), LIBRARY OF Corteasss.“
`
`(“MARC is the acronym for MAchine-Readable Cataloging. It defines a data
`
`format that emerged from a Library of Congress-led initiative that began nearly
`
`[fifty] years ago. It provides the mechanism by which computers exchange, use,
`
`and interpret bibliographic information, and its data elements make up the
`
`foundation of most library catalogs used today”). MARC is the ANSI/NISO
`
`3
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/umO1t006.html#part2
`4 httgs://www.loc.gov/marc/fag.html
`
`— 12 -
`
`BMW1055
`
`Page 13 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 13 of 142
`
`
`
`2392-1994 standard (reaffirmed in 2016) for Information Interchange Format. The
`
`full text of the standard is available from the Library of Congress.5
`
`28. A MARC record comprises several fields, each of which contains
`
`specific data about the work. Each field is identified by a standardized, unique,
`
`three-digit code corresponding to the type of data that follow.6 For example, a
`
`work’s title is recorded in field 245, the primary author of the work is recorded in
`
`field 100, a work’s International Standard Book Number (“ISBN”) is recorded in
`
`field 020, a work’s International Standard Serial Number (“ISSN”) is recorded in
`
`field 022, and the publication date is recorded in field 260 under the subfield “c.” 7
`
`In some MARC records, field 264 is used rather than field 260 to record
`
`publication information.8 Information in field 264 is similar to information in field
`
`260 (Publication, Distribution, etc. (Imprint)). Field 264 is useful for cases where
`
`the content standard or institutional policies make a distinction between functions.
`
`If a work is a periodical, then its publication frequency is recorded in field 310, and
`
`the publication dates (e.g., the first and last publication) are recorded in field 362,
`
`5 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/
`6 http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um07to1 0.html;
`http://wwaoc.gov/marc/bibliographic/
`7 http://WWWJOC.gov/marc/bibliographic/
`3 http://wwaoc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd264.html
`
`- 13 _
`
`BMW1055
`
`Page 14 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 14 of 142
`
`
`
`which is also referred to as the enumeration/chronology field.9' 1”
`
`29.
`
`The library that initially created the MARC record is reflected in field
`
`040 in subfield “a” with that library’s unique library code.ll Once a MARC record
`
`for a particular work is originally created by one library, other libraries can use that
`
`original MARC record to then create their own MARC records for their own
`
`copies of the same work. These other libraries may modify or add to the original
`
`MARC record as necessary to reflect data specific to their own copies of the work.
`
`However, the library that created the original MARC record would still be
`
`reflected in these modified MARC records (corresponding to other copies of the
`
`same work at other libraries) in field 040, subfield “a”. The modifying library (or
`
`libraries) is reflected in field 040, subfield “d.”'2
`
`30.
`
`I consulted the Directory of OCLC Libraries'3 in order to identify the
`
`9 http://www.10c.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd3xx.html
`‘0 Upwards of two-thirds to three-quarters of book sales to libraries come from a
`jobber or wholesaler for online and print resources. These resellers make it their
`business to provide books to their customers as fast as possible, ofien providing
`turnaround times of only a single day after publication. Libraries purchase a
`significant portion of the balance of their books directly from publishers
`themselves, which provide delivery on a similarly expedited schedule. In general,
`libraries make these purchases throughout the year as the books are published and
`shelve the books as soon thereafter as possible in order to make the books available
`to their patrons. Thus, books are generally available at libraries across the country
`within just a few days of publication.
`'
`' http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um07tol 0.html;
`http://wwaoc.gov/marc/bibliographic/
`'2 http://wwaoc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd040.html
`'3 http://www.oclc.orgjcontacts/libraries.en.html
`
`_ 14 _
`
`BMW1055
`
`Page 15 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 15 of 142
`
`
`
`institution that created or modified the MARC record. Moreover, when viewing the
`
`MARC record online via Online Computer Library Center’s (“OCLC”)
`
`bibliographic database, which I discuss further below, hovering over a library code
`
`in field 040 with the mouse reveals the filll name of the library. I also used this
`
`method of “mousing over” the library codes in the OCLC database to identify the
`
`originating and modifying libraries for the MARC records discussed in this report.
`
`31. MARC records also include one or more fields that show information
`
`regarding subject matter classification. For example, 6XX fields are termed
`
`“Subject Access Fields.”I4 Among these, for example, is the 650 field; this is the
`
`“Subject Added Entry — Topical Term” field.15 The 650 field is a “[s]ubject added
`
`entry in which the entry element is a topical term.” Id. These entries “are assigned
`
`to a bibliographic record to provide access according to generally accepted
`
`thesaurus-building rules (e.g., Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH),
`
`Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)).” Id.
`
`32.
`
`Further, MARC records can include call numbers, which themselves
`
`contain a classification number. For example, a MARC record may identify a 050
`
`field, which is the “Library of Congress Call Number.”[6 A defined portion of the
`
`Library of Congress Call Number is the classification number, and “source of the
`
`'4 http://wwaoc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd6xx.html
`'5 http://wwaoc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd650.html
`1" http://WWWJOC.gov/marc/bibliographic/deS0.html
`
`_ 15 _
`
`BMW1055
`
`Page 16 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 16 of 142
`
`
`
`classification number is Library of Congress Classification and the LC
`
`Classy‘ication-Ada’itions and Changes.” Id. Thus, the 050 field may be used to
`
`show information regarding subject matter classification. Further, the 082 field is
`
`the “Dewey Decimal Call Number?”7 A defined portion of the Dewey Decimal
`
`Call (DDC) Number is the classification number, and “source of the classification
`
`number is the Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index. Thus, included in
`
`the 082 field is a subject matter classification.
`
`33.
`
`Each item in a library has a single classification number. A library
`
`selects a classification scheme (e.g., the Library of Congress Classification scheme
`
`just described or a similar scheme such as the Dewey Decimal Classification
`
`scheme) and uses it consistently. When the Library of Congress assigns the
`
`classification number, it appears as part of the 050 field, as discussed above. For
`
`MARC records created by libraries other than the Library of Congress (e.g., a
`
`university library or a local public library), the classification number may appear in
`
`a 09X (e.g., 090) field.18
`
`34. When a MARC-compatible library acquires a work, it creates a
`
`MARC record for its copy of the work in its computer catalog system in the
`
`ordinary course of its business. This MARC record (for the copy of a work
`
`‘7 http://wwwloc.gov/rnarc/bibliographic/deSthml.
`‘8 http_://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd09x.html
`
`_ 16 _
`
`BMW1055
`
`Page 17 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 17 of 142
`
`
`
`available at the particular library) may be later accessed by researchers in a number
`
`of ways. For example, many libraries, including the Library of Congress, make
`
`their MARC records available through their website. As an example, the MARC
`
`record for the copy of The Unlikely Spy, by Daniel Silva,19 available at the Library
`
`of Congress can be viewed through the Library of Congress website, at
`
`https ://catalog. loc.gov/vwebv/staffV iew?searchld=20265&recPointer= l &recC ount
`
`=25&bibld=2579985 (last visited May 20, 2020). One could, of course, always
`
`physically visit the library at which the work is available, and request to see that
`
`library’s MARC record for the work. Moreover, members of the Online Computer
`
`Library Center (“OCLC”) can access the MARC records of other member
`
`institutions through OCLC’s online bibliographic database, as I explain further
`
`below.
`
`B.
`
`OCLC
`
`35.
`
`The OCLC was created “to establish, maintain, and operate a
`
`computerized library network and to promote the evolution of library use, of
`
`libraries themselves, and 0f librarianship, and to provide processes and products
`
`for the benefit of library users and libraries, including such objectives as increasing
`
`availability of library resources to individual library patrons and reducing the rate
`
`‘9 The Unlikely Spy is a 1996 novel written by Daniel Silva, who happens to be one
`of my favorite authors.
`
`- 17 -
`
`BMW1055
`Page 18 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 18 of 142
`
`
`
`of rise of library per-unit costs, all for the fundamental public purpose of furthering
`
`ease of access to and use of the ever-expanding body of worldwide scientific,
`
`literary, and educational knowledge and information.”20 Among other services,
`
`OCLC and its members are responsible for maintaining the WorldCat database,21
`
`used by independent and institutional libraries throughout the world. All libraries
`
`that are members of OCLC are MARC-compatible.22 OCLC-MARC records
`
`describes records produced since November 1993.23 Like the two superseded
`
`OCLC documents, this revised set of guidelines is intended to assist catalogers in
`
`creating records for electronic resources in WorldCat, the OCLC Online Union
`
`Catalog. These guidelines pertain to OCLC—MARC tagging (that is, content
`
`designation). Cataloging rules and manuals (such as AACRZ) govern the content
`
`of records. You should implement these guidelines immediately.
`
`36. When an OCLC member institution acquires a publication, like the
`
`other MARC-compatible libraries discussed above, it creates a MARC record for
`
`20 Third Article, Amended Articles of Incorporation of OCLC Online Computer
`Library Center, Incorporated (available at
`https ://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/membership/articles-—of—incorporation.pdf;
`last visited May 20, 2020).
`2‘ http://www.worldcat.org[
`22 https://help.oclc.0rg/Metadata Services/OCLC—MARC records/About OCLC—
`MARC records
`23
`
`https ://www.oclc.org/support!services/worldcat/documentation/catalo ging/electron
`icresources.en.html
`
`- 18 -
`
`BMW1055
`Page 19 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 19 of 142
`
`
`
`this publication in its computer catalog system in the ordinary course of its
`
`business. MARC records created at the Library of Congress are tape-loaded into
`
`the OCLC database through a subscription to MARC Distribution Services daily or
`
`weekly. Once the MARC record is created by a cataloger at an OCLC member
`
`library or is tape—loaded from the Library of Congress, the MARC record is then
`
`made available to any other OCLC members online, and thereby made available to
`
`the public. Accordingly, once the MARC record is created by a cataloger at an
`
`OCLC member library or is tape-loaded from the Library of Congress, any
`
`publication corresponding to the MARC record has been cataloged and indexed
`
`according to its subject matter such that a person interested in that subject matter
`
`could, with reasonable diligence, locate and access the publication through any
`
`library with access to the OCLC bibliographic database or through the Library of
`
`Congress.
`
`37. When a MARC-compatible library creates an original MARC record
`
`for a work, the library records the date of creation of that MARC record in field
`
`008, characters 00 through 05, in the ordinary course of its business.24 For OCLC
`
`member institutions that use OCLC software to create original MARC records, the
`
`date of creation in field 008 is automatically supplied by the OCLC software. The
`
`MARC record creation date in field 008 thus reflects the date on which, or shortly
`
`24
`
`http ://www. loc.gov/marc/bibliographicfdeOSahtml
`
`— 19 -
`
`BMW1055
`Page 20 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 20 of 142
`
`
`
`BMW1055
`Page 21 of 142
`
`
`
`into the 008 field of its own MARC record the date its own MARC record was
`
`created.27 But the library that created the original MARC record used by the
`
`subsequently-acquiring library would still be reflected in the MARC record of the
`
`subsequently-acquiring library in field 040, subfield “a”. Thus, the work identified
`
`by any MARC record possessed by any MARC-compatible library would have
`
`been accessible to the public at least as of the date shown in the 008 field, or
`
`shortly thereafter, either from the library that possesses the MARC record itself, or
`
`from the originating library indicated in field 040, subfield “a”. As discussed, a
`
`MARC-compatible library in the ordinary course of its business creates a MARC
`
`record in its own catalog system for a work when it acquires a copy of that work.
`
`39. Moreover, when a MARC record is created by a library for its own
`
`copy of a work, field 005 is automatically pOpulated with the date that MARC
`
`record was created in year, month, day format (YYYYMMDD).28 Thereafter, the
`
`library’s computer system may automatically update the date in field 005 every
`
`time the library updates the MARC record (e.g., to reflect that an item has been
`
`27 This practice is not required by, but is nevertheless consistent with, the MARC
`standard. Many MARC records exist today whose 008 fields indicate when the first
`original MARC record for a work was created, rather than when a derivative
`record was created based on the original MARC record by a subsequently-
`acquiring library for its own computer catalog system.
`28 http://wwaoc.gov/marc/bibliographic/deOS.html
`
`- 21 -
`
`BMW1055
`Page 22 of 142
`
`BMW1055
`Page 22 of 142
`
`
`
`moved to a different shelving location within the library). [61.29 Thus, the work
`
`identified by any MARC record possessed by any MARC-compatible library
`
`would have been accessible to the public at least as of the date shown in the 005
`
`field, or shortly thereafter, from the library that possesses the MARC record itself.
`
`As noted, because the 005 field may be updated each time the library updates its
`
`MARC record, the work identified by the MARC record may, in fact, have been
`
`accessible to the public from that library much earlier than the date indicated in the
`
`005 field.
`
`40.
`
`Based on my personal experience as a professional librarian using the
`
`MARC and OCLC resources, it has been my experience that both of these
`
`resources were continuously operational and available since at least 1992. Indeed,
`
`in the course of my work, I have extensively used both of these resources over the
`
`past 30+ years, and I have consistently found the information contained within
`
`these resources to be complete and reliable. I have never found the date of
`
`accessibility as indicated in fields 008, 005, or 955 to be incorrect. And in on
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
