UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________________
`
`ROKU, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-1513
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF IMMANUEL FREEDMAN
`IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,334,311
`
`Roku EX1003
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW .............................................................. 8
`II.
`III. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ............................................................... 15
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................. 24
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘311 PATENT .......................................................... 26
`A.
`Specification: ....................................................................................... 26
`B.
`Challenged Claims: ............................................................................. 32
`C.
`Prosecution History: ............................................................................ 34
`a)
`First Office Action and Response ............................................. 34
`b)
`Second Office Action and Response ........................................ 35
`c)
`Third Office Action and Response ........................................... 36
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 36
`A.
`“External device icon”......................................................................... 36
`B.
`“Select” (including “selected” and “selectable”) ................................ 37
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 3-5, 7, 10-12, 14-16, 18, and 20-21 OF THE
`’311 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103
`OVER BROWN, OPTIONALLY IN VIEW OF BRAY .............................. 37
`A. Overview of Brown ............................................................................. 37
`B.
`Overview of Bray ................................................................................ 44
`C.
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 51
`a)
`1[p] “An image display device comprising:” ........................... 51
`b)
`1.1 “a display;” .......................................................................... 51
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`1.2 “a first external interface configured to receive a first
`image signal input from a first external device connected to
`the image display device;” ........................................................ 52
`1.3 “a second external interface configured to receive a
`second image signal input from a second external device
`connected to the image display device; and” ............................ 54
`1.4 “a controller coupled with the display, the first external
`interface and the second external interface, the controller
`configured to:” .......................................................................... 54
`1.5 “display a plurality of external device icons, on the
`display, wherein the plurality of external device icons
`include a first external device icon and a second external
`device icon, wherein a first default image corresponding to
`the first external interface is displayed on the first external
`device icon and a second default image corresponding to
`the second external interface is displayed on the second
`external device icon, and” ......................................................... 55
`1.6 “change the first default image to a first image based on
`the first image signal in response to the first external device
`icon being selected if the first external device is connected
`to the image display device, and” ............................................. 58
`(1) Obviousness over Brown alone ...................................... 58
`(2) Obviousness over Brown in view of Bray ...................... 62
`1.7 “change the first image to the first default image in
`response to the second external device icon being selected,” .. 66
`1.8 “wherein the first image is displayed at a position
`corresponding to an area where the first external device
`icon is displayed.” ..................................................................... 70
`Claim 2: ............................................................................................... 72
`
`g)
`
`h)
`
`i)
`
`D.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
`
`a)
`
`2. “The image display device according to claim 1, wherein
`the first image displayed on the display is simultaneously
`displayed with the plurality of external device icons while
`the first external device icon is selected.” ................................. 72
`Claim 3: ............................................................................................... 72
`a)
`3. "The image display device according to claim 1, wherein
`the controller is further configured to: highlight the first
`external device icon in response to the first external device
`icon being selected, and highlight the second external
`device icon in response to the second external device icon
`being selected." ......................................................................... 72
`Claim 4: ............................................................................................... 73
`a)
`4. “The image display device according to claim 1, wherein
`the first and second external device icons are selectable via
`a cursor positioned on the first and second external device
`icons, respectively.” .................................................................. 73
`Claim 5: ............................................................................................... 74
`a)
`5. “The image display device according to claim 4, wherein
`the cursor is controlled by a remote controller interfacing
`with the image display device.” ................................................ 74
`Claim 7: ............................................................................................... 74
`a)
`7. “The image display device according to claim 1, wherein
`the controller is further configured to:” .................................... 74
`(1)
`7.1 “change the second default image to a second
`image based on the second image signal in response to
`the second external device icon being selected if the
`second external device is connected to the image
`display device.” ............................................................... 74
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................ 75
`iii
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
`
`a)
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`8. "The image display device according to claim 1, wherein
`the controller is further configured to: transmit a control
`command for controlling the first external device to the first
`external device, and display an execution result of the
`control command on the display." ............................................ 75
`Claim 10: ............................................................................................. 77
`a)
`10. “The image display device according to claim 1,
`wherein the changed first image is an image which is
`currently displayed on the first external device.” ..................... 77
`Claim 11: ............................................................................................. 77
`a)
`11. “The image display device according to claim 1,
`wherein the controller is further configured to display the
`first default image although first external device icon is
`selected if the first external device is not connected to the
`image display device.” .............................................................. 77
`Independent claim 12 .......................................................................... 80
`a)
`12[p] “A method of an image display device, the method
`comprising:” .............................................................................. 80
`12.1 “receiving, by a first external interface, a first image
`signal input from a first external device connected to the
`image display device;” .............................................................. 80
`12.2 “receiving, by a second external interface, a second
`image signal input from a second external device connected
`to the image display device;” .................................................... 81
`12.3 “displaying a plurality of external device icons, on a
`display, wherein the plurality of external device icons
`include a first external device icon and a second external
`device icon, wherein a first default image corresponding to
`the first external interface is displayed on the first external
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`g)
`
`N.
`
`device icon and a second default image corresponding to
`the second external interface is displayed on the second
`external device icon;” ............................................................... 81
`12.4 “changing the first default image to a first image
`based on the first image signal in response to the first
`external device icon being selected if the first external
`device is connected to the image display device; and” ............. 81
`12.5 “changing the first image to the first default image in
`response to the second external device icon being selected,” .. 82
`12.6 “wherein the first image is displayed at a position
`corresponding to an area where the first external device
`icon is displayed.” ..................................................................... 82
`M. Claim 13: “The method according to claim 12, further
`comprising: highlighting the first external device icon in
`response to the first external device icon being selected; and
`highlighting the second external device icon in response to the
`second external device icon being selected.” ...................................... 82
`Claim 14: “The method according to claim 12, wherein the first
`image displayed on the display is simultaneously displayed
`with the plurality of external device icons while the first
`external device icon is selected.” ........................................................ 83
`Claim 15: “The method according to claim 12, wherein the first
`and second external device icons are selectable via a cursor
`positioned on the first and second external device icons,
`respectively.” ....................................................................................... 83
`Claim 16: “The method according to claim 15, wherein the
`cursor is controlled by a remote controller interfacing with the
`image display device.” ........................................................................ 83
`Claim 18: “The method according to claim 12, further
`comprising” ......................................................................................... 83
`
`O.
`
`P.
`
`Q.
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`18.1: “changing the second default image to a second image
`based on the second image signal in response to the second
`external device icon being selected if the second external
`device is connected to the image display device,” ................... 83
`18.2: “wherein the second image is displayed at a position
`corresponding to an area where the second external device
`icon is displayed.” ..................................................................... 84
`Claim 19: "The method according to claim 12, further
`comprising: transmitting a control command for controlling the
`first external device to the first external device; and displaying
`an execution result of the control command on the display." ............. 84
`Claim 20: “The method according to claim 12, wherein the
`changed first image is an image which is currently displayed on
`the first external device.” .................................................................... 85
`Claim 21: “The method according to claim 12, further
`comprising: displaying the first default image although first
`external device icon is selected if the first external device is not
`connected to the image display device.” ............................................. 85
`VIII. GROUND 2: ALL CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’311 PATENT
`ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103 OVER BROWN IN
`VIEW OF JUNG, AND OPTIONALLY IN FURTHER VIEW OF
`BRAY ............................................................................................................ 85
`A. Overview of Jung ................................................................................ 86
`B.
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 87
`a)
`Claim limitations 1.1-1.4 .......................................................... 87
`b)
`Claim limitations 1.6-1.8 .......................................................... 90
`Claim 2 ................................................................................................ 90
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................ 91
`vi
`
`C.
`D.
`
`R.
`
`S.
`
`T.
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`E.
`F.
`G.
`H.
`I.
`
`Claim 4 ................................................................................................ 91
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................ 91
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................ 91
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................ 92
`Claim 9: “The image display device according to claim 1,
`wherein the first default image is an image identifying the first
`external interface and the second default image is an image
`identifying the second external interface.” .......................................... 92
`Claim 10: “The image display device according to claim 1,
`wherein the changed first image is an image which is currently
`displayed on the first external device.” ............................................... 93
`Claim 11: “The image display device according to claim 1,
`wherein the controller is further configured to display the first
`default image although first external device icon is selected if
`the first external device is not connected to the image display
`device.” ................................................................................................ 93
`Claim 12 .............................................................................................. 94
`L.
`M. Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 94
`N.
`Claim 14 .............................................................................................. 94
`O.
`Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 94
`P.
`Claim 16 .............................................................................................. 94
`Q.
`Claim 18 .............................................................................................. 95
`R.
`Claim 19 .............................................................................................. 95
`S.
`Claim 20 .............................................................................................. 95
`T.
`Claim 21 .............................................................................................. 95
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
`
`IX. GROUND 3: ALL CHALLENGED CLAIMS OF THE ’311 PATENT
`ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103 OVER BROWN IN
`VIEW OF KINOSHITA, AND OPTIONALLY IN FURTHER VIEW
`OF BRAY ...................................................................................................... 95
`A. Overview of Kinoshita ........................................................................ 96
`B.
`Independent Claim 1 .........................................................................101
`a)
`Claim limitations 1.1-1.4 ........................................................101
`b)
`[1.5]: “display a plurality of external device icons, on the
`display, wherein the plurality of external device icons
`include a first external device icon and a second external
`device icon, wherein a first default image corresponding to
`the first external interface is displayed on the first external
`device icon and a second default image corresponding to
`the second external interface is displayed on the second
`external device icon, and .........................................................101
`Claim limitations 1.6-1.8 ........................................................104
`c)
`Claim 2 ..............................................................................................104
`Claim 3 ..............................................................................................104
`Claim 4 ..............................................................................................105
`Claim 5 ..............................................................................................105
`Claim 7 ..............................................................................................105
`Claim 8 ..............................................................................................106
`Claim 9: “The image display device according to claim 1,
`wherein the first default image is an image identifying the first
`external interface and the second default image is an image
`identifying the second external interface.” ........................................106
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`G.
`H.
`I.
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`Claim 10: “The image display device according to claim 1,
`wherein the changed first image is an image which is currently
`displayed on the first external device.” .............................................107
`Claim 11: “The image display device according to claim 1,
`wherein the controller is further configured to display the first
`default image although first external device icon is selected if
`the first external device is not connected to the image display
`device.” ..............................................................................................107
`Claims 12-16 and 18-21 ....................................................................108
`L.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................108
`
`ix
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311 (“the ’311 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311 (“Prosecution
`History”)
`
`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0201420 A1 (“Brown)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0106674 A1 (“Bray”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0158838 A1 (“Kinoshita”)
`
`European Patent Publication No. EP 2,259,576 A1 (“Jung”)
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`Hisense’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`LGE’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,681,141 B2 (“Tu”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,738,826 (“Stahl”)
`
`Statistics re Stays in the Central District of California of Cases
`Pending IPR
`
`Order Re Joint Stipulation To Extend Time (Dkt. 57) (April 16,
`2020)
`
`C.D. California General Order No. 20-09 (Aug 6, 2020)
`
`Invalidity Contentions
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,727,060 (“Young”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`1017
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`
`Exhibit No.
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,825,858 (“Sato”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,200,683. (“Wang”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0230360 (“Young”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0307615A1 (“Jalon”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0075983 (“Stecyk”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,065, 752
`
`ISO/IEC 14496
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`Bouilhaguet, F. et al. (2000), Proc. IEEE International
`Symposium on Circuits & Systems, May 28-31, 2000: Geneva
`CH
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0214152
`
`Kwon, B. et al. (2007), SHADOW: A Cross-Platform GUI
`Middleware for Home Devices. pp. 906-910
`
`Bjelica, M. Z. et al. (2009), Proc. Telsiks 2009, Oct 7-9, 2009:
`Niš RS. pp. 285-288
`
`Digital Video Broadcasting (2011). Globally Executable MGP
`Specification 1.3, Document A153, March 2011
`
`Gil, A. et al. (2002), Proc. IEEE R8 International Symposium on
`Video/Image Processing. & Multimedia Communications. Jun
`16-19, 2002: Zadar HR. pp. 447-451.
`
`ISO/IEC 13522-5
`
`SMPTE Declarative Data Essence (DDE)-1 standard ST
`397:2003
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`Description
`Nielsen, J. (2006). “Progressive Disclosure.” Nielsen Normal
`Group, Dec 3, 2006
`
`Kang, S. & Kim, W. (2007), “Minimalist and Intuitive User
`Interface Design Guidelines for Consumer Electronics Devices”,
`in Journal of Object Technology 6(3) Mar 2007. pp. 39-52
`
`Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines, Apple Computer Inc.,
`1992
`
`Microsoft Windows User Experience, Microsoft Press 1999
`
`Plaintiff’s Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims for U.S.
`Patent No. 10,334,311 [ECF No. 50]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`
`I, Immanuel Freedman, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
` My name is Immanuel Freedman.
`
`
`
` My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which
`
`is attached as an Appendix A to this Declaration. I have over 30 years of industry
`
`experience, including a substantial portion of which was spent working with image
`
`and video coding and developing models and simulations to analyze various video
`
`and imaging systems including graphical user interfaces. I have summarized in this
`
`section my educational background, career history, and other qualifications relevant
`
`to this matter. As set forth in my curriculum vitae:
`
`
`
`I earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from the University
`
`of Durham, England, in 1979. I obtained a Doctorate in Physics from the University
`
`of Durham, England in 1986. Between obtaining my undergraduate and doctoral
`
`degree, I developed a microcomputer system for detecting coalmine fires and
`
`heatings as a scientist for the National Coal Board and worked as a software engineer
`
`for Laser-Scan Ltd. in Cambridge, England.
`
`
`
`After obtaining my Doctorate, I served as a Research Assistant at
`
`University College London from September 1986 to June 1987, where I developed
`
`digital image processing algorithms to improve image and stereo-matching quality
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`for a digital terrain modeling system, including software and algorithms for affine
`
`transformation, edge filtering, kriging interpolation, and image stereo-matching with
`
`sub-pixel acuity. I continued my work with digital image processing as a Research
`
`Associate at the University of Maryland, from June 1987 to September 1988. During
`
`my time at the University of Maryland, I designed algorithms for filtering,
`
`segmenting, clustering, and path planning based on digital images organized by
`
`quad-tree data structures.
`
`
`
`From September 1988 to June 1994, I worked as a Senior Systems
`
`Engineer for the Hughes STX Corporation. As part of my work, I developed methods
`
`for comparison of sky maps from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) mission
`
`with sky maps from other missions based on scientific data stored in a spatially-
`
`referenced database using a quad-tree data structure. In this role, I led the Systems
`
`Engineering and end-to-end development of a novel system for compressing
`
`imaging and ancillary data that combined scientific modeling with statistical data
`
`compression. I was also charged with designing and developing evaluation tools to
`
`ensure user-transparent, system-wide compression of a 380-GB dynamic database at
`
`an image quality acceptable to end-user scientists. In public recognition of my work,
`
`I received National Aeronautics and Space Administration Group Achievement
`
`Awards in 1990 and 1992.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`After June 1994, I began a six-month stint as a contract Software
`
`
`
`Engineer for the Federal National Mortgage Association in Washington D.C., for
`
`which I developed a graphical user interface to monitor and validate loan servicer
`
`input for a Loss Mitigation Project. I then served as an Independent Consultant to
`
`Optivision, Inc. for the next six months, where I researched and developed rate
`
`control algorithms and software based on the MPEG-2 Test Model 5 for the
`
`OPTIVideoTM MPEG-2 video encoder, as well as adaptive quantization algorithms
`
`based on the then-JPEG-3 draft standard. In this role, I researched and developed
`
`algorithms to improve the quality of gray scale image compression for the medical
`
`imaging DICOM Standard by providing a lossless hybrid algorithm encoding image
`
`residuals with a diagonal Golomb code based an Enhanced Universal Trellis Coded
`
`Quantization algorithm.
`
`
`
`Between December 1995 and March 1996, I served as a Senior Staff
`
`Engineer/Firmware Engineer for General Instrument Inc., Comstream Inc., and
`
`Armor Safe Technologies Inc. At Comstream, I worked on integrating an MPEG-2
`
`set top box with OpenTV interactive television middleware programmed in the
`
`Microtec C language ported to a Motorola 68340 processor under the pSOS
`
`operating system. Among other things, I implemented native bindings of the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`(graphical user
`interface) and
`
`the On-Screen Display
`
`middleware
`
`for
`
`communications stack.
`
`
`
`From January 1996-97, I was the sole proprietor of Anugraha, where I
`
`researched and developed algorithms and processes to compress fine art
`
`photography at an image quality acceptable to artists based on the JPEG imaging
`
`standard implemented with image pre-processing and adaptive quantization. For the
`
`next year or so, I worked as an engineering contractor or consultant for various
`
`companies, working primarily on image processing systems and digital interactive
`
`television set-top boxes.
`
`
`
`In August 1998, I began an engagement with Stratagene evaluating
`
`frame grabber hardware for resolution and quality of imagery and specified
`
`algorithms including cluster analysis and trending, further developing a user
`
`interface for a digital image processing system supporting gene-cloning science.
`
`
`
`In October 1998, I began a six-month engagement with Rockwell
`
`Collins Inc., where I worked as a Lead Systems Engineer tasked with harmonizing
`
`requirements for an MPEG-2 in-flight entertainment system. I then worked for Sun
`
`Microsystems Inc. as a Software Engineer until November 1999. During my time at
`
`Sun Microsystems Inc., I developed a Distributed Component Object Model
`
`(DCOM) software interface between a TV control graphical user interface and a
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`Microsoft broadcast application programming interface (API) with the goal of
`
`improving the visual quality of interactive TV displays derived from UDP/IP
`
`datagrams synchronized with MPEG-2 audio/video packet data.
`
` For the next 22 months, from January 2000 to October 2002, I worked
`
`as the Chief Systems Engineer for Media Logic Systems Ltd. During my time at
`
`Media Logic Systems, I designed and developed a live interactive television system
`
`(iSeeTV) that served as a user interface for customer communication with human
`
`sales agents in video-enabled call centers. To create this system, I researched and
`
`developed tools and encoder systems to improve image quality at prescribed latency
`
`and bit rate for distributing live video and audio streams encoded via low latency
`
`methods. To perform the above, I was required to understand and implement video
`
`codec systems employing the MPEG-2 Simple Profile at Main Level (CATV),
`
`MPEG-4 Visual Profile with background sprite coding, and the H.263+ Standard
`
`(now known as H.264).
`
` Since November 2002, I have been an engineering contractor, and more
`
`recently an independent consultant in mathematical modeling, for several
`
`companies, such as Cyra Technologies Inc., Amgen Inc., and Merck & Co., Inc. I
`
`also served as a manager at GlaxoSmithKline Inc. During this time, I have developed
`
`mathematical models and simulations related to various systems, signals, and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`images. Specifically, I have focused on analyzing, processing, storing, and deriving
`
`information from biomedical imaging and other data. Using the information derived
`
`from these systems and data, I have created a variety of models related to biology
`
`and the effects of drugs on the human body. I have also provided requirements
`
`analysis and design for the iDose™ precision dosing system graphical user interface.
`
`In recognition of my work, I have received GlaxoSmithKline R&D Recognition
`
`Awards in 2012, 2013, and 2016.
`
`
`
`In addition to my over thirty years of relevant industry experience, I
`
`have authored many publications relating to video and imaging coding. In 2003, I
`
`authored a chapter entitled “Video Compression” for the Internet Encyclopedia. In
`
`2004 I authored the chapter entitled “Video” for the Berkshire Encyclopedia of
`
`Human-Computer Interaction. And in 2007 I authored a chapter titled “Video
`
`Compression” for the Handbook of Computer Networks.
`
`
`
`I am also a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (“IEEE”) and serve as the current Philadelphia Chapter Chair of the
`
`Communications & Information Theory Societies as well as the American
`
`Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Pharmaco-Imaging Community. I also
`
`served as the 2019 Vice Chair of the IEEE P2673 Intelligence Augmentation for
`
`Medical Imaging Standards Working Group. I also have been registered to practice
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Immanuel Freedman
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,334,311
`as a patent agent for the United States Patent and Trademark Office since 2002 (Reg.
`
`No. 51,704).
`
` Since 2017, I have also volunteered as a Research Scholar with the State
`
`University of New York at Buffalo. In this role, I have provided mentorship for
`
`doctoral candidates in areas relating to computer modeling and estimation.
`
`
`
`In view of the above and my curriculum vitae in Appendix A, I received
`
`a doctorate in physics and several years of work experience on technologies
`
`including image and video processing together with graphical user interfaces prior
`
`to the earliest priority dat