UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., NOKIA CORP. AND NOKIA OF AMERICA CORP.
`
`PETITIONERS,
`
`V.
`
`CORE OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`PATENT OWNER.
`____________
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,782,211
`
`“CROSS POLARIZATION INTERFACE CANCELER”
`
`____________
`
`IPR2020-01664
`
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF SYLVIA D. HALL-ELLIS, PH.D.
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 1
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., NOKIA CORP. AND NOKIA OF AMERICA CORP.
`
`PETITIONERS,
`
`V.
`
`CORE OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`PATENT OWNER.
`____________
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,782,211
`
`“CROSS POLARIZATION INTERFACE CANCELER”
`
`____________
`
`IPR2020-01664
`
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF SYLVIA D. HALL-ELLIS, PH.D.
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis. I am submitting this declaration on
`
`behalf of the petitioners – Juniper Networks, Inc., Nokia Corp., and Nokia of
`
`America Corp.
`
`2.
`
`I have written this declaration at the request of the petitioners to
`
`provide my expert opinion regarding the authenticity and public availability of
`
`several publications. My declaration sets forth my opinions in detail and provides
`
`the basis for my opinions regarding the public availability of these publications.
`
`Due to the current pandemic, I relied on librarian agents at the Linda Hall Library
`
`in Kansas City and the University of Wisconsin in Madison to send me copies of
`
`these publications. These individuals are professionals who supply documents to
`
`me when they are not available in libraries near my residence in Colorado.
`
`3.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement or amend my opinions, and bases for
`
`them, in response any additional evidence, testimony, discovery, argument, and/or
`
`other additional information that may be provided to me after the date of this
`
`declaration.
`
`4.
`
`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
`
`1
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`declaration, the substance of my opinions, or the outcome of this litigation. I have
`
`no other interests in this proceeding or with any of the parties.
`
`5.
`
`All of the materials that I considered are discussed explicitly in this
`
`declaration.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I am currently an Adjunct Professor in the School of Information at
`
`San José State University. I obtained a Master of Library Science from the
`
`University of North Texas in 1972 and a Ph.D. in Library Science from the
`
`University of Pittsburgh in 1985. Over the last forty-five 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 sciences since,
`
`holding numerous positions.
`
`7.
`
`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 founding 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
`
`2
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`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. Currently I serve as
`
`a Co-Chair for the Library Research Round Table of the American Library
`
`Association.
`
`8.
`
`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.
`
`9.
`
`I have been deposed thirteen times: (1) Symantec Corp. vs. Finjan,
`
`Inc., Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926, May
`
`26, 2016, on behalf of Symantec Corp.; (2) Symantec Corp. vs. Finjan, Inc.,
`
`14-cv-299-HSG (N.D. Cal.), on behalf of Symantec Corp., September 14,
`
`2017; (3) one deposition for ten matters: Intellectual Ventures I LLC vs. AT&T
`
`Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., SBC
`
`Internet Services, Inc., Wayport, Inc., and Cricket Wireless LLC, C.A. No. 12-193
`
`(LPS); Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. AT&T Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II
`
`LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., SBC Internet Services, Inc., Wayport,
`
`Inc., and Cricket Wireless LLC, C.A. No. 13-1631 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I
`
`LLC vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1632 (LPS);
`
`3
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc., C.A.
`
`No. 13-1633 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC, vs. Nextel Operations, Inc., Sprint
`
`Spectrum L.P., Boost Mobile, LLC and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., C.A. No. 13-1634
`
`(LPS); Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. Nextel Operations, Inc., Sprint Spectrum
`
`L.P., Boost Mobile, LLC and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., C.A. No. 13-1635 (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,
`
`C.A. No. 13-1637 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`
`AT&T Mobility II LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., C.A. No. 15-799
`
`(LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc.,
`
`C.A. 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., SBC Internet Services, Inc., Sprint Spectrum
`
`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-1121
`
`JRG-RSP (E.D. Texas), on behalf of Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co. LTD,
`
`et. al., January 20, 2016; (5) Sprint Spectrum, L.P. vs. General Access Solutions,
`
`Ltd., Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,173,916, on behalf of
`
`Sprint Spectrum L.P., July 13, 2018; (6) Nichia Corporation vs. Vizio, Inc., 8:16-
`
`4
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 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 U.S. 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; (11) Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC and Whatsapp Inc. vs.
`
`Blackberry Limited, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120
`
`B2, on behalf of Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC and Whatsapp Inc. December 20,
`
`2019; (12) 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Inc. vs. Align Technology, Inc., Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,156,661, IPR 2020-00222 and IPR
`
`2020-00223, August 10, 2020, on behalf of 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Inc.; and,
`
`(13) Finjan Inc. vs. Rapid7, Inc. and Rapid7 LLC, Northern District of Delaware;
`
`1:18-cv-01519-MN, September 15, 2020.
`
`10. My full curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Attachment 1.
`
`III. PRELIMINARIES
`
`11.
`
`Scope of this declaration. I am not an attorney and will not offer
`
`5
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`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 November 5, 1998.
`
`12.
`
`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.
`
`13. 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
`
`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 of a 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
`
`6
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`14.
`
`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. I also understand that the
`
`indicia on the face of a reference, such as printed dates and stamps, are considered
`
`as part of the totality of the evidence.
`
`15. Persons of ordinary skill in the art. I am told by counsel that the
`
`subject matter of this proceeding relates to optical communications systems.
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a “person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the inventions” is a hypothetical person who is 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.
`
`7
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`17.
`
`I am told by counsel that persons of ordinary skill in this subject
`
`matter or art would have had at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering or
`
`physics, or an equivalent field, and at least two years of professional or research
`
`experience in the field of optical communications systems.
`
`18.
`
`It is my opinion that such a person would have been engaged in
`
`research, learning, study, and practice in the field, and possibly formal instruction
`
`so that bibliographic resources relevant to his or her research would be familiar. In
`
`the 1980s and 1990s such a person would have had access to a vast array of long-
`
`established print resources in electrical engineering as well as to a rich set of online
`
`resources providing indexing information, abstracts, and full text services for
`
`computer science.
`
`IV. LIBRARY PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES
`
`19.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I used authoritative databases, such as
`
`the OCLC bibliographic database, the Library of Congress Online Catalog, and the
`
`Library of Congress Subject Authorities, to confirm citation details of the various
`
`publications 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 serial publication discussed below.
`
`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
`
`8
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`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. However,
`
`date information for indexing entries is often unavailable. This is especially true
`
`for online indices.
`
`21.
`
`Indexing services use a wide variety of controlled vocabularies to
`
`provide subject access and other means of discovering the content of documents.
`
`The Library of Congress Subject Authorities includes standard forms of terms and
`
`cross references that are included in bibliographic records. The formats in which
`
`these access terms are presented vary from service to service.
`
`22. Online
`
`indexing
`
`services
`
`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. Prominent indexing services
`
`include the ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, ResearchGate, Semantic Scholar,
`
`Google Scholar, and Scopus.
`
`9
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`23. Prominent indexing services include the following:
`
`a.
`
`ACM Digital Library.1 This index is produced by the Association for
`
`Computing Machinery (ACM), the world’s largest scientific and educational
`
`computing society. The ACM Digital Library contains the full text of all ACM
`
`publications, hosted full-text publications from selected publishers, and the ACM
`
`Guide to Computing Literature—a comprehensive bibliography of computing
`
`literature beginning in the 1950s with more than a million entries. All metadata in
`
`the database are freely available on the Web, including abstracts, linked references,
`
`citing work, and usage statistics. Full-text articles are available with subscription.
`
`b.
`
`IEEE Xplore. 2 This scholarly research database includes indexes,
`
`abstracts, and full-text for articles and papers on computer science, electrical
`
`engineering, and electronics. The database mainly covers material from the
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the Institution of
`
`Engineering and Technology. The IEEE Xplore digital library provides Web
`
`access to more than 5.1-million full-text documents from some of the world's most
`
`highly cited publications. The content comprises over 180 journals, over 1,400
`
`conference proceedings, more than 3,800 technical standards, over 1,800 eBooks
`
`and over 400 educational courses. Approximately 20,000 new documents are
`
`
`
`1 https://dl.acm.org/
`2 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/home.jsp
`
`10
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`added to IEEE Xplore each month. Abstracts are free to access, but access to full
`
`text requires a subscription or institutional login.
`
`c.
`
`ResearchGate.3 Designed to be a social networking site for scientists
`
`and researchers to share papers, ask and answer questions, and find collaborators,
`
`ResearchGate is the largest academic network in terms of active users, although
`
`other services have more registered users, and a 2015–2016 survey suggests that
`
`almost as many academics have Google Scholar profiles. Features available to
`
`ResearchGate members include following a research interest and the work of other
`
`individual participants, a blogging feature for users to write short reviews on peer-
`
`reviewed articles, private chat rooms for sharing data, editing documents, or
`
`discussing confidential topics, and a research-focused job board. ResearchGate
`
`indexes self-published information on user profiles and suggests members to
`
`connect with others who have similar interests. Member questions are fielded to
`
`others who have identified relevant expertise on their profiles.
`
`d.
`
`Semantic Scholar. 4 A project developed at the Allen Institute for
`
`Artificial Intelligence (AI) and publicly released in November 2015, Semantic
`
`Scholar is designed to be an AI-backed search engine for scientific journal articles
`
`which uses a combination of machine learning, natural language processing,
`
`
`
`3 www.researchgate.net
`4 www.semanticscholar.org
`
`11
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`and machine vision to add a layer of semantic analysis to the traditional methods
`
`of citation analysis, and to extract relevant figures, entities, and venues from
`
`papers. Semantic Scholar is designed to highlight important, influential papers, and
`
`to identify the connections between them. As of January 2018, following a 2017
`
`project that added biomedical papers and topic summaries, the Semantic Scholar
`
`corpus
`
`included more
`
`than
`
`40 million
`
`papers
`
`from computer
`
`science and biomedicine. In March 2018, Doug Raymond, who developed machine
`
`learning initiatives for the Amazon Alexa platform, was hired to lead the Semantic
`
`Scholar project. As of August 2019, the number of included papers had grown to
`
`more
`
`than 173 million after
`
`the addition of
`
`the Microsoft Academic
`
`Graph records, already used by Lens.org.
`
`e.
`
`Google Scholar.5 A freely accessible web search engine that indexes
`
`the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing
`
`formats and disciplines and released in beta in November 2004, the 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 the size of Google
`
`Scholar is not published, scientometric researchers estimated it to contain roughly
`
`389 million documents, making it the world's largest academic search engine in
`
`
`
`5 https://scholar.google.com
`
`12
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`January 2018. Because many 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 suggesting the relevance of each
`
`paper.
`
`f.
`
`Scopus. 6 Produced by Elsevier, a major publisher, Scopus is the
`
`largest database of abstracts and citations of peer-reviewed literature. Its scope
`
`includes the social sciences, science, technology, medicine, and the arts. It
`
`includes 60 million records from more than 21,500 titles from some 5,000
`
`international publishers. Coverage includes 360 trade publications, over 530 book
`
`series, more than 7.2 million conference papers, and 116,000 books. Records date
`
`from 1823. Researchers trust the information and data they discover with Scopus
`
`
`
`6 https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus
`
`13
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`because the content on Scopus comes from over 5,000 publishers that must be
`
`reviewed and selected by an independent Content Selection and Advisory Board
`
`(CSAB) to be, and continue to be, indexed on Scopus. Researchers may use Scopus
`
`to assist with their research, such as searching authors, and learning more about
`
`Scopus content coverage and source metrics.
`
`V. LIBRARY CATALOGING PRACTICES
`
`24.
`
`I am fully 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.7 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 each of its items. Today, MARC is the
`
`primary communications protocol for the transfer and storage of bibliographic
`
`metadata in libraries.8
`
`25. Since at least the early 1970s and continuing to the present day,
`
`
`
`7 The full text of the standard is available from the Library of Congress at
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ (last visited September 10, 2020).
`8 Almost every major library in the world is MARC-compatible. See, e.g., MARC
`Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), Library of Congress,
`https://www.loc.gov/marc/faq.html (last visited September 10, 2020) (“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 Z39.2-1994 (reaffirmed
`2016) standard for Information Interchange Format.
`
`14
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`MARC has been the primary communications protocol for the transfer and storage
`
`of bibliographic metadata in libraries.9 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 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.
`
`
`
`9 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
`(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015034388556;view=1up;seq=1; last
`visited September 10, 2020).
`
`15
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`Why Is a MARC Record Necessary? LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 10
`
`26. Thus, almost every major library in the world is MARC-compatible.
`
`See, e.g., MARC Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.11
`
`(“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 Z39.2-1994
`
`standard (reaffirmed in 2016) for Information Interchange Format. The full text of
`
`the standard is available from the Library of Congress.12
`
`27. 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. For example, a
`
`work’s title is recorded in field 245; the primary author of the work is transcribed
`
`in field 100; an item’s International Standard Book Number (“ISBN”) consisting of
`
`ten or thirteen digits is transcribed in field 020; an item’s International Standard
`
`Serial Number (“ISSN”) is transcribed in field 022; the Library of Congress
`
`classification notation is recorded in field 050; and, the publication date is recorded
`
`
`
`10 http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um01to06.html#part2.
`11 https://www.loc.gov/marc/faq.html.
`12 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/.
`
`16
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`in field 260 under the subfield “c.” 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, which is also referred to as the
`
`enumeration/chronology field.13
`
`28. The library that created the record is recorded in field 040 in subfield
`
`“a” with a unique library code. When viewing the MARC record online via Online
`
`Computer Library Center’s (“OCLC”) bibliographic database, hovering over this
`
`code with the mouse reveals the full name of the library. I used this method of
`
`“mousing over” the library codes in the OCLC database to identify the originating
`
`library for the MARC records discussed in this declaration. Where this “mouse
`
`over” option was not available, I consulted the Directory of OCLC Libraries in
`
`order to identify the institution that created the MARC record.14
`
`29. MARC records also include several fields that include subject matter
`
`classification information. An overview of MARC record fields is available
`
`through the Library of Congress.15 For example, 6XX fields are termed “Subject
`
`Access Fields.”16 Among these, for example, is the 650 field; this is the “Subject
`
`
`
`13 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd3xx.html.
`14 https://www.oclc.org/en/contacts/libraries.html.
`15 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/.
`16 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd6xx.html.
`
`17
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Added Entry – Topical Term” field.17 The 650 field is a “[s]ubject added entry in
`
`which the entry element is a topical term.” 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. Further, MARC records include call numbers,
`
`which themselves include a classification number. For example, the 050 field is
`
`the “Library of Congress Call Number.” 18 A defined portion of the Library of
`
`Congress Call (LCC) Number is the classification number, and “source of the
`
`classification number
`
`is Library of Congress Classification and
`
`the LC
`
`Classification-Additions and Changes.” Thus, included in the 050 field is a subject
`
`matter classification. Further, the 082 field is the “Dewey Decimal Call
`
`Number.”19 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. 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
`
`
`
`17 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd650.html.
`18 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd050.html.
`19 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd082.html.
`
`18
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`Congress assigns the LCC classification number, it appears as part of the 050 field.
`
`When the Library of Congress assigns the DDC classification number, it appears as
`
`part of the 082 field. If a local library assigns the classification number, it appears
`
`in a 090 field. In either scenario, the MARC record includes a classification
`
`number that represents a subject matter classification.
`
`30. 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 of 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
`
`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
`
`(http://www.worldcat.org/), used by
`
`independent and
`
`institutional
`
`libraries
`
`throughout the world.
`
`31. OCLC also provides its members online access to MARC records
`
`through its OCLC bibliographic database. When an OCLC member institution
`
`
`
`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).
`
`19
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`acquires a work, it creates a MARC record for this work 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 institution or is tape-loaded from the Library
`
`of Congress, the MARC record is then made available to any other OCLC
`
`members online, and therefore made available to the public. Accordingly, once the
`
`MARC record is created by a cataloger at an OCLC member institution or is tape-
`
`loaded from the Library of Congress or another library anywhere in the world, 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.
`
`32. When an OCLC member institution creates a new MARC record,
`
`OCLC automatically supplies the date of creation for that record. The date of
`
`creation for the MARC record appears in the fixed Field (008), characters 00
`
`through 05. The MARC record creation date reflects the date on which, or shortly
`
`after which, the item was first acquired or cataloged. Initially, Field 005 of the
`
`MARC record is automatically populated with the date the MARC record was
`
`20
`
`Juniper Ex. 1005, page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`created in year, month, day format (YYYYMMDD) (some of the newer library
`
`catalog systems also include hour, minute, second (HHMMSS)). 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
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
