IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`DECLARATION OF VIJAY K. MADISETTI, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2012
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Estech Systems, Inc.
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3
`
`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`
`I.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................. 4
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................................... 12
`
`A. Presumption of Validity ............................................................................. 12
`B. Anticipation ................................................................................................ 16
`
`C. Obviousness ............................................................................................... 18
`D. Secondary Considerations .......................................................................... 23
`
`E. Claim Construction .................................................................................... 24
`F. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................ 25
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’298Patent ............................................................................... 27
`
`A. The ‘298 Patent .......................................................................................... 27
`V. SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS REGARDING VALIDITY ............................ 35
`
`VI. DETAILED RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S AND DR. SOURI’S
`
`INVALIDITY OPINIONS .................................................................................................... 36
`
`A. The Petition Does Not Establish A Reasonable Likelihood That Claims 1-5
`and 7-12 Of The ’298 Patent Are Rendered Obvious By The Combination Of
`Ludwig And Reid ............................................................................................. 36
`
`1. Overview ............................................................................................. 36
`2. Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 38
`3. Claims 2-5 and 7 .................................................................................. 43
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`4. Claim 8 ................................................................................................ 44
`5. Claims 9-12 ......................................................................................... 44
`B. The Petition Does Not Establish A Reasonable Likelihood That Claims 1-5
`and 7-12 Of The ’298 Patent Are Rendered Obvious By The Combination Of
`Ludwig And Hori .............................................................................................. 44
`
`1. Overview ............................................................................................. 44
`2. Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 46
`3. Claims 2-5 and 7 .................................................................................. 49
`4. Claim 8 ................................................................................................ 49
`5. Claims 9-12 ......................................................................................... 49
`C. The Petition Does Not Establish A Reasonable Likelihood That Claims 1-5
`and 7-12 Of The ’298 Patent Are Rendered Obvious By The Combination Of
`Wilson, Guy, And Hori ..................................................................................... 50
`1. Overview ............................................................................................. 50
`2. Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 51
`3. Claims 2-5 and 7 .................................................................................. 52
`4. Claim 8 ................................................................................................ 52
`5. Claims 9-12 ......................................................................................... 53
`VII. .................................................................................................................... CONCLUSION
`
`53
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`I, Vijay K. Madisetti, do herby make the following declaration:
`
`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I am currently a fulltime professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at Georgia Tech in Atlanta, Georgia.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by retained Williams, Simons, & Landis, PLLC
`
`(hereinafter “WSL”), to provide various opinions regarding U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,391,298 (“the ‘298 patent”) (Ex. 1001). I understand that my declaration is being
`
`submitted in connection with a Patent Owner Preliminary Response in an inter
`
`partes review of the ‘298 patent. Unless otherwise noted, the statements made herein
`
`are based on my personal knowledge and, if called to testify with regards to this
`
`declaration, I could and would do so competently and truthfully.
`
`3. My analysis and basis for my opinions are set forth below. I reserve
`
`the right to supplement or amend my analysis, conclusions, and any opinions I make
`
`in this declaration in response to opinions expressed by Petitioner’s witnesses, or in
`
`light of any additional evidence, testimony, discovery, or other information that may
`
`be provided to me after the date of this declaration.
`
`4.
`
`I have been retained in this matter by WSL as a technical expert in the
`
`field of electronics and electrical communications engineering. I am being
`
`compensated for my work in this matter at my usual and customary rate. I am also
`
`being reimbursed for all reasonable expenses that I incur during the course of this
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`work. My compensation does not depend upon the results of my analysis or the
`
`substance of my testimony. Nor does my compensation depend on the outcome of
`
`this inter partes review or any related proceeding, and it is not based on the result of
`
`any issue in this inter partes review. I have no personal interest in the outcome of
`
`this inter partes review.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`Provided below is a summary of my educational background, career
`
`history, and publications. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A to this
`
`declaration.
`
`6.
`
`In 1984, I received a Bachelor of Technology in Electronics and
`
`Electrical Communications Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology
`
`(IIT). In 1989, I received my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences
`
`(EECS) from the University of California, Berkeley. That year, I also received the
`
`Demetri Angelakos Outstanding Graduate Student Award from the University of
`
`California, Berkeley, and the IEEE/ACM Ira M. Kay Memorial Paper Prize.
`
`7.
`
`In 1989, I joined the faculty of Georgia Tech. I began working at
`
`Georgia Tech as an assistant professor, became an associate professor in 1995, and
`
`have held my current position as Professor since 1998. As a member of the faculty
`
`at Georgia Tech, I have been active in, among other technologies, image and video
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`processing, computer engineering, embedded systems, chip design, software
`
`systems, wireless networks, and cellular communications.
`
`8.
`
`I have been involved in research and technology in the area of digital
`
`signal processing since the late 1980s, and I am the Editor-in-Chief the IEEE
`
`Press/CRC Press’s three-volume Digital Signal Processing Handbook (Editions 1 &
`
`2) (1998, 2010).
`
`9.
`
`Over the past three decades, I studied, used, and designed image and
`
`video processing and wireless networking circuits for numerous applications,
`
`including digital and video cameras, mobile phones, and networking products for
`
`leading commercial firms.
`
`10.
`
`I also have significant experience in designing and implementing
`
`electronic equipment using various source code languages, including C, assembly
`
`code, VHDL, and Verilog. In 2000, I published a book entitled “VHDL: Electronics
`
`Systems Design Methodologies.”
`
`11.
`
`In 1997, I was awarded the VHDL International Best PhD Dissertation
`
`Advisor for my contributions in the area of rapid prototyping.
`
`12. Since 1995, I have authored, co-authored, or edited several books in the
`
`areas of communications, signal processing, chip design, and software engineering,
`
`including VLSI Digital Signal Processors (1995), Quick-Turnaround ASIC Design
`
`in VHDL (1996), The Digital Signal Processing Handbook (1997 & 2010), Cloud
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`Computing: A Hands-On Approach (2013), Internet of Things: A Hands-On
`
`Approach (2014), and Big Data Science & Analytics (2016).
`
`13.
`
`I have authored over 100 articles, reports, and other publications
`
`pertaining to electrical engineering, and in the areas of computer engineering,
`
`communications signal processing, and communications. All of my publications,
`
`including the ones identified here, are set forth in my attached CV (Ex. A).
`
`14.
`
`I have worked in areas of digital signal processing relating to speech,
`
`audio and image processing since the early 1980s.
`
`15.
`
`I developed efficient algorithms for echo cancellers for speech and
`
`voice applications that had reduced complexity and improved performance. This
`
`work resulted in a peer-reviewed publication called “Dynamically Reduced
`
`Complexity Implementation of Echo Cancellers”, IEEE ICASSP 96, Tokyo.
`
`16.
`
`In collaboration with my students, I developed fast algorithms for the
`
`modified discrete cosine transform as used in adaptive spectral entropy coder
`
`(ASPEC) for music signals that uses Time Domain Aliasing Calculation (as used in
`
`the Opus Audio Codec). The MDCT/IMDCT is used as part of the perfect
`
`reconstruction process used in audio decoders. This peer-reviewed work was
`
`published in “On Fast Algorithms for Computing the Inverse Modified Discrete
`
`Cosine Transform”, IEEE Signal Processing Letters, Vol 6, No. 3, Issue 1999.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`17. Adaptive lapped transforms (ALT) are fundamental building blocks for
`
`building time-varying linear phase filter banks, and many audio, image, and speech
`
`codecs utilize lapped transforms utilizing ALTs. I along with my students studied
`
`several improved adaptive lapped transforms between the 1996-1999 timeframe, and
`
`these have been published in several peer reviewed articles, including “Adaptive
`
`Lapped Transform-based Image Coding”, IEEE Signal Processing Letters, Vol 4,
`
`Issue 9, 1997.
`
`18.
`
`I have been active in research in the area of electronic communications
`
`and telecommunications since 1984 and have authored or co-authored several papers
`
`and draft proposals on telephony communications. Some of these papers and
`
`proposals include “Multilevel Range/NEXT Performance in Digital Subscriber
`
`Loops”, IEEE Proceedings on Communications, Speech and Vision, Vol 136, Issue
`
`2, April 1989, and “Comparison of Line Codes and Proposal for Modified
`
`Duobinary”, Contribution T1D1.3-85- 237, American National Standards Institute,
`
`November 1985.
`
`19. Between 1998 and 2004 I and my students studied different codecs for
`
`audio and video streaming over the internet, and published IETF draft standards on
`
`these techniques. These included:
`
`• V. Madisetti and A. Argyriou: Voice and Video over Mobile IP
`
`Networks, IETF Draft, May 20, 2002
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`• V. Madisetti and A. Argyriou: A Transport Layer Technology for
`
`Improving QoS of Networked Multimedia Applications, IETF Draft
`
`July 25, 2002
`
`20.
`
`I have also published a number of peer-reviewed publications in the
`
`area of streaming audio and video applications over the internet include:
`
`• V. Madisetti and A. Argyriou: Voice and Video over Mobile IP
`
`Networks, IETF Draft, May 20, 2002
`
`• V. Madisetti and A. Argyriou: A Transport Layer Technology for
`
`Improving QoS of Networked Multimedia Applications, IETF Draft
`
`July 25, 2002.
`
`21.
`
`In the 1999-2003 timeframe, I consulted with a team of engineers to
`
`design an integrated Soft Switch & Media Server, the SNX 850/8500, that was being
`
`sold and installed in Asia. The SNX 8500 was a one-box solution to VOIP, LAN
`
`switching, and iPBX/PBX solutions for enterprise customers, and has been installed
`
`as part of BPL Telecom’s then offerings in Asia. The PBX modules within SNX
`
`850/8500 supported Analog Phones, Digital Feature Phones, E1/ISDN PRI Trunks,
`
`E1 or PRI at the PSTN gateway, VOIP (SIP) soft phones, SS7 interfaces, and
`
`operated via a browser-based console. It included a variety of features, such as
`
`Automatic Call Back, Busy Override, Do Not Disturb, etc., through support for 16
`
`ISDN
`
`BRI
`
`circuits.
`
`
`
`See
`
`additional
`
`details
`
`at
`
`URL
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`(http://www.financialexpress.com/news/bpl-telecom-launches-voip-
`
`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`
`platform/42827).
`
`
`
`22.
`
`In the timeframe of 2000-2007, I designed and provided optimized
`
`mobile speech codecs AMR and AMR-WB to one of the leading mobile phone and
`
`base station manufacturers in the world, and this implementation has been deployed
`
`on millions of 3G/4G mobile phones and numerous base stations.
`
`23.
`
`In the timeframe of 2000-2007, I also designed and provided several
`
`VOIP codecs to leading VOIP phone vendors that are now deployed in several
`
`generations of enterprise VOIP phone products in the USA and abroad. I also
`
`designed and provided echo cancellers for VOIP applications for deployment during
`
`that timeframe.
`
`24.
`
`I have been elected a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) in recognition of my contributions to embedded
`
`computing systems. The IEEE is a worldwide professional body consisting of more
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`than 300,000 electrical and electronic engineers. Fellow is the highest grade of
`
`membership of the IEEE, with only one-tenth of one percent of the IEEE
`
`membership being elected to the Fellow grade each year.
`
`25.
`
`In 2006, I was awarded the Frederick Emmons Terman Medal from the
`
`American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) and HP Corporation for my
`
`contribution to electrical engineering while under the age of 45.
`
`26.
`
`I am the official representative from Georgia Tech to the 3GPP/ETSI
`
`Standards organization and quite familiar with the standardization processors for
`
`speech, audio and video applications in the context of mobile and wireless
`
`communications.
`
`27.
`
`I have developed speech and video codecs that comply with 3GPP
`
`standards. These tasks involved developing software to implement the associated
`
`3GPP standards and also tests to verify compliance to these standards. The families
`
`of these 3GPP standards include TS 26.071 – TS 26.204, covering over a hundred
`
`standard specification documents. The software that I developed that complies with
`
`these standards is now available commercial on millions of 3G and 4G handsets
`
`worldwide. My codecs were tested on live 3G and 4G networks in Europe and USA
`
`since the early 2004 – 2006 timeframe.
`
`28.
`
`I have also developed several speech and VOIP codecs that conform
`
`with the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) standards G.723.1, G.729
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`and Echo Cancellers conforming with
`
`the
`
`https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.723/en)
`
`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`(See
`
`ITU G.168 standards
`
`29. The software and code I have developed and tested based on
`
`technologies essential to the ITU standards are now used by one of the leading
`
`suppliers of VOIP/Internet telephones in the world. This software is also part of
`
`commercially released soft switches for internet telephony used extensively in Asia.
`
`See
`
`for
`
`example
`
`URL
`
`https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2002/04/09/stories/200204090066070
`
`0.htm.
`
`30. As part of earlier consulting work, I tested compliance of several
`
`smartphones (3G and 4G) in their use of standards-essential patents (SEP) related to
`
`3GPP and 3GPP2 standards, primarily in the area of HARQ and encryption. This
`
`work involved use of commercial 3GPP test equipment that included base stations
`
`and UEs to evaluate compliance to the standard and further opine on the issue of
`
`alternatives.
`
`31. Further, as stated above, I serve as the official representative of Georgia
`
`Tech to ETSI. In that role, I manage Georgia Tech’s relationship with ETSI and am
`
`responsible for representing Georgia Tech’s interests as they relate to ETSI,
`
`including to choose technical areas to which Georgia Tech may contribute, to
`
`determine which meetings to attend, and participating in technical work related to
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`various technologies, including those in the area of 5G, 4G, and IoT (Internet of
`
`Things). In addition, as noted, prior to assuming this role, in the past twenty years I
`
`have been retained to test various commercial mobile and wireless products to
`
`determine if they comply with various ETSI, 3GPP, and TIA (including 3GPP2)
`
`standards.
`
`32.
`
`I have over thirty patent applications pending and am listed as inventor
`
`on over two dozen US patents.
`
`33.
`
`I have served on the paper reviewing committees of many leading
`
`conferences in my field, and have taken on editorial roles for leading technical
`
`journals in fields pertinent to my research. A list of other program committees and
`
`editorial boards I have served on can be found as part of my curriculum vitae.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A.
`Presumption of Validity
`34.
`I understand that all patents enjoy a presumption of validity. In other
`
`words, patents are presumed to have been correctly issued by the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) after undergoing a rigorous examination
`
`process that often lasts for years.
`
`35. For this reason, I understand that Petitioner’s burden to prove invalidity
`
`of the ’298 patent claims is a high one. I understand that the Petitioner must show
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood of success as to any of the claims challenged. I
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`understand that the Petitioner bears the burden of proving any instituted grounds of
`
`invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that a “preponderance”
`
`means “more likely than not.” I understand that general and conclusory assertions,
`
`without underlying factual evidence, may not support a conclusion that something
`
`is “more likely than not.” Rather, the preponderance of the evidence standard
`
`requires that a reasonable finder of fact be convinced that the existence of a specific
`
`material fact is more probable than the non-existence of that fact. The
`
`preponderance of the evidence standard does not support speculation regarding
`
`specific facts and is instead focused on whether the evidence more likely than not
`
`demonstrates the existence or non-existence of specific material facts. Here, I
`
`understand that Petitioner has argued that the claims at issue are obvious over
`
`different grounds, some applying a single reference, and some applying a
`
`combination of multiple references.
`
`36.
`
`I also understand that, in performing a proper unpatentability analysis,
`
`an expert must do more than simply provide quotes from the evidentiary record along
`
`with conclusory allegations of unpatentability. To the contrary, an expert’s
`
`conclusions regarding unpatentability must be supported by actual analysis and
`
`reasoning set forth in the expert declaration, such that the theoretical and factual
`
`foundation for the expert’s conclusions can be properly evaluated.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`I understand that if the invention was known or used by others in this
`
`37.
`
`country or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country
`
`before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent, it is considered prior art
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`38.
`
`I understand that if the invention was patented or described in a printed
`
`publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country,
`
`more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States,
`
`it is considered prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`39.
`
`I understand that under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(c), an inventor is not
`
`entitled to a patent if he has abandoned the invention.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that if the invention was first patented or caused to be
`
`patented, or was the subject of an inventor’s certificate, by the applicant or his legal
`
`representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for
`
`patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor’s certificate filed more
`
`than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, it is
`
`considered prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(d).
`
`41.
`
`I understand that if the invention was described in — (1) an application
`
`for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States
`
`before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an
`
`application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty
`
`defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of
`
`an application filed in the United States only if the international application
`
`designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in
`
`the English language, it is considered prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`42.
`
`I understand that under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(f) an inventor is not
`
`entitled to a patent if he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that an inventor is not entitled to a patent if under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section
`
`135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent
`
`permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention
`
`was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or
`
`(2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country
`
`by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In
`
`determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not
`
`only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention,
`
`but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce
`
`to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`B. Anticipation
`44.
`I understand that for a single prior art reference to be anticipating under
`
`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102, it must discloses each element of the claim, arranged as set forth in
`
`the claim. If a reference fails to expressly disclose one or more elements of the
`
`patent claim, the claim is anticipated only if the missing elements are disclosed
`
`inherently in the reference.
`
`45. To establish such inherency, the evidence must make clear to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art that the missing claim element is necessarily present in
`
`the prior art reference or is the inevitable outcome of the process or thing that is
`
`explicitly described in the prior art. Inherency may not be established by a
`
`possibility, or even probability, that a certain result may arise from a given set of
`
`circumstances.
`
`46.
`
`I understand that, to anticipate a patent claim, a prior art reference must
`
`have an enabling disclosure. That is, the reference must provide sufficient
`
`information to allow one skilled in the art to practice what is disclosed without undue
`
`experimentation.
`
`47.
`
`I understand that, in order to show that a particular “publication” is prior
`
`art, the “publication” must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested
`
`in the art, and that dissemination and public accessibility are keys to determining
`
`whether a reference was “published” in this sense. Accessibility goes to the issue of
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`whether interested members of the public could obtain the information if they
`
`wanted to.
`
`48.
`
`I understand that a reference is “publicly accessible” upon a satisfactory
`
`showing that the document has been disseminated or otherwise made available so
`
`that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter, exercising
`
`reasonable diligence, can locate it. By way of example, I understand that a document
`
`may not constitute a printed publication if a customary search would not have
`
`rendered the work reasonably accessible even to a person informed of its existence.
`
`In this context, I have been informed that the Copyright Office’s housing of a
`
`reference does not necessarily show that the reference was made available such that
`
`persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising
`
`reasonable diligence, can locate it.
`
`49.
`
`I understand that, in order to show that a particular product was prior
`
`art, one must establish that this prior art product was known or used by the public
`
`and was accessible to the public. The knowledge or use is accessible to the public
`
`if there has been no deliberate attempt to keep it secret. I understand that the secret
`
`use of the process coupled with the sale of the product does not result in a public use
`
`of the process unless the public could learn the claimed process by examining the
`
`product.
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`I understand that this knowledge or use must take place within the
`
`50.
`
`United Sates. Prior knowledge or use that is not present in the United States, even
`
`if widespread in a foreign country, cannot be the used for purposes of establishing
`
`that a product is prior art to the ’298 patent.
`
`C. Obviousness
`51.
`I understand that a patent claim can be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if
`
`the claimed subject matter would have been “obvious” to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art as of the priority date of the patent based upon one or more prior art
`
`references. I understand that an obviousness analysis should consider each of the
`
`following so-called “Graham factors”: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2)
`
`the differences between the claims and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the pertinent art; and (4) secondary considerations, if any (such as unexpected
`
`results, commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, copying
`
`by others, licensing, and skepticism of experts).
`
`52.
`
`I understand that a conclusion of obviousness may be based upon either
`
`a single prior art reference or a combination of prior art references. However, I
`
`understand that merely demonstrating that each of the claim elements was,
`
`independently, known in the prior art does not prove that a claim composed of
`
`several known elements is obvious. In other words, I have been informed that
`
`obviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`references covering each limitation in a claim. Rather, obviousness requires the
`
`additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would
`
`have selected and combined those elements in the normal course of research and
`
`development to yield the claimed invention.
`
`53. Moreover, I understand that it can be important to identify a reason that
`
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
`
`elements in a way the claimed new invention does.
`
`54.
`
`I further understand that, to determine obviousness, courts look to the
`
`interrelated teachings of multiple patents or other prior art references, the effects of
`
`demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`55.
`
`I also understand that, in determining whether a combination of prior
`
`art references renders a claim obvious, it may be helpful to consider whether there
`
`is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references and a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in doing so. I understand, however, that the
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine inquiry is not required and may not
`
`be relied upon in lieu of the obviousness analysis outlined above.
`
`56.
`
`I understand that the following exemplary rationales may lead to a
`
`conclusion of obviousness: the combination of prior art elements according to
`
`known methods to yield predictable results; the substitution of one known element
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`for another to obtain predictable results; and the use of known techniques to improve
`
`similar devices in the same way.
`
`57. However, a claim is not obvious if the improvement is more than the
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
`
`Similarly, a claim is not obvious if the application of a known technique is beyond
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`58. Further, when the prior art teaches away from combining certain known
`
`elements, discovery of successful means of combining them is not obvious. I
`
`understand that similar subject matter may not be sufficient motivation for a person
`
`of skill in the art to combine references if the references have conflicting elements.
`
`59.
`
`I understand that, in order to be used in an obviousness combination, a
`
`prior art reference must be “analogous.” I understand that a prior art reference may
`
`be analogous if it is in the same field of endeavor as the other references with which
`
`it is combined, or if the reference is reasonably pertinent to the solving the problems
`
`the inventors of the patent-at-issue sought to solve.
`
`60.
`
`I understand that obviousness of a patent claim cannot properly be
`
`established through hindsight, and that elements from different prior art references,
`
`or different embodiments of a single prior art reference, cannot be selected to create
`
`the claimed invention using the invention itself as a roadmap. I understand that the
`
`claimed invention as a whole must be compared to the prior art as a whole, and courts
`
`-20-
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00329
`Patent 8,391,298
`
`must avoid aggregating pieces of prior art through hindsight that would not have
`
`been combined absent the inventors’ insight.
`
`61.
`
`I understand that obviousness is not established by simply combining
`
`previously known elements from the prior art. A patent composed of several
`
`elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements
`
`was, independently, known in the prior art. An invention is unpatentable as obvious
`
`if the differences between the patented subject matter and the prior art would have
`
`been obvious at the time of invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`62.
`
`I understand that obviousness of a patent cannot properly be established
`
`by mere conclusory statements. Instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
`
`with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
`
`When an expert opines that all the elements of a claim disparately exist in the prior
`
`art, the expert should provide the rationale to combine the disparate references. A
`
`reason for combining disparate prior art references is a critical component of an
`
`obviousness analysis. The obviousness analysis should be made explicit and needs
`
`to provide an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to identify the
`
`reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
`
`combine the elements in the way the claimed invention does.
`
`63.
`
`I also understand that inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon
`
`building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity
`
`-21-
`
`

`

`