IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of: Michael J. Koss
`U.S. Patent No.:
`10,298,451
`Issue Date:
`August 7, 2018
`Appl. Serial No.: 16/057,360
`Filing Date:
`August 1, 2019
`Title:
`CONFIGURING WIRELESS DEVICES FOR A WIRELESS
`INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 50095-0020IP2
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. JEREMY COOPERSTOCK
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1028
`Apple v. Koss
`IPR2021-00600
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 4
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 5
`
`III.
`
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED .................................................................. 5
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................ 6
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS ................................................................... 6
`
`VI.
`
`THE ’451 PATENT ........................................................................................ 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date .......................................................................................... 7
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 7
`
`VII. ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Prior Art Makes Claims 1, 6, 12, 13, and 16-20 Obvious ............. 7
`
`The Scherzer-Subramaniam Combination Proposed in the
`Declaration ............................................................................................ 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Scherzer’s Disclosure ................................................................. 8
`
`The Scherzer-Subramaniam Combination Proposed in the
`Declaration ............................................................................... 11
`
`C.
`
`Koss’s Analysis of The Scherzer-Subramaniam Combination........... 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Scherzer’s Account Acceptability Requirement And
`Associated Tracking Are Limited to Specific
`Embodiments ............................................................................ 14
`
`Scherzer Does Not Address Dissemination of Access
`Credentials ................................................................................ 17
`
`Subramaniam is Not Limited to At-Home Networks ............... 18
`
`Advantages of the Scherzer-Subramaniam Combination ......... 20
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`D.
`
`The Scherzer-Subramaniam Combination Is Not Based On
`Hindsight ............................................................................................. 21
`
`1. Well-Known Concepts By the Critical Date ............................ 22
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Predictability Of The Scherzer-Subramaniam
`Combination ............................................................................. 25
`
`Two Examples of the Scherzer-Subramaniam
`Combination ............................................................................. 26
`
`VIII. ADDITIONAL REMARKS ......................................................................... 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`1.
`
`I, Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Fish & Richardson, P.C., on behalf of
`
`Petitioner, Apple Inc. (“Apple”), as an independent expert consultant in this inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“PTO”).
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked by Apple’s counsel (“Counsel”) to consider
`
`whether certain references teach or suggest the features recited in Claims 1-21 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,298,451 (“the ’451 patent”) (APPLE-1001). My opinions and
`
`the bases for my opinions are set forth below. My opinions are based on my
`
`education and experience.
`
`4.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration in this proceeding that I signed on
`
`March 7, 2021 (“Declaration”; APPLE-1003), and I understand that the
`
`Declaration was marked as APPLE-1003. The Declaration contained my opinions
`
`and the bases for them. Since submitting the Declaration, I have considered the
`
`Board’s Institution Decision (Paper 9), Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 20), and
`
`the Declaration of Mr. Joseph C. McAlexander III (KOSS-2026) in support of the
`
`Response filed by Patent Owner, Koss Corporation (“Koss”). My opinions from
`
`the Declaration have not changed.
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5. My background and qualifications are set forth in the Declaration. I
`
`incorporate that section of my previous declaration here by reference.
`
`III.
`
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`
`6.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have considered the materials
`
`discussed in this declaration, including, for example, the ’451 patent, the references
`
`cited by the ’451 patent, the prosecution histories of the ’451 patent and the
`
`application from which it derives (including the references cited therein), various
`
`background articles and materials referenced in this declaration, and the prior art
`
`references identified in this declaration. In addition, my opinions are further based
`
`on my education, training, experience, and knowledge in the relevant field.
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`APPLE-1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,298,451 to Koss, et al. (“the ’451 patent”)
`
`APPLE-1002 Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’451 patent (“the
`Prosecution History”)
`
`APPLE-1003 Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`
`APPLE-1004 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2007/0033197 (“Scherzer”)
`
`APPLE-1005 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011/0289229 (“Subramaniam”)
`
`APPLE-1006 U.S. Provisional Pat. App. No. 61/331,459 (“’459 Provisional”)
`
`APPLE-1007 U.S. Provisional Pat. App. No. 60/728,918 (“’918 Provisional”)
`
`APPLE-1008 U.S. Provisional Pat. App. No. 60/687,463 (“’463 Provisional”)
`
`APPLE-1009 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2007/0245028 (“Baxter”)
`
`APPLE-1010 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011/0025879 (“Drader”)
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`APPLE-1011 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2010/0307916 (“Ramey”)
`
`APPLE-1012 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2010/0165879 (“Gupta”)
`
`APPLE-1013 U.S. Pat. No. 9,949,305 (“Montemurro”)
`
`APPLE-1014 U.S. Provisional Pat. App. No. 61/248,328 (“’328 Provisional”)
`
`APPLE-1015 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0131404 (“Mehta”)
`
`APPLE-1029 Joseph C. McAlexander III Deposition Transcript, February 2,
`2022
`
`APPLE-1030 U.S. Pat. No. 8,868,639 (“Raleigh”)
`
`Paper 9
`
`Institution Decision
`
`Paper 20
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`KOSS-2026 Declaration of Mr. Joseph C. McAlexander III
`
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`7.
`
`I set forth the relevant legal standards in my previous declaration, and
`
`I incorporate those legal standards here by reference.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`
`8.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether the claims of the ’451 patent
`
`are anticipated or obvious over certain prior art references. As explained in my
`
`previous declaration and in further detail in this declaration, it is my opinion that:
`
`• Claims 1, 6, 12, 13, and 16-20 are obvious over Scherzer and
`
`Subramaniam;
`
`• Claims 2, 7-10, and 21 are obvious over Scherzer, Subramaniam,
`
`and Baxter;
`
`• Claims 3 and 4 are obvious over Scherzer, Subramaniam, and
`
`Drader;
`
`• Claim 5 is obvious over Scherzer, Subramaniam, and Ramey;
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`• Claims 11 and 15 are obvious over Scherzer, Subramaniam, and
`
`Ramey; and
`
`• Claim 14 is obvious over Scherzer, Subramaniam, and Gupta
`
`VI. THE ’451 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Priority Date
`
`9.
`
`For purposes of my analysis, I apply May 14, 2012 (“Critical Date”)
`
`as the earliest purported priority date of the ’451 patent. All of the prior art relied
`
`on in this declaration were published and/or filed before the Critical Date.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`10.
`
`I provided my opinion about a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(POSITA) in the Declaration, and I incorporate that opinion here by reference.
`
`VII. ANALYSIS
`
`A. The Prior Art Makes Claims 1, 6, 12, 13, and 16-20 Obvious
`
`11. The Declaration analyzed how the teachings of Scherzer and
`
`Subramaniam makes claims 1, 6, 12, 13, and 16-20 obvious. I incorporate that
`
`analysis here by reference. Koss does not argue that any of the claim limitations
`
`are absent from the prior art or the proposed Scherzer-Subramaniam combination
`
`discussed in the Declaration.
`
`12. Koss’s position is that a POSITA would not have combined Scherzer
`
`and Subramaniam since the proposed combination deviates from Scherzer’s
`
`teachings. I address this position and related topics in this declaration. I first
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`address the Declaration’s discussion of Scherzer and the Scherzer-Subramaniam
`
`combination (Section VII.B). I then address Koss’s statements that a POSITA
`
`would not have been motivated to combine Scherzer and Subramaniam (Section
`
`VII.C). I then address Koss’s statements that the combination is based on hindsight
`
`(Section VII.D).
`
`B.
`
`The Scherzer-Subramaniam Combination Proposed in the
`Declaration
`
`13.
`
`I provide a brief overview my Declaration as it relates to Scherzer’s
`
`disclosure and the Scherzer-Subramaniam combination in this section.
`
`1.
`
`Scherzer’s Disclosure
`
`14.
`
`I provided an overview of Scherzer in my previous Declaration, and I
`
`incorporate that overview here by reference. Below I provide further discussion of
`
`Scherzer’s disclosure.
`
`15. As explained in the Declaration, Scherzer’s disclosure is best
`
`understood through its overall motivation to provide a system that provides the
`
`ability to “wirelessly connect to the Internet from any location.” APPLE-1004,
`
`[0005]; APPLE-1003, ¶¶28-33. This motivation is the foundation for Scherzer’s
`
`disclosure of a system that allows users to mutually share network access
`
`credentials of their wireless access points and create a community of users. A user
`
`“allows access to the user’s access point in exchange for being allowed to access
`
`other user’s access points.” Id., [0020]. This enables “a user to be able to access
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`the Internet, its services and information, from a large number of locations.” Id.
`
`This access is the main benefit to being part of Scherzer’s service as it provides a
`
`way to connect to a nearby wireless access point even though network credential
`
`information for that nearby wireless access point may be unknown. Based on this,
`
`a POSITA would understand that the broadest conception of the invention
`
`disclosed in Scherzer is a community of users who exchange network credential
`
`information of their wireless access points so that members of the community as a
`
`whole have greater accessibility to the Internet in different locations using the
`
`shared network credential information. This facilitates different users to quickly
`
`obtain network access credentials so that they can access the Internet via wireless
`
`access points located in different locations.
`
`16. Scherzer also includes specific teachings that are narrower than the
`
`broadest conception of its invention. For example, Scherzer describes certain
`
`embodiments in which a “user contribution account” is established for a user to
`
`“monitor and control access allowed to [a] user’s access point.” APPLE-1004,
`
`[0016]. The user contribution account can also “track[] the balance of bandwidth
`
`provided by a user via the user’s access point to other users and the bandwidth
`
`used by the user via other’s access points.” Id., [0017].
`
`17. Scherzer makes clear that teachings relating to the user contribution
`
`account and associated tracking are limited to specific embodiments that are
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`narrower than its overall invention. Scherzer repeats this clarification in several
`
`locations of its disclosure. See, e.g., APPLE-1004, [0015] (“In some embodiments,
`
`a collaborative community of users allows a percentage of bandwidth of the user’s
`
`access point to be accessed by one or more other users…”); id. (“In some
`
`embodiments, some access or limited access is provided to use other users’ access
`
`points without allowing use of an access point to other users”); [0016] (“In some
`
`embodiments, a user contribution account is established when a user registers…”);
`
`id., “In some embodiments, a user is provided with the ability to monitor and
`
`control access allowed to the user’s access point…” id. (emphasis added).
`
`18. Scherzer’s use of “in some embodiments” in relation to its
`
`descriptions of the user contribution account would have led a POSITA to
`
`conclude that the user contribution account feature is an optional element of the
`
`invention. Imposing bandwidth constraints through use of a user contribution
`
`account and associated tracking does the opposite, because it restricts access to
`
`certain wireless access points once a user has used their bandwidth allocation.
`
`While usage monitoring and tracking using the user contribution account has
`
`certain advantages, such as ensuring that usage of network resources is fair and
`
`equitable amongst users that are part of Scherzer’s community, improving overall
`
`Internet access (which is Scherzer’s overall motivation) is not one of these
`
`advantages.
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`19. A POSITA would not have understood teachings relating to the user
`
`contribution account and associated tracking as being essential to Scherzer’s
`
`disclosure. For example, a POSITA would have understood that Figure 1 (which is
`
`the only figure in Scherzer depicting a system) is one example of an embodiment
`
`that does not involve user contribution accounts. The term “user contribution
`
`account” does not appear in the descriptions of Figure 1 in paragraph [0020]. This
`
`paragraph describes that “[a]pplication server 116 receives and stores registration
`
`information[]” and “[r]egistration information enables another user to request
`
`access to or access the user’s access point.” APPLE-1004, [0020].
`
`20. The broadest conception of the invention disclosed in Scherzer is to
`
`facilitate different users to quickly download access credentials onto their device
`
`so that they can access the Internet via wireless access points located in different
`
`locations. Strict accounting and tracking of access by the users to the wireless
`
`access points are added features limited to only certain embodiments of this
`
`broader invention.
`
`2.
`
`The Scherzer-Subramaniam Combination Proposed in the
`Declaration
`
`21.
`
`I provided an overview of the combination of Scherzer and
`
`Subramaniam in my previous declaration, and I incorporate that overview here by
`
`reference. Below I explain some of my opinions regarding the Scherzer-
`
`Subramaniam combination.
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`22. As explained in my earlier declaration, the Scherzer-Subramaniam
`
`combination involves complementary disclosures in each reference that a POSITA
`
`would have understood to have provided a “simplified process of configuring a
`
`new device to obtain the Scherzer software client.” APPLE-1003, ¶50. This
`
`technique would have “allowed a user to realize the full benefits of Scherzer
`
`system” and “connect to the wireless networks of other registered users.” Id., ¶46.
`
`This configuration is consistent with and is also supported by Scherzer’s overall
`
`motivation to provide increased Internet connectivity through a collaborative
`
`community of users. Id., ¶¶43-50; APPLE-1004, [0005].
`
`23. Koss characterizes Scherzer’s system as “control[ling] the
`
`dissemination of access credentials such that only registered users can obtain the
`
`benefit of other registered user’s access credentials.” Resp., 26. This is irrelevant
`
`to the proposed Scherzer-Subramaniam combination, where both devices are
`
`associated with the same “registered user” who would “obtain the benefit” of
`
`shared credentials. See APPLE-1003, ¶¶43-56. There is also no prohibition in
`
`Scherzer regarding what a registered user can do with downloaded credential
`
`information, such as providing the credential information to another device or
`
`providing the credential information to other users.
`
`24. Additionally, Scherzer provides no teaching that would be understood
`
`as prohibiting how credential information, once downloaded using Scherzer’s
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`service, can be used to connect to a wireless access point. Scherzer does not teach
`
`that the network credential information downloaded from Scherzer’s server is
`
`encrypted. By not disclosing any security mechanism for protecting the
`
`downloaded credential information, Scherzer does not appear concerned about a
`
`user that receives the credential information subsequently accessing and providing
`
`the downloaded credential information to other devices or users.
`
`25. Koss’s concerns of a registered user’s secondary device being
`
`provided access information prior to device registration are also addressed by the
`
`secondary device eventually registering with the Scherzer-like application server
`
`after installing a Scherzer-like client. As discussed in my earlier Declaration, “[t]he
`
`configuration technique enabled by the Scherzer-Subramaniam combination allows
`
`the registered device to send access information to the new device[]” and “[t]he
`
`new device can then use the received access information to connect to wireless
`
`access point 100 and access Internet 114 to download the Scherzer software
`
`client.” APPLE-1003, ¶48. By the end of the configuration technique enabled by
`
`the Scherzer-Subramaniam combination, both devices are registered with the
`
`Scherzer service. The Board in its Institution Decision stated that “given that
`
`Petitioner’s example includes provisions for the second device to ultimately
`
`register with the Scherzer-like application server, concerns about the fact that
`
`credentials are provided to that device prior to registration are not persuasive.”
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`Inst. Dec., 34. A POSITA would have agreed with the Board’s finding and
`
`understood that this configuration (provisions for the second device to register with
`
`the Scherzer-like application server) would not have led to widespread and
`
`unauthorized use of wireless networks beyond the tracked use of registered
`
`devices.
`
`C. Koss’s Analysis of The Scherzer-Subramaniam Combination
`
`26. Below I explain some of my opinions and provide my analysis of
`
`Koss’s arguments against the combination of Scherzer and Subramaniam.
`
`27. Koss identifies four reasons to support its position that the Scherzer-
`
`Subramaniam combination deviates from Scherzer’s disclosure. First, Koss states
`
`that transmission and use of Scherzer’s access credentials by a secondary device
`
`ignores the account acceptability requirement and associated tracking in Scherzer.
`
`Koss then states that Scherzer and Subramaniam, as a whole, discourages
`
`unfettered dissemination of access credentials to unrecognized devices. Koss also
`
`characterizes Subramaniam as describing configuration techniques applied to “in-
`
`home wireless networks.” Finally, Koss states that a simpler approach to network
`
`connectivity already exists and the Scherzer-Subramaniam combination is
`
`unnecessary.
`
`1.
`
`Scherzer’s Account Acceptability Requirement And Associated
`Tracking Are Limited to Specific Embodiments
`
`28.
`
`I disagree with Koss’s first argument for several reasons discussed
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`below. The arguments assume a narrow interpretation of Scherzer’s disclosure that
`
`disregards teaching within Scherzer indicating that user contribution accounts and
`
`associated tracking are limited to specific embodiments. Several of the arguments
`
`also do not cite to its disclosure in supporting this narrow interpretation.
`
`29. As explained in the Declaration, Scherzer describes “systems in which
`
`a community of registered users can share, through a server, credential data used to
`
`access each other’s access points.” APPLE-1003, ¶28. The relevant sections of the
`
`Declaration that summarize Scherzer and its combination with Subramaniam do
`
`not focus on tracking. See id., ¶¶28-33, 43-56. The Declaration makes clear that
`
`Scherzer’s teachings relating to tracking are not a crucial focus of its overall
`
`disclosure.
`
`30. Scherzer is also consistent with the explanation provided above.
`
`Scherzer explains that “account acceptability requirement and associated tracking”
`
`are limited to specific embodiments and not applicable to the disclosure as a
`
`whole. See, e.g., APPLE-1004, [0015] (“In some embodiments, a collaborative
`
`community of users allows a percentage of bandwidth of the user’s access point to
`
`be accessed by one or more other users…”); id., (“In some embodiments, some
`
`access or limited access is provided to use other users’ access points without
`
`allowing use of an access point to other users”); id., [0016] (“In some
`
`embodiments, a user contribution account is established when a user registers…”).
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`These disclosures indicate that in some other embodiments, account acceptability
`
`and registration information is not needed to send a request to a user’s access point
`
`to obtain access.
`
`31. Koss continues to maintain that “[t]racking network connections of
`
`registered users is fundamental to Scherzer’s system.” Resp., 36. I disagree with
`
`this statement because Scherzer’s descriptions of Figure 1 (which is the only figure
`
`in Scherzer depicting a system) do not reference user contribution accounts or
`
`associated tracking. APPLE-1004, [0020]. Dr. McAlexander’s declaration
`
`confirms this since it recognizes that Scherzer lacks descriptions of the specific
`
`means of tracking. KOSS-2026, ¶44 (“…Scherzer does not describe a specific
`
`means by which the tracking is implemented…”).
`
`32. Koss states “a POSITA would understand from Scherzer that when an
`
`unrecognized device attempts to connect to an access point in Scherzer’s
`
`community of registered users, connection to the access point would be denied
`
`because the MAC address of the unrecognized device is not associated with any
`
`registered user in Scherzer’s community.” Resp., 20-21. However, Scherzer does
`
`not describe any type of MAC address filtering.
`
`33. The sections of Mr. McAlexander’s declaration that focus on MAC
`
`address tracking (through use of white MAC address lists for registered users) do
`
`not cite to Scherzer or to any other reference demonstrating how a POSITA would
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 16
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`have implemented these features into the Scherzer system. Below is one example:
`
`By the Priority Date of the '451 Patent, MAC filtering based on a list of
`MAC addresses that were allowed access (e.g., a white list) or that were
`prohibited access (e.g., a black list) were techniques known to a
`POSITA to permit access by registered users to a network or
`prohibit/prevent access by other users, as the case may be. In a white
`list scenario like Scherzer’s, where only registered users are permitted
`access, a POSITA would understand that the access point could store
`the list of MAC addresses of the registered users locally or query a
`remote server (e.g., Scherzer’s server) for the list and, in either case,
`apply MAC address filtering that would prohibit the connection of any
`unrecognized device having a MAC address that is not on the list.
`
`KOSS-2026, ¶61; see also id., ¶66.
`
`34. Koss assumes a narrow interpretation of Scherzer’s disclosure that a
`
`POSITA would understand does not represent the broadest conception of the
`
`invention identified in Section VII.B.1. This narrow interpretation disregards that
`
`Scherzer itself describes that teachings relating user account acceptability
`
`requirements and associated tracking are limited to specific embodiments. Second,
`
`Koss does not support its narrow interpretation through specific citations to
`
`Scherzer’s disclosure.
`
`2.
`
`Scherzer Does Not Address Dissemination of Access
`Credentials
`
`35. Koss states that the Scherzer-Subramaniam combination “permit[s]
`
`the widespread and unfettered dissemination of network/access point access
`
`credentials of registered user to unrecognized devices for use by the unrecognized
`
`devices.” Resp., 27. But in each example discussed in the Declaration (and in the
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 17
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`proposed combination as a whole), the secondary device that is provided with
`
`access credentials is specifically associated with a registered user (i.e., a user that
`
`has previously registered with Scherzer’s service on a registered device). This type
`
`of credential sharing is not “widespread and unfettered.” Koss and Mr.
`
`McAlexander do not explain how a registered user providing credential
`
`information to a commonly-owned device leads to “unfettered access” to such
`
`information. Id., 40-41; KOSS-2026, ¶¶42, 43, 46, 53, 65. This type of
`
`configuration is not described in Scherzer as being prohibited or undesirable.
`
`36. Scherzer also does not discourage or disparage dissemination of
`
`access credentials once a registered user has obtained them. Scherzer’s teachings
`
`describe that device registration is required for a user to obtain access credentials
`
`through Scherzer’s service in the first instance. However, Scherzer does not
`
`disclose any protection mechanisms that prevent dissemination of the access
`
`credentials once the registered user has obtained them. Scherzer does not disclose
`
`that the access credentials are encrypted or that the registered user is restricted in
`
`some fashion as to how he/she uses the obtained access credentials.
`
`3.
`
`Subramaniam is Not Limited to At-Home Networks
`
`37. Koss also characterizes Subramaniam as being focused on “at home
`
`wireless configurations techniques.” Resp., 41-43. Subramaniam uses the term
`
`“home” three times and only within its Background section.
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 18
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`38. Subramaniam describes that “[i]n order for users to fully realize the
`
`benefits of wireless networks and the benefits of a growing number of wireless-
`
`enabled devices, it must become simpler to configure devices to connect to
`
`wireless networks, regardless of the type of device and user interface present on
`
`the device.” APPLE-1005, [0008]. Limiting Subramaniam’s disclosure to at-home
`
`wireless networks restricts the benefits of the disclosure to certain types of
`
`networks. Additionally, a POSITA reviewing this disclosure would understand that
`
`teachings related to a home network would have been useful to public networks,
`
`because both networks rely upon the same standards and are often set up in very
`
`similar ways.
`
`39. Subramaniam also does not teach limiting its applicability to “at-
`
`home” networks or “home-based devices.” Subramaniam describes that “wireless
`
`link 230” in Figure 2 “can take numerous forms, including wired and wireless
`
`forms of connections.” APPLE-1005, [0034]. Subramaniam also does not limit
`
`disclosure of its devices, which “can be any sort of device[,]” such as “a cellular
`
`phone, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, tablet computer, a receiver and
`
`speaker system, television, as well as a stereo system as shown in FIG. 1.” Id.,
`
`[0026]. Subramaniam also describes that “[t]he invention is indifferent to the type
`
`of computing device.” Id. Additionally, given the breadth of Subramaniam’s
`
`disclosure of the types of its devices and the wireless link between them, a
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 19
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`POSITA would have no reason to limit its disclosure to Koss’s focus on at-home
`
`networks.
`
`4.
`
`Advantages of the Scherzer-Subramaniam Combination
`
`40. Koss states that “more straightforward and legitimate approaches to
`
`improving network connectivity are available.” Resp., 43. This ignores specific
`
`advantages provided uniquely by the proposed combination that improve upon the
`
`individual disclosures of Scherzer and Subramaniam.
`
`41. As discussed in the Declaration, the second example when the user is
`
`in a location where “neither the smartphone nor the tablet have the access
`
`information necessary” (APPLE-1003, ¶53) and the tablet “has no cellular
`
`connection to potentially acquire the access information” (APPLE-1003, ¶54). The
`
`Scherzer-Subramaniam combination is advantageous in this example because each
`
`reference alone would not provide a better solution. Id., ¶¶54-56. Subramaniam
`
`does not address how a first device obtains network credential information, so its
`
`techniques do not help the user obtain network credential information on either the
`
`smartphone or the tablet. As for Scherzer, though a Scherzer-like software client
`
`installed on the first device would allow a user to access network credential
`
`information, the user would still need to manually input the network credential
`
`information onto the tablet to allow it to connect to the Internet. With the Scherzer-
`
`Subramaniam combination, a user could not only obtain network credential
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 20
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`information (using Scherzer’s teachings) on the smartphone, but then utilize
`
`Subramaniam’s automated configuration technique to allow the tablet to access the
`
`Internet without requiring any manual entry.
`
`42. Koss’s statement that a registered user can “register multiple devices
`
`with Scherzer’s server and obtain access credentials directly from the Scherzer
`
`server” ignores the second example. Resp., 43. As discussed above, in this
`
`scenario, neither the smartphone nor the tablet have access to credential
`
`information since the user is located in an area where the only nearby wireless
`
`access points are those of other users. APPLE-1003, ¶¶53-56. The tablet would not
`
`be able to access the Internet to download the Scherzer-like software since it (a) is
`
`unable to connect to the nearby wireless access points and (b) lacks cellular
`
`connectivity. Id.
`
`D. The Scherzer-Subramaniam Combination Is Not Based On
`Hindsight
`
`43. As explained in my previous Declaration, the Scherzer-Subramaniam
`
`combination improves upon Scherzer’s techniques of obtaining a software client
`
`without requiring access to application server 116. APPLE-1003, ¶43-50. A
`
`POSITA would have found Scherzer’s techniques to be “cumbersome” and “would
`
`have been motivated to look to other network configuration techniques to reduce
`
`the user burden…” APPLE-1003, ¶44. The Scherzer-Subramaniam combination,
`
`is supported by a motivation to combine for the purpose of improving Scherzer’s
`
`APPLE-1028
`Page 21
`
`

`

`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Jeremy Cooperstock
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,298,451
`
`configuration process for a new device. Id. This improvement is not described in
`
`the Challenged Claims (e.g., the claims do not recite installing an application on a
`
`new device). The motivation to combine is independent of the claims and not a
`
`“hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention…” as described by Koss. Resp.,
`
`34.
`
`44. Koss states that “[o]nly hindsight reconstruction of the claimed
`
`invention justifies the Petition’s combination.” Resp., 29. This conclusion ignores
`
`several points addressed in my previous Declaration. To restate, the previous
`
`declaration explained that “a POSITA would have