(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:4)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher Jules White
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`DAEDALUS BLUE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00831
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`Title: SYSTEM, METHOD, AND APPARATUS FOR POLICY-BASED DATA
`MANAGEMENT
`Filing Date: 03/14/2003
`Issue Date: 03/11/2014
`
`_________________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CHRISTOPHER JULES WHITE IN SUPPORT
`OF PATENT OWNER DAEDALUS BLUE, LLC’S PATENT OWNER
`RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2024 Page 1
`
`Daedalus Blue Exhibit 2024
`Microsoft Corp. v. Daedalus Blue, LLC
`Case IPR2021-00831
`
`

`

`(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:4)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher Jules White
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`Bases for Opinions ........................................................................................... 6
`
`III. Materials Considered ....................................................................................... 7
`
`IV. Qualifications ................................................................................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`Legal Standards .............................................................................................12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Anticipation .........................................................................................12
`
`Obviousness .........................................................................................13
`
`Claim Construction..............................................................................15
`
`VI. Overview of the ’132 Patent ..........................................................................15
`
`A.
`
`Technical Background .........................................................................15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Mainframe Computing ..............................................................15
`
`Distributed Computing ..............................................................17
`
`Applications and Advantages of the ’132 Patent ................................21
`
`Prosecution History .............................................................................23
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`VII. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................23
`
`VIII. Opinions on Claim Construction ...................................................................26
`
`A.
`
`All Challenged Claims: “a plurality of clients, the clients comprising at
`least two different computing platforms” ...........................................26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The “plurality of clients” refers to clients in a networked
`environment. .............................................................................26
`
`The “at least two different computing platforms” refers to
`operating systems. .....................................................................31
`
`Exhibit 2024 Page 2
`
`

`

`(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:4)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher Jules White
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`B.
`Other Claim Terms ..............................................................................33
`
`IX. Summary of Opinions on Patentability .........................................................33
`
`X. Opinions on Patentability ..............................................................................34
`
`A. Ground 1, Claims 15-21 and 23-25: Gelb is not analogous art to the
`’132 Patent. ..........................................................................................34
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Gelb is not in the same field of endeavor as the ’132 Patent. ...35
`
`Gelb is not reasonably pertinent to the problems addressed by the
`’132 Patent. ...............................................................................43
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1, Claims 15-21 and 23-25: The limitation “receiving one or
`more attributes of a file from one of a plurality of clients, the clients
`comprising at least two different computing platforms” would not have
`been obvious over Gelb in view of Tivoli. ..........................................58
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Gelb alone does not disclose “receiving one or more attributes of
`a file from one of a plurality of clients, the clients comprising at
`least two different computing platforms.” ................................59
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have sought to
`combine Gelb with Tivoli in the way described in the petition for
`the limitation “receiving one or more attributes of a file from one
`of a plurality of clients, the clients comprising at least two
`different computing platforms.”................................................60
`
`C.
`
`Ground 1, Claim 18: The limitation “assigning the storage pool to the
`file comprises applying the storage pool rule to the characteristics of
`the available storage pools to assign the storage pool to the file” would
`not have been obvious over Gelb in view of Tivoli. ...........................67
`
`D. Ground 2, Claim 22: The limitation “wherein the computing platforms
`are selected from the group consisting of Windows, AIX, Linux,
`Solaris, Unix, Mac OS, OS/2, DOS, HP, IRIX, and OS/390, wherein
`the method further comprises translating the one or more attributes”
`would not have been obvious over Gelb in view of Tivoli and
`Callaghan. ...........................................................................................75
`
`Exhibit 2024 Page 3
`
`

`

`(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:4)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher Jules White
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`1. Microsoft did not show that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have sought out references related to Network File Share
`(NFS), such as Callaghan. ........................................................75
`
`2. Microsoft’s stated reasons for combining Callaghan with Gelb
`and Tivoli fall flat. .....................................................................78
`
`E.
`
`Ground 3, Claims 15-21 and 23-25: Devarakonda does not disclose
`“receiving one or more attributes of a file from one of a plurality of
`clients, the clients comprising at least two different computing
`platforms.” ...........................................................................................85
`
`XI. Appendix A: The Challenged Claims of the ’132 Patent ..............................90
`
`XII. Appendix B: CV ............................................................................................93
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2024 Page 4
`
`

`

`(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:4)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher Jules White
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`I.
`Introduction
`
`I, Dr. Christopher Jules White, a resident of Nashville, Tennessee over 18
`
`years of age, hereby declare as follows.
`
`1. My name is Dr. Christopher Jules White, and I am currently an
`
`Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science, as well as the Associate
`
`Dean for Strategic Learning Programs at Vanderbilt University.
`
`2.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts and opinions set forth in this
`
`declaration, and, if called upon to do so, I would testify competently thereto.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked by Patent Owner Daedalus Blue, LLC (“Daedalus”)
`
`to provide my opinions and analysis responsive to certain issues raised by the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132 (“Petition”) by
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft” or “Petitioner”) and the supporting
`
`Declaration of Dr. Erez Zadok (“Zadok Declaration”). For this work I am being
`
`compensated at my normal hourly rate of $450 per hour plus reasonable expenses.
`
`The amount of my compensation is not dependent upon the substance of my opinions
`
`or upon the outcome of this matter. I am working as a private consultant on this
`
`matter and the opinions presented here are my own.
`
`4.
`
`I have prepared this declaration at the request of Daedalus and its
`
`counsel. For purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to provide my opinions
`
`on certain aspects of Petitioner’s theories regarding patentability of Claims 15-25 of
`
`Exhibit 2024 Page 5
`
`

`

`(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:4)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher Jules White
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132 (“the ’132 Patent”) as it relates to this IPR proceeding. I
`
`refer to Claims 15-25 of the ’132 Patent as the “challenged claims.” Appendix A
`
`reproduces the full text of the challenged claims.
`
`II. Bases for Opinions
`
`5.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied on my knowledge and experience
`
`in computer science, hardware and software design, and on the documents and
`
`information described below. I have also relied on my work experience with Ziiio,
`
`Optio Labs, Cloudpoint/PAR Works, and IBM.
`
`6.
`
`I considered and analyzed the documents listed below in Section III in
`
`light of my specialized knowledge and experience in computer science and hardware
`
`and software design—including my work experience with Ziiio, Optio Labs,
`
`Cloudpoint/PAR Works, and IBM—as summarized in Section IV and described in
`
`detail in Appendix B, my CV. My analysis of those documents, combined with the
`
`specialized knowledge that I have obtained through my education, training, research,
`
`and experience, form the bases for my opinions and testimony in this declaration.
`
`7.
`
`I may also review other materials throughout this case, including other
`
`documents or testimony that may emerge in this case. Those materials may affect
`
`my opinions in this matter. I reserve the right to modify and supplement my analysis
`
`and conclusions set forth in this declaration based upon any additional evidence,
`
`briefing, or decisions submitted in these proceedings. I also reserve the right to
`
`Exhibit 2024 Page 6
`
`

`

`(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:4)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher Jules White
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`modify and supplement my analysis and conclusions set forth in this declaration
`
`based upon any change to any of the applicable legal standards explained to me by
`
`Daedalus’ counsel.
`
`III. Materials Considered
`
`8.
`
`I have reviewed and analyzed the parties’ papers and exhibits in this
`
`proceeding, including the ’132 Patent (Ex. 1001) and its file history (Ex. 1002);
`
`Microsoft’s petition and its associated exhibits, including Gelb (Ex. 1005), Tivoli
`
`(Ex. 1006), Callaghan (Ex. 1007), Devarakonda (Ex. 1008), and the Declaration of
`
`Dr. Erez Zadok (Ex. 1003); the Board’s institution decision; and Dr. Zadok’s
`
`deposition transcript (Ex. 2025). I have also reviewed and analyzed the exhibits
`
`cited in this declaration.
`
`9.
`
`In this declaration, I cite patents (Ex. 1001 [’132 Patent], Ex. 1005
`
`[Gelb] and Ex. 1008 [Devarakonda]) by column and line. I cite declarations (Ex.
`
`1003 [Zadok Decl.]) by paragraph number. Unless otherwise noted, all other
`
`citations in this declaration use the page numbers added to the exhibits by counsel.
`
`IV. Qualifications
`
`10.
`
`I have over 20 years of experience in computer science and computer
`
`engineering. I received a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science from Brown
`
`University, and a Master of Science and Ph.D. in Computer Science from Vanderbilt
`
`University. I am currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Computer
`
`Exhibit 2024 Page 7
`
`

`

`(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:4)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher Jules White
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`Science at Vanderbilt University. I was also previously an Assistant Professor in
`
`Computer Engineering at Virginia Tech.
`
`11.
`
`I have held a variety of positions within industry and in affiliation with
`
`federally-supported research labs. Proceeding in reverse chronological order: From
`
`2014-2020, I was President of Ziiio, Inc, a company that I co-founded. From 2012-
`
`2015, I was Chief Technology Officer of Optio Labs, Inc., a company that I co-
`
`founded. From 2012-2016, I was the Chief Scientist of Cloudpoint Labs, a company
`
`that I co-founded. From 2011-2012, I was a Visiting Research Scientist at the
`
`Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, a federally-funded research and
`
`development center. From 2001-2002, I worked as a software engineer at IBM.
`
`12.
`
`I have published over 150 papers on topics ranging from mobile
`
`computing to cyber-security to cloud computing. According to Google Scholar,
`
`there are 5,700 citations to these papers. In addition to publishing on a variety of
`
`research topics, I have received several important distinctions. I received a National
`
`Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER Award, which is one of the NSF’s “most
`
`prestigious awards in support of early-career faculty who have the potential to serve
`
`as academic role models in research and education and to lead advances in the
`
`mission of their department or organization.” I have also received several Best Paper
`
`Awards for research work in domains ranging from Software Product-lines to Civil
`
`Engineering to Applied Computer Vision.
`
`Exhibit 2024 Page 8
`
`

`

`(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:4)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher Jules White
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`13. As a faculty member, I run the Mobile Application computinG,
`
`optimizatioN, and secUrity Methods (MAGNUM) Group at Vanderbilt University.
`
`As a Principal Investigator or Co-Principal Investigator, I have received over
`
`$17,000,000 in grant support, both from federal entities, such as the National Science
`
`Foundation (NSF), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Air
`
`Force Research Labs (AFRL), and Office of Naval Research (ONR), and private
`
`entities, such as Varian Medical Systems and NOAH Basketball. My research
`
`focuses on securing, optimizing, and leveraging data from mobile cyber-physical
`
`systems. My mobile cyber-physical systems research spans four key focus areas:
`
`(1) mobile, cloud, and CPS security and data collection, (2) high-precision mobile
`
`understanding of the world through indoor positioning and augmented reality, (3)
`
`CPS, mobile device and cloud infrastructure power and configuration optimization,
`
`and (4) applications of mobile cyber-physical systems in multi-disciplinary domains,
`
`including manufacturing, energy-optimized cloud computing, smart grid systems,
`
`healthcare/manufacturing security, next-generation construction
`
`technologies,
`
`citizen science, and augmented reality.
`
`14. My research work has been transitioned to industry where it has both
`
`won patent protection and led to venture-backed startup companies. My work on
`
`securing mobile devices was licensed into Optio Labs, a company that I co- founded.
`
`Optio Labs received over $10,000,000 in venture capital backing. My work on
`
`Exhibit 2024 Page 9
`
`

`

`(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:4)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher Jules White
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`mobile augmented reality was licensed into PAR Works / Cloudpoint Labs, a
`
`company that I co-founded. The company received $1,000,000 in venture backing
`
`and won awards, such as being an Innovation Award Honoree at CES and a finalist
`
`for Technical Achievement Award at SXSW. I am an inventor on multiple patents.
`
`15.
`
`I have researched, designed, and built many distributed systems,
`
`particularly systems dealing with quality of service (QoS) issues, such as hard timing
`
`constraints. I have researched and developed optimization algorithms for distributed
`
`systems that have been funded by the National Science Foundation, Air Force
`
`Research Labs, Siemens, and others. This work has looked at the challenging
`
`problem of determining how to allocate resources in a distributed system to ensure
`
`that QoS guarantees are met – particularly real-time timing constraints – which
`
`require understanding how to ensure ordering issues, such as scheduling, in systems.
`
`16.
`
`In addition to my research, through the companies that I co-founded, I
`
`have designed and built many distributed systems with challenging data storage
`
`needs. For example, as part of PAR Works / Cloudpoint, I led the architecture of a
`
`distributed system to manage storage, processing, and retrieval of imagery and
`
`positioning data for mobile augmented reality applications. This work required
`
`optimizing the storage and delivery of data, such as photographs and point clouds,
`
`across a variety of network links with varying bandwidth and other constraints that
`
`required careful optimization. As part of Ziiio, I architected large-scale indoor
`
`Exhibit 2024 Page 10
`
`

`

`(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:4)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher Jules White
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`positioning systems that stored signal data and machine learning models to provide
`
`rapid indoor positioning within large buildings, such as hospitals. This work
`
`required careful distributed storage and caching optimization across clients ranging
`
`from mobile devices to embedded sensing systems in the hospital to powerful
`
`computing nodes in the cloud.
`
`17. From 2000-2003, I worked on a number of distributed systems at IBM,
`
`at the Software Teacher Inc., as part of my studies, and in a personal software
`
`development / research capacity. For example, I worked on a large distributed
`
`system to process transactions for credit requests from terminals in retail stores and
`
`focused on coordination issues that it was facing. In another project, I worked
`
`building a distributed system to track taxis and provide scheduling decisions for
`
`matching reservations to vehicles and drivers. In other work, I developed a
`
`distributed search engine to crawl and index web pages and a neural network to
`
`provide search results. Other projects involved distributed gaming and coordination
`
`of multiple peers to ensure low-latency and synchronized game play. Another
`
`project involved architecting a collaborative distributed learning environment for
`
`educational software. I developed a peer-to-peer distributed file sharing application
`
`on sockets and later ported the application to Java JXTA when it was released. A
`
`final example of my distributed systems work at the time was the development of
`
`Exhibit 2024 Page 11
`
`

`

`(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:4)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher Jules White
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`automated trading agents for a distributed trading simulation. This is a sampling of
`
`the distributed systems work that I did during this time period.
`
`18.
`
`In addition to the summary I provide in this declaration, I describe my
`
`education, training, research, and experience in greater detail in my CV, attached as
`
`Appendix B.
`
`V. Legal Standards
`
`19. Counsel for Daedalus explained the relevant legal standards to me. I
`
`describe my understanding of those legal standards below. I have used my
`
`understanding of those legal standards in reaching my opinions in this matter.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that Microsoft has the burden of proving by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`21.
`
`I am informed and understand that a claim is unpatentable if it is
`
`anticipated by the prior art. I am further informed and understand that a claim is
`
`anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found expressly
`
`or inherently described, in a single art reference. I also understand that a single
`
`reference cannot merely disclose each element of a claim to be found to anticipate.
`
`Rather it must disclose all of the elements as arranged in the claim.
`
`22.
`
`I am further informed and understand that anticipation by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence requires a showing that a person could make and use
`
`Exhibit 2024 Page 12
`
`

`

`(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:4)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher Jules White
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`the claimed invention by looking at one reference. I also understand that a
`
`requirement of a claim that is missing from a prior art reference may be disclosed
`
`inherently if that missing requirement is necessarily present in the reference. I am
`
`further informed and understand that the reference to be considered anticipatory
`
`must enable and describe the claimed invention sufficiently to have placed it in the
`
`possession of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`23.
`
`I am informed and understand that evaluating obviousness requires
`
`assessing if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such
`
`that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious in light of prior art.
`
`I am further informed and understand that a number of factors are to be considered
`
`in that determination, including determining the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and
`
`determining the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. I am further informed and
`
`understand that in evaluating obviousness, a variety of rationales may support an
`
`obviousness determination. For example, I understand that obviousness may be
`
`supported by rationales such as combining known prior art elements according to
`
`known methods to yield predictable results, or simple substitution of one known
`
`element for another to obtain predictable results. I also understand that obviousness
`
`can be supported where there was a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior
`
`Exhibit 2024 Page 13
`
`

`

`(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:4)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher Jules White
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`art that would have led a POSITA to modify a prior art reference or combine prior
`
`art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. I am further informed and
`
`understand that there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable
`
`expectation that such a combination would be successful in order to support a
`
`conclusion of obviousness. I further understand that a reference may “teach away”
`
`from a claimed invention, and that “teaching away” cuts against arguments that a
`
`claimed invention would have been obvious and supports non-obviousness. I
`
`understand that a reference “teaches away” from a claimed invention when a
`
`POSITA would have been discouraged from following the reference’s path, or
`
`would be led in a direction different from the path taken in the claimed invention.
`
`24.
`
`I am informed and understand that in order for a reference to be relied
`
`on to demonstrate obviousness, it must be “analogous art” to the invention argued to
`
`be obvious. I further am informed and understand that a reference can be “analogous
`
`art” in two ways. The first way is if the reference is “from the same field of
`
`endeavor” as the patent. In that case, a reference can be analogous art even if it
`
`addresses a different problem, as long as it is in the same field. The second way is
`
`if the reference is “reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.” In
`
`that second case, the reference need not be in the same field of endeavor as the
`
`claimed invention that is argued to render obvious. I am further informed and
`
`understand that in order to be “reasonably pertinent,” a reference “logically would
`
`Exhibit 2024 Page 14
`
`

`

`(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:4)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher Jules White
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” I am
`
`also informed and understand that, in evaluating whether a reference would have
`
`been reasonably pertinent to the problem the invention seeks to solve, the “purposes
`
`of both the invention and the prior art are important,” and if the prior art is directed
`
`to a different purpose than the claimed invention, an inventor would “have had less
`
`motivation or occasion to consider it.”
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`25.
`
`I am informed and understand that in this proceeding, the claims are to
`
`be construed according to their ordinary and customary meaning to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification and the prosecution history of the
`
`’132 Patent. (Ex. 1002 [’132 Patent File History].) I understand that this is the same
`
`claim construction standard used in district court litigation.
`
`VI. Overview of the ’132 Patent
`A. Technical Background
`1. Mainframe Computing
`
`26. The term “mainframe computer” or “mainframe” refers to a single
`
`high-performance computer with a single operating system and directly attached
`
`storage, enclosed in a large box or frame. The term “mainframe” refers to the “main
`
`frame” that all of the computer’s components are connected to and contained within.
`
`Exhibit 2024 Page 15
`
`

`

`(cid:16)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:17)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:12)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:4)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher Jules White
`U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132
`The name “mainframe” is derived from ‘main frame,’ the cabinet traditionally used
`
`to house such computers. (Ex. 2011 [Microsoft Computer Dictionary] at 3.)
`
`27. Mainframes run a single operating system and comprise specialized and
`
`expensive components to achieve high levels of speed, reliability, and predictability
`
`of the processing of transactions. These specialized and highly-reliable processors
`
`and components, directly attached to each other through high-performance buses,
`
`short-length cables, allow software developers to write software to process
`
`transactions and assume that the system will not fail in the middle of transactions.
`
`The expensive and reliable hardware simplifies the creation of high-reliability
`
`systems and allows for centralized architectures with a single computing system.
`
`28. Mainframes also tend to be over-provisioned, i.e., designed with excess
`
`processing power, memory, cache, and I/O bandwidth, and directly connected to
`
`storage devices, so that they can process millions of transactions per second, such as
`
`the transactions for asset trading or banking, without fear of congestion or saturation.
`
`29. Centralization of computing resources is also an important aspect of a
`
`mainframe. Because all of a