`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
`
`Petitioner
`
`- vs. -
`
`SOVEREIGN PEAK VENTURES, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. HENRY H. HOUH, UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN
`SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,877,038
`
`IPR2021-00852
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`
`2. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4 
`I. 
`Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 6 
`II. 
`III.  Understanding of Patent Law ........................................................................ 11 
`A.  Anticipation ......................................................................................... 13 
`B. 
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 13 
`IV.  The ’038 Patent .............................................................................................. 16 
`V. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art .................................................. 18 
`VI.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 21 
`VII.  Detailed Invalidity Analysis .......................................................................... 21 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1–4 are obvious over Ravi and Goetz ................... 23 
`1. 
`The Prior Art References ......................................................... 23 
`a) 
`Background on Ravi ...................................................... 23 
`b) 
`Background on Goetz .................................................... 25 
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claims 1–4 .................................. 25 
`a) 
`Claim 1 ........................................................................... 25 
`b) 
`Claim 2 ........................................................................... 50 
`c) 
`Claim 3 ........................................................................... 50 
`d) 
`Claim 4 ........................................................................... 51 
`Ground 2: Claim 5 is obvious over the combination of Ravi,
`Goetz, and Rhee .................................................................................. 53 
`1. 
`The Prior Art Reference ........................................................... 53 
`a) 
`Background on Rhee ...................................................... 53 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`2
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`
`2. 
`
`C. 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claim 5 ....................................... 54 
`a) 
`Claim 5 ........................................................................... 54 
`Ground 3: Claims 1–4 are obvious over Zhu ...................................... 55 
`1. 
`The Prior Art Reference ........................................................... 56 
`a) 
`Background on Zhu ....................................................... 56 
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claims 1–4 .................................. 56 
`a) 
`Claim 1 ........................................................................... 56 
`b) 
`Claim 2 ........................................................................... 66 
`c) 
`Claim 3 ........................................................................... 67 
`d) 
`Claim 4 ........................................................................... 67 
`D.  Ground 2: Claim 5 is obvious over the combination of Zhu and
`Radha ................................................................................................... 68 
`1. 
`The Prior Art Reference ........................................................... 69 
`a) 
`Background on Radha .................................................... 69 
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claim 5 ....................................... 69 
`a) 
`Claim 5 ........................................................................... 69 
`VIII.  Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 71 
`IX.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 71 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`I, Henry H. Houh, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert witness on behalf of
`
`Unified Patents, LLC (“Unified”) for the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038 (“the ’038 Patent”). I am being
`
`compensated at my usual and customary rate for the time I spent in connection with
`
`this IPR. My compensation is not affected by the outcome of this IPR.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1–
`
`5 (each a “Challenged Claim” and collectively the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’038
`
`Patent are unpatentable as they would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the earliest claimed priority date. It is my opinion
`
`that all of the Challenged Claims would have been obvious to a POSITA after
`
`reviewing the prior art discussed below.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Ex-1001, the ’038 Patent;
`
`Ex-1002, the file history of the ’038 Patent;
`
`the prior art references discussed below:
`
` Ex-1005, U.S. Patent 6,292,834 to Ravi et al. (“Ravi”),
`
` Ex-1006, U.S. Patent 5,956,729 to Goetz et al. (“Goetz”),
`
` Ex-1007, U.S. Patent 6,104,757 to Injong Rhee (“Rhee”),
`
`
`
`4
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`
` Ex-1008, U.S. Patent 5,768,527 to Zhu et al. (“Zhu”),
`
` Ex-1013, U.S. Patent 6,629,318 to Radha et al. (“Radha”),
`
`and
`
` any other document cited below.
`
`4.
`
`The ’038 Patent issued on April 5, 2005, from U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`10/633,574 (“the ’574 application”), filed on August 5, 2003. I understand the ’574
`
`application claims priority to a number of previous applications, the earliest of which
`
`was filed March 2, 2000.
`
`5.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon my
`
`education and experience in the relevant field of art, and have considered the
`
`viewpoint of a POSITA, as of March 2, 2000. I have also considered:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`the documents listed above,
`
`any additional documents and references cited in the analysis
`
`below,
`
`c)
`
`the relevant legal standards, including the standard for
`
`obviousness, and
`
`d) my knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area
`
`as described below.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that claims in an IPR are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. I further
`
`
`
`5
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`understand that this is the same claim construction standard as one would use in a
`
`District Court proceeding.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`7. My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which
`
`is attached as Exhibit 1004. As set forth in my curriculum vitae:
`
`8.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`
`from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) in 1998. I also received a
`
`Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1991,
`
`a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in
`
`1989, and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Physics in 1990, all from MIT.
`
`9.
`
`I am currently self-employed as an independent technical consultant. I
`
`am also president of Einstein’s Workshop, a company that provides supplemental
`
`science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (“STEM”) education to children
`
`of all ages. I am also on the board of directors of BlocksCAD, Inc., a company that
`
`makes educational computer-aided design software, which we created at Einstein’s
`
`Workshop and spun-out into an independent company.
`
`10.
`
`I first worked in the area of telecommunications in 1987 when I worked
`
`as a summer intern at AT&T Bell Laboratories as part of a five-year dual degree
`
`program at MIT. I continued to work at AT&T Bell Laboratories as part of this MIT
`
`program. While I was at MIT, I was a teaching assistant (“TA”) in the Electrical
`
`
`
`6
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`Engineering and Computer Science Department’s core Computer Architectures
`
`course. I first was a TA as a senior, performing a role typically reserved for graduate
`
`students. I later became head TA. As a TA, I helped write homework assignments,
`
`lab assignments, and exams. I also taught in the recitation sections.
`
`11. Later, as part of my doctoral research at MIT from 1991-1998, I was a
`
`research assistant in the Telemedia Network Systems (“TNS”) group at the
`
`Laboratory for Computer Science. The TNS group built a high-speed gigabit
`
`network and created applications that ran over the network. Example applications
`
`included ones for remote video capture, processing, and display of video on
`
`computer terminals. In addition to working on the design of core network
`
`components, designing and building the high-speed links, and designing and writing
`
`the device drivers for the interface cards, I also set up the group’s web server.
`
`12. With the TNS group I researched and installed web servers and web
`
`caches. I also helped to build the web pages that initiated these video sessions via a
`
`web interface. Vice-President Al Gore visited our group in 1996 and received a
`
`demonstration of—and remotely drove—a radio controlled toy car with a wireless
`
`video camera mounted on it; the video was encoded by TNS-designed hardware,
`
`streamed over the TNS-designed network and displayed using TNS-designed
`
`software.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`
`13.
`
`I defended and submitted my Ph.D. thesis, titled “Designing Networks
`
`for Tomorrow’s Traffic,” in January 1998. As part of my thesis research, I analyzed
`
`local-area and wide-area flows to show a more efficient method for routing packets
`
`in a network, based on traffic patterns at the time.
`
`14. While I was in graduate school, I started a company that provided web
`
`site design services and targeted advertising opportunities. We also sold targeted
`
`advertising placements. As the web became popular first at colleges and
`
`universities, we focused initially on building college recruiting web sites and sold
`
`advertisements to companies wishing to target students to recruit at specific colleges.
`
`We developed technology that utilized the web user’s college affiliation to
`
`customize advertisements targeted to students at that college.
`
`15. From 1997 to 1999, I was a Senior Scientist and Engineer at NBX
`
`Corporation, a start-up that made business telephone systems for streaming
`
`packetized audio over data networks instead of using traditional telephone lines.
`
`NBX was later acquired by 3Com Corporation, and the phone system created by
`
`NBX is still used today by numerous businesses. As part of my work at NBX, I
`
`designed the core audio reconstruction algorithms for the telephones, as well as the
`
`packet transmission algorithms. I also designed and validated the core packet
`
`transport protocol used by the phone system. The protocol was used for all signaling
`
`in the phone system, including for the setup of conference calls. The NBX system
`
`
`
`8
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`also featured a computer interface for initiating phone calls, which could also initiate
`
`conference calls. The NBX system also supported TAPI, the Telephony Application
`
`Programming Interface, thus allowing other computer programs to integrate with our
`
`system telephony features. We obtained U.S. Patent No. 6,697,963, entitled
`
`“Telecommunication method for ensuring on-time delivery of packets containing
`
`time-sensitive data,” as a result of part of this work.
`
`16. From 1999-2004, I was employed by Empirix or its predecessor
`
`company, Teradyne. Empirix was a leader in test tools for telecommunications
`
`protocols and systems, providing functional testing tools as well as load testing tools.
`
`From 2000-2001, I conceived and built a test platform for testing Voice-over-IP
`
`(VoIP). The first application on this new test platform was a cloud emulator for
`
`simulating the effects of transmitting VoIP over a busy network. Starting in 2001, I
`
`was architect for the next generation of web testing product by Empirix known as e-
`
`Test Suite. e-Test Suite is now owned by Oracle Corporation. e-Test provided
`
`functional and load testing for web sites. e-Test emulated a user's interaction with a
`
`web site and provided web developers with a method of creating various scripts and
`
`providing both functional testing (e.g., did the web site provide the correct response)
`
`and load testing (e.g., could the web site handle 5000 users on its web site
`
`simultaneously). Among Empirix's customers was H&R Block, who used e-Test
`
`
`
`9
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`Suite to test the tax filing functionality of their web site as well as to test whether the
`
`web site could handle a large expected load prior to the filing deadline.
`
`17. While I was Chief Technology Officer at Eons, a venture backed
`
`company founded by Jeff Taylor, who also founded the hiring web site
`
`Monster.com, Eons launched an advertising network. Eons built a network of sites
`
`on which advertisements could be placed, fulfilled client advertisement purchases,
`
`and tracked delivery of clients’ advertisements.
`
`18.
`
`I have also continued to develop web sites for various business projects,
`
`as well as setting up web sites on a volunteer basis for various groups that I am
`
`associated with.
`
`19.
`
`In 2006, as part of my role at BBN Technologies, I helped found
`
`PodZinger Inc., now known as RAMP Inc. PodZinger utilized BBN’s speech
`
`recognition algorithms to search through the spoken words in audio and video
`
`segments. We used the spoken content of the media to target advertising to viewers
`
`of the media, for which we filed a patent application. While I was Vice President of
`
`Operations and Technology, PodZinger followed its initial prototype with a full
`
`streaming audio and video search solution.
`
`20.
`
`I have been awarded several United States patents, and I have several
`
`patent applications pending, including the following examples:
`
`
`
`10
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,975,296, “Automated security threat testing of web
`
`pages”,
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,877,736, “Computer language interpretation and
`
`optimization for server testing”,
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,801,910, “Method and apparatus for timed tagging
`
`of media content”,
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. 20070106693, “Methods and apparatus
`
`for providing virtual media channels based on media search”,
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. 20070106760, “Methods and apparatus
`
`for dynamic presentation of advertising, factual, and informational
`
`content using enhanced metadata in search-driven media
`
`applications”,
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. 20090222442, “User-directed navigation
`
`of multimedia search results”.
`
`21. Additional details about my employment history, fields of expertise,
`
`and publications are further included in my curriculum vitae.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`
`22.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law was provided to me by Petitioner’s attorneys.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`
`23.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’038 Patent includes patents and printed
`
`publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the ’038 Patent. For
`
`purposes of this Declaration, I have applied the date of March 2, 2000, the filing date
`
`of the earliest application that the ’038 Patent claims priority to, as the priority date.1
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it would have been “anticipated”
`
`by or “obvious” in view of the prior art. My understanding of the two legal standards
`
`is set forth below.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that other challenges to the validity of a patent, including
`
`patent ineligibility, enablement, written description, and definiteness, cannot be
`
`raised in inter partes review proceedings before the Board to challenge the validity
`
`of the ’038 Patent. Accordingly, I did not consider those other challenges.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability
`
`by a preponderance of evidence, which means that the claims are more likely than
`
`not unpatentable.
`
`
`1 I have not considered and express no opinion as to whether the claims of the ’038
`
`Patent are actually entitled to a priority date of March 2, 2000 (or to that of a
`
`later-filed patent application).
`
`
`
`12
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`27.
`
` I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior art,
`
`each and every requirement of the claim must be found, expressly or inherently, in
`
`a single prior art reference as recited in the claim. I understand that claim limitations
`
`that are not expressly described in a prior art reference may still be there if they are
`
`“inherent” to the thing or process being described in the prior art. For example, an
`
`indication in a prior art reference that a particular process complies with a published
`
`standard would indicate that the process must inherently perform certain steps or use
`
`certain data structures that are necessary to comply with the published standard.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to consider evidence other than the
`
`information in a particular prior art document to determine if a feature is necessarily
`
`present in or inherently described by that reference.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`30.
`
` I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is “obvious” in view of the prior art.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that obviousness of a claim requires that the claim would
`
`have been obvious from the perspective of a POSITA at the time the alleged
`
`
`
`13
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`invention was made. I understand that a claim could have been obvious from a single
`
`prior art reference or from a combination of two or more prior art references.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged invention
`
`and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the pertinent art.
`
`33. Also, I understand that obviousness does not require physical
`
`combination/bodily incorporation, but rather consideration of what the combined
`
`teachings would have suggested to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the alleged invention. I understand that the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`predictable results.
`
`34.
`
`I further understand that a claim would have been obvious if it unites
`
`old elements with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by mere
`
`substitution of one element for another known in the field and that combination
`
`yields predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this
`
`combination, I understand that there is no rigid requirement of finding an express
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine within the references. When a
`
`product is available, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations
`
`of it, either in the same field or different one. If a POSITA can implement a
`
`predictable variation, obviousness likely bars its patentability. For the same reason,
`
`
`
`14
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`if a technique has been used to improve one device and a POSITA would recognize
`
`that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique would
`
`have been obvious. I understand that a claim would have been obvious if common
`
`sense directs one to combine multiple prior art references or add missing features to
`
`reproduce the alleged invention recited in the claims.
`
`35.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the
`
`obviousness of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include,
`
`among other things, commercial success of the patented invention, skepticism of
`
`those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, unexpected
`
`results of the alleged invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was
`
`satisfied by the alleged invention, the failure of others to make the alleged invention,
`
`praise of the alleged invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying
`
`of the alleged invention by others in the field. I understand that there must be a
`
`nexus—a connection—between any such secondary considerations and the alleged
`
`invention. I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by
`
`others is a secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`
`37. The analysis in this declaration is in accordance with the above-stated
`
`legal principles.
`
`IV. THE ’038 PATENT
`
`38. The ’038 Patent is titled “Data Transmission Method and Apparatus.”
`
`The ’038 Patent describes in its abstract that it relates to “a method and apparatus
`
`for transmitting and receiving video data arranged in data frames forming a data
`
`stream.” Ex-1001, Abstract. According to the ’038 Patent, “[e]ach frame has
`
`assigned a priority level. Once a data frame has been transmitted through an
`
`unreliable channel and has not been received at the receiver, the priority level of the
`
`missing data frame is compared with a priority threshold value, and is then
`
`retransmitted if its priority level is greater than the priority threshold value.” Id.
`
`The ’038 Patent’s Abstract explains that the “priority decision may involve the
`
`calculation of the priority threshold value based on a measurement of the available
`
`channel bandwidths and eventually on the bit rate of previously sent frames.” Id.
`
`39. According to the Abstract, the “retransmission decision is performed
`
`either at the transmitting or at the receiving side.” Id. The majority of the ’038
`
`Patent focuses on making a retransmission decision at a transmitting side. However,
`
`after explaining the retransmission decision at the transmitting side, the ’038 Patent
`
`explains that “in the preferred embodiment, the retransmission decision is performed
`
`by control unit 210 of video server 110, it will be appreciated by the skilled person
`
`
`
`16
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`that the decision whether a missing frame is to be retransmitted may likewise be
`
`performed at the receiver.” Id. at 7:57–8:2. The ’038 Patent also describes an
`
`example in which the retransmission decision is “made in the client” and states that
`
`“there is no need to send retransmission requests in those cases where the decision
`
`is denied.” Id. at 3:39–48.
`
`40. The ’038 Patent’s challenged independent claim, reproduced below,
`
`reflects aspects of this disclosure:
`
`1. A method for receiving data packets from a transmitter, said
`method comprising:
`
`deciding that a data packet is missing;
`
`making a retransmission decision, based on channel conditions,
`importance of the missing data packet and bit rates of previously
`received data packets, as to whether a retransmission request for the
`missing data packet is to be sent;
`
`sending the retransmission request to the transmitter if the
`retransmission decision is affirmative; and
`
`receiving a packet retransmitted by the transmitter in response to
`the retransmission request.
`
`41. As I discuss below in more detail, however, the concept of a receiving
`
`device requesting retransmission of lost or missing packets was well-known prior to
`
`the ’038 Patent. As of the ’038 Patent’s 2000 priority date, the delivery of video and
`
`other media over networks such as the Internet was a widely-researched topic. For
`
`
`
`17
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`example, as indicated in my CV, as part of my work as a research assistant at MIT
`
`from 1991-1998, I designed and developed a network for a distributed multimedia
`
`system. There was also constant development in industry related to delivering media
`
`over various networks; for example, in the late 1990s, technologies like Apple
`
`QuickTime, Microsoft Windows Media Player, and RealNetworks were being
`
`actively developed to stream media to consumers over the Internet. Thus, by the
`
`time of the ’038 Patent’s 2000 priority date, many companies were actively
`
`developing new technologies in this space, and the concepts described in the ’038
`
`Patent were widely-known.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE PERTINENT ART
`
`42.
`
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill may be reflected by the prior
`
`art of record, and that a POSITA to which the claimed subject matter pertains would
`
`have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles
`
`applicable to the pertinent art. I understand that one of ordinary skill in the art has
`
`ordinary creativity and is not a robot.
`
`43.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems. There are likely a wide range of
`
`
`
`18
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`educational backgrounds in the technology fields pertinent to the ’038 Patent.
`
`Although technologies concerning media delivery over the Internet were still being
`
`developed at the time of the application to which the ’038 Patent claims priority, the
`
`concepts disclosed in the ’038 Patent are relatively simple and would have been
`
`covered by an undergraduate-level course on network architecture, as well as in
`
`research and books on network application design.
`
`44.
`
`I am familiar with the knowledge and capabilities that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of network architecture and streaming media (e.g., content
`
`delivery) would have possessed in March 2000, especially as to design of network
`
`applications (which is closely related to network architecture design and content
`
`delivery) and protocols. Specifically, my experience in the industry, with colleagues
`
`from academia, and with engineers practicing in the industry during the relevant
`
`timeframe allowed me to become personally familiar with the knowledge and
`
`capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the area of these areas.
`
`45. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’038 Patent
`
`would have been someone with a good working knowledge of networking protocols,
`
`as well as computer systems (including servers) that support these protocols and
`
`techniques. The person also would be familiar with Internet standards related to
`
`communications, programming languages, database systems, and a variety of client-
`
`server systems and technologies. The person would have gained this knowledge
`
`
`
`19
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`either through education and training, several years of practical working experience,
`
`or through a combination of these.
`
`46. Accordingly, in my opinion, the level of skill that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art needed to have the capability of understanding of network
`
`architecture, streaming media, content delivery, and network application design
`
`applicable to the ’038 Patent is (i) a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science,
`
`Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, or equivalent training, and (ii) one to two
`
`years of work experience in network-based technologies. Lack of work experience
`
`can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Such academic and
`
`industry experience would be necessary to appreciate what was obvious and/or
`
`anticipated in the industry and what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`thought and understood at the time. I believe I possess the requisite knowledge and
`
`experience and in fact more than the requisite knowledge and experience, and am
`
`qualified to opine on the ’038 Patent.
`
`47. For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise noted,
`
`my testimony below refers to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art during
`
`the time period around the earliest claimed priority date of the ’038 Patent. I would
`
`have been a person with at least ordinary skill in the art at that time.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Ex-1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,877,038
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`48.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’038 Patent,
`
`the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that the
`
`claims are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning consistent with the
`
`specification.
`
`49. For purposes of this Declaration, I have given all terms in the
`
`Challenged Claims their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`VII. DETAILED INVALIDITY ANALYSIS
`
`50.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’038 Patent would have been obvious in view of the prior art. The
`
`discussion below provides a detailed analysis of how the prior art references I
`
`reviewed teach the limitations of the Challenged Claims of the ’038 Patent.
`
`51. As part of my analysis, I have considered the scope and content of the
`
`prior art and any potential differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`
`prior art. I conducted my analysis as of the claimed priority date of the ’038 Patent:
`
`March 2, 2000.2 I have also considered the lev