IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,240,009 to Koh et al.
`
`IPR Case No. IPR2021-00981
`
`DECLARATION OF SYLVIA HALL-ELLIS, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 1 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,240,009 to Koh et al.
`
`IPR Case No. IPR2021-00981
`
`DECLARATION OF SYLVIA HALL-ELLIS, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 1 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`I, Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis. I have been retained as an expert on
`
`behalf of Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`
`who I am informed is a petitioner to
`
`2.
`
`I have written this Declaration at the request of the Petitioner to provide
`
`my expert opinion regarding the public availability of a publication, identified
`
`below. My Declaration sets forth my opinions in detail and provides the basis for
`
`my opinions regarding the public availability of this publication.
`
`3.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement or amend my opinions, and bases for
`
`them, in response to any additional evidence, testimony, discovery, argument, and/or
`
`other additional information that may be provided to me after the date of this
`
`Declaration.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated for my time spent working on this matter at
`
`my normal consulting rate of $325 per hour, plus reimbursement for any additional
`
`reasonable expenses. My compensation is not in any way tied to the content of this
`
`Declaration, the substance of my opinions, or the outcome of this litigation. I have
`
`no other interests in this proceeding or with any of the parties.
`
`5.
`
`All of the materials that I considered and relied upon are discussed
`
`explicitly in this Declaration.
`
`1
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 2 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I am currently an Adjunct Professor in the School of Information at San
`
`José State University in San José, California. I obtained a Master of Library Science
`
`from the University of North Texas in 1972 and a Ph.D. in Library Science from the
`
`University of Pittsburgh in 1985. Over the last fifty years, I have held various
`
`positions in the field of library and information resources. I was first employed as a
`
`librarian in 1966 and have been involved in the field of library sciences since,
`
`holding numerous positions.
`
`7.
`
`I am a member of the American Library Association (ALA) and its
`
`Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS) Division, and I
`
`served on the Committee on Cataloging: Resource and Description (which wrote the
`
`new cataloging rules) and as the chair of the Committee for Education and Training
`
`of Catalogers and the Competencies and Education for a Career in Cataloging
`
`Interest Group. I also served as the Chai
`
`Competencies and Education for a Career in Cataloging. Additionally, I have served
`
`as the Chair for the ALA Office of Dive
`
`rsity, as a member
`
`of the REFORMA National Board of Directors, and as a member of the Editorial
`
`Board for the ALCTS premier cataloging journal, Library Resources and Technical
`
`Services. Currently I serve as a Co-Chair for the Library Research Round Table of
`
`the American Library Association.
`
`2
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 3 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`8.
`
`I have also given over one hundred presentations in the field, including
`
`several on library cataloging systems and Machine-Readable Cat
`
`standards. My current research interests include library cataloging systems,
`
`metadata, and organization of electronic resources.
`
`9. My full curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`III. PRELIMINARIES
`
`A.
`
`Scope of Declaration and Legal Standards
`
`10.
`
`I am not an attorney and will not offer opinions on the law. I am,
`
`however, rendering my expert opinion on the authenticity of the documents
`
`referenced herein and on when and how each of these documents was disseminated
`
`or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily
`
`skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, could have
`
`located the documents before the dates discussed below with respect to the specific
`
`documents.
`
`11.
`
`I am informed by counsel that a printed publication qualifies as publicly
`
`accessible as of the date it was disseminated or otherwise made available such that
`
`a person interested in and ordinarily skilled in the relevant subject matter could
`
`locate it through the exercise of ordinary diligence.
`
`12. While I understand that the determination of public accessibility under
`
`the foregoing standard rests on a case-by-case analysis of the facts particular to an
`
`3
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 4 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`individual publication, I also understand that a printed publication is rendered
`
`nd indexed by a library such that a person
`
`interested in the relevant subject matter could locate it (i.e., I understand that
`
`cataloging and indexing by a library is sufficient, though there are other ways that a
`
`printed publication may qualify as publicly accessible). One manner of sufficient
`
`indexing is indexing according to subject matter category. I understand that the
`
`cataloging and indexing by a single library of a single instance of a particular printed
`
`publication is sufficient, even if the single library is in a foreign country. I
`
`understand that, even if access to a library is restricted, a printed publication that has
`
`been cataloged and indexed therein is publicly accessible so long as a presumption
`
`is raised that the portion of the public concerned with the relevant subject matter
`
`would know of the printed publication. I also understand that the cataloging and
`
`indexing of information that would guide a person interested in the relevant subject
`
`matter to the printed publication, such as the cataloging and indexing of an abstract
`
`for the printed publication, is sufficient to render the printed publication publicly
`
`accessible.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that routine business practices, such as general library
`
`cataloging and indexing practices, can be used to establish an approximate date on
`
`which a printed publication became publicly accessible.
`
`4
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 5 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`14.
`
`I am told by counsel that the subject matter of this proceeding generally
`
`relates to using a secure element in a mobile device to engage in electronic and
`
`mobile commerce.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that
`
`hypothetical person who is presumed to be
`
`familiar with the relevant field and its literature at the time of the inventions. This
`
`hypothetical person is also a person of ordinary creativity, capable of understanding
`
`the scientific principles applicable to the pertinent field.
`
`16.
`
`I am told by counsel that a person of ordinary skill in this subject matter
`
`or art would typically be someone who posse
`
`computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering or an equivalent, and
`
`one year of professional experience relating to mobile payment technology, which
`
`would have exposed them to concepts like GlobalPlatform and smart cards..
`
`C. Use of Authoritative Databases
`
`17.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I used authoritative databases, such as the
`
`OCLC bibliographic database and the Library of Congress Online Catalog, to
`
`confirm citation details of the publication discussed.
`
`18.
`
`Indexing. A researcher may discover material relevant to his or her
`
`topic in a variety of ways. One common means of discovery is to search for relevant
`
`5
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 6 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`information in an index of periodical and other publications. Having found relevant
`
`material, the researcher will then normally obtain it online, look for it in libraries, or
`
`purchase it from the publisher, a bookstore, a document delivery service, or other
`
`provider. Sometimes, the da
`
`ccessibility will involve both
`
`indexing and library date information.
`
`19.
`
`Indexing services use a wide variety of controlled vocabularies to
`
`provide subject access and other means of discovering the content of documents.
`
`The formats in which these access terms are presented vary from service to service.
`
`20. Online indexing services and digital repositories commonly provide
`
`bibliographic information, abstracts, and full-text copies of the indexed publications,
`
`along with a list of the documents cited in the indexed publication. These services
`
`also often provide lists of publications that cite a given document. A citation of a
`
`document is evidence that the document was publicly available and in use by
`
`researchers no later than the publication date of the citing document.
`
`D.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`
`21.
`
`I am have been asked by counsel to assume that the earliest possible
`
`priority date for the patent at issue is September 24, 2006. As I will explain below,
`
`it is my opinion that the printed publication discussed in my Declaration was
`
`publicly accessible more than one year before the September 24, 2006, earliest
`
`possible priority date.
`
`6
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 7 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`IV. LIBRARY CATALOGING PRACTICES
`
`A. MARC Records and OCLC
`
`22.
`
`I am fully familiar with the library cataloging standard known as the
`
`MARC standard, which is an industry-wide standard method of storing and
`
`organizing library catalog information. MARC was first devel
`
`the Library of Congress. A MARC-compatible library is one that has a catalog
`
`consisting of individual MARC records for works made available at that library.
`
`23. Since at least the early 1970s and continuing to the present day, MARC
`
`has been the primary communications protocol for the transfer and storage of
`
`bibliographic metadata in libraries.1 As explained by the Library of Congress:
`
`You could devise your own method of organizing the bibliographic
`
`information, but you would be isolating your library, limiting its options, and
`
`creating much more work for yourself. Using the MARC standard prevents
`
`duplication of work and allows libraries to better share bibliographic
`
`
`1 A complete history of the development of MARC can be found in MARC: Its
`
`History and Implications by Henrietta D. Avram (Washington, DC: Library of
`
`Congress,
`
`1975)
`
`and
`
`available
`
`online
`
`from
`
`the Hathi
`
`Trust
`
`(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015034388556;view=1up;seq=1; last
`
`visited April 26, 2021).
`
`7
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 8 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`resources. Choosing to use MARC enables libraries to acquire cataloging data
`
`that is predictable and reliable. If a lib
`
`system that did not use MARC records, it would not be taking advantage of
`
`an industry-wide standard whose primary purpose is to foster communication
`
`of information.
`
`Using the MARC standard also enables libraries to make use of commercially
`
`available library automation systems to manage library operations. Many
`
`systems are available for libraries of all sizes and are designed to work with
`
`the MARC format. Systems are maintained and improved by the vendor so
`
`that libraries can benefit from the latest advances in computer technology. The
`
`MARC standard also allows libraries to replace one system with another with
`
`the assurance that their data will still be compatible.
`
`Why
`
`Is
`
`a MARC Record Necessary? LIBRARY
`
`OF CONGRESS,
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um01to06.html#part2 (last visited April 26, 2021).
`
`24.
`
`Thus, almost every major library in the world is MARC-compatible.
`
`See, e.g., MARC Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
`
`https://www.loc.gov/marc/faq.html
`
`acronym for MAchine-Readable Cataloging. It defines a data format that emerged
`
`from a Library of Congress-led initiative that began nearly fifty years ago. It
`
`provides the mechanism by which computers exchange, use, and interpret
`
`8
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 9 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`bibliographic information, and its data elements make up the foundation of most
`
`is the ANSI/NISO Z39.2-1994 standard
`
`(reaffirmed in 2016) for Information Interchange Format. The full text of the
`
`standard
`
`is
`
`available
`
`from
`
`the
`
`Library
`
`of
`
`Congress
`
`at
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ (last visited April 26, 2021).
`
`25. A MARC record comprises several fields, each of which contains
`
`specific data about the work. Each field is identified by a standardized, unique,
`
`three-digit code corresponding to the type of data that follow. See, e.g.,
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um07to10.html
`
`(last visited April 26, 2021);
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ (last visited April 26, 2021). For example,
`
`imary author of the work is recorded in
`
`field 022, and the publication date is record
`
`Id.2 If a work is a periodical, then its publication frequency is recorded in field 310,
`
`
`2 In some MARC records, field 264 is used rather than field 260 to record publication
`
`information. See http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd264.html (last visited
`
`in field 264 is similar to information in field 260
`
`9
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 10 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`and the publication dates (e.g., the first and last publication) are recorded in field
`
`362, which is also referred to as the enumeration/chronology field. See
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd3xx.html (last visited April 26, 2021).3
`
`26. The library that initially created the MARC record is reflected in field
`
`library code.
`
` See, e.g.,
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um07to10.html
`
`(last visited April 26, 2021);
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ (last visited April 26, 2021). Once a
`
`
`(Publication, Distribution, etc. (Imprint)). Field 264 is useful for cases where the
`
`content standard or institutional policies
`
`3 Upwards of two-thirds to three-quarters of book sales to libraries come from a
`
`jobber or wholesaler for online and print resources. These resellers make it their
`
`business to provide books to their customers as fast as possible, often providing
`
`turnaround times of only a single day after publication. Libraries purchase a
`
`significant portion of the balance of their books directly from publishers themselves,
`
`which provide delivery on a similarly expedited schedule. In general, libraries make
`
`these purchases throughout the year as the books are published and shelve the books
`
`as soon thereafter as possible in order to make the books available to their patrons.
`
`Thus, books are generally available at libraries across the country within just a few
`
`days of publication.
`
`10
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 11 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`MARC record for a particular work is originally created by one library, other
`
`libraries can use that original MARC record to then create their own MARC records
`
`for their own copies of the same work. These other libraries may modify or add to
`
`the original MARC record as necessary to reflect data specific to their own copies
`
`of the work. However, the library that created the original MARC record would still
`
`be reflected in these modified MARC records (corresponding to other copies of the
`
`same work at other libraries) in field 040,
`
`modifying library (or
`
`See
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd040.html (last visited April 26, 2021).
`
`27.
`
`I
`
`consulted
`
`the
`
`Directory
`
`of
`
`OCLC
`
`Libraries
`
`(http://www.oclc.org/contacts/libraries.en.html; last visited April 26, 2021) in order
`
`to identify the institution that created or modified the MARC record. Moreover,
`
`when viewing the MARC record online
`
`library code in field 040 with the mouse reveals the full name of the library. I also
`
`h I discuss further below, hovering over a
`
`rary codes in the OCLC database to
`
`identify the originating and modifying libraries for the MARC records discussed in
`
`this Declaration.
`
`28. MARC records also include one or more fields that show information
`
`regarding subject matter classification. For example, 6XX fields are termed
`
`11
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 12 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`See http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd6xx.html
`
`(last visited April 26, 2021). Among these, for example, is the 650 field; this is the
`
`See
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd650.html (last visited April 26, 2021).
`
`in which the entry element is a topical
`
`Id.
`
`bliographic record to provide access
`
`according to generally accepted thesaurus-building rules (e.g., Library of Congress
`
`Subject Headings (LCSH), Medical Subject Headings
`
`Id.
`
`29. Further, MARC records can include call numbers, which themselves
`
`contain a classification number. For example, a MARC record may identify a 050
`
`See
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd050.html (last visited April 26, 2021). A
`
`defined portion of the Library of Congress Call Number is the classification number,
`
`Library of Congress Classification and
`
`the LC Classification-Additions and Changes
`
`Id. Thus, the 050 field may be used
`
`to show information regarding subject matter classification.
`
`30. Each item in a library has a single classification number. A library
`
`selects a classification scheme (e.g., the Library of Congress Classification scheme
`
`just described or a similar scheme such as the Dewey Decimal Classification
`
`scheme) and uses it consistently. When the Library of Congress assigns the
`
`12
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 13 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`classification number, it appears as part of the 050 field, as discussed above. For
`
`MARC records created by libraries other than the Library of Congress (e.g., a
`
`university library or a local public library), the classification number may appear in
`
`a 09X (e.g., 090) field. See http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd09x.html (last
`
`visited April 26, 2021).
`
`31. When a MARC-compatible library acquires a work, it creates a MARC
`
`record for its copy of the work in its computer catalog system in the ordinary course
`
`of its business. This MARC record (for the copy of a work available at the particular
`
`library) may be later accessed by researchers in a number of ways. For example,
`
`many libraries, including the Library of Congress, make their MARC records
`
`available through their website. As an example, the MARC record for the copy of
`
`The Unlikely Spy, by Daniel Silva,4 available at the Library of Congress can be
`
`viewed
`
`through
`
`the
`
`Library
`
`of
`
`Congress
`
`website,
`
`at
`
`https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/staffView?searchId=20265&recPointer=1&recCount
`
`=25&bibId=2579985 (last visited April 26, 2021). One could, of course, always
`
`physically visit the library at which the work is available, and request to see that
`
`the work. Moreover, members of the Online Computer
`
`
`4 The Unlikely Spy is a 1996 novel written by Daniel Silva, who happens to be one
`
`of my favorite authors.
`
`13
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 14 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`below.
`
`32.
`
`the MARC records of other member
`
`ographic database, as I explain further
`
`lish, maintain and operate a
`
`computerized library network and to promote the evolution of library use, of libraries
`
`themselves, and of librarianship, and to provide processes and products for the
`
`benefit of library users and libraries, including such objectives as increasing
`
`availability of library resources to individual library patrons and reducing the rate of
`
`rise of library per-unit costs, all for the fundamental public purpose of furthering
`
`ease of access to and use of the ever-expanding body of worldwide scientific, literary
`
`and educational knowle
`
`5 Among other services, OCLC and
`
`its members are
`
`responsible
`
`for maintaining
`
`the WorldCat database
`
`(http://www.worldcat.org/; last visited April 26, 2021), used by independent and
`
`institutional libraries throughout the world. All libraries that are members of OCLC
`
`are MARC-compatible. See, e.g., https://help.oclc.org/Metadata_Services/OCLC-
`
`
`5 Third Article, Amended Articles of Incorporation of OCLC Online Computer
`
`Library
`
`Center,
`
`Incorporated
`
`(available
`
`at
`
`https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/membership/articles-of-incorporation.pdf;
`
`last visited April 26, 2021).
`
`14
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 15 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`MARC_records/About_OCLC-MARC_records (last visited April 26, 2021)
`
`https://www.oclc.org/support/services/worldcat/documentation/cataloging/electron
`
`icresources.en.html
`
`Like the two superseded OCLC
`
`documents, this revised set of guidelines is intended to assist catalogers in creating
`
`records for electronic resources in WorldCat, the OCLC Online Union Catalog.
`
`These guidelines pertain to OCLC-MARC tagging (that is, content designation).
`
`Cataloging rules and manuals (such as AACR2) govern the content of records. You
`
`33. When an OCLC member institution acquires a publication, like the
`
`other MARC-compatible libraries discussed above, it creates a MARC record for
`
`this publication in its computer catalog system in the ordinary course of its business.
`
`MARC records created at the Library of Congress are tape-loaded into the OCLC
`
`database through a subscription to MARC Distribution Services daily or weekly.
`
`Once the MARC record is created by a cataloger at an OCLC member library or is
`
`tape-loaded from the Library of Congress, the MARC record is then made available
`
`to any other OCLC members online, and thereby made available to the public.
`
`Accordingly, once the MARC record is created by a cataloger at an OCLC member
`
`library or is tape-loaded from the Library of Congress, any publication
`
`corresponding to the MARC record has been cataloged and indexed according to its
`
`15
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 16 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`subject matter such that a person interested in that subject matter could, with
`
`reasonable diligence, locate and access the publication through any library with
`
`access to the OCLC bibliographic database or through the Library of Congress.
`
`34. Fields 008, 005, and 955 in MARC Records as Indicators of Public
`
`Accessibility. When a MARC-compatible library creates an original MARC record
`
`for a work, the library records the date of creation of that MARC record in field 008,
`
`characters 00 through 05, in the ordinary course of its business.
`
` See
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd008a.html (last visited April 26, 2021).
`
`For OCLC member institutions that use OCLC software to create original MARC
`
`records, the date of creation in field 008 is automatically supplied by the OCLC
`
`software. The MARC record creation date in field 008 thus reflects the date on
`
`which, or shortly after which, a work was first acquired and cataloged by the library
`
`that created the original MARC record.
`
`35. When other MARC-compatible libraries subsequently acquire their
`
`own copies of the same work, as mentioned, they create MARC records in their own
`
`computer catalog systems for their copies in the ordinary course of business.6 They
`
`may use a MARC record previously created for that work (by another MARC-
`
`
`6 Initial contributions to the bibliographic database for a work
`
`16
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 17 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`compatible library) to create their own MARC records for their own copies of that
`
`same work.7 The previously created MARC record used by subsequently-acquiring
`
`libraries to create MARC records for their own copies may be obtained through the
`
`OCLC bibliographic database, as described above. If, when creating a MARC
`
`record to represent its own copy of the work, the subsequently-acquiring library uses
`
`the master MARC record in its original form, the subsequently-acquiring library
`
`cannot reenter data into the 008 field; therefore, the date in the 008 field will continue
`
`to reflect the date the MARC record was initially created by the originating library.
`
`On the other hand, if the subsequently-acquiring library modifies the previously
`
`created MARC record when creating its own MARC record for its own copy of the
`
`work, the subsequently-acquiring library may enter into the 008 field of its own
`
`MARC record the date its own MARC record was created.8 But the library that
`
`
`7 When a local library uses a master record in OCLC and produces (or downloads)
`
`it to the in-house system, the three-character symbol for the subsequent library is
`
`added to the holdings for the work.
`
`8 This practice is not required by, but is nevertheless consistent with, the MARC
`
`standard. Many MARC records exist today whose 008 fields indicate when the first
`
`original MARC record for a work was created, rather than when a derivative record
`
`17
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 18 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`created the original MARC record used by the subsequently-acquiring library would
`
`still be reflected in the MARC record of the subsequently-acquiring library in field
`
`tified by any MARC record possessed by any
`
`MARC-compatible library would have been accessible to the public at least as of the
`
`date shown in the 008 field, or shortly thereafter, either from the library that
`
`possesses the MARC record itself, or from the originating library indicated in field
`
`ussed, a MARC-compatible library in the ordinary course
`
`of its business creates a MARC record in its own catalog system for a work when it
`
`acquires a copy of that work.
`
`36. Moreover, when a MARC record is created by a library for its own copy
`
`of a work, field 005 is automatically populated with the date that MARC record was
`
`created
`
`in
`
`year, month,
`
`day
`
`format
`
`(YYYYMMDD).
`
`
`
`See
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd005.html (last visited April 26, 2021).9
`
`005 every time the library updates the MARC record (e.g., to reflect that an item has
`
`may automatically update the date in field
`
`
`was created based on the original MARC record by a subsequently-acquiring library
`
`for its own computer catalog system.
`
`9 Some of the newer library catalog systems also include hour, minute, second
`
`(HHMMSS).
`
`18
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 19 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`been moved to a different shelving location within the library). Id.10 Thus, the work
`
`identified by any MARC record possessed by any MARC-compatible library would
`
`have been accessible to the public at least as of the date shown in the 005 field, or
`
`shortly thereafter, from the library that possesses the MARC record itself. As noted,
`
`because the 005 field may be updated each time the library updates its MARC record,
`
`the work identified by the MARC record may, in fact, have been accessible to the
`
`public from that library much earlier than the date indicated in the 005 field.
`
`37. Moreover, MARC records for copies of works available at the Library
`
`of
`
`Congress
`
`can
`
`have
`
`a
`
`955
`
`field.
`
`
`
`See
`
`http://www.loc.gov/cds/PDFdownloads/dcm/DCM_2007-03.pdf (last visited April
`
`26, 2021). The 955 field in MARC records obtained from the Library of Congress
`
`provides Local Tracking Information, which is a record of internal steps in the
`
`cataloging process followed by the Library of Congress. Id. Entries in the 955 field
`
`for a particular work are generated by Library of Congress staff as the work
`
`progresses through the cataloging process. Id. One of the mandatory fields that
`
`
`10 Field 005 is visible when viewing a MARC record via an appropriate
`
`computerized interface. But when a MARC record is printed directly to hardcopy
`
`from the OCLC database, the
`
` The date in the 005 field
`
`instead appears next to
`
`19
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 20 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`library staff must enter for each step is
`
`Id. Thus, the work identified by a MARC record
`
`possessed by the Library of Congress would have been accessible to the public at
`
`least as of the earliest date shown in the 955 field, or shortly thereafter, from the
`
`Library of Congress.
`
`38. Based on my personal experience as a professional librarian using the
`
`MARC and OCLC resources, it has been my experience that both of these resources
`
`were continuously operational and available since at least 1992. Indeed, in the
`
`course of my work, I have extensively used both of these resources over the past 30+
`
`years, and I have consistently found the information contained within these resources
`
`to be complete and reliable. I have never found the date of accessibility as indicated
`
`in fields 008, 005, or 955 to be incorrect. And in only a minute number of cases
`
`have I found any errors at all in these reco
`
`ffected my ability to
`
`render an accurate opinion as to accessibility, indexing, or subject headings.
`
`V.
`
`PUBLICATION IN THIS PROCEEDING
`
`A. Rankl [Exhibit 1008]
`
`39.
`
`I was provided a copy of a book titled Smart Card Handbook, 3rd
`
`edition, by Wolfgang Rankl and Wolfgang Effing and translated by Kenneth Cox
`
`submitted as Exhibit 1008 in this proceeding. I was asked to locate a copy of this
`
`3. I understand that this book is being
`
`20
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 21 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`book within a library. Attached as Exhibit B to this declaration is a true and correct
`
`copy of the front and back covers, the title pages, the edition notice, and table of
`
`contents from Smart Card Handbook, 3rd edition held by the Linda Hall Library
`
`(Kansas City, Missouri). Based on this information, I conclude that Exhibit 1008 is
`
`a true and correct copy of Smart Card Handbook, 3rd edition as it is held by the Linda
`
`Hall Library; no pages are missing, and the text on each page appears to flow
`
`seamlessly from one page to the next; further, there are no visible alterations to the
`
`document. Exhibit 1008 is a true and correct copy in a condition that creates no
`
`suspicion about its authenticity.
`
`40. Attached hereto as Attachment 1a is a true and correct copy of the
`
`MARC record for this monograph from the Linda Hall Library online catalog. The
`
`library ownership is indicated by the presen
`
`field. The library continues to update this MARC record and enhanced the MARC
`
`record to meet current cataloging rules. The most recent enhancement to the MARC
`
`record occurred on April 15, 2004, as
`
`personally identified and retrieved the library catalog record which is Attachment
`
`1a.
`
`41. Based on finding a print copy of the Rankl book in the Linda Hall
`
`Library and MARC record in its online library catalog attached as Attachment 1a, it
`
`is my opinion that the book Smart Card Handbook, 3rd edition, was publicly
`
`21
`
`Samsung Ex. 1040, Page 22 of 100
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. RFCyber Corp.
`IPR2021-00981
`
`
`
`available on or shortly after August 22,
`
`International Standard Book Number (ISBN) on Exhibit 1008 (0-470-85668-8)
`
`matches the ISBN in field 020 of Attachment 1a. Therefore, Exhibit 1008 is the
`
`same book as the one that the cataloger at the Linda Hall Library used to create the
`
`MARC record that is Attachment 1a.
`
`42. Attached hereto as Attachment 1b is a true and correct copy of the
`
`MARC record for the Rankl book Smart Card Handbook, 3rd edition, obtained from
`
`the OCLC bibliographic database. I personally identified and retrieved the MARC
`
`record that is Attachment 1b. As previously noted, the library that created the record
`
`is recorded in field 040 with a unique library code. For Attachment 1b, that library
`
` record for this book was created at the
`
`Library of Congress. As can be seen in
`
`the MARC record for
`
`this exhibit, a cataloger at the Library of Congress created OCLC record number
`
`52942893 on August 22, 20
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
