Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2021-01413
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR GLENN REINMAN
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3 
`I. 
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 3 
`II. 
`III.  MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 9 
`IV.  LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 10 
`A.  Claim Construction ..................................................................................... 10 
`B.  Anticipation .................................................................................................. 11 
`C.  Obviousness .................................................................................................. 12 
`D.  Method Claims ............................................................................................. 16 
`E.  Dependent Claims ........................................................................................ 16 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF THE ‘228 PATENT .......................................................... 16 
`VI.  THE ‘228 PATENT’S EFFECTIVE FILING DATE ................................... 21 
`VII.  LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................. 22 
`VIII.  OPINIONS ..................................................................................................... 22 
`A.  Summary of Petitioner’s References ......................................................... 23 
`1.  Overview of Okamura ............................................................................ 23 
`2.  Overview of Flora ................................................................................... 32 
`3.  Wagner (EX............................................................................................. 35 
`4.  Gilley (EX ................................................................................................ 35 
`B.  Claim Construction ..................................................................................... 35 
`1.  Limitations [1b], [1d] and [1e]: “responsive to a first input, causing a
`map view to be displayed … the map view including: … a first /
`second] location selectable thumbnail image … .................................. 35 
`2.  Limitations [1n] and [1p]: “the people view including: ...................... 37 
`3.  Limitations [1b], [1d] and claim 3 “the first indication feature is
`connected to the first location selectable thumbnail image” .............. 38 
`4.  Claim 5: “the map view further includes a first indication feature”
`and “second indication feature” ............................................................ 40 
`C.  Ground 1: Okamura and Flora .................................................................. 41 
`1.  Limitation [1c]: “the map view including: (i) an interactive map” ... 42 
`2.  Limitation [1d] the “map view including . . . [first/second] location
`selectable thumbnail image[s]” ............................................................. 44 
`
`
`
`1
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`a.  A POSITA Would Not Modify Okamura with Flora ......................... 44 
`b.  Accused Infringer Construction of Thumbnail Image ....................... 61 
`3.  Limitations [1b], [1d] and [1e]: “responsive to a first input, causing a
`map view to be displayed … the map view including: … a [first /
`second] location selectable thumbnail image” ..................................... 62 
`4.  Limitations [1n] and [1p]: “the people view including: ...................... 64 
`5.  Dependent Claims 2 – 7 .......................................................................... 65 
`a.  Limitations [1b], [1d] and claim 3 “the first indication feature is
`connected to the first location selectable thumbnail image” .............. 66 
`b.  Claim 5: “the map view further includes a second indication
`feature” .......................................................................................... 67 
`D.  Ground 2: Okamura, Flora, and Wagner ................................................. 69 
`1.  Petitioner’s Reliance on Ground 1 for Ground 2 ................................ 69 
`2.  Limitations [1g] and [1j] ........................................................................ 70 
`E.  Ground 3: Okamura, Flora, and Gilley ..................................................... 71 
`F.  Ground 4: Okamura, Flora, Wagner, and Gilley ..................................... 72 
`IX.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 72 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`I, Glenn Reinman, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of MemoryWeb, LLC, (“MemoryWeb”
`
`or “Patent Owner”) as an independent expert consultant to provide this declaration
`
`concerning the technical subject matter relevant to the inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`petition of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228 (“the ‘228 patent”) filed by Unified Patents,
`
`LLC (“Petitioner”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard hourly rate of $750 per hour
`
`for the time I spend on this matter. My compensation is not related in any way to the
`
`outcome of this proceeding, and I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In this declaration, I offer my expert opinion regarding the technical
`
`subject matter of claims 1-7 (“the challenged claims”) of the ‘228 patent.
`
`Specifically, I have considered whether claims 1-7 of the ‘228 patent are valid under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103. The substance and bases of my opinions appear below.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is appended hereto as Appendix A. I am
`
`currently a professor of Computer Science, serving as vice chair of the Computer
`
`Science department, at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
`
`5.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science and
`
`Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in June 1996. In
`
`
`
`3
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`March 1999, I received a Master of Science degree in Computer Science from the
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`
`
`University of California at San Diego. I received my Doctor of Philosophy degree
`
`in Computer Science from the University of California at San Diego in June 2001.
`
`6.
`
`In 2001, I became an Assistant Professor at the University of California
`
`in Los Angeles (UCLA) in the Department of Computer Science. In 2007, I was
`
`promoted to the position of an Associate Professor, and in 2014, I became a Full
`
`Professor. From 2016 through 2019, I was the Graduate Vice Chair of the Computer
`
`Science department at UCLA, in charge of the Graduate Degree Program. Starting
`
`in 2021, I became the Undergraduate Vice Chair of the Computer Science
`
`department at UCLA, in charge of the Undergraduate Degree Program.
`
`7.
`
`I teach subjects in computer science, such as computer systems
`
`architecture, microprocessor design, microprocessor simulation, distributed and
`
`parallel systems.
`
`8.
`
`I began my career with summer internships at Intel Corporation and
`
`Compaq (now HP) in 1998 and 1999, respectively. At Intel I researched issues such
`
`as the viability of caching state from the branch predictor, the translation lookaside
`
`buffer, and the branch target buffer in the second-level data cache. I also modified
`
`SimpleScalar—a system software infrastructure used to build modeling applications
`
`for program performance analysis, microarchitectural modeling, and hardware-
`
`software co-verification—to use ITR traces for Windows applications for
`
`
`
`4
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`predictability experiments, as well as running simulations with SimpleScalar to test
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`
`
`the effectiveness of this technique. At Compaq, I expanded the CACTI cache
`
`compiler (CACTI 2.0), including enhancing CACTI 2.0 to include a fully associative
`
`cache model, power modeling, multiple port models, transistor tuning, and tag path
`
`balancing.
`
`9.
`
`From 1997 through 2001, I served as a research assistant at the
`
`University of California at San Diego, where I implemented a profile-based
`
`approach to classifying loads for memory renaming, value prediction, and
`
`dependence prediction using SimpleScalar and ATOM (Analysis Tools with OM). I
`
`also created a fetch unit with a branch prediction structure called FTB, as well as
`
`working with SimpleScalar to generate a hybrid predictive technique including
`
`renaming, value prediction, address prediction, and dependence prediction.
`
`10. Starting in 2002, I began teaching Computer Science classes at UCLA.
`
`During my time at UCLA, I have implemented a flipped classroom in my
`
`undergraduate courses, where I provide video content ahead of class with my
`
`lectures, and then use the classroom to answer questions and work through sample
`
`problems. These undergraduate courses are large, often 400 students or more in a
`
`single class. Such large classes require robust and efficient web sites to host the
`
`video content for the students, and I have spent considerable time and effort in
`
`designing and maintaining these web sites.
`
`
`
`5
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`11. From 2011 to 2022, I designed, implemented, and maintained multiple
`
`websites outside of UCLA including multi-media content (e.g., photos, videos, etc.)
`
`with user interfaces for displaying the content. The websites were built on a Joomla
`
`framework, and I added a great deal of custom PHP scripting to implement signup,
`
`store, and content delivery functionality. The site hosted multimedia content
`
`including video and photos, and needed to be designed for a lay audience.
`
`12.
`
`I am a named inventor on two U.S. Patents, and have published around
`
`100 papers, textbook chapters, and reports on such topics as steering behaviors,
`
`accelerator-rich architectures, RF interconnects, microarchitecture design, computer
`
`animation, 3D integration, 3D architecture modeling, multi-actor simulations, real-
`
`time physics simulation, error-tolerance in physics-based animation, micro-
`
`architecture pipelining, classifying load and store instructions for memory renaming,
`
`predictive techniques for load speculation, and instruction scheduling. I have
`
`received awards or other recognition from organizations such as the International
`
`Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, the Engineering Society
`
`of the University of California, and the National Science Foundation.
`
`13.
`
`I have also participated in organizations like the International
`
`Symposium on Microarchitecture, Computing Frontiers, the Symposium on
`
`Interactive 3D Graphics and Games (I3D), the Workshop on Memory Systems
`
`Performance, the International Symposium on Computer Architecture, and the
`
`
`
`6
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`International Conference on Compilers, Architecture, and Synthesis for Embedded
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`
`
`Systems.
`
`14.
`
`I have performed research in many computer science areas. For
`
`example, I have researched multimedia streaming, compression, and encryption as
`
`part of an effort to create application-specific hardware to reduce the latency and
`
`power consumption associated with these applications. I have also researched
`
`interactive entertainment, specifically focusing on the user’s perception of a virtual
`
`world. In particular, I surveyed users to gauge how realistic they felt an interactive
`
`experience was when using approximate computing to improve processing
`
`efficiency. This work included graphics, navigation, and real-time physics. In
`
`addition to a number of publications, this research resulted in the creation of
`
`SteerSuite, a set of virtual world scenarios that could be used to benchmark the
`
`navigation/steering and physics algorithms of other researchers.
`
`15.
`
`I have also developed an approximate computing architecture that uses
`
`lightweight checking to verify the quality of neural network-based computing
`
`elements. I have proposed an accelerator-rich microprocessor design that uses a
`
`heterogeneous set of building blocks to dynamically compose different accelerators
`
`depending on application demand. I developed a chip multiprocessor design for real-
`
`time physics called “ParallAX,” which enhances parallel processing capabilities for
`
`reducing demand on the system. Similarly, I researched hierarchical floating point
`
`
`
`7
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`using dynamic precision reduction to reduce the area required at each fine grain core
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`
`
`by sharing resources.
`
`16.
`
`In 2009, my collaborators and I competed for and received an NSF
`
`Expedition award for our proposal that has established the Center for Domain
`
`Specific Computing (CDSC) here at UCLA (the lead institution), along with other
`
`faculty from Rice University, Ohio State, and UCSB. I am one of four faculty on the
`
`executive committee of this Center. I lead the Architecture Thrust of this Center, in
`
`charge of designing our customizable hardware platform. This grant had been
`
`extended in 2014 to cover further extensions to healthcare including genomics, and
`
`is still currently providing funding to the Center. For example, we have targeted
`
`medical imaging as one candidate application. We researched best practices in
`
`medical imaging (e.g., MRI) for de-blurring, de-noising, image registration, image
`
`segmentation, and recognition, and also implemented customized software/hardware
`
`solutions to reduce patient wait time.
`
`17.
`
`In 2021, I competed for and received a grant from Melinda Gates’
`
`Pivotal Ventures to establish a Break Through Tech AI hub at UCLA — part of a
`
`national program designed to teach artificial intelligence to a greater diversity of
`
`students — bringing AI education to college students from underserved groups
`
`across Southern California. I am now the faculty director of the program at UCLA.
`
`
`
`8
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`18.
`
`In forming the opinions set forth in this declaration, I have considered
`
`and relied upon my education, knowledge of the relevant field, and my experience.
`
`I have also reviewed and considered the ‘228 patent (EX1001) and its file history
`
`(EX1003), and at least the following additional materials:
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ‘228 Patent (“Petition”)
`
` The Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. (“Bederson
`
`Declaration,” EX1002)
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0122153 (“Okamura,” EX1003)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,714,215 (“Flora,” EX1004)
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0163971 (“Wagner,” EX1005)
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0172551 (“Gilley,” EX1006)
`
` Certified English Translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2001-160058 (“Fujiwara,” EX2002)
`
` Certified English Translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2007-323544 (“Takakura,” EX2040)
`
` Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Benjamin Bederson Dated May
`
`24, 2022 (EX2036)
`
`
`
`9
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`19.
`
`I reserve the right to amend and supplement this declaration in light of
`
`additional evidence, arguments, or testimony.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`20.
`
`I am not a patent attorney nor have I independently researched the law
`
`on patentability. I have a general understanding of validity, prior art and priority date
`
`based on my discussions with counsel.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`21.
`
`I understand that claim construction is the process by which a court
`
`determines the scope and meaning of terms used in the claims of a patent. I
`
`understand that the goal of this process is to give claim terms the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning they would have had to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) at the time of the invention, after reading the entire patent and its
`
`prosecution history.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that it is possible that the patent specification may reveal
`
`a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the
`
`meaning it would otherwise have to a POSITA. In such cases, I understand that the
`
`patentee’s definition usually controls.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the prosecution history of a patent can inform the
`
`meaning of some claim language and must be taken into account in construing the
`
`claims.
`
`
`
`10
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`24.
`
`I understand that, in some cases, the court may consider extrinsic
`
`evidence, such as dictionaries, treatises, and expert opinions, to understand the
`
`underlying technology and the way in which claim terms would be understood by a
`
`POSITA at the relevant time.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a dependent claim incorporates each and every
`
`limitation of the claim or claims from which it depends.
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`26.
`
`I understand that anticipation analysis is a two-step process. The first
`
`step is to determine the meaning and scope of the asserted claims. Each claim must
`
`be viewed as a whole, and it is improper to ignore any element of the claim. For a
`
`claim to be anticipated under U.S. patent law: (1) each and every claim element must
`
`be identically disclosed, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference;
`
`(2) the claim elements disclosed in the single prior art reference must be arranged in
`
`the same way as in the claim; and (3) the identical invention must be disclosed in the
`
`single prior art reference, in as complete detail as set forth in the claim. Where even
`
`one element is not disclosed in a reference, the anticipation contention fails.
`
`Moreover, to serve as an anticipatory reference, the reference itself must be enabled,
`
`i.e., it must provide enough information so that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`can practice the subject matter of the reference without undue experimentation.
`
`
`
`11
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`27.
`
`I further understand that where a prior art reference fails to explicitly
`
`disclose a claim element, the prior art reference inherently discloses the claim
`
`element only if the prior art reference must necessarily include the undisclosed claim
`
`element. Inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The fact
`
`that an element may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to prove
`
`inherency. I have applied these principles in forming my opinions in this matter.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`being obvious only if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art
`
`are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in that art. An obviousness analysis
`
`requires consideration of four factors: (1) scope and content of the prior art relied
`
`upon to challenge patentability; (2) differences between the prior art and the claimed
`
`invention; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention; and
`
`(4) the objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as commercial success,
`
`unexpected results, the failure of others to achieve the results of the invention, a
`
`long-felt need which the invention fills, copying of the invention by competitors,
`
`praise for the invention, skepticism for the invention, or independent development.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference is proper to use in an obviousness
`
`determination if the prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. I
`
`
`
`12
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`understand that a prior art reference is analogous art if at least one of the following
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`
`
`two considerations is met. First, a prior art reference is analogous art if it is from the
`
`same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, even if the prior art reference
`
`addresses a different problem and/or arrives at a different solution. Second, a prior
`
`art reference is analogous art if the prior art reference is reasonably pertinent to the
`
`problem faced by the inventor, even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that it must be shown that one having ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation that a
`
`modification or combination of one or more prior art references would have
`
`succeeded. Furthermore, I understand that a claim may be obvious in view of a single
`
`prior art reference, without the need to combine references, if the elements of the
`
`claim that are not found in the reference can be supplied by the knowledge or
`
`common sense of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art. However, I understand
`
`that it is inappropriate to resolve obviousness issues by a retrospective analysis or
`
`hindsight reconstruction of the prior art and that the use of “hindsight reconstruction”
`
`is improper in analyzing the obviousness of a patent claim.
`
`31.
`
`I further understand that the law recognizes several specific guidelines
`
`that inform the obviousness analysis. First, I understand that a reconstructive
`
`hindsight approach to this analysis, i.e., the improper use of post-invention
`
`
`
`13
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`information to help perform the selection and combination, or the improper use of
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`
`
`the listing of elements in a claim as a blueprint to identify selected portions of
`
`different prior art references in an attempt to show that the claim is obvious, is not
`
`permitted. Second, I understand that any prior art that specifically teaches away from
`
`the claimed subject matter, i.e., prior art that would lead a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to a specifically different solution than the claimed invention, points to non-
`
`obviousness, and conversely, that any prior art that contains any teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to modify or combine such prior art reference(s) points to
`
`the obviousness of such a modification or combination. Third, while many
`
`combinations of the prior art might be “obvious to try,” I understand that any obvious
`
`to try analysis will not render a patent invalid unless it is shown that the possible
`
`combinations are: (1) sufficiently small in number so as to be reasonable to conclude
`
`that the combination would have been selected; and (2) such that the combination
`
`would have been believed to be one that would produce predictable and well
`
`understood results. Fourth, I understand that if a claimed invention that arises from
`
`the modification or combination of one or more prior art references uses known
`
`methods or techniques that yield predictable results, then that factor also points to
`
`obviousness. Fifth, I understand that if a claimed invention that arises from the
`
`modification or combination of one or more prior art references is the result of
`
`known work in one field prompting variations of it for use in the same field or a
`
`
`
`14
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`different one based on design incentives or other market forces that yields predicable
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`
`
`variations, then that factor also points to obviousness. Sixth, I understand that if a
`
`claimed invention that arises from the modification or combination of one or more
`
`prior art references is the result of routine optimization, then that factor also points
`
`to obviousness. Seventh, I understand that if a claimed invention that arises from the
`
`modification or combination of one or more prior art references is the result of a
`
`substitution of one known prior art element for another known prior art element to
`
`yield predictable results, then that factor also points to obviousness.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that each alleged prior art reference in a proposed
`
`obviousness combination must be evaluated as an entirety, i.e., including those
`
`portions that would argue against obviousness, and must be considered for
`
`everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred
`
`embodiment. I understand that it is impermissible to pick and choose from any one
`
`reference only so much of it as will support a given position to the exclusion of other
`
`parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one
`
`skilled in the art, or to ignore portions of the reference that argue against
`
`obviousness. I also understand that all of the supposed prior art to be combined as
`
`proposed must also be evaluated as a whole, and should be evaluated for what they
`
`teach in combination as well as separately.
`
`
`
`15
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`D. Method Claims
`
`33.
`
`I understand that as a general rule, unless the steps of a method actually
`
`recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one. However, I
`
`understand that such a result can ensue when the method steps implicitly require that
`
`they be performed in the order written. I understand that this determination involves
`
`a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the claim language requires an order as a matter of
`
`logic or grammar; and (2) if the answer to (1) is in the negative, whether the
`
`specification directly or implicitly requires such a narrow construction.
`
`E. Dependent Claims
`
`34.
`
`I understand that a dependent claim incorporates each and every
`
`limitation of the claim from which it depends. Thus, my understanding is that if a
`
`prior art reference fails to anticipate an independent claim, then that prior art
`
`reference also necessarily fails to anticipate all dependent claims that depend from
`
`the independent claim. Similarly, my understanding is that if a prior art reference or
`
`combination of prior art references fails to render obvious an independent claim,
`
`then that prior art reference or combination of prior art references also necessarily
`
`fails to render obvious all dependent claims that depend from the independent claim.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘228 PATENT
`
`35. The ’228 patent is directed to methods for “allow[ing] people to
`
`organize, view, preserve these files with all the memory details captured, connected
`
`
`
`16
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`and vivified via an interactive interface.” EX1001, 1:61-65. The ‘228 patent
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`
`
`describes methods for organizing and displaying digital files, like digital
`
`photographs and videos, in user-friendly and intuitive ways.
`
`36. FIG. 41 of the ‘228 patent shows a map view including “an interactive
`
`map.” EX1001, 29:41-45.
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 41.
`
`37.
`
`In the map view, “individual or groups of Digital Files are illustrated as
`
`photo thumbnails (see indicators 0874 and 0875)) on the map.” Id., 29:48-55. The
`
`geographic map is interactive at least because the user can “narrow the map view by
`
`either using the Zoom in/Zoom out bar (0876) on the left or simply selecting the
`
`map.” Id., 29:52-55.
`
`
`
`17
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`38. The ‘228 patent also states that in the map view illustrated in FIG. 41,
`
`“the user can select the thumbnail to see all the Digital Files with the same location
`
`(as seen FIG. 34 (indicator 1630)).” EX1001, 29:48-55.
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 34.
`
`39.
`
`In the “Single Location Application View” shown in FIG. 34, “a single
`
`location (1630) is illustrated,” which includes “[t]he individual location name” and
`
`“[t]humbnails of each Digital File within the specification collection.” Id., 24:22-28.
`
`Thus, the map view and location view allow users to efficiently and intuitively locate
`
`and display digital files associated with a particular location.
`
`
`
`18
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`40. The ‘228 patent also describes a people view for organizing digital files.
`
`FIG. 32 of the ‘228 patent illustrates a people view 1400 including for “each person,
`
`a thumbnail of their face along with their name is depicted.” EX1001, 22:59-23:4.
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 32.
`
`41. The “Single People Profile Application View” includes a variety of
`
`information, including, for example, a person’s name 1431, a profile photo 1440,
`
`and photos 1452 associated with that person. Id., 23:12-49.
`
`42.
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ‘228 patent is reproduced below. I have
`
`added the same identifiers used by Petitioner and Dr. Bederson for ease of reference
`
`throughout this declaration.
`
`
`
`19
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2038
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`

`

`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2021-01413
`
`
`
`
` Declaration of Professor Glenn Reinman, Ph.D
`
`1. [1a - preamble] A method comprising:
`
`[1b] responsive to a first input, causing a map view to be displayed on
`an interface, the map view including:
`
`
`[1c] (i) an interactive map;
`[1d] (ii) a first location selectable thumbnail image at a first
`location on the interactive map; and
`[1e] (iii) a second location selectable thumbnail image at a
`second location on the interactive map;
`
`
`[1f] responsive to an input that is indicative of a selection of the first
`location selectable thumbnail image, causing a first location view to be
`displayed on the interface,
`
`
`[1g] the first location view including (i) a first location name
`associated with the first location and (ii) a representation of at
`least a portion of one digital file in a first set of digital files,
`[1h] each of the digital files in the first set of digital files being
`produced from outputs of one or more digital imaging devices,
`the first set of digital files including digital files associated with
`the first location;
`
`
`[1i] responsive to an input that is indicative of a selection of the second
`location selectable thumbnail image, causing a second location view to
`be displayed on the interface,
`
`
`[1j] the second location view including (i) a second location
`name associated with
`the second
`location and
`(ii) a
`representation of at least a portion of one digital file in a second
`set of digital files,
`[1k] each of the digital files in the second set of digital files being
`produced from outputs of the one or more