UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROXENSE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`––––––––––––––
`
`IPR2021-01444
`Patent 8,352,730
`––––––––––––––
`
`DECLARATION OF SYLVIA D. HALL-ELLIS, PH.D.
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 1
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROXENSE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`––––––––––––––
`
`IPR2021-01444
`Patent 8,352,730
`––––––––––––––
`
`DECLARATION OF SYLVIA D. HALL-ELLIS, PH.D.
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 1
`
`
`
`I, Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis. I have been retained as an expert by
`
`Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc, the
`
`Petitioner, in connection with petitions it is preparing for inter partes review.
`
`2.
`
`I have written this declaration at the request of the Petitioner to
`
`provide my expert opinion regarding the authenticity and public availability of a
`
`book. My declaration sets forth my opinions in detail and provides the basis for my
`
`opinions regarding the authenticity and public availability of this publication. If
`
`called to testify in the above-captioned proceeding, I will testify regarding the
`
`opinions and bases set forth below.
`
`3.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement or amend my opinions, and bases for
`
`them, in response 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 proceeding. I
`
`have no other interests in this proceeding or with any of the parties.
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 2
`
`
`
`5.
`
`All the materials that I considered and relied upon are discussed
`
`explicitly in this declaration.
`
`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 forty-five 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 founding Chair of the ALCTS
`
`Division’s Task Force on Competencies and Education for a Career in Cataloging.
`
`Additionally, I have served as the Chair for the ALA Office of Diversity’s
`
`Committee on Diversity, as a member of the REFORMA National Board of
`
`Directors, and as a member of the Editorial Board for the ALCTS premier
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 3
`
`
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`I have also given over one hundred presentations in the field,
`
`including several on library cataloging systems and Machine-Readable Cataloging
`
`(“MARC”) standards. My current research interests include library cataloging
`
`systems, metadata, and organization of electronic resources.
`
`9.
`
`I have been deposed twenty-one times: (1) Symantec Corp. vs.
`
`Finjan, Inc., Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926,
`
`May 26, 2016, on behalf of Symantec Corp.; (2) Symantec Corp. vs.
`
`Finjan, Inc., 14-cv-299-HSG (N.D. Cal.), on behalf of Symantec Corp.,
`
`September 14, 2017; (3) one deposition for ten matters: Intellectual Ventures I
`
`LLC vs. AT&T Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II LLC, New Cingular Wireless
`
`Services, Inc., SBC Internet Services, Inc., Wayport, Inc., and Cricket Wireless
`
`LLC, C.A. No. 12-193 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. AT&T Mobility
`
`LLC; AT&T Mobility II LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., SBC Internet
`
`Services, Inc., Wayport, Inc., and Cricket Wireless LLC, C.A. No. 13-1631 (LPS);
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc., C.A.
`
`No. 13-1632 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-
`
`Mobile US, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1633 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC, vs. Nextel
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 4
`
`
`
`Operations, Inc., Sprint Spectrum L.P., Boost Mobile, LLC and Virgin Mobile
`
`USA, L.P., C.A. No. 13-1634 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. Nextel
`
`Operations, Inc., Sprint Spectrum L.P., Boost Mobile, LLC and Virgin Mobile
`
`USA, L.P., C.A. No. 13-1635 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC, vs. United States
`
`Cellular Corporation, C.A. No. 13-1636 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC vs.
`
`United States Cellular Corporation, C.A. No. 13-1637 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures
`
`II LLC vs. AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility II LLC, New Cingular Wireless
`
`Services, Inc., C.A. No. 15-799 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC vs. T-Mobile
`
`USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc., C.A. No. 15-800 (LPS), on behalf of AT&T
`
`Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II LLC, Boost Mobile, LLC Cricket Wireless LLC,
`
`Nextel Operations, Inc., New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., SBC Internet
`
`Services, Inc., Sprint Spectrum L.P., T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc.,
`
`United States Cellular Corporation Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., and Wayport, Inc.,
`
`November 15, 2016; (4) Hitachi Maxell, LTD., v. Top Victory Electronics
`
`(Taiwan) Co. Ltd., et al., 2:14-cv-1121 JRG-RSP (E.D. Texas), on behalf of Top
`
`Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co. LTD, et. al., January 20, 2016; (5) Sprint
`
`Spectrum, L.P. vs. General Access Solutions, Ltd., Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,173,916, on behalf of Sprint Spectrum L.P., July 13, 2018;
`
`(6) Nichia Corporation vs. Vizio, Inc., 8:16-cv-00545; on behalf of Vizio, Inc.,
`
`October 12, 2018; (7) Intellectual Ventures I LLC, vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 5
`
`
`
`Mobile US, Inc., Ericsson Inc., and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 2:17-cv-
`
`00557 (JRG), on behalf of T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., Ericsson Inc.,
`
`and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, October 19, 2018; (8) Pfizer, Inc. vs.
`
`Biogen, Inc., Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,821,873, on
`
`behalf of Pfizer, November 3, 2018; (9) Finjan, Inc. vs. ESET, LLC and ESET
`
`SPOL. S.R.O., 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS, on behalf of ESET, January 15, 2019;
`
`(10) Finjan, Inc. vs. Cisco Systems, Inc., 5:17-cv-00072-BLF-SVK, on behalf of
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., September 6, 2019; (11) Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC and
`
`Whatsapp Inc. vs. Blackberry Limited, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,349,120 B2, on behalf of Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC and
`
`Whatsapp Inc. December 20, 2019; (12) 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Inc. v. Align
`
`Technology, Inc., Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,156,661,
`
`IPR 2020-00222 and IPR 2020-00223, August 10, 2020, on behalf of 3Shape A/S
`
`and 3Shape Inc.; (13) Finjan Inc. v. Rapid7, Inc. and Rapid7 LLC, Northern
`
`District of Delaware; 1:18-cv-01519-MN, September 15, 2020; (14) VLSI
`
`Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Western District of Texas, 6:19-cv-00254,
`
`6:19-cv-00255, 6:19-cv-00256, on behalf of Intel Corporation, September 23,
`
`2020; (15) Finjan Inc. v. Sonicwall, Inc., Northern District of California, 5:17-cv-
`
`04467-BLF-HRL, on behalf of Sonicwall, Inc., October 27, 2020; (16) VLSI
`
`Technology, LLC v. Intel Corporation, District of Delaware, 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 6
`
`
`
`CJB, February 5, 2021, on behalf of the Intel Corporation; (17) Unified Patents,
`
`LLC v. Good Kaisha IP Bridge 1, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U. S. Patent
`
`7,817,868, February 11, 2021, on behalf of Unified Patents; (18) Finjan, Inc. v.
`
`Qualsys, Inc., Northern District of California, 4:18-cv-07229-YGR, March 1,
`
`2021, on behalf of Qualsys, Inc.; (19) Qualcomm, Inc. v. Monterey Research LLC,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U. S. Patent 6,534,805, May 6, 2021, on behalf
`
`of Qualcomm, Inc.; (20) Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U. S. Patent 5,806,062, May 14, 2021, on behalf of Hulu,
`
`LLC; and, (21) VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, Western District of
`
`Texas, 6:19-cv-00254, 6:19-cv-00255 and 6:19-cv-00256, August 3, 2021, on
`
`behalf of Intel Corporation.
`
`10. My full curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Attachment 1.
`
`III. PRELIMINARIES
`
`A.
`
`11.
`
`Scope of Declaration and Legal Standards
`
`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 ordinary diligence, could have
`
`located the documents before December 20, 2004.
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 7
`
`
`
`12.
`
`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.
`
`13. 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
`
`individual publication, I also understand that a printed publication is rendered
`
`“publicly accessible” if it is cataloged and 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
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 8
`
`
`
`indexing of an abstract for the printed publication, is sufficient to render the
`
`printed publication publicly accessible.
`
`14.
`
`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.
`
`B.
`
`15.
`
`Persons of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`I am told by counsel that the subject matter of this proceeding relates
`
`to integrated wireless devices in a generic “computerized authentication” system
`
`that are used to gain access to devices, applications, or accounts through a
`
`biometric validation procedure.
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a “person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention” (“POSITA”) is a 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.
`
`17.
`
`I am told by counsel that persons of ordinary skill in this subject
`
`matter or art would have had a Bachelor’s of Science degree in computer or
`
`electrical engineering (or an equivalent degree) with at least three years of
`
`experience in the field of encryption and security (or equivalent experience). I
`
`understand that additional education could compensate for less practical experience
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 9
`
`
`
`and vice versa. I have been further informed by counsel that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been familiar with and able to understand the
`
`information known in the art relating to these fields, including the publication
`
`discussed in this declaration.
`
`18.
`
`It is my opinion that such a person would have been engaged in
`
`research, learning, study, and practice in the field, and possibly formal instruction
`
`so that bibliographic resources relevant to his or her research would be familiar.
`
`Before December 20, 2004, such a person would have had access to a vast array of
`
`long-established print resources in oil and gas development as well as to a rich set
`
`of online resources providing indexing information, abstracts, and full text
`
`services.
`
`IV. LIBRARY PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES
`
`19.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I used authoritative databases, such as
`
`the OCLC bibliographic database, the Library of Congress Online Catalog, and the
`
`Library of Congress Subject Authorities, to confirm citation details of the various
`
`publications discussed. Unless I note otherwise below in reference to a specific
`
`serial publication, it is my expert opinion that this standard protocol was followed
`
`for the serial publication discussed below.
`
`20.
`
`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
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 10
`
`
`
`relevant information in an index of periodicals 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 date of a document’s public accessibility
`
`will involve both indexing and library date information. However, date information
`
`for indexing entries is often unavailable. This is especially true for online indices.
`
`21.
`
`Indexing services use a wide variety of controlled vocabularies to
`
`provide subject access and other means of discovering the content of documents.
`
`The Library of Congress Subject Authorities includes standard forms of terms and
`
`cross references that are included in bibliographic records. Subject headings are
`
`terms that an individual seeking a document regardless of format can enter in the
`
`search bar of the online catalog. Subjects also connect an authenticated term (one
`
`included in the Library of Congress subject headings list) with related, broader,
`
`and narrower terms. The formats in which these access terms are presented vary
`
`from service to service.
`
`22. Online
`
`indexing
`
`services
`
`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
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 11
`
`
`
`later than the publication date of the citing document. Prominent indexing services
`
`include Scopus, the IEEE Xplore database, the ACM Digital Library, Google
`
`Scholar, and the Internet Archive.
`
`V. LIBRARY CATALOGING PRACTICES
`
`23.
`
`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.1 MARC was first developed in the 1960’s
`
`by the Library of Congress. A MARC-compatible library is one that has a catalog
`
`consisting of individual MARC records for each of its items. Today, MARC is the
`
`primary communications protocol for the transfer and storage of bibliographic
`
`metadata in libraries.2
`
`1 The full text of the standard is available from the Library of Congress at
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/ (last visited August 16, 2021).
`
`2 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 (last visited August 16, 2021) (“MARC is the
`
`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
`
`bibliographic information, and its data elements make up the foundation of most
`
`library catalogs used today.”). MARC is the ANSI/NISO Z39.2-1994 (reaffirmed
`
`2016) standard for Information Interchange Format.
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 12
`
`
`
`24. 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.3 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 resources. Choosing to use MARC
`
`enables libraries to acquire cataloging data that is predictable and
`
`reliable. If a library were to develop a “home-grown” 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
`
`3 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 August 16, 2021).
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 13
`
`
`
`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. 4
`
`25. Thus, almost every major library in the world is MARC-compatible.
`
`See, e.g., MARC Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 5
`
`(“MARC is the 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 bibliographic information, and its data elements make up the foundation
`
`of most library catalogs used today.”). MARC 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.6
`
`26. 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. For example, a
`
`work’s title is recorded in Field 245; the primary author of the work is transcribed
`
`in Field 100; an item’s International Standard Book Number (“ISBN”) consisting
`
`4 http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um01to06.html#part2
`
`5 https://www.loc.gov/marc/faq.html
`
`6 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 14
`
`
`
`of ten or thirteen digits is transcribed in Field 020; an item’s International Standard
`
`Serial Number (“ISSN”) is transcribed in Field 022; the Library of Congress
`
`classification notation is recorded in Field 050; and the publication date is recorded
`
`in Field 260 under the subfield “c.” If a work is a periodical, then its publication
`
`frequency is recorded in Field 310, 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.7
`
`27. The library that created the record is recorded in Field 040 in subfield
`
`“a” with a unique library code. When viewing the MARC record online via Online
`
`Computer Library Center’s (“OCLC”) bibliographic database, hovering over this
`
`code with the mouse reveals the full name of the library. I used this method of
`
`“mousing over” the library codes in the OCLC database to identify the originating
`
`library for the MARC records discussed in this declaration. Where this “mouse
`
`over” option was not available, I consulted the Directory of OCLC Libraries to
`
`identify the institution that created the MARC record.8
`
`28. MARC records also include several fields that include subject matter
`
`classification information. An overview of MARC record fields is available
`
`7 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd3xx.html
`
`8 https://www.oclc.org/en/contacts/libraries.html
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 15
`
`
`
`through the Library of Congress.9 For example, 6XX fields are termed “Subject
`
`Access Fields.”10 Among these, for example, is the 650 field; this is the “Subject
`
`Added Entry – Topical Term” field.11 The 650 field is a “[s]ubject added entry in
`
`which the entry element is a topical term.” These entries “are assigned to a
`
`bibliographic record to provide access according to generally accepted thesaurus-
`
`building rules (e.g., Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), Medical
`
`Subject Headings (MeSH)).” Id. Further, MARC records include call numbers,
`
`which themselves include a classification number. For example, the 050 field is the
`
`“Library of Congress Call Number.” 12 A defined portion of the Library of
`
`Congress Call (LCC) Number is the classification number, and “source of the
`
`classification number
`
`is Library of Congress Classification and the LC
`
`Classification-Additions and Changes.” Thus, included in the 050 field is a subject
`
`matter classification. Further, the 082 field is the “Dewey Decimal Call Number.”13
`
`A defined portion of the Dewey Decimal Call (DDC) Number is the classification
`
`number, and “source of the classification number is the Dewey Decimal
`
`Classification and Relative Index.” Thus, included in the 082 field is a subject
`
`9 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/
`
`10 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd6xx.html
`
`11 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd650.html
`
`12 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd050.html
`
`13 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd082.html
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 16
`
`
`
`matter classification. 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 LCC classification number, it appears as part of the 050 field. When the
`
`Library of Congress assigns the DDC classification number, it appears as part of
`
`the 082 field. If a local library assigns the classification number, it appears in a 090
`
`field. In either scenario, the MARC record includes a classification number that
`
`represents a subject matter classification.
`
`29. The OCLC was created “to establish, 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 knowledge and information.” 14 Among other services,
`
`14 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).
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 17
`
`
`
`OCLC and its members are responsible for maintaining the WorldCat database
`
`(http://www.worldcat.org/), used by
`
`independent and
`
`institutional
`
`libraries
`
`throughout the world.
`
`30. OCLC also provides its members online access to MARC records
`
`through its OCLC bibliographic database. When an OCLC member institution
`
`acquires a work, it creates a MARC record for this work 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 institution or is tape-loaded from the Library
`
`of Congress, the MARC record is then made available to any other OCLC
`
`members online, and therefore made available to the public. Accordingly, once the
`
`MARC record is created by a cataloger at an OCLC member institution or is tape-
`
`loaded from the Library of Congress or another library anywhere in the world, any
`
`publication corresponding to the MARC record has been cataloged and indexed
`
`according to its 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.
`
`31. When an OCLC member institution creates a new MARC record,
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 18
`
`
`
`OCLC automatically supplies the date of creation for that record. The date of
`
`creation for the MARC record appears in the fixed Field (008), characters 00
`
`through 05. The MARC record creation date reflects the date on which, or shortly
`
`after which, the item was first acquired or cataloged. Initially, Field 005 of the
`
`MARC record is automatically populated with the date the MARC record was
`
`created in year, month, day format (YYYYMMDD) (some of the newer library
`
`catalog systems also include hour, minute, second (HHMMSS)). Thereafter, the
`
`library’s computer system may automatically update the date in Field 005 every
`
`time the library updates the MARC record (e.g., to reflect that an item has been
`
`moved to a different shelving location within the library). Field 005 is visible when
`
`viewing a MARC record via an appropriate computerized interface, but when a
`
`MARC record is printed to hardcopy, no “005” label appears. The initial Field 005
`
`date (i.e., the date the MARC record was created) does appear, however, next to
`
`the label “Entered.”15 The date upon which the most recent update to Field 005
`
`occurred also appears, next to the label “Replaced.” Thus, when an item’s MARC
`
`record has been printed to hardcopy—as is the case with the exhibits to this
`
`15 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 “005” label is not shown. The date in the 005 field
`
`instead appears next to the label “Replaced.”
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 19
`
`
`
`declaration—the date reflected next to the label “Entered” is necessarily on or after
`
`the date the library first cataloged and indexed the underlying item.
`
`32. Once one library has cataloged and indexed a publication by creating
`
`a MARC record for that publication, other libraries that receive the publication do
`
`not create additional MARC records—the other libraries instead rely on the
`
`original MARC record. They may update or revise the MARC record to ensure
`
`accuracy, but they do not replace or duplicate it. This practice does more than save
`
`libraries from duplicating labor. It also enhances the accuracy of MARC records.
`
`Further, it allows librarians around the world to know that a particular MARC
`
`record is authoritative (in contrast, a hypothetical system wherein duplicative
`
`records were created would result in confusion as to which record is authoritative).
`
`33. Catalogers can create MARC records for all types of print, online, and
`
`digital resources. The date of creation of the MARC record by a cataloger at an
`
`OCLC member institution reflects when the underlying item is accessible to the
`
`public. 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,
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 20
`
`
`
`libraries make these purchases throughout the year as the books are published and
`
`shelve the books as soon thereafter as possible 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.
`
`VI. PUBLICATION 1: EXHIBIT 1001 (“SCHNEIER”)
`
`34. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1001 is a copy of a book, Applied
`
`Cryptography: Protocols, Algorithms, and Source Code in C, 2nd edition, by Bruce
`
`Schneier (hereafter “Schneier”) and issued by John Wiley & Sons with a 1996
`
`copyright date. Exhibit 1001 is a true and correct copy of the title page, copyright
`
`page, and table of contents as held by the Karl F. Wendt Engineering Library at the
`
`University of Wisconsin – Madison. The Schneier book was published in print and
`
`electronic formats.16 I examined the digital version of the Schneier book as held in
`
`the King Library at San José State University (San José, California). The text in
`
`Exhibit 1001 is complete; 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 1001 is a true and correct copy in a condition
`
`that creates no suspicion about its authenticity.
`
`16 https://www.wiley.com/en-
`
`us/Applied+Cryptography%3A+Protocols%2C+Algorithms%2C+and+Source+Co
`
`de+in+C%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9780471117094
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1015, Page 21
`
`
`
`35. Attached hereto as Attachment 1a is a true and correct copy of the
`
`MARC record for this monograph from the Karl F. Wendt Engineering Library at
`
`the University of Wisconsin – Madison online catalog. The library ownership is
`
`indicated by the presence of the library’s code (GZM) in the 049 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 June 4, 1999, as shown in the “Replaced” field (“19990604”). I
`
`personally identified and retrieved the library catalog record which is Attachment
`
`1a.
`
`36. Based on finding a print copy of the Schneier book in the Karl F.
`
`Wendt Engineering Library at the University of Wisconsin – Madison and MARC
`
`record in its online library catalog attached as Attachment 1a, it is my opinion that
`
`the book Applied Cryptography: Protocols, Algorithms, and Source Code in C, 2nd
`
`edition, was publicly available on or shortly after March 27, 1995, as shown in
`
`field 008 (“950327”). The International Standard Book Number (ISBN) on Exhibit
`
`1001 (0-471-78597-0) matches the ISBN in the second field 020 of Attachment 1a.
`
`Therefore, Exhibit 1001 is the same book as the one that
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
