IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251
`Issued: September 13, 2016
`Application No.: 14/633,804
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For: Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice
`Networks
`
`
`
`FILED VIA E2E
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,445,251
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 001
`
`

`

`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`I. TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS ..................................4
`
`SUMMARY OF MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
` ..........................................................................................................16
`
`III. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART AND PERSPECTIVE APPLIED
`IN THIS DECLARATION...............................................................18
`
`IV. THE ’251 PATENT ..........................................................................20
`
` An Explanation of Georeferencing ........................................20
`Brief Description ....................................................................28
`
`Prosecution History Of The ʼ251 Patent ................................30
`
`
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................35
`
`
`
`“georeferenced map” ..............................................................36
`
`VI. UNDERSTANDING OF RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES ......35
`
`VII. THE PRIOR ART AND BACKGROUND EVIDENCE .................39
`
`
`
`Prior Art Relied Upon For Obviousness Combinations .........39
`’724 Patent (Ex. 1008) .................................................38
`
`
`VIII. THE ’724 PATENT IS NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE ’410
`APPLICATION ................................................................................48
`
`IX. CERTAIN FEATURES OF THE ’251 PATENT CLAIMS ARE
`NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ’410 APPLICATION, NOR THE ’728
`PATENT ...........................................................................................49
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Requesting and Receiving Second Georeferenced Map from a
`Server .....................................................................................50
`Groups ....................................................................................51
`The ’410 application does not describe receiving a message
`from a second device and, based on that message,
`participating in the group .......................................................54
`The ’410 application does not describe “anonymous
`communications” ....................................................................67
`
`i
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 002
`
`

`

`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`X.
`
`THE DISCLOSURES OF THE ’724 PATENT RENDER
`OBVIOUS ALL CLAIMS OF THE ’251 PATENT ........................65
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Independent claims 1 and 54 ..................................................75
` Motivation to combine .................................................67
`Preambles and initial clause .........................................84
`
`1 and 24 [a] joining a group’s network ........................85
`1 and 24 [b] based on the message, participating in the
`group by exchanging location information via a first
`server ............................................................................86
`1 and 24 [c] presenting a georeferenced map and
`symbols ........................................................................88
`1 and 24 [d], [e] requesting and receiving second
`georeferenced map from a second server.....................92
`1 and 24 [f] presenting a second georeferenced map and
`a second set of symbols................................................96
`1 and 24 [g] selecting symbols and sending data .........99
`1 and 24 [h]: first device does not have access to IP
`addresses of second devices .......................................102
`Dependent Claims ................................................................105
`Claims 2 and 25: send SMS, text, image, or video ....106
`
`Claims 3, 9, 26, and 32: first device is a PDA, PC,
`smartphone .................................................................107
`Claims 4 and 27: second georeferenced map includes
`satellite image or aerial photograph ...........................103
`Claims 5 and 28: update location based on time or
`distance travelled .......................................................108
`Claims 6 and 29: initiating phone call by selecting
`symbol ........................................................................109
`Claims 7 and 30: 251 claim 7 and 30: sending an SMS
`message ......................................................................111
`Claims 8 and 31: exchanging status information
`(battery level, etc.) .....................................................111
`Claims 10 and 33: Group identifier ...........................114
`Claims 11 and 34: send voice recording ....................115
` Claims 12 and 35: sending GPS location using Internet
`Protocol ......................................................................112
` Claim 13: identify user-selected symbol based on
`spatial coordinates corresponding to selected location
`on display and map ....................................................119
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 003
`
`

`

`
`
`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
` Claim 14: use database to identify symbol by location
`....................................................................................122
` Claims 15 and 16: adding a new entity with the user-
`specified location and symbol ....................................125
` Claim 17: new entity information ..............................129
` Claim 18: add new entity’s spatial coordinates to
`database ......................................................................132
` Claim 19: determine new entity’s spatial coordinates
`based on selected location on displayed map ............134
` Claims 20 and 21: entity database on device, server .137
` Claim 22: spatial coordinates include latitude and
`longitude ....................................................................113
` Claim 23: initiating a VoIP or data call by selecting
`symbol ........................................................................114
`
`CONCLUSION .........................................................................................115
`
`
`
`iii
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 004
`
`

`

`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`
`
`I have been retained by WhatsApp LLC (“Petitioner”) to provide my
`
`opinion concerning the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 (attached to the
`
`accompanying Petition as Ex. 1001 and henceforth referred to as “the ’251 patent”)
`
`in support of this Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251.
`
`
`
`I have not previously been retained by Petitioner. I am simultaneously
`
`engaged by Petitioner to provide declarations for IPRs challenging U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,031,728 (“the ’728 patent”), 7,630,724 (“the ’724 patent”), 9,467,838 (“the
`
`’838 patent”); and 9,749,829 (“the ’829 patent”). I previously submitted a
`
`declaration concerning the validity of the ’251 patent in Apple Inc. v. AGIS
`
`Software Development LLC, IPR2018-00817.
`
`
`
`This Declaration summarizes the opinions I have formed to date. I
`
`reserve the right to modify my opinions, if necessary, based on further review and
`
`analysis of information that I receive subsequent to the filing of this report,
`
`including in response to positions taken by AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`(“AGIS”) or its experts that I have not yet seen, including any secondary
`
`consideration evidence that AGIS or its expert may consider and present.
`
`II. EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4
`
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 005
`
`

`

`
`
`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
` My curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed summary of
`
`my background, experience, and publications, is attached to the accompanying
`
`Petition as Ex. 1003.
`
`
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science with a
`
`minor in Electrical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (“RPI”) in
`
`1986. I received a Master of Science degree and a Ph.D. in Computer Science
`
`from New York University (“NYU”) in 1989 and 1992, respectively.
`
`
`
`Since 1998, I have been a Professor of Computer Science at the
`
`University of Maryland (“UMD”), where I had joint appointments at the Institute
`
`for Advanced Computer Studies and the College of Information Studies
`
`(Maryland’s “iSchool”), and I am currently Professor Emeritus. I was Associate
`
`Provost of Learning Initiatives and Executive Director of the Teaching and
`
`Learning Transformation Center from 2014-2018. I am a member and a previous
`
`director of the Human-Computer Interaction Lab (“HCIL”), the oldest and one of
`
`the best known Human-Computer Interaction research groups in the country. I was
`
`also co-founder and Chief Scientist of Zumobi, Inc. from 2006 to 2014, a Seattle-
`
`based startup that is a publisher of content applications and advertising platforms
`
`for smartphones. I am also co-founder and co-director of the International
`
`Children’s Digital Library (“ICDL”), a web site launched in 2002 that provides the
`
`world’s largest collection of freely available online children’s books from around
`
`5
`
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 006
`
`

`

`
`
`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`the world with an interface aimed to make it easy for children and adults to search
`
`and read children’s books online. I am also co-founder and prior Chief Technology
`
`Officer of Hazel Analytics, a data analytics company whose product sends alerts
`
`in warranted circumstances. In addition, I have for more than 25 years consulted
`
`for numerous companies in the area of user interfaces, including Logitech,
`
`Microsoft, the Palo Alto Research Center, Sony, Lockheed Martin, and NASA
`
`Goddard Space Flight Center.
`
`
`
`For more than 30 years, I have studied, designed, and worked in the
`
`field of computer science and human-computer interaction. My experience
`
`includes 30 years of teaching and research, with research interests in human-
`
`computer interaction and the software and technology underlying today’s
`
`interactive computing systems. This includes the design and implementation of
`
`user interfaces on mobile devices, including smart phones and PDAs such as my
`
`work on DateLens, LaunchTile, and StoryKit described below.
`
`
`
`At UMD, my research is in the area of Human-Computer Interaction
`
`(“HCI”), a field that relates to the development and understanding of computing
`
`systems to serve users’ needs. Researchers in this field are focused on making
`
`universally usable, useful, efficient, and appealing systems to support people in
`
`their wide range of activities. My approach is to balance the development of
`
`innovative technology that serves people’s practical needs. Example systems
`
`6
`
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 007
`
`

`

`
`
`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`following this approach that I have built include PhotoMesa (software for end users
`
`to browse personal photos), DateLens (2002 software for end users to use their
`
`mobile devices to efficiently access their calendar information), LaunchTile (2005
`
`“home screen” software for mobile devices to allow users to navigate apps in a
`
`zoomable environment), SpaceTree (2001 software for end users to efficiently
`
`browse very large hierarchies), ICDL (as described above), and StoryKit (a 2009
`
`iPhone app for children to create stories).
`
`
`
`LaunchTile led to my creation of Zumobi in 2006, where I was
`
`responsible for investigating new software platforms and developing new user
`
`interface designs that provide efficient and engaging interfaces to permit end users
`
`to access a wide range of content on mobile platforms (including the iPhone and
`
`Android-based devices). For example, I designed and implemented software
`
`called “Ziibii,” a “river” of news for iPhone, software called “ZoomCanvas,” a
`
`zoomable user interface for several iPhone apps, and iPhone apps including “Inside
`
`Xbox” for Microsoft and Snow Report for REI. At the International Children’s
`
`Digital Library (ICDL), I have since 2002 been the technical director responsible
`
`for the design and implementation of the web site, www.childrenslibrary.org
`
`(originally at www.icdlbooks.org). In particular, I have been closely involved in
`
`designing the user interface as well as the software architecture for the web site
`
`since its inception in 2002.
`
`7
`
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 008
`
`

`

`
`
`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
` Beginning in the mid-1990s, I have been responsible for the design
`
`and implementation of numerous other web sites in addition to the ICDL. For
`
`example, I designed and built my own professional web site when I was an
`
`Assistant Professor of Computer Science at the University of New Mexico in 1995
`
`and have continued to design, write the code for, and update both that site (which
`
`I moved
`
`to
`
`the University of Maryland
`
`in 1998,
`
`currently at
`
`http://www.cs.umd.edu/~bederson/) as well as numerous project web sites, such as
`
`Pad++, http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/pad++/. I received the Janet Fabri
`
`Memorial Award for Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation for my Ph.D. work in
`
`robotics and computer vision. I have combined my hardware and software skills
`
`throughout my career in Human-Computer Interaction research, building various
`
`interactive electrical and mechanical systems that couple with software to provide
`
`an innovative user experience.
`
` My work has been published extensively in more than 160 technical
`
`publications, and I have given about 100 invited talks, including 9 keynote lectures.
`
`I have won a number of awards including the Brian Shackel Award for
`
`“outstanding contribution with international impact in the field of HCI” in 2007,
`
`and the Social Impact Award in 2010 from Association for Computing
`
`Machinery’s (“ACM”) Special Interest Group on Computer Human Interaction
`
`(“SIGCHI”). ACM is the primary international professional community of
`
`8
`
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 009
`
`

`

`
`
`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`computer scientists, and SIGCHI is the primary international professional HCI
`
`community. I have been honored by both professional organizations. I am an
`
`“ACM Distinguished Scientist,” which “recognizes those ACM members with at
`
`least 15 years of professional experience and 5 years of continuous Professional
`
`Membership who have achieved significant accomplishments or have made a
`
`significant impact on the computing field.” I am a member of the “CHI Academy,”
`
`which is described as follows: “The CHI Academy is an honorary group of
`
`individuals who have made substantial contributions to the field of human-
`
`computer interaction. These are the principal leaders of the field, whose efforts
`
`have shaped the disciplines and/or industry, and led the research and/or innovation
`
`in human-computer interaction.” The criteria for election to the CHI Academy are:
`
`(1) cumulative contributions to the field; (2) impact on the field through
`
`development of new research directions and/or innovations; and (3) influence on
`
`the work of others.
`
`
`
`I have appeared on radio shows numerous times to discuss issues
`
`relating to user interface design and people’s use and frustration with common
`
`technologies, web sites, and mobile devices. My work has been discussed and I
`
`have been quoted by mainstream media around the world over 120 times, including
`
`by the NEW YORK TIMES, the WALL STREET JOURNAL, the WASHINGTON POST,
`
`NEWSWEEK, the SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER, the INDEPENDENT, LE MONDE,
`
`9
`
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 010
`
`

`

`
`
`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`NPR’s All Things Considered, NEW SCIENTIST MAGAZINE, and MIT’s
`
`TECHNOLOGY REVIEW.
`
`
`
`I have designed, programmed, and publicly deployed dozens of user-
`
`facing software products that have cumulatively had millions of users. My work
`
`is cited in several patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 6,307,562, 6,608,549,
`
`7,576,756, and 7,834,849.
`
`
`
`I am the co-inventor of 12 U.S. patents and 18 U.S. patent
`
`applications. The patents are generally directed to user interfaces/experience with
`
`some directed to mobile devices, including U.S. Patent No. 9,778,810 (2017),
`
`entitled “Techniques to Modify Content and View Content on Mobile Devices.”
`
` As I have already touched on above, I was heavily involved in the
`
`research and development of mobile device applications during the time period that
`
`encompassed (before and after) the claimed September 21, 2004 priority date of
`
`the ’728 patent, the earliest patent to which the ’251 patent claims priority. For
`
`example, I envisioned, designed and built DateLens starting in 2002 to create a
`
`richer and more usable calendar for the Microsoft Pocket PC platform as well as
`
`desktops. One of its innovations was its design that enabled it to scale between
`
`small (mobile) and large (desktop) computers. I started DateLens as a research
`
`project and eventually sold it commercially. DateLens displayed calendar data that
`
`came straight from the Microsoft PocketOutlook database and allowed
`
`10
`
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 011
`
`

`

`
`
`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`modification and viewing of appointments. The research website from that time
`
`period
`
`that
`
`describes
`
`DateLens
`
`is
`
`still
`
`available
`
`at
`
`http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/datelens/ which shows screenshots and a picture of me
`
`demonstrating DateLens to Bill Gates. The commercial website from that time
`
`period is also available at http://www.windsorinterfaces.com/datelens.shtml which
`
`shows a number of news articles reviewing DateLens at that time.
`
`
`
`I have been asked my technical opinions regarding the understanding
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art as it relates to the ’838 patent and other
`
`reference documents.
`
`
`
`I have also been asked to provide my technical opinions on concepts
`
`discussed in the ’838 patent and other reference documents, as well as my technical
`
`opinions on how these concepts relate to several claim limitations of the ’838
`
`patent in the context of the specification.
`
`
`
`In reaching the opinions, I have considered the ’838 patent, its
`
`prosecution history, and the references below, and have also drawn as appropriate
`
`upon my own education, training, research, knowledge, and personal and
`
`professional experience.
`
`
`
`I am being compensated at my standard consulting rate of $600 per
`
`hour for my services. My compensation does not depend on the outcome of this
`
`review proceeding or of any pending litigation.
`
`11
`
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 012
`
`

`

`
`
`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`I have no direct financial interest in WhatsApp. I have been informed
`
`that AGIS claims ownership of the ’251 patent. I have no direct financial interest
`
`in AGIS.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
` Claim Construction
`
`
`
`I understand that claim construction in an Inter Partes Review is
`
`controlled by the standard in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (en banc).
`
` For example, claim construction begins with the language of the
`
`claims. Id. at 1312-14. The words are given their “ordinary and customary
`
`meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing
`
`date of the patent application.” Id. The specification and prosecution history are
`
`sources of intrinsic evidence that informs the meaning of the claim language.
`
`Extrinsic evidence, such as expert testimony and dictionaries, may be useful in
`
`educating the court regarding the field of the invention or helping determine what
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would understand claim terms to
`
`mean. Id. at 1318-19. However, extrinsic evidence in general is viewed as less
`
`reliable than intrinsic evidence. Id.
`
`12
`
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 013
`
`

`

`
`
`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, any claim term that is not
`
`construed should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
` Obviousness
`
`
`
`I understand that a prior art reference can render a patent claim
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the differences between the subject
`
`matter set forth in the patent claim and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`of the claim would have been obvious at the time the claimed invention was made.
`
`In analyzing obviousness, I understand that it is important to consider the scope of
`
`the claims, the level of skill in the relevant art, the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, the differences between the prior art and the claims, and any secondary
`
`considerations.
`
`
`
`I understand that when the claimed subject matter involves combining
`
`pre-existing elements to yield no more than one would expect from such an
`
`arrangement, the combination is obvious. I also understand that in assessing
`
`whether a claim is obvious one must consider whether the claimed improvement is
`
`more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions. I understand that there need not be a precise teaching in the prior art
`
`directed to the specific subject matter of a claim because one can take account of
`
`the inferences and creative steps that a person of skill in the art would employ. I
`
`13
`
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 014
`
`

`

`
`
`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`further understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity,
`
`not an automaton.
`
`
`
`I understand that obviousness cannot be based on the hindsight
`
`combination of components selectively culled from the prior art. I understand that
`
`in an obviousness analysis, neither the motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`inventors controls the inquiry. Any need or problem known in the field at the time
`
`of the invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining
`
`elements. For example, I understand that it is important to consider whether there
`
`existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there was an
`
`obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims. I understand that known
`
`techniques can have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and that in many
`
`cases a person of ordinary skill can fit the teachings of multiple pieces of prior art
`
`together like pieces of a puzzle.
`
`
`
`I understand that, when there is a reason to solve a problem and there
`
`are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill
`
`has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. I
`
`further understand that, if this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the
`
`product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense, which bears on
`
`whether the claim would have been obvious.
`
`14
`
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 015
`
`

`

`
`
`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`
`
`I understand that secondary considerations can include, for example,
`
`evidence of commercial success of the invention, evidence of a long-felt need that
`
`was solved by an invention, evidence that others copied an invention, or evidence
`
`that an invention achieved a surprising result. I further understand that such
`
`evidence must have a nexus, or causal relationship to the elements of a claim, in
`
`order to be relevant. I am unaware of any such secondary considerations for the
`
`’838 patent.
`
` Written Description
`
`
`
`I understand that, under the written description requirement, claimed
`
`subject matter must be supported by the specification in a way that would have led
`
`the ordinary artisan to conclude that the inventor demonstrated “possession” of the
`
`invention on the four corners of the relevant patent or application (including its as-
`
`filed claims). I understand that a patent claim has sufficient written description
`
`support in a patent application when that application (including its as-filed claims)
`
`describes the claimed invention, with all of its limitations, in a manner that is
`
`understandable to one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore shows that the
`
`inventor actually invented the invention claimed. I also understand that describing
`
`an obvious variant of the claimed invention is not sufficient. The person of ordinary
`
`skill must conclude that the application itself (including its as-filed claims) fully
`
`15
`
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 016
`
`

`

`
`
`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`sets forth the claimed invention, by describing it in words, figures, diagrams, and
`
`the like.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
`
` All of the opinions contained in this Declaration are based on the
`
`documents I reviewed and my knowledge and professional judgment. In forming
`
`the opinions expressed in this Declaration, while drawing on my experience in the
`
`field of software applications for mobile devices, I reviewed the following
`
`documents:
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 (the “’251 patent”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (the “’838 FH”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,445, 251 (the “’251 FH”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/027,410 (the “’410 application”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (the “’728 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (the “’724 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,126,441 (the “’441 patent”)
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 10/711,490 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 11/308,648 (“’724 to ’728 Comparison”)
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/308,648 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 11/615,472 (“’441 to ’724 Comparison”)
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/615,472 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 12/761,533 (“’129 to ’441 Comparison”)
`
`16
`
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 017
`
`

`

`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1031
`
`Computer-generated document comparison showing differences in
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/027,410 and U.S. Patent Application
`No. 11/308,648 (“’410 to 724 Comparison”)
`GeoTIFF Format Specification, GeoTIFF Rev. 1.0, Specification
`version 1.8.1, October 31, 1995 (GeoTIFF Specification”)
`Hornbaek and Bederson, “Navigation Patterns and Usability of
`Zoomable User Interfaces with and without an Overview,” ACM
`Transaction on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 9, No. 4,
`December 2002, pages 362-389.
`MapInfo, “Spatially Enhancing Business Data with Geocoding
`Solutions, A MapInfo White Paper (1997) (“MapInfo White Paper”)
`MapInfo Professional User’s Guide Version 7.0 (“MapInfo User
`Guide”)
`Python Documentation 2.0 Homepage (Oct. 16, 2000), available at
`https://docs.python.org/release/2.0/
`Python Documentation 2.0, Section 7.2 Socket, available at
`https://docs.python.org/release/2.0/lib/module-socket.html
`Internet Engineering Task Force RFC 1034, Domain Names –
`Concepts and Facilities (November 1987), available at
`https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc1034.
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0008526 (“Borghei”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,450,003 (“Weber”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0027901 (“Liu”)
`
`
`
`
`
` My opinions are additionally guided by my appreciation of how a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claims of the ’251
`
`patent at the time of the alleged invention, which I have been asked to assume is
`
`the 2013-14 timeframe. For the purposes of determining whether there is written
`
`description support in the ’410 application, I understand that the relevant date is its
`
`actual filing date, September 16, 2013. For purposes of whether the teachings of
`
`17
`
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 018
`
`

`

`
`
`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`prior art render obvious the ’251 patent’s claims, I understand that the relevant date
`
`is that patent’s actual filing date, October 31, 2014, once the “priority chain” is
`
`broken. Although my analysis takes into account these two separate dates
`
`depending on the context, I did not notice any relevant differences. Accordingly, I
`
`will use the term “date of invention” or “relevant timeframe” interchangeably with
`
`this understanding.
`
`V. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART AND PERSPECTIVE APPLIED IN
`THIS DECLARATION
`
`
`
`I understand that certain issues relating to validity must be judged
`
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, as I discuss
`
`below.
`
` The invention of the ’251 patent relates to a method and system that
`
`provides individuals the ability to set up and utilize an ad hoc digital and voice
`
`network for location sharing and communications among mobile devices, such as
`
`smartphones and PDAs.
`
`
`
`In determining the level of ordinary skill, I have been asked to
`
`consider, for example, the types of problems encountered in the field, prior
`
`solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the
`
`sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the
`
`field. Taking those factors into consideration, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the relevant time would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a suitable field
`
`18
`
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 019
`
`

`

`
`
`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`(e.g., computer science, or electrical or computer engineering), or equivalent
`
`proficiency. In addition, it would have taken 2-3 years of work on software
`
`applications for mobile devices, such as smartphones and PDAs, for a person to
`
`become familiar with the problems encountered in the field and the prior and
`
`current solutions to those problems. Through education and relevant work
`
`experience, the person of ordinary skill would have an understanding and
`
`familiarity with the function and development of software applications for mobile
`
`devices, such as smartphones and PDAs.
`
`
`
`I would have qualified as a person of at least ordinary skill in the art
`
`as of the relevant timeframe, and also as of the earliest claimed September 21, 2004
`
`priority date on the face of the ’251 patent. I have a sufficient level of knowledge,
`
`experience, and education to provide an expert opinion in the field of the ’251
`
`patent.
`
` While my own level of skill level exceeded that of the ordinary level
`
`of skill in the art at the relevant timeframe, as I had earned my Ph.D. in computer
`
`science and had been working on the research and development of human-
`
`computer interaction for over two decades by that date, I am well-acquainted with
`
`the actual performance and capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art as
`
`defined above. This is because, during the relevant timeframe, I was teaching and
`
`19
`
`
`WhatsApp LLC
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 020
`
`

`

`
`
`Bederson Declaration for Inter Partes Review of USP 9,445,251
`
`working with graduate students, and professional programmers—so I was quite
`
`familiar with the skills that people with a range of experience had at the time.
`
` My opinions in this Declaration are based on the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art as of the relevant timeframes discussed above, or
`
`somewhat before (approximately 2013-14). This is true even if the testimony is
`
`stated in the present tense. Each of the statements below reflects my opinion based
`
`on my review of the disclosures of the ’251, ’724, and ’728 patents, the file history
`
`of the ’251 patent, the ’410 application, and the petitioned claims.
`
`VI. THE ’251 PATENT
`
` An Explanation of Georeferencing
`
` Before I discuss the patent,