`IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00031
`
`
`DECLARATION OF RAJEEV SURATI, PH.D
`
`
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`I, Rajeev Surati, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`1.
`
`I make this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge and,
`
`if called upon to testify, would testify competently to the matters stated herein.
`
`2.
`
`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 U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`(“the ‘228 patent”) in connection with an inter partes review (“IPR”) petition filed
`
`by Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”).
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard hourly rate of $560 per hour
`
`for the time I spend on this matter. My compensation is not based on the content
`
`of my opinions or the resolution of this matter, and I have no other interest in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`In this declaration, I offer opinions relating to the ‘228 patent and
`
`certain references identified by Petitioner. The substance and bases of my opinions
`
`appear below.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied on my knowledge, training,
`
`and experience in the relevant field, which I will summarize briefly here. In
`
`addition, my curriculum vitae (CV) is attached to this declaration.
`
`
`
`1
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`6.
`I hold a Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (awarded in 1999) with a
`
`Grade Point Average of 5.0/5.0. I obtained a Master of Science in Electrical
`
`Engineering and Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (awarded in 1995) with a Grade Point Average of 5.0/5.0. I have a
`
`Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (awarded 1992) and graduated with a Grade Point Average of 4.9/5.0.
`
`7. My Ph.D. thesis was entitled “Scalable Self-Calibrating Technology
`
`for Large Scale Displays.” My Master's thesis was entitled “Practical Partial
`
`Evaluation.” My Undergraduate thesis, which I received the MIT EECS’s William
`
`A. Martin thesis prize for best undergraduate thesis, was entitled “A Parallelizing
`
`Compiler based on Partial Evaluation.” Lastly, I was awarded the highly selective
`
`Department of Energy’s Computational Science Fellowship in 1995, which funded
`
`my Ph.D. studies.
`
`8.
`
`Between 1989 and 1999 I was employed as a researcher/programmer
`
`at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab. At the lab, I worked for Thomas F. Knight
`
`Jr., Ph.D. He is one of the noted inventors of the first bit-mapped displays for
`
`computers, a core programmer on the ITS (intelligent time-sharing operating
`
`system), creator of several innovations in VLSI, and most recently noted as being
`
`one of the grandfathers of synthetic biology. I also worked for Professor Anant
`
`
`
`2
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`Agarwal on parallel computing and Professors Hal Abelson and Gerald J. Sussman
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`on parallel and scientific computing.
`
`9.
`
`In 1996, I began working on a Ph.D. thesis related to the display of
`
`multimedia across large displays. My Ph.D. thesis system was a special kind of
`
`display allowing one to create ultra-high-resolution displays composed of multiple
`
`projectors tiled with a slight overlap. A camera-based feedback system is used to
`
`create an inverse map to drive the system such that a person would only see a
`
`continuous, seamless display with no bezel or overlap. What content and how to
`
`drive it onto the display was a topic I became familiar with. Also, at this time,
`
`several interactive TV projects were going on at MIT, which I had exposure to
`
`from this vantage, especially concerning the idea that these large displays would be
`
`in the living rooms of the future. Thus, I became familiar with content
`
`encoding/decoding, user interfaces for driving large displays, multimedia content
`
`storage, high-resolution imagery, networks, recording, GPUs, storage of content,
`
`etc.
`
`10.
`
`In 2002, MIT was awarded U.S. Patent 6,456,339, entitled “Super-
`
`resolution Display,” for my Ph.D. work. Today this technology is better known as
`
`automatic calibration for projection mapping. My experience, along with a patent I
`
`developed and licensed based on my Ph.D. thesis, were used to create a new
`
`
`
`3
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`startup company called Scalable Display Technologies that works with a variety of
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`Pro AV display companies’ products.
`
`11. While at MIT pursuing my doctorate, I started a company called Flash
`
`Communications in 1997, which invented an instant messaging platform focused
`
`on enterprise needs. It had its basis from my having observed the popularity at MIT
`
`of the Zephyr Instant Messaging Service from 1988 onwards. Given this enterprise
`
`focus, Microsoft soon acquired the company in 1998. We built both a client and
`
`server product, and the basic protocol we invented became the basis of the well-
`
`known XMPP protocol that was widely used in the mid-2000s among instant
`
`messaging providers. I worked on developing both the client and server products
`
`and particularly dealt with many, if not all, of the issues one might have to face
`
`when implementing contact lists.
`
`12. Upon graduation, I joined Microsoft (as was required by Microsoft in
`
`the acquisition of Flash Communications) and worked on both client and server
`
`technologies related to instant messaging, covering both the Microsoft Exchange
`
`Instant Messaging product that was released in 2000 and MSN Messenger. At
`
`Microsoft, I also worked on the client and server side of the products.
`
`13. At Microsoft, I participated in development of the Instant Messaging
`
`and Presence Protocol (IMPP), which was at least partially derived from a similar
`
`protocol that I worked on at Flash. The IMPP protocol was later incorporated into
`
`
`
`4
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) protocol that was used
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`widely for instant messaging by Microsoft, Google, Cisco, Jabber, and several
`
`others.
`
`14. As this XMPP adoption was going on, there was further internal
`
`discussion regarding the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) protocol, which was
`
`eventually adopted more broadly by Microsoft for Instant Messaging. The SIP
`
`protocol is used for signaling and controlling multimedia communication sessions
`
`in applications of Internet telephony for voice and video calls, instant messaging
`
`over Internet Protocol (IP) networks, as well as mobile phone calling over LTE
`
`(VoLTE). While working at Flash and Microsoft, I was personally responsible for
`
`developing source code for parsing and processing input messages and generating
`
`output messages in accordance with the above-described protocols, and thus I have
`
`an extensive working knowledge of many different protocols used in multimedia
`
`communications systems. Furthermore, I worked on an SDK integrating the
`
`Exchange Servers with the MSN Servers.
`
`15.
`
`In 2002, I served as a technical consultant for Cordant
`
`Communication, which was founded for the purpose of archiving instant messages.
`
`During this time period, I also served as an informal adviser to IMLogic, which
`
`also worked on message archiving. Later in 2007, I served as a technical adviser to
`
`Unify Square, which built software to manage Microsoft telephony and messaging
`
`
`
`5
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`solutions deployed in Fortune 500 companies. Unify Square was recently sold to
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`Unisys.
`
`16. From 2000 to 2007, I cofounded, led, and sold a business called
`
`photo.net to Namemedia, which is now part of GoDaddy.com. In 2000, while
`
`running the site, I worked on many features including a chat feature, a WAP
`
`interface to photo.net, and a rich user interface based on JavaScript. Photo.net for a
`
`time in early 2000 was considered a top 1,000 website so it received large amounts
`
`of traffic. Having built the site from running on a single computer that I installed in
`
`a datacenter to a full rack of computers in that data center, I became very familiar
`
`with the careful design and programming one needs to employ in building and
`
`maintaining such systems. I became intimately familiar with implementing file
`
`systems for use with multimedia and super high performance image
`
`encoding/decoding systems as well as real time delivery of high bandwidth
`
`content.
`
`17. At photo.net, we prototyped many fundamental Internet community
`
`features such as photo sharing, social networking, and memberships in the late
`
`1990s and early 2000s. This system was written on top of Oracle SQL Database
`
`and had to serve up many millions of web pages a day (corresponding to millions
`
`of records), with high volume inserts and also incorporated an ecommerce system
`
`used for billing of subscriptions, tracking users etc. I spent seven years running the
`
`
`
`6
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`site both writing new features driven by the Oracle SQL database and maintaining
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`tables with many millions of records being generated. I also served as the database
`
`administrator for seven years, which provided me with personal and extensive
`
`operational experience running such a system, dealing with database query speed-
`
`up and more mundane day-to-day issues regarding maintaining relational databases
`
`such as backups, etc.
`
`18.
`
`I also worked with the team at ArsDigita including Dr. Philip
`
`Greenspun, who created the photo.net site as a hobby in 1993 while we were at
`
`MIT, and who asked me to cofound the business with him in 1999 when I came
`
`back from Microsoft. ArsDigita built public open source community web site
`
`creation tools similar to what people today call Drupal on which many thousands
`
`of websites were built, including both enterprise and consumer web sites.
`
`ArsDigita’s product came out of the work to develop photo.net, and photo.net
`
`served as a prime example site of one using the ArsDigita System as its underlying
`
`content management system.
`
`19. The photo sharing system on photo.net was built on top of a photo
`
`database engine called PhotoDB including features like key word tagging, folder,
`
`and even making custom fields that users could customize for making their own
`
`personal tables. I rebuilt and maintained much of the user interface for this in 2001
`
`until the site was sold.
`
`
`
`7
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`20. Because photo.net was focused on high-end amateur photographers, I
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`worked with many consumer electronics manufacturers in the digital camera
`
`business. There, I implemented a photo sharing system involving the delivery of
`
`multimedia content. Additionally, I worked on e-commerce capabilities that
`
`involved some product configuration options. In running photo.net, I became
`
`intimately familiar with implementing file systems for use with multimedia and
`
`super high performance image encoding/decoding systems as well as real time
`
`delivery of high bandwidth content.
`
`21. Messaging and broadcasting content were a core part of the offering
`
`of the site, and I managed the implementation and hosting aspect of setting up and
`
`running various SMTP, MTA, WAP, and SMS servers to enable communication
`
`with our user base. In that regard, WAP PUSH, which is a relevant protocol to
`
`messaging, was something I worked on as well at the time.
`
`22.
`
`In 2001, I became involved with helping a rich user interface (UI)
`
`web company, Nexaweb, as both an investor and advisor. In that role, I worked on
`
`the underlying infrastructure for a device independent (mobile device, PC, etc.)
`
`way to write UIs for web application utilizing Java as a rendering engine backed
`
`by web server backend. Underlying that technology required providing server
`
`pushes over http. At that time JavaScript could provide a UI but it was not
`
`standardized across browsers, which made it hard to implement reliable systems
`
`
`
`8
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`that worked across browsers—especially ones that required server push underneath
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`it.
`
`23.
`
`In 2004, I founded Scalable Display Technologies (SDT) and I have
`
`been the President and Chairman of the company since the founding. Among its
`
`operations, SDT operates in the Audio Video domain and has licensed software
`
`and firmware to various companies including Hitachi and NEC. I also wrote a
`
`network synchronized media playback system involving encoding and decoding of
`
`video and audio content as well as real time recording and video capture, a product
`
`known as “ScalablePlayer.” I was also involved in building a network architecture
`
`using both broadcast and point-to-point communication mechanisms.
`
`24. Also, as detailed in my attached CV, I am an inventor of subject
`
`matter in approximately 10 U.S. Patents. I have also received additional patents,
`
`including: U.S. Patent No. 8,817,111, entitled “System and method of calibrating a
`
`display system free of variation in system input resolution”; U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,994,757, “System and method for providing improved display quality by display
`
`adjustment and image processing using optical feedback”; U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,215,455, “System and method of calibrating a display system free of variation in
`
`system input resolution”; U.S. Patent No. 9,369,683, “System and method for
`
`calibrating a display system using manual and semi-manual techniques”; and U.S.
`
`
`
`9
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 9,497,447, “System and method for color and intensity calibrating of a
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`display system for practical usage.”
`
`25.
`
`I am co-inventor of patented technology related to instant messaging
`
`upon I which focused on technology related to U.S. Patent No. 5,943,478 and
`
`associated technology that I had developed related to pop-up, two-way messaging
`
`over the Internet. While at Microsoft, I was an inventor on several patents
`
`including: U.S. Patent No. 6,260,148 relating to methods and systems for message
`
`forwarding and property notifications using electronic subscriptions; and U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 6,415,318 and 6,604,133 relating to inter-enterprise messaging systems
`
`using bridgehead servers. Aspects of these patents relate specifically to messaging
`
`and notification technology in telecommunications systems.
`
`26.
`
`I am on the advisory boards of several technology companies,
`
`including: Paneve, which develops general purpose ASICs coupled with compiler
`
`technology; Nexaweb, which develops real-time web application frameworks using
`
`HTTPS; Antix Labs, which develops compiler technology for a universal gaming
`
`platform; and Permabit, which develops content addressable storage.
`
`27.
`
`I have received several awards for my contributions as an inventor
`
`and entrepreneur, including the Global Indus. Technovator Award 2009 and
`
`Laureate of 2009 Computer World Honors Program.
`
`
`
`10
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`28.
`In parallel with my work at SDT, I lectured at MIT on many subjects
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`including the Android operating system, and I worked with a group of students on
`
`developing mobile applications for Android in 2008 with Rich Miner, who is a co-
`
`founder of Android. Many students created applications involving Google Maps
`
`and localization, so I was familiar with these. I also served as a lecturer and mentor
`
`at MIT Play Labs, which was an incubator for augmented reality (AR) and virtual
`
`reality (VR) software for mobile handsets and headset applications. Notably in
`
`addition to mobile handsets, Android runs on the Oculus headset. As part of that
`
`program, I worked with several startup companies on mobile applications
`
`including one that developed applications for Telegram, which is a cross-platform,
`
`cloud-based instant messaging system.
`
`29. Since 2014, I have been working as an independent consultant for
`
`several companies including NEC, Hitachi, Hi Marley, and Estee Lauder.
`
`30.
`
`In 2018, I became a senior partner at nCent Labs. In this role, I
`
`consulted on the development of an incentive market-based platform for block
`
`chains and cryptocurrency. Part of my work at nCent Labs focused on the
`
`development of SMS messaging applications for the nCent platform.
`
`31. Between 2019 and 2020, I served as a Technical Lead of the
`
`Skunkworks at Hydrow, which is a startup company that develops indoor rowing
`
`machines. In this role, I worked on special projects including development of a
`
`
`
`11
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`virtual reality experience using Magic Leap and Oculus to immerse users in a
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`world of team-based rowing crew on a scull based on virtual reality (VR)
`
`cinematography.
`
`32.
`
`I have published numerous papers on subjects relating to computing
`
`systems, computer network communications, databases, and other subjects within
`
`the realm of electrical and computer engineering.
`
`33.
`
`In 2020, I started a company called Skyline Nav AI Inc. that develops
`
`technology using visual location (using skyline) to geo-locate the place a picture
`
`was taken as an alternative to GPS.
`
`34. Over the past decade, I have served as a technical consultant and
`
`expert witness on matters relating to numerous patent infringement cases. In the
`
`course of this work, I have provided consulting services to a wide variety of
`
`technology companies including BritishTelecom, Apple, IBM, Philips, Shopify,
`
`Zillow, Polaris Powered Technologies, Amazon, Salesforce, Hitachi, Slack, Harris
`
`Teeter, and others.
`
`35.
`
` I have been teaching a Big Data class at Harvard Medical School one
`
`month of every year since 2018. The name of the class is “Computationally
`
`Enabled Medicine.”
`
`36. Finally, for the last 10 years I have served as an angel investor and
`
`also as a mentor for startup companies as part of different programs at MIT.
`
`
`
`12
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`37.
`In forming the opinions set forth in herein, I have considered and
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`relied upon my education, knowledge of the relevant field, and my experience. I
`
`have also reviewed and considered the ‘228 patent (Ex. 1001), the ‘228 patent’s
`
`file history (Ex. 1002) and at least the following additional materials:
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ‘228 Patent (Paper 1)
`
` Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review of ‘228 Patent (Paper
`
`12)
`
` Declaration of Dr. Loren Terveen Regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`(Ex. 1003)
`
` Aperture 3 User Manual (“A3UM”) (Ex. 1005)
`
` U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0058212 (“Belitz”) (Ex. 1006)
`
` U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2011/0074811 (Ex. 1028)
`
` Todd Bogdan, Announcing Picassa 3.5, now with name tags, better
`
`geotagging and more, The Official Google Blog (Sept. 22, 2009)
`
`(Archive.org Nov. 11, 2009) (Ex. 1032)
`
` Stephen Shankland, What’s the best Web site for geotagged photos?,” CNET
`
`(Mar. 18, 2009) (Ex. 1033)
`
` Panoramio, Embedding a Panoramio map into your web page, (Archive.org
`
`Mar. 28, 2010) (Ex. 1034)
`
`
`
`13
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
` Shu-Wai Chow, PHP Web 2.0 Mashup Projects, Packt Publishing (2007)
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1035)
`
` Google Code, Google Maps API Reference (Ex. 1040)
`
` U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0113350 (“Hibino”) (Ex. 1041)
`
` Devin Coldewey, Review: Aperture 3, CrunchGear (Archive.org Mar. 22,
`
`2010) (Ex. 1044)
`
` Tony Wu, Using Aperture 3: Part 1 (Archive.org Apr. 2, 2010) (Ex. 1045)
`
` U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0030391 to Kim (Ex. 1049)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,978,936 (Ex. 1050)
`
` Apple Inc. Aperture Software License Agreement (Ex. 2007)
`
` Devin Coldewey, Review: Aperture 3, CrunchGear
`
`(https://techcrunch.com/2010/03/19/review-aperture-3/) (last accessed Feb.
`
`2, 2022) (Ex. 2014)
`
` Hilary Greenbaum, Who Made Google’s Map Pin?, The New York Times,
`
`(Apr. 18, 2011) (Ex. 2015)
`
` Google Developers, Customizing a Google Map: Custom Markers (last
`
`accessed Feb. 17, 2022) (Ex. 2016)
`
` KML4Earth, Google Earth/Maps Public Icons,
`
`http://kml4earth.appspot.com:80/icons.html (Archive.org May 27, 2012)
`
`(Ex. 2017)
`
`
`
`14
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
` Apple, Inc., “Apple Human Interface Guidelines” (Aug. 20, 2009) (Ex.
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`2021)
`
` Wilbert O. Galitz, “The Essential Guide to User Interface Design: An
`
`Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques,” Wiley Publishing,
`
`Inc. (3rd Ed.) (2007) (Ex. 2022)
`
` Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Loren Terveen (Vol. I) (Ex. 2023)
`
` Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Loren Terveen (Vol. I) (Ex. 2024)
`
` Transcript of Deposition of Matthew Birdsell (Ex. 2026)
`
` eBay Receipt (August 15, 2022) (Ex. 2032)
`
` Jennifer Tidwell, Designing Interfaces, O’Reilly (1st Ed. 2005) (Ex. 2033)
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`38.
`
`I am not an attorney nor have I independently researched the law on
`
`patentability. I have a general understanding of validity and prior art based on my
`
`discussions with counsel.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`39.
`
`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
`
`
`
`15
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`(“POSITA”) at the time of the invention, after reading the entire patent and its
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`prosecution history.
`
`40.
`
`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.
`
`41.
`
`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.
`
`42.
`
`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.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that a dependent claim incorporates each and every
`
`limitation of the claim or claims from which it depends.
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`44.
`
`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: (1) each and every claim element must be identically
`
`
`
`16
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`disclosed, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference; (2) the
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`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, there is no anticipation.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that 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.
`
`46.
`
`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.
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`47.
`
`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
`
`
`
`17
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`analysis requires consideration of four factors: (1) scope and content of the prior
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`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 non-obviousness, 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.
`
`48.
`
`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 understand that a prior art reference is analogous art if at least one of
`
`the following 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.
`
`49.
`
`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
`
`
`
`18
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`succeeded. Furthermore, I understand that a claim may be obvious in view of a
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`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.
`
`50.
`
`I further understand that the law recognizes several 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 information to
`
`help perform the selection and combination, or the improper use of 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
`
`
`
`19
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`obvious to try analysis will not render a patent invalid unless it is shown that the
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`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 different one based on design incentives or other market forces that
`
`yields predicable 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.
`
`
`
`20
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2025
`Apple v. MemoryWeb – IPR2022-00031
`
`
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`IPR2022-00031
`51.
`I understand that each alleged prior art reference in a proposed
`
`Declaration of Rajeev Surati, Ph.D
`
`
`
`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.
`
`D. Dependent Claims
`
`52.
`
`I understand that a dependent claim incorporates each and every
`
`limitation of the claim(s) from which it depends. Thus, my understanding is that if
`
`a prior art reference fails to anticipate