Patent No. 10,621,228
`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
`
`
`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
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
