`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BILLJCO LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`CASE: IPR2022-00131
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,639,267
`
`_______________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ISTVAN JONYER, PH.D. REGARDING CLAIMS 1, 5,
`13, 20, 21, 29, 30, 34, 42, AND 49 OF U.S. PATENT 8,639,267
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 1 of 44
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ....................................................................... 1
`II.
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ................................................. 3
`A.
`Education and Experience ................................................................. 3
`B.
`Compensation ................................................................................... 6
`C. Documents and Other Materials Considered .................................... 7
`D.
`Prior Testimony and Publications ..................................................... 7
`IV. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES .................................................. 8
`A.
`Claim Construction............................................................................ 8
`B. Obviousness ....................................................................................... 9
`SCOPE OF OPINIONS ............................................................................ 10
`V.
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE '267 PATENT ....................................................... 11
`A.
`The Specification and Drawings ..................................................... 11
`B.
`The Claim Language ...................................................................... 13
`C.
`Prosecution History ......................................................................... 14
`D.
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................ 16
`E.
`Claim Construction.......................................................................... 17
`VII. HABERMAN DOES NOT RENDER ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM
`OBVIOUS .................................................................................................. 23
`A. Haberman Fails to Disclose Or Make Obvious
`
`The Claimed "Privilege" Limitations .............................................. 23
`B. Haberman Fails To Disclose Or Make Obvious
`
`The Claimed "Destination Identity" ................................................ 26
`
`
`
`
`40344381.1
`
`i
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 2 of 44
`
`

`

`VIII. HABERMAN IN COMBINATION WITH BOGER
`
`DO NOT RENDER ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM OBVIOUS ............. 28
`IX. VANLUIJT FAILS TO RENDER THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`UNPATENTABLE AS OBVIOUS ........................................................... 29
`A. Vanluijt Fails to Disclose Or Make Obvious The Claimed
`
`"Privilege" Limitations .................................................................. 29
`B. Vanluijt Fails To Disclose Or Make Obvious
`
`The Claimed "Destination Identity" ............................................... 31
`X. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ................................. 33
`
`
`
`
`40344381.1
`
`ii
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 3 of 44
`
`

`

`I, Istvan Jonyer, Ph.D., hereby declare as follows:
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`
`
`1.
`
`I am a computer scientist, former academic, Google manager, and
`
`technology entrepreneur with experience developing mobile device applications.
`
`2.
`
`I have been engaged by Patent Owner BillJCo LLC as a consultant in
`
`connection with the present inter partes review by Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`3.
`
`This Declaration sets forth the opinions I have formed and the bases for
`
`them concerning patentability of claims 1, 5, 13, 20, 21, 29, 30, 34, 42, and 49 ("the
`
`Challenged Claims") of U.S. Patent No. 8,639,267 ('267 Patent) (EX1001).
`
`4.
`
`I have relied on my knowledge, experience, and expertise in the
`
`technologies involved, which I have acquired over my career, in providing the
`
`analysis and opinions contained in this report. All of my conclusions and opinions
`
`are provided within a reasonable degree of professional certainty.
`
`II.
`
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`5.
`
`It is my opinion that the Challenged Claims are not obvious: in view of
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0096044 ("Haberman") (EX1004)
`
`alone; in view of Haberman, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`No. 2002/0159401 ("Boger") (EX1005); or in view of U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2002/0132614 ("Vanluijt") (EX1006).
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 4 of 44
`
`

`

`6.
`
`It is my opinion that Haberman fails to disclose or make obvious the
`
`various "privilege" related limitations found the Challenged Claims.
`
`7.
`
`It is also my opinion that Haberman fails to disclose or make obvious
`
`the claimed "destination identity" limitation, as recited in each independent claim of
`
`the Challenged Claims (i.e., claims 1 and 29) of the '267 Patent.
`
`8.
`
`It is my opinion that the Haberman reference in combination with Boger
`
`fails to disclose or make obvious the various "privilege" related limitations found
`
`the Challenged Claims.
`
`9.
`
`It is also my opinion that Haberman in combination with Boger fails to
`
`disclose or make obvious the claimed "destination identity" limitation, as recited in
`
`each independent claim of the Challenged Claims of the '267 Patent.
`
`10.
`
`It is my further opinion that the Vanluijt reference fails to disclose or
`
`make obvious the various "privilege" related limitations found the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`11.
`
`It is also my opinion that Vanluijt fails to disclose or make obvious the
`
`claimed "destination identity" limitation, as recited in each independent claim of the
`
`Challenged Claims of the '267 Patent.
`
`12.
`
`It is further my opinion that Apple's devices accused of infringement in
`
`a pending litigation between Apple and BillJCo (BillJCo, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 4:22-
`
`2
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 5 of 44
`
`

`

`cv-03201-YGR (N.D.Ca.)), meets the limitations of at least one claim of the '267
`
`Patent.
`
`13. The subsequent sections of this Declaration provide my qualifications
`
`and experience and then my analysis and the bases for my opinions.
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`
`
`
`
`A. Education and Experience
`I earned a B.S. in Computer Science and Engineering, with high honors,
`14.
`
`from the University of Texas at Arlington in May 1999, followed by an M.S. in
`
`Computer Science and Engineering from the University of Texas at Arlington in
`
`May 2000. I earned a Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering from the
`
`University of Texas at Arlington in August 2003 focusing on machine learning and
`
`artificial intelligence. I also earned an MBA, focusing on venture capital and
`
`entrepreneurship, from Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business, in
`
`May 2010.
`
`15.
`
`I started my career at Nortel Networks in June of 2000 as a software
`
`design engineer and implemented software features for the first generation of 3G
`
`mobile data communications back-end infrastructure devices such as the Shasta
`
`Networks packet data switching node (PDSN). My work
`
`included
`
`the
`
`implementation of the OpenRP protocol, tower handoff, logging and analytics, time
`
`synchronization of the PDSN cards over an ATM network, performance
`
`3
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 6 of 44
`
`

`

`improvement of multimedia content serving and routing through the PDSN, as well
`
`as the implementation of a traffic generator and simulator for capacity testing of the
`
`PDSN. I was also the engineer in charge of developing and executing acceptance
`
`testing for the Kyocera handset to be approved for Nortel Networks packet data
`
`equipment.
`
`16. Upon receiving my Ph.D., I accepted an assistant professor position
`
`with Oklahoma State University and started my academic career in August of 2003.
`
`In this capacity I performed scientific research in the areas of machine learning,
`
`artificial intelligence, and computer networks, and taught undergraduate and
`
`graduate courses in the fields of artificial intelligence, algorithms and data structures,
`
`programming languages, programming language design, and social issues in
`
`computing. I also advised Masters and Doctoral students on their thesis and
`
`dissertation work, collaborated with faculty at Oklahoma State University and at
`
`other research institutions, organized conference special tracks in the areas of
`
`machine learning and data mining, and served as an expert reviewer to numerous
`
`scientific publications, journals and conference proceedings. I have also served as a
`
`grant reviewer to the National Science Foundation. I also designed and built, from
`
`components, the largest supercomputing laboratory at the university with high-speed
`
`networking and dedicated internal and external DNS servers.
`
`4
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 7 of 44
`
`

`

`17.
`
`In 2007, I started a company, KDResearch, in the field of stock option
`
`screening based on data science. I developed and configured a hybrid cloud/on-
`
`premise web application with real-time streaming data.
`
`18.
`
`In 2008, I enrolled in the MBA program at the Tepper School of
`
`Business at Carnegie Mellon University, where I specialized in entrepreneurship and
`
`venture capital. In the fall of 2008, I was recruited by a venture capital firm in
`
`Pittsburgh, PA, called Pittsburgh Equity Partners, where I generated deal flow and
`
`performed technical and business due diligence. In the summer of 2009, I completed
`
`an internship at a venture capital firm, New Venture Partners, with $1.2 billion in
`
`assets under management.
`
`19.
`
`In August of 2010, I accepted a position with Google to become the
`
`head of global device partnerships of the Google TV product line. In this capacity I
`
`headed up a team in Mountain View, CA, and Seoul, Korea, to interface with our
`
`launch partners Intel, Marvel, MediaTek, Samsung, Sony, Logitech, LG, Sharp,
`
`Vizio, and others.
`
`20.
`
`In February of 2012, I left Google to start a company, called
`
`FantasyBrain, in the area of fantasy sports. We used a data science approach to build
`
`large fantasy sports communities. I personally designed and implemented over 90%
`
`of the codebase, including the front-end, the back-end, and our novel algorithms.
`
`5
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 8 of 44
`
`

`

`21. Starting in the fall of 2013, I worked for a number of Silicon Valley-
`
`based startups including, Rescale, Near-Me, and 3Gear Systems (later NimbleVR)
`
`in various capacities. In August of 2014, I designed and implemented a photo and
`
`video sharing mobile app on the Android platform that facilitated person to person
`
`visual communications using minimal user interaction.
`
`
`
`22.
`
`In March of 2015, I joined the newly formed venture capital firm
`
`NexStar Partners with $100 million in assets under management as Principal, where
`
`I drove deal flow and due diligence activities in the areas of content delivery, mobile
`
`and streaming media, virtual reality and augmented reality, artificial intelligence and
`
`machine learning, Internet of Things, and mobile telecommunications.
`
`
`
`23.
`
`In the fall of 2018, I started my consulting practice in the areas of
`
`litigation consulting, technical and business due diligence, and investment advisory.
`
`The list of my previous and current consulting engagements is included in my CV,
`
`attached as Exhibit A to this Declaration.
`
`
`
`B. Compensation
`I am being compensated for my time at the rate of $500 per hour. The
`24.
`
`compensation is not contingent upon my performance, the outcome of this or any
`
`other proceeding, or any issues involved in or related to this matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 9 of 44
`
`

`

`
`
`C. Documents and Other Materials Considered
`In addition to my education, training, and knowledge, my opinions are
`25.
`
`based on review of the documents and other materials identified in this Declaration,
`
`including the '267 Patent and its prosecution histories, the prior art references cited
`
`by Petitioner, the prior art references discussed during prosecution of the '267 Patent,
`
`certain technical dictionaries, and background materials discussed in this
`
`Declaration, and any other references specifically identified in this Declaration. A
`
`list of documents and materials that I reviewed in the course of preparing this
`
`Declaration is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`
`
`D.
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Prior Testimony and Publications
`
`I have not authored any publications within the last ten years.
`
`In addition to this case, I have submitted declarations, reports, and
`
`testimony in the last four years in the following cases:
`
`• Expert Report and Deposition: Mon Cheri Bridals, LLC and Maggie
`
`Sottero Designs, LLC v. Cloudflare, Inc. Case No.: 19-cv-01356-VC,
`
`United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco
`
`Division.
`
`• Declaration: Unified Patents, LLC v. Investel Capital Corporation.
`
`IPR2020-00781, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board.
`
`7
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 10 of 44
`
`

`

`• Declaration: Uzair, et al v. Google. Case No. 18-CV-328915, Superior
`
`Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara.
`
`• Declaration and Deposition: Sleep Number Corporation v. Steven Jay
`
`Young; Carl Hewitt; UDP Labs, Inc. United States District Court for The
`
`District of Minnesota. Court File No. 20-cv-01507-NEB-ECW.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`I have been advised of certain legal principles applicable to this inter
`28.
`
`partes review. I have incorporated and applied these legal principles within the
`
`opinions set forth below in this Declaration.
`
`
`
`A. Claim Construction
`I understand that patent claims are to be interpreted in view of the claim
`29.
`
`language itself, a patent's specification, and the prosecution history. I understand that
`
`claim construction starts with the plain language of the claims as understood by a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed. I am further
`
`informed that a patent's specification is always highly relevant to the claim
`
`construction analysis and usually dispositive of the meaning. I also understand that
`
`the prosecution history may also provide evidence of how the PTO and the inventor
`
`understood the patent. I also understand that extrinsic evidence, such as technical
`
`dictionaries, may provide insight as to the meaning of technical terms.
`
`8
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 11 of 44
`
`

`

`30.
`
`I understand that a patentee may be its own lexicographer, so long as
`
`the definition of a specific term is clearly set forth in the specification and it is clear
`
`the inventor intended to define the term.
`
`31.
`
`I further understand that Petitioner does not contend that any claim term
`
`should be given a special meaning, and instead, has taken the position that the claim
`
`terms should be given their plain and ordinary meanings.
`
`
`
`B. Obviousness
`I understand that a patent claim may be found invalid as obvious if the
`32.
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed
`
`invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
`
`claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed
`
`invention pertains. I further understand that obviousness of a patent claim is
`
`determined based on (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
`
`between the claims and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4)
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that in assessing the prior art, one must consider whether
`
`a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the
`
`claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in doing so. I understand that this motivation may come from a teaching,
`
`9
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 12 of 44
`
`

`

`suggestion, or motivation to combine. I also understand that a specific teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation is not required.
`
`34.
`
`I also understand that objective indicators of non-obviousness
`
`(sometimes referred to as "secondary considerations") must be considered in
`
`evaluating obviousness, including commercial success of the claimed invention,
`
`whether others copied the invention, whether others in the field praised the
`
`invention, and licensing of the invention. I understand that secondary considerations
`
`of non-obviousness support a finding of non-obviousness if the evidence of
`
`secondary considerations is sufficiently tied to the patented features. Where a patent
`
`claims a combination of features, I understand that the evidence of secondary
`
`considerations may be tied to the claimed combination as a whole.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that, after consideration of all of these factors, a patent is
`
`not obvious unless the difference between the subject matter sought to be patented
`
`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 having ordinary skill in the art to
`
`which said subject matter pertains.
`
`V.
`
`
`SCOPE OF OPINIONS
`
`36.
`
`I have been asked only to provide my independent opinions and
`
`analysis of the issues I specifically discuss in this declaration. I note that the Petition
`
`10
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 13 of 44
`
`

`

`(and the evidence it cites) may raise other issues, but I have not been asked to provide
`
`my opinions as to any of those other issues.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE '267 PATENT
`
`37. On January 28, 2014, the '267 Patent entitled "System and Method for
`
`Location Based Exchanges of Data Facilitating Distributed Locational Applications"
`
`was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`38. The '267 Patent relates, in part, to users' concerns with centralized
`
`servers and privacy. According to the '267 Patent, "[u]sers are skeptical about their
`
`privacy as internet services proliferate. A service by its very nature typically holds
`
`information for a user maintained in a centralized service database. The user's
`
`preferences, credential
`
`information, permissions, customizations, billing
`
`information, surfing habits, and other conceivable user configurations and activity
`
`monitoring, can be housed by the service at the service." EX1001, 2:43-48.
`
`39. The '267 Patent states that a "method and system is needed for making
`
`users comfortable with knowing that their personal information is at less risk of
`
`being compromised." Id. at 2:55-57.
`
`
`
`A. The Specification and Drawings
`In order address user privacy concerns, the '267 Patent describes the use
`40.
`
`of "permissions" and "privileges."
`
`11
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 14 of 44
`
`

`

`41.
`
`I note that the '267 Patent states that "[t]he terminology 'permissions'
`
`and 'privileges' are used interchangeably in this disclosure." EX1001, 124:7-9.
`
`42. The '267 Patent explains it is preferred that "permissions are
`
`maintained in a peer to peer manner prior to lookup for proper service sharing. In
`
`another embodiment, permissions are specified and used at the time of granting
`
`access to the shared services." EX1001, 10:29-32.
`
`43. The '267 Patent also states that "[i]t is an advantage herein for
`
`providing peer to peer permissions, authentication, and access control. …
`
`Permissions are maintained locally to a MS." EX1001, 10:44-46.
`
`44. The '267 Patent also discloses "[i]t is another advantage to support a
`
`countless number of privileges that can be configured, managed, and processed in
`
`peer to peer manner between MSs. Any peer to peer feature or set of functionality
`
`can have a privilege associated to it for being granted from one use to another. It is
`
`also an advantage for providing a variety of embodiments for how to manage and
`
`maintain privileges in a network of MSs." EX1001, 12:26-32.
`
`45. The '267 Patent also states that "[w]hereabouts information of others
`
`will not be maintained unless there are privileges in place to maintain it.
`
`Whereabouts information may not be shared with others if there have been no
`
`privileges granted to a potential receiving MS." EX1001, 12:56-59.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 15 of 44
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`46.
`
`The Claim Language
`
`Independent claim 1 of the '267 Patent recites in pertinent part:
`
`A method for automatic location based exchange processing by a
`
`mobile data processing system, the method comprising:
`
`
`
`presenting a user interface to a user of the mobile data processing
`
`system, the user interface for configuring privilege data relating the mobile
`
`data processing system with a remote data processing system, the privilege
`
`data stored local to the mobile data processing system and searched upon
`
`receipt of whereabouts data received for processing by the mobile data
`
`processing system;
`
`
`
`receiving, for processing by the mobile data processing system, the
`
`whereabouts data including an originating identity of the whereabouts data;
`
`
`
`searching, by the mobile data processing system, the privilege data
`
`stored local to the mobile data processing system for a matching privilege
`
`upon the receiving, for processing by the mobile data processing system, the
`
`whereabouts data, wherein the matching privilege is configured for relating
`
`the originating identity of the whereabouts data with a destination identity of
`
`the whereabouts data to permit trigger of a privileged action for the receipt
`
`of whereabouts data received for processing by the mobile data processing
`
`system; and
`
`13
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 16 of 44
`
`

`

`
`
`performing the privileged action at the mobile data processing system
`
`upon finding the matching privilege, after the searching, by the mobile data
`
`processing system, the privilege data stored local to the mobile data
`
`processing system.
`
`EX1001, 284:14-41.
`
`
`
`C.
`47.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`I have reviewed portions of the prosecution history for the '267 Patent
`
`(EX1003), which I summarize here.
`
`48. The application that matured into the '267 Patent was filed on October
`
`3, 2008 and included claims 1-20.
`
`49.
`
`In an Office Action dated August 25, 2011, claims 1-14, 19, and 20
`
`were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`2007/0275730; pending claims 15-18 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0275730 and U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication 2006/0022048.
`
`50.
`
` The Applicant amended the claims to recite ''presenting a user interface
`
`to a user of said mobile data processing system, said user interface for configuring
`
`locally stored privilege data relating said mobile data processing system with other
`
`mobile data processing systems, said privilege data for describing how to distinctly
`
`process forthcoming whereabouts data received at said mobile data processing
`
`14
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 17 of 44
`
`

`

`system" and argued there is no "searching of user configured privilege data, no user
`
`configured action, and nothing similarly suggestive" in the art. EX1003, at 87-96.
`
`51. The Patent Office accepted these arguments and issued a new rejection
`
`in an Office Action dated March 2, 2012. The new rejection for pending claims 1-
`
`11 and 13-21 was based on obviousness in view of U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication 2008/0170679 and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0244633.
`
`52. The Applicant amended the claims, in part, to recite "said privilege data
`
`stored local to said mobile data processing system" and argued the whereabouts data
`
`"is received at the mobile data processing system (from the sending mobile data
`
`processing system) before the privilege is accessed and used for processing at the
`
`receiving mobile data processing system." EX1003, 56-65.
`
`53.
`
`In a further Office Action dated March 18, 2013, the claims were
`
`rejected as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0170679
`
`(EX2011), U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007 /0244633 (EX2012), and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,177,651 (EX2013).
`
`54. Applicant responded on June 13, 2012. Applicant amended the claims,
`
`in part, to recite "after the searching, by the mobile data processing system, the
`
`privilege data stored local to the mobile data processing system," and argued the
`
`cited art does not teach the searching functionality of a matching privilege after
`
`receipt of the whereabouts data. EX1003, 25-39.
`
`15
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 18 of 44
`
`

`

`55. A Notice of Allowance was issued by the Patent Office on September
`
`4, 2013. EX1003, 16-24. Some further amendments were made after the Notice of
`
`Allowance to correct some antecedent basis errors and add new claims 33-58.
`
`EX1003, 4-15. These amendments were accepted by the Patent Office.
`
`56.
`
`I further note that during prosecution of the '267 Patent, the PTO
`
`discussed several prior art references that, in my opinion, are more relevant to the
`
`Challenged Claims than any of the prior art relied upon by Petitioner and Dr. La
`
`Porta.
`
`
`
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`D.
`57. Dr. La Porta opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer
`
`engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of experience relating to wireless
`
`communications.” EX1003 ¶¶ 39–40. Petitioner proposes this definition as well. Pet.
`
`at 5. I accept Petitioner's and Dr. La Porta’s description of the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art for purposes of this Declaration and my opinions concerning the Petition.
`
`58.
`
`I meet the definition of a POSITA provided by the Petitioner and Dr.
`
`La Porta.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 19 of 44
`
`

`

`E. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`59.
`
`I have been informed that in an IPR, patent claims are to be interpreted
`
`in the same manner as they would be in a civil action. I understand that the legal
`
`framework for claim interpretation is as set forth herein.
`
`60.
`
`I have also been informed that, in construing patent claims, the claim
`
`terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the
`
`meaning that the terms would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention.
`
`61.
`
`I have also been informed that the claim language provides substantial
`
`guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms, and that a patent's specification
`
`is highly relevant to the claim construction analysis and that a claim construction
`
`that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent's
`
`description of the invention is the correct construction. I also understand that the
`
`prosecution history can evidence how the PTO and the inventor understood the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`62. A claim term found in several instances is the word "privilege." As
`
`stated previously, the '267 Patent states that "privilege" is used interchangeably with
`
`"permission."
`
`17
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 20 of 44
`
`

`

`63.
`
`I understand that Petitioner contends that a "preference" is the same
`
`thing as a "privilege" in the computer science arts. I further note that Dr. La Porta
`
`also stated as such in his declaration. EX1002. I disagree.
`
`64. A "privilege" is a term with a well-accepted and understood definition
`
`in the computer science arts, which as stated above with respect to the description of
`
`a POSITA, is the relevant technical field. "Privilege," as used in computer science,
`
`is a security related concept that delegates permissions to users, programs, processes,
`
`or services to perform certain functions on a computer. The following cited
`
`definitions are consistent with my summary of this concept. See EX20014.
`
`65. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms1
`
`defines "privileged instruction" as "A class of instructions, usually including
`
`storage protection setting, interrupt handling, timer control, input/output, and
`
`special processor status-setting instructions, that can be executed only when the
`
`computer is in a special privileged mode that is generally available to an operating
`
`or executive system, but not to user programs."
`
`66. Wikipedia2 states: "In computing, privilege is defined as the delegation
`
`of authority to perform security-relevant functions on a computer system. A privilege
`
`allows a user to perform an action with security consequences. Examples of various
`
`
`1 https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/privileged+instruction
`2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(computing)
`
`18
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 21 of 44
`
`

`

`privileges include the ability to create a new user, install software, or change kernel
`
`functions."
`
`67. Technopedia3 says: "Privilege, in computer security, means delegating
`
`authority for making changes to a computer system. On many systems, there's a
`
`separation between "normal" users without any authority to make changes to the
`
`system and "administrative" users with full access to the system."
`
`68. As stated, the '267 Patent also uses the "permission" in describing the
`
`invention, and that the '267 Patent states that "permission" and "privilege" are used
`
`"interchangeably" in the '267 Patent. In my experience a "permission" is commonly
`
`understood in the computer science arts to mean an authorization given to enable
`
`access to specific resources. When a user has the privilege to perform an action, that
`
`user has permission to perform that action.
`
`69. As discussed above, I understand that in some instances, an inventor
`
`may use terms in an unorthodox manner, i.e., act as a lexicographer. I understand
`
`that Petitioner has not suggested that that is the case here. I further understand that
`
`Dr. La Porta did not conduct a claim construction analysis.
`
`70.
`
`In my opinion, the use of the term "privilege" in the '267 Patent is
`
`consistent with how "privilege" is used in the computer science arts. One reason for
`
`
`3 https://www.techopedia.com/definition/16044/privilege-security
`
`19
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 22 of 44
`
`

`

`this is that the '267 Patent explains that an issue the inventor intended to address
`
`related to users' privacy concerns. See EX1001, 2:43-57.
`
`71.
`
`I further note that the '267 Patent specification actually identifies user
`
`"preferences" and user "permissions" as separate types of information. This is also
`
`consistent with typical understanding in computer science. Id. 2:45-49 (providing a
`
`list of types of information and identifying "preferences" and "permissions"
`
`separately).
`
`72.
`
`"Preference" has a different meaning in general and in the computer
`
`science arts. According to the Cambridge Dictionary4 a preference means to "like
`
`something or someone more than another thing or person." Google5 returns the
`
`Oxford Languages definition, which states that a preference is "a greater liking for
`
`one alternative over another or others." In computing, preferences are "user-
`
`specified settings of parameters in interactive computer software," according to
`
`YourDictionary.com.6 ComputerHope7 defines a preference as "an option or setting
`
`that is preferred."
`
`73. Other examples from the '267 Patent where it is clearly conveyed that
`
`"permissions" and "privileges" are used according to their typical manner in the
`
`computer science arts are discussed below.
`
`
`4 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/preference
`5 https://www.google.com/search?q=preference+definition
`6 https://www.yourdictionary.com/preferences
`7 https://www.computerhope.com/jargon/p/preference.htm
`
`20
`
`BILLJCO
`EX2010 Page 23 of 44
`
`

`

`The '267 Patent states "An MS may have access to services which are
`unavailable to other MSs. Any MS can share its accessible services for being
`accessible to any other MS, preferably in accordance with permissions. … In
`a preferred embodiment, permissions are maintained in a peer to peer
`manner prior to lookup for proper service sharing. In another embodiment,
`permissions are specified and used at the time of granting access to the
`shared services. Once granted for sharing, services can be used in a mode as
`if the sharing user is using the services, or in a mode as if the user accepting
`the share is a new user to the service. EX1001, 10:23-35.
`
`It is another advantage herein for providing peer to peer permissions,
`authentication, and access control. A service is not necessary for maintaining
`credentials and permissions between MSs. Permissions are maintained
`locally to a MS. In a centralized services model, a database can become
`massive in size when searching for needed permi