`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`TRILLER, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`TIKTOK PTE. LTD,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,294,430
`U.S. Patent No. 9,648,132
`U.S. Patent No. 9,992,322
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL SHAMOS, PH.D.
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-001
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................................................... 3
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................ 5
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS ................................................................. 9
`A.
`The Patents Collectively ....................................................................... 9
`1.
`The ’132 Claims ....................................................................... 16
`2.
`The ’322 Claims ....................................................................... 18
`3.
`The ’430 Claims ....................................................................... 19
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 20
`B.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 22
`A.
`“track meta-data that is formed as a separate meta-data layer” ......... 23
`VI. PRIORITY DATES ...................................................................................... 27
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................ 32
`A.
`Background of Social Networks and Music Sharing ......................... 32
`1.
`Overview of Abrams ................................................................ 32
`2. MySpace / Partovi .................................................................... 40
`3.
`Khedouri ................................................................................... 46
`Background of Multitasking and Multithreading ............................... 52
`B.
`VIII. GROUND 1: ANTICIPATION BY OR OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW
`OF ABRAMS ............................................................................................... 61
`’132 Claims 1, 22, 26 and 31 Are Anticipated, or At Least
`A.
`Rendered Obvious, by Abrams .......................................................... 61
`’322 Claims 30, 51 and 55 Are Anticipated or, At the Very
`Least, Rendered Obvious by Abrams ................................................. 75
`IX. GROUND 2: OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF ABRAMS AND THE
`KNOWLEDGE OF A POSITA .................................................................... 80
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-002
`
`

`

`A.
`
`B.
`
`’132 Claims 2 and 27 Are Rendered Obvious by Abrams and
`the Knowledge of a POSITA ............................................................. 80
`’322 Claims 31 and 56 Are Rendered Obvious by Abrams and
`the Knowledge of a POSITA ............................................................. 81
`X. GROUND 3: INVALIDITY OVER KNIGHT 2010 ................................... 82
`The Late Claims are Anticipated by, or At Least Rendered
`A.
`Obvious By, Knight 2010 ................................................................... 82
`XI. GROUND 4: OBVIOUSNESS OVER ABRAMS AND PARTOVI .......... 99
`XII. GROUND 5: OBVIOUSNESS OVER ABRAMS AND KHEDOURI ..... 118
`XIII. SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 139
`XIV. CONCLUDING STATEMENT ................................................................. 140
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-003
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Michael Shamos, declare as follows:
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I am over the age of eighteen (18) and otherwise competent to make
`1.
`
`this Declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner as an independent
`
`technical expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office. I am being compensated at my rate of $550 per hour for my
`
`services. No part of my compensation is dependent on my opinions or on the
`
`outcome of this proceeding. I have no financial interest in any of the parties to this
`
`proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`This Declaration is in support of petitions (“Petitions”) for inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patents 9,294,430 (“’430 Patent”, Ex. 1003), 9,648,132
`
`(“’132 Patent”, Ex. 1001) and 9,992,322 (“’322 Patent”, Ex. 1002) (collectively, the
`
`“Patents”). The Patents are intimately related, in that the ’322 Patent is a
`
`continuation of the ’132 Patent, which is itself a continuation of the ’430 Patent.
`
`Thus, the Patents share a common specification.
`
`4.
`
`The following claims are challenged among the three Petitions
`
`(collectively, the “Challenged Claims”): ’430 Patent claims 1, 19, 23, 24 and 28;
`
`’132 Patent claims 1-3, 6, 22, 26, 27 and 31; and ’322 Patent claims 30-32, 35, 51
`
`and 55-56.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-004
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`5.
`
`The challenged claims of the ’430 Patent and the ’322 Patent contain
`
`multiple limitations that do not differ materially from the limitations of the
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’132 Patent. Therefore, a showing of invalidity of the
`
`Challenged ’132 claims serves as a basis for my opinions concerning the Challenged
`
`’430 Claims and the Challenged ’322 Claims. For reasons of economy, this
`
`Declaration is structured to be used in support of all three Petitions.
`
`6.
`
`The Patents are all entitled “Method of Enabling Digital Music Content
`
`to be Downloaded to and Used on a Portable Wireless Computing Device” and list
`
`the same inventors.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that, according to USPTO records, the Patents are
`
`currently assigned to TikTok Pte. Ltd. (“TTPL” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`8.
`
`Patent Owner has asserted the Patents against Petitioner Triller in case
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW (N.D. Cal.) (the “Underlying Litigation”).
`
`9.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the Patents, their
`
`prosecution histories, including all the patents and patent applications to which the
`
`Patents claim priority, as well as the patents and documents cited herein, and I have
`
`considered these documents in light of the general knowledge in the art. In
`
`formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my experience in the relevant art. I
`
`have also considered the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-005
`
`

`

`
`
`(“POSITA”) in the field of the Patents. For convenience, the materials I considered
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`
`
`in arriving at my opinions are listed in Appendix A.
`
`10.
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical expertise, analysis, insights
`
`and opinions regarding the Patents and relevant references that form the basis of the
`
`grounds set forth in the accompanying Petitions.
`
`11.
`
`I refer to the inventors named on the face of the Patents as “Applicants.”
`
`12. Unless otherwise indicated, all emphasis has been added.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`I hold the title of Distinguished Career Professor in the School of
`13.
`
`Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I am
`
`a member of two departments in that School, the Institute for Software Research and
`
`the Language Technologies Institute. I was a founder and Co-Director of the Institute
`
`for eCommerce at Carnegie Mellon from 1998-2004 and from 2004-2018 was
`
`Director of the eBusiness Technology graduate program in the Carnegie Mellon
`
`University School of Computer Science. I am now the Director of the M.S. in
`
`Artificial Intelligence and Innovation program at Carnegie Mellon.
`
`14.
`
`I received an A.B. (1968) from Princeton University in Physics; an
`
`M.A. (1970) from Vassar College in Physics; an M.S. (1972) from American
`
`University in Technology of Management, a field that covers quantitative tools used
`
`in managing organizations, such as statistics, operations research and cost-benefit
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-006
`
`

`

`
`
`analysis; an M.S. (1973), an M.Phil. (1974) and a Ph.D. (1978) from Yale University
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`
`
`in Computer Science; and a J.D. (1981) from Duquesne University.
`
`15.
`
`I have taught graduate courses at Carnegie Mellon in Electronic
`
`Commerce, including eCommerce Technology, Electronic Payment Systems,
`
`Electronic Voting and eCommerce Law and Regulation, as well as Analysis of
`
`Algorithms. Since 2007, I have taught an annual course in Law of Computer
`
`Technology. I currently also teach Artificial Intelligence and Future Markets.
`
`16. From 2001-2021, I was Visiting Professor at the University of Hong
`
`Kong, where I taught an annual graduate course there entitled Electronic Payment
`
`Systems. This was one of only a handful of graduate courses in the world on the
`
`subject of electronic payments.
`
`17.
`
`I am the author and lecturer in a 24-hour video course on Internet
`
`protocols and have taught computer networking, wireless communication and
`
`Internet architecture since 1999. I also delivered a course for McKinsey & Company
`
`consultants on Mobile Communication.
`
`18. From 1979-1987, I was the founder and president of two computer
`
`software development companies in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Unilogic, Ltd. and
`
`Lexeme Corporation.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-007
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`19.
`
`I am a named inventor on the following five issued patents relating to
`
`electronic commerce: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,330,839, 7,421,278, 7,747,465, 8,195,197
`
`and 8,280,773.
`
`20.
`
`I am an attorney admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and have been
`
`admitted to the Bar of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office since 1981. I have not
`
`been asked to offer any opinions on patent law in this proceeding.
`
`21.
`
`I have previously testified in a large number of cases concerning
`
`computer technology, including wireless technologies and the distribution of digital
`
`music. My résumé (Appendix B) contains a list of cases in which I have testified in
`
`the last ten years.
`
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`22. Although I am a patent lawyer, I do not provide any legal opinions in
`
`this Declaration. I have been informed and understand that certain legal standards
`
`are to be applied by technical experts in forming opinions regarding the meaning and
`
`validity of patent claims. I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding
`
`whether the challenged claims of the Patents are anticipated or would have been
`
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention, in light of the prior art. I have also been asked to provide my opinions
`
`regarding the whether some of the challenged claims of the Patents have written
`
`description support in certain of the applications to which they claim priority. The
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-008
`
`

`

`
`
`legal principles I have been asked to apply are listed below in this section and in the
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`
`
`following section.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is “anticipated” and therefore not
`
`patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if each and every limitation of the claim is
`
`disclosed, arranged as in the claim, in a single prior art reference.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference can disclose a limitation that is
`
`not expressly disclosed in the reference if it is “inherently present” in the reference.
`
`I understand that to be “inherently present,” the missing disclosure must necessarily
`
`be present in that which is expressly disclosed in the reference. It is my
`
`understanding that a limitation is not disclosed by inherency if the missing limitation
`
`is only probably present or if there is merely a possibility that it is present.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is not patentable as obvious under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the patent claim and the prior art are
`
`such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time
`
`the claimed invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is not patentable as obvious under post-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the patent claim and the prior art are such
`
`that the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the relevant art. Obviousness, as I have been informed and understand, is based on
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-009
`
`

`

`
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`
`
`claim, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and, to the extent that they exist, certain
`
`objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness.
`
`26. Objective indicia can be important evidence regarding whether a
`
`claimed invention would have been obvious or nonobvious, if it has an appropriate
`
`nexus to the claimed invention, i.e., is a result of the merits of a claimed invention
`
`(rather than the result of design needs, market-pressure, advertising or similar
`
`activities). Such indicia include: commercial success of products covered by the
`
`patent claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make
`
`the invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention as compared to the closest prior art; praise of the invention
`
`by the infringer or others in the field; the taking of licenses under the patent by
`
`others; expressions of surprise by experts and those skilled in the art at the making
`
`of the invention; the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior
`
`art; and the contemporaneous development by others of the subject matter claimed.
`
`I am not currently aware of any objective indicia of non-obviousness in this case,
`
`and I reserve the right to consider any such indicia if they are presented to me.
`
`27.
`
`In analyzing the relevance of the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art, one must consider the impact, if any, of such differences
`
`on the obviousness or non-obviousness of the invention as a whole, not merely some
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-0010
`
`

`

`
`
`portion of it. The person of ordinary skill faced with a problem is able to apply his
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`
`
`or her experience and ability to solve the problem and also look to any available
`
`prior art to help solve the problem.
`
`28. A precise teaching in the prior art directed to the subject matter of the
`
`claimed invention is not needed. I understand that one may take into account the
`
`inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`employed in reviewing the prior art at the time of the invention. For example, if the
`
`claimed invention combined elements known in the prior art and the combination
`
`yielded results that were predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention, then this evidence would make it more likely that the claimed
`
`invention would have been obvious. On the other hand, if the combination of known
`
`elements yielded unexpected or unpredictable results, or if the prior art teaches away
`
`from combining the known elements, then this evidence would make it more likely
`
`that the claim that successfully combined those elements would not have been
`
`obvious.
`
`29. There are recognized, exemplary, rationales for combining or
`
`modifying references to show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of the
`
`rationales include the following: combining prior art elements according to known
`
`methods to yield predictable results; simple substitution of one known element for
`
`another to yield predictable results; use of a known technique to improve a similar
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-0011
`
`

`

`
`
`device (method or product) in the same way; applying a known technique to a known
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`
`
`device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success; known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations
`
`of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or
`
`other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`and some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one
`
`of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art teachings
`
`to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS
`A. The Patents Collectively
`30. Because the Patents share a common specification and differ only in
`
`their claims, I summarize the disclosure of all of them with reference to the ’132
`
`Patent.
`
`31. The Patents are all entitled “Method of enabling digital music content
`
`to be downloaded to and used on a portable wireless computing device,” but that
`
`title is misleading. Of all of the Challenged Claims, only ’132 claim 6, ’322 claim
`
`35, and ’430 claims 1, 19, 23, 24 and 28, expressly or by dependency, refer to music,
`
`and even those claims do not require “digital music content to be downloaded and
`
`used on a portable wireless computing device,” as recited in the title of the Patents.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-0012
`
`

`

`
`
`Instead, those claims recite “sharing and browsing of track information…without
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`
`
`needing to distribute the related music track files.” (e.g., Ex. 1001, claim 6; Ex. 1002,
`
`claim 35; Ex. 1003, claim 1.)
`
`32. The particular claims challenged here are directed to a social network
`
`implemented on a computerized network. Independent claim 1 of the ’132 Patent
`
`and claim 1 of the ’430 Patent recite a “portable wireless computing device”
`
`comprising “a hardware processor” that is programmed with a “software
`
`application” that allows its user to carry out social networking functions. ’132 claim
`
`1 is reproduced below, with numbers in brackets added for convenience:
`
`[1.1] A portable wireless computing device comprising [1.2] a
`hardware processor programmed with a software application
`embodied on a non-transitory storage medium, [1.3] that enables an
`end-user to interact with other users in which [1.4] (a) the software
`application allows the end-user to, over a wireless connection, create
`on a remote server one or more user accounts with associated profiles
`for that end-user; and [1.5] (b) the software application allows the end-
`user to, over the wireless connection, view profiles created by other
`users of a service; and [1.6] (c) the software application allows the end-
`user to, over the wireless connection, interact with other users of the
`service; and [1.7] (d) the software application allows the end-user to,
`over the wireless connection, send and receive messages to and from
`other users of the service; and [1.8] (e) the software application allows
`the end-user to, over the wireless connection, link his or her user
`account on the remote server to user accounts on the remote server of
`other users of the same service or of other services. Ex. 1001, claim 1.
`33. This claim simply recites the well-known social networking functions
`
`of user interaction (the main purpose of social networking), establishing accounts
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-0013
`
`

`

`
`
`with associated profiles, viewing profiles, messaging, and linking (often called
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`
`
`“friending”).
`
`34.
`
`Independent claim 31 of the ’132 Patent is of similar scope to claim 1,
`
`claiming a “software application” that is “executable on a portable wireless
`
`computing device” to allow a user to carry out the same social networking functions
`
`as claim 1. Independent claim 30 of the ’322 Patent and independent claim 28 of
`
`the ’430 Patent also define a “software application” that is “executable on a portable
`
`wireless computing device.” Claim 1 of the ’132 patent is reproduced below:
`
`[31.1] Software application embodied on a non transitory storage
`medium, [31.2] wherein the software application is executable on a
`portable wireless computing device, [31.3] wherein the software
`application enables an end-user to interact with other users and [31.4]
`(a) in which the software application allows the end-user to, over a
`wireless connection, create on a remote server one or more user
`accounts with associated profiles for that end-user; and [31.5] (b) the
`software application allows the end-user to, over the wireless
`connection, view profiles created by other users of a service; and [31.6]
`(c) the software application allows the end-user to, over the wireless
`connection, interact with other users of the service; and [31.7] (d) the
`software application allows the end-user to, over the wireless
`connection, send and receive messages to and from other users of the
`service; and [31.8] (e) the software application allows the end-user to,
`over the wireless connection, link his or her user account on the remote
`server to user accounts on the remote server of other users of the same
`service or of other services. Ex. 1001, claim 31
`35. The specification of the Patents illustrates the social networking
`
`functionality described in these two independent claims (and in the other
`
`independent claims). For example, Figure 135 shows the user interface for a software
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-0014
`
`

`

`
`
`application running on a mobile telephone that allows an end-user to create a user
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`
`
`account with an associated profile, as recited in the independent claims of the
`
`Patents:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Exs. 1001-1003, Fig. 135; Ex. 1001, 76:18-32; Ex. 1002, 76:57-77:3; Ex. 1003,
`
`75:5-18.) In this example, the user is creating a user profile with the profile name
`
`“Billy Pepper.” Once a user has created his profile, the software allows a user to see
`
`his “profile” on a “My Profile” screen, shown below:
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-0015
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Exs. 1001-1003, Fig. 136.) The profile includes the user’s member name (here,
`
`“Murdock”), an image unique to the user, a rating indicating how other users have
`
`rated the user (here, with five stars), the number of times other users have listened
`
`to one of the user’s shared music playlists (here, 0), the number of friends that the
`
`user has (here, 1), and a “catchphrase” (here, “I knew it, I knew it…you had a
`
`plan!”). (Ex. 1001, 76:34-60; Ex. 1002, 77:5-35; Ex. 1003, 75:20-47.)
`
`36. The specification further illustrates how a user can view profiles created
`
`by other users, as recited in the independent claims of the Patents:
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-0016
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Exs. 1001-1003, Figs. 141, 142.) The specification explains that in the screens
`
`shown in Figure 141, a user can see a list of the users that the user has added as a
`
`friend, and in the screen shown in Figure 142, the user can view the member profile
`
`of other users (here, another user named “DJ Coldplay”). (Ex. 1001, 77:39-67; Ex.
`
`1002, 78:13-42; Ex. 1003, 76:24-52.)
`
`37. The specification also illustrates how a user can link his or her user
`
`account to user accounts of other users (via friend requests), can interact with other
`
`users (by sharing recommendations about music), and can send and receive
`
`messages to and from other users, as recited in the independent claims of the Patents.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 32:26-33; Ex. 1002, 32:60-67; Ex. 1003, 31:60-67.) This functionality is
`
`illustrated in Figures 146 and 148.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-0017
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Exs. 1001-1003, Figs. 146, 148.) In Figure 146, the user is sending a friend request
`
`to a user named “Matt,” and in Figure 148, the user is sending a recommendation
`
`about a music track to another user. (Ex. 1001, 32:26-33, 78:12-20, 78:31-43, 78:62-
`
`67; Ex. 1002, 78:55-63, 79:7-79:19, 79:38-43; Ex. 1003, 76:64-77:5, 77:16-29,
`
`77:49-54.) In both figures, the user is also sending messages to other users. In Figure
`
`146, the user is sending the message “Billy is ready to rock!” and in Figure 148, the
`
`user is sending the message “U know I’m a bit…” A friend request or a
`
`recommendation causes a message to arrive in the other user’s “inbox.” (Exs. 1001-
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-0018
`
`

`

`
`
`1003, Figs. 149-154; Ex. 1001, 78:18-20, 78:66-67, 79:1-80:14; Ex. 1002, 78:55-63,
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`
`
`79:42-43, 79:44-80:59; Ex. 1003, 76:64-77:5, 77:53-54, 77:55-78:63.)
`
`1. The ’132 Claims
`38. Claims 1 and 31 of the ’132 Patent were discussed above.
`
`39. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation: “wherein the
`
`software application uses a multitasking architecture to balance the computational
`
`demands of network access; and the computational demands of a user interface of
`
`the software application.” This claim simply recites using multitasking for its
`
`ordinary purpose, which is to balance computational demands, for “network access”
`
`and “user interface” functions.
`
`40. Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and adds the limitation: “wherein the
`
`software application uses the multitasking architecture to balance the computational
`
`demands of one or both of: a DRM program; media operations.” This claim recites
`
`more multitasking for at least one additional function, either the functionality of a
`
`DRM program or for media operations.
`
`41. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation: “wherein the
`
`software application is a music application and uses track meta-data that is formed
`
`as a separate meta-data layer and defines attributes of tracks, the meta-data being
`
`external to a music track to make sharing and browsing of track information possible
`
`without needing to distribute the related music track files.” This is one of the Layer
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-0019
`
`

`

`
`
`Claims, which recite that the music application makes use of track meta-data. Track
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`
`
`meta-data was in common use long before the Patents, as shown below.
`
`42. Claim 22 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation: “wherein the
`
`service provides over a wireless connection, recommendations to the user of people,
`
`media content or any other items which the user might like, based on the user’s
`
`viewing, listening and/or purchasing history, on the viewing, listening and/or
`
`purchasing history of any other users or on any other criteria.” This recites the
`
`common social networking function of suggesting “any…items which the user might
`
`like, based on…any…criteria.”
`
`43. Claim 26 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation: “wherein the
`
`software application communicates with the remote server wirelessly via one or
`
`more of CSD, GPRS, 2G, 2.5G, 3G, WAP, SMS, Bluetooth, Infrared, Wi-Fi,
`
`WiMAX, the Global Mobile Network or via any other wireless communications
`
`technology.” This claim says no more than that wireless communication requires
`
`wireless communications technology. None of the recited technologies was novel
`
`in 2006 or 2007.
`
`44. Claim 27 depends from claim 1 and adds the limitation: “wherein the
`
`software application uses a multithreaded architecture to balance the computational
`
`demands of network access; and the computational demands of one or more of: a
`
`user interface of the software application; a DRM program; media operations.” This
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-0020
`
`

`

`
`
`claim refers to a “multithreaded architecture” rather than a “multitasking
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`
`
`architecture” for the functions recited in ’132 claims 2 and 3. This claim simply
`
`recites using multithreading for its ordinary and conventional purpose, which is to
`
`balance computational demands among different functions.
`
`2. The ’322 Claims
`’322 claim 30 is identical to ’132 claim 31, but with “smartphone
`
`45.
`
`device” replacing “portable wireless computing device” and further requiring
`
`profiles that are “editable.” There are no other differences.
`
`46. The language of ’322 claim 31 is identical to that of ’132 claim 2,
`
`except that it depends from ’322 claim 30 instead of ’132 claim 1.
`
`47. The language of ’322 claim 32 is identical to that of ’132 claim 3,
`
`except that it depends from ’322 claim 31 instead of ’132 claim 2.
`
`48.
`
`’322 claim 35 is substantively identical to ’132 claim 6, except that it
`
`depends from ’322 claim 30 instead of ’132 claim 1.
`
`49.
`
`’322 claim 51 is substantively identical to ’132 claim 22, except that it
`
`depends from ’322 claim 30 instead of ’132 claim 1.
`
`50.
`
`’322 claim 55 is worded differently, but is substantively the same as,
`
`’132 claim 26, except that it depends from ’322 claim 30 instead of ’132 claim 1.
`
`The two claims recite (with technologies listed in both in boldface):
`
`[’132] 26. The device of claim 1 wherein the software application
`communicates with the remote server wirelessly via one or more of
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-0021
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`CSD, GPRS, 2G, 2.5G, 3G, WAP, SMS, Bluetooth, Infrared, Wi-Fi,
`WiMAX, the Global Mobile Network or via any other wireless
`communications technology.
`
`[’322] 55. The software application of claim 30, the software
`application communicating with the remote server wirelessly via one
`or more of CSD, GPRS, 2G, 2.5G, 3G, WAP, SMS, a wireless
`technology standard using radio waves in a band from 2.400 to 2.485
`GHz, Infrared, a wireless technology standard using a 2.4GHz band
`or a 5.8GHz band, interoperable implementations of wireless-
`networks, the Global Mobile Network or via any other wireless
`communications technology.
`51. The prosecution history of the ’322 patent shows that these claims had
`
`the same wording until the Examiner required the applicant to remove references to
`
`trademarks in the claim. The applicant replaced the trademarks “Bluetooth,” “WiFi,”
`
`and “WiMax” with generic descriptions of those wireless technologies. In any event,
`
`while the wording differs in these claims, both end with the phrase, “or via any other
`
`wireless communications technology.” That catch-all language means that the
`
`language that is expressly recited in these claims has exactly the same scope.
`
`52.
`
`’322 claim 56 is substantively identical to ’132 claim 27, except that it
`
`depends from ’322 claim 30 instead of ’132 claim 1.
`
`3. The ’430 Claims
`’430 claim 1 is substantively identical to ’132 claim 6 (which depends
`
`53.
`
`from ’132 claim 1), except that it requires the use of a “wireless HTTP connection”
`
`instead of a “wireless connection” and requires the ability to link a user account to
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1025-0022
`
`

`

`
`
`“user accounts on the remote server of other users of the service” instead of “user
`
`Declaration of Michael Shamos. Ph.D.
`
`
`
`accounts on the remote server of other users of the same service or of other services.”
`
`54.
`
`’430 claim 19 depends from ’430 claim 1 and is substantively identical
`
`to ’132 claim 22, except that it depends from ’430 claim 1 instead of ’132 claim 1
`
`and “wireless connection” is replaced with “wireless HTTP connection.”
`
`55.
`
`’430 claim 23 depends from ’430 claim 1 and is literally identical to
`
`’132 claim 26, except that it depends from ’430 claim 1 instead of ’132 claim 1.
`
`56.
`
`’430 claim 24 depends from ’430 claim 1 and is literally identical to
`
`’132 claim 27, except that it depends from ’430 claim 1 instead of ’132 claim 1.
`
`57.
`
`’430 independent claim 28 consists of the limitations of ’132 claims 31
`
`and 6, except that it requires the use of a “wireless HTTP connection” instead of a
`
`“wireless connection” and requires the ability to link a user account to “user accounts
`
`on the remote server of other users of the service” instead of “user accounts on the
`
`remote server of other users of the same service or of other services.”
`
`B.
`58.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I understand that in assessing the appropriate level of ordinary skill, one
`
`may take into account the type of problems encountered in the art; prior