`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EPIC GAMES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INGENIOSHARE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00294
`Patent No. 10,492,038
`
`DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR
`GEORGE N. ROUSKAS, PH.D.
`
`Exhibit 2005PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD, PT AB Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Gamesv. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 2
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
`
`TERMINOLOGY .................................................................................. 1
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
`
`QUALIFICATIONS .............................................................................. 1
`
`BASES OF OPINIONS ......................................................................... 6
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................ 6
`
`A. Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................... 6
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................... 8
`
`C. Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) ......................................... 9
`
`TERMINOLOGY .................................................................................. 12
`
`III. GROUND I - DIACAKIS DOES NOT OBVIATE
` CLAIMS 7,
`10-12, 22-24, 33-36, 38-41, 46, 49,
`7, 51-53, 55, 57-58,
`OR 64-66 ....................................................................................................... 112
`
`A. Diacakis (Exhibit 1007) ............................................................... 1
`
`1.
`
`Diacakis Does Not Provide Or Support Messages ........... 8
`
`B.
`
`[7.0] “Network-Based Portal” ..................................................... 9
`
`A. Diacakis (Exhibit 1007) ............................................................. 12
`
`1. Diacakis Does Not Provide Or Support
`Messages .......................................................................... 18
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 3
`
`
`
`B.
`
`[7.0] “Network-Based Portal” .................................................. 19
`
`1. A “Portal” Is Not A User Termnninal Or
`A “Client Communication Device” ................................ 11
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`A “Client Communication Device” ................................. 21
`
`The ’038 Specification Defines “Portal”
`As A “Gateway” And Defines A “Gateway” As A “Networked
`Server” ............................................................................. 11
`
`As A “Gateway” And Defines A “Gateway” As A “Networked
`Server” ............................................................................. 21
`
`The Functionality Of A “Portal” Is Different
`Than That Of A Client Communication Device ......
`
`12
`
`The Claims Also Distinguish A “Portal”
`From A Client Communication Device .......................... 13
`
`The User Interface Of Diacakis Is Not A
`“Portal” ............................................................................ 15
`
`Petitioner’s Construction Of A Network- Based Portal
`Impermissibly Requires “A Plurality Of Users” To Have Access
`To The
`First User’s Device
`16Than That Of A Client Communication Device
`
`
`22
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 4
`
`
`
`4. Dr. Almeroth’s Testimony Is Not Supported
`4.
`The Claims Also Distinguish A “Portal”
`By The Specification ........................................................ 17
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`From A Client Communication Device ........................... 23
`
`The User Interface Of Diacakis Is Not A
`“Portal” ............................................................................ 25
`
`Petitioner’s Construction Of A Network-
`Based Portal Impermissibly Requires “A Plurality Of Users” To
`Have Access To The First User’s Device ........................ 26
`
`7. Dr. Almeroth’s Testimony Is Not Supported
`By The Specification ....................................................... 27
`
`4.8. Patent Owner’s Construction Of A NBP
`Does Not Exclude A Preferred Embodiment ............
`
`19
`
`5.
`
`[7.0] Summary .................................................................. 21
`
`[7.1 ] Is Not Obviated By Diacakis ............................................ 21
`
`Does Not Exclude A Preferred Embodiment ...........
`
`28
`
`9.
`
`[7.0] Summary .................................................................. 30
`
`[7.1 ] Is Not Obviated By Diacakis ............................................ 31
`
`[7.3] “Messages Are Eligible To Be Received ...
`All Depending On An Identifier” Is Not Rendered
`Obvious By Diacakis ............................................................. 2231
`
`[7.5] Is Not Obviated By Diacakis ......................................... 2534
`
`[7.7] Is Not Rendered Obvious By Diacakis ............................ 26
`
`[7.7] Is Not Rendered Obvious By Diacakis ............................ 35
`
`[7.7][7.8]
`“Even When The Message Is Received” “The
`Contact Information” “Is Not Provided” Is
`
`u
`
`
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 5
`
`
`
`Not Rendered Obvious By Diacakis .......................................... 27
`
`Not Rendered Obvious By Diacakis .......................................... 36
`
`1. The Petitioner’s Positions On “NBP” And “Contact Infonnation Not
`Provided” Are
`Incompatible .................................................................... 27
`
`1. Diacakis Teaches That The Recipient’s Contact Information Is
`Sent To The Sender’s
`Client Device ................................................................... 29
`
`i. Diacakis Teaches A POSITA That Contact Information Is
`Provided ........................................................ 29
`
`36
`
`u
`
`
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`Diacakis Teaches That The Recipient’s Contact Information Is
`Sent To The Sender’s Client Device ................................ 37
`
`i. Diacakis Teaches A POSITA That Contact
`Information Is Provided .................................................... 38
`
`ii
`ii
`
`iiiii
`
`The Board Already Determined That
`Diacakis Teaches A POSITA That Contact
` Information Is Provided .................................... 3241
`
`Judge Chang Also Determined That Diacakis Teaches A
`POSITA That Contact Infonnation
`Is Provided ......................................................... 3241
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Diacakis’s Blocked Users Do Not Receive A
`Message ............................................................................ 42
`
`The Institution Decision ................................................... 42
`
`[7.8] Summary ................................................................. 44
`
`GROUND II - CLAIMS 8, 9, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, AND 54
`ARE NOT RENDERED OBVIOUS BY DIACAKIS AND LOVELAND ... 44
`
`GROUND III - CLAIMS 37, 42, 56, 59-63, AND 67 ARE
`NOT RENDERED OBVIOUS BY DIACAKIS AND
`TAKAHASHI ................................................................................................. 45
`
`GROUND IV - CLAIM 45 IS NOT RENDERED
`OBVIOUS BY DIACAKIS, LOVELAND, AND TAKAHASHI ................. 46
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 46
`
`iii u
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Diacakis’s Blocked Users Do Not Receive A Message
`
`The Institution Decision ............................................. 34
`
`
`33
`
`[7.8] Summary .................................................................. 35
`
`IV. GROUND II - CLAIMS 8, 9, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, AND 54
`ARE NOT RENDERED OBVIOUS BY DIACAKIS
`AND LOVELAND ............................................................................... 36
`
`V. GROUND III - CLAIMS 37, 42, 56, 59-63, AND 67 ARE
`NOT RENDERED OBVIOUS BY DIACAKIS AND
`TAKAHASHI ........................................................................................ 36
`
`VI. GROUND IV - CLAIM 45 IS NOT RENDERED
`OBVIOUS BY DIACAKIS, LOVELAND, AND
`TAKAHASHI ........................................................................................ 38
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 38
`
`iii iii
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`Complaint
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`Epic Games Inc.’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
`Order Setting Markman Hearing
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`Epic Games Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`Declaration of Dr. George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`Decision Denying Institution, IPR2022-00297 (PTAB May 26,
`2022)
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`Judge Chang, IPR2022-00294, Paper No. 13
`(PTAB June 7, 2022) (dissent)
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`CV of Dr. George N. Rouskas, Ph.D.
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 9
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner, IngenioShare, LLC submits this ResponseMy name is
`
`George Rouskas. I have been retained as an expert witness to provide my
`
`independent opinions in regards with matters at issue in the Petition for inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038, Case No. (“the ’038 Patent”) in the
`
`IPR2022-00294, and the subsequent . I have been retained by IngenioShare LLC,
`
`the Patent Owner, in the above proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, the statements made herein are based on my
`
`personal knowledge, and if called to testify about this declaration, I could and
`
`would do so competently and truthfully.
`
`3.
`
`A detailed record of my professional qualifications including cases in
`
`which I was an expert has been submitted as Exhibit 2008 and is summarized in
`
`Section II, infra.
`
`4.
`
`lam not a legal expert and offer no opinions on the law. However, I
`
`have been informed by counsel of the various legal standards that apply, and I have
`
`applied those standards in arriving at my conclusions.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`I am an Alumni Distinguished Graduate Professor with Tenure in the
`
`Department of Computer Science at North Carolina State University (NC State),
`
`where I also serve as the Director of Graduate Programs. I am an experienced
`
`researcher and educator in the field of computer networking, with expertise in
`
`11
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 10
`
`
`
`
`Internet architectures and protocols, virtualization and cloud computing, mobile
`
`devices, network devices, network security and security protocols, in a variety of
`
`applications including providing for the protection of information transmitted
`
`between devices within and among networks.
`
`6.
`
`I have thirty-three years of experience in computer networking since I
`
`received my bachelor’s degree in 1989. I have twenty-eight years of experience as a
`
`professor in the Department of Computer Science of NC State.
`
`7.
`
`I have taught courses on computer networks, Internet protocols, data
`
`structures and computer performance evaluation. In 1997,1 created one of the
`
`world’s first graduate level courses on Internet Protocols, which I continue to teach
`
`regularly, and in which I cover in depth topics related to wireless and mobile
`
`networks and real-time communications.
`
`8.
`
`In my career in this field, I have received numerous accolades for my
`
`contributions to computer networking, including being elected as Fellow of the
`
`IEEE in 2012. Other accolades include the Outstanding Service Award for the
`
`Optical Networking Technical Committee (ONTC) of the IEEE Communication
`
`Society (2019); the Joyce Hatch Service Award from the NC State Chapter of the
`
`Association for Computing Machinery/Association of Information Technology
`
`Professionals (ACM/AITP) (2018); the title of Distinguished Lecturer in the IEEE
`
`(2010-2012); an IBM Faculty Award (2007); the Best Paper Award for the
`
`International Workshop on End-to-End Virtualization and Grid Management
`
`22
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 11
`
`
`
`
`(EVGM) (2007) (with C. Castillo and K. Harfoush); the Best Paper Award for the
`
`International Symposium on Communication Systems, Networks and Digital Signal
`
`Processing (CSNDSP) (2006) (with B. Chen and R. Dutta); the ALCOA
`
`Foundation Engineering Research Achievement Award, NC State College of
`
`Engineering (2004); the Alumni Outstanding Research Award, NC State (2003); the
`
`CAREER Award from the National Science Foundation (1997); and the Graduate
`
`Research Award from the Georgia Tech College of Computing (1994).
`
`9.
`
`I received my Ph.D. in Computer Science (Georgia Institute of
`
`Technology, 1994); M.S. in Computer Science (Georgia Institute of Technology,
`
`1991); and B.S. in Computer Engineering (National Technical University of
`
`Athens, 1989).
`
`10.
`
`In 2000-2001, while on Sabbatical from NC State, I worked as
`
`Network Architect for Vitesse Semiconductor, where I was responsible for the
`
`design of a state-of-the-art 2.5 Gbps network processor.
`
`11. My work as an academic began in 1994, when I joined NC State as an
`
`Assistant Professor. In 1999,1 was promoted to Associate Professor with Tenure. In
`
`2002,1 was promoted to the position of Professor.
`
`12.
`
`I have held visiting positions on the faculties of a number of
`
`international universities, including positions as a Distinguished Scientist at King
`
`Abdulaziz University (Saudi Arabia, 2013-2021); Visiting Professor at the
`
`Laboratoire d’Informatique University of Paris 6 (France, October 2012); Visiting
`
`33
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 12
`
`
`
`
`Professor at the Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria (Chile, December
`
`2008); and Visiting Professor at the Laboratoire de Methodes Informatiques
`
`University of Evry (France, July 2006, December 2002, June 2000).
`
`13.
`
`I have received funding from numerous agencies, foundations and
`
`companies for research on network design and communication. The sources of
`
`funding for this research include the National Science Foundation (NSF), the
`
`Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the National Security
`
`Agency (NSA), Microsoft, IBM and Cisco.
`
`14.
`
`I have served in a number of leadership roles for the IEEE, including
`
`as Chair of the IEEE Communications Society’s Distinguished Lecturer Selection
`
`Committee (2016-2017); Vice Chair of the IEEE Communications Society’s
`
`Technical and Educational Activities Council (2016-2017); and Chair of the IEEE
`
`Communications Society’s Optical Networking Technical Committee (2016-2017).
`
`15.
`
`I have served in various founding, editorial and leadership positions
`
`for publications in my field, including as founding Editor-in-Chief of IEEE
`
`Networking Letters (2018-2021); founding Editor-in-Chief, Elsevier Optical
`
`Switching and Networking Journal (2004-2017); Associate Editor, IEEE/OSA
`
`Journal of Communications and Networking (2010-2012); Co-Guest Editor, JCM
`
`Journal of Communications, Special Issue on the “Advances in Communications
`
`and Networking,” vol. 6, no. 9, December 2011; Associate Editor, IEEE/ACM
`
`Transactions on Networking (2000-2004); Associate Editor, Computer Networks
`
`44
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 13
`
`
`
`
`(2001-2004); Associate Editor, Optical Networks (2000-2004); and Co-Guest
`
`Editor, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Special Issue on
`
`“Protocols for Next Generation Optical WDM Networks,” vol. 18, no. 10, October
`
`2000.
`
`16.
`
`I have graduated twenty-five Ph.D. students. Two have received Ph.D.
`
`dissertation awards, one has received an NSF Career award, one became an NSA
`
`Fellow, and one has been inducted in the NC State Computer Science Alumni Hall
`
`of Fame. Three of my former Ph.D. students became Assistant Professors upon
`
`graduation, and the rest joined significant technology companies or research
`
`institutes, including RENCI (UNC-Chapel Hill), IBM Research, Google, Facebook,
`
`Cisco, Oracle, Ericsson, Riverbed Technologies, Sprint, and Sierra Wireless, among
`
`others. I have also graduated twelve M.S. thesis students.
`
`17. During the course of my career, I have had more than 200 scientific
`
`articles, three books, and ten book chapters published, which have collectively
`
`received more than 9,400 citations (Google Scholar, March 14, 2022). These are
`
`summarized in attached my curriculum vitae (see Ex. 2002).
`
`BASES OF OPINIONS
`
`18.
`
`In the course of conducting my analysis and forming my opinions, I
`
`have reviewed at least the items listed below:
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,492,038 and its prosecution history;
`
`Petition in IPR2022-00294, including the exhibits;
`
`55
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`iii. Declaration of Almeroth (Exhibit 1003);
`
`iv.
`
`vi.
`
`Institution Decision. For in IPR2022-00294;
`
`Exhibit 2001, Complaint;
`
`vii. Exhibit 2002, Epic Games Inc.’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions;
`
`viii. Exhibit 2003, Order Setting Markman Hearing;
`
`ix.
`
`x.
`
`Exhibit 2004, Epic Games Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief;
`
`Exhibit 2006, Decision Denying Institution, IPR2022-00297 (PTAB
`
`May 26, 2022); and
`
`xi.
`
`Exhibit 2007, Judge Chang, IPR2022-00294, Paper No. 13 (PTAB
`
`June 7, 2022) (dissent).
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
` the reasons explained herein,
`
`A. Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`1.
`
` the patentability of all Challenged Claims
`
`19. My opinions in this declaration are based on the understandings of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, which I understand is sometimes referred to as an
`
`“ordinary artisan” or by the acronyms “POSITA” (person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art) or “PHOSITA” (person having ordinary skill in the art), as of the time of the
`
`invention, which I understand is here assumed to be at least as early as April 27,
`
`2005 (Exhibit 1003, Almeroth Declaration at 6, T|5). I understand that the person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the
`
`66
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 15
`
`
`
`
`relevant art at the time of the invention. By “relevant,” I mean relevant to the
`
`challenged claims of the ’038 Patent.
`
`2.
`
` should be confirmed.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that, in assessing the level of skill of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, one should consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the
`
`prior solutions to those problems found in the prior art references, the rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, the level of
`
`education of active workers in the field, and my own experience working with those
`
`of skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`21.
`
`IL In this case, Dr. Almeroth has asserted in his declaration that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the ’038 Patent would
`
`have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or an equivalent field and three
`
`to five years of experience working with Internet communication systems.
`
`Additional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.”
`
`Exhibit 1003, Almeroth Declaration at 42, ^96. I have employed Dr. Almeroth’s
`
`definition in this declaration.
`
`22.
`
`I was at the time of invention, and am, at least one of more than
`
`ordinary skill in the art through my education and research experience. As of the
`
`date of the invention, I was and am very familiar with telecommunications systems,
`
`Internet communications systems, computer networks, communications protocols,
`
`Internet protocols, including systems and protocols related to voice
`
`77
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 16
`
`
`
`
`communications, SMS and text communications, group communications, and
`
`wireless communications. Indeed, I am very familiar with people having this level
`
`of skill in the area of Internet communications systems and protocols. I have been
`
`teaching undergraduate and graduate level courses in computer network
`
`architecture and protocols, including various techniques for voice communications,
`
`SMS and text communications, group communications, and wireless
`
`communications.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`23.
`
`I understand that claims of the ’038 patent in this IPR are generally
`
`interpreted according to their ordinary and customary meaning taking into
`
`consideration the so-called “intrinsic evidence” of the patent consisting of (1) the
`
`claim language; (2) the specification; and (3) the prosecution history. I understand
`
`that the Board has discretion to take into consideration so-called “extrinsic
`
`evidence” including references (prior art and non-prior art) as well as definitions
`
`from dictionaries and treatises.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that claim terms may be explicitly defined in the patent
`
`specification, or they may be implicitly defined through consistent usage in the
`
`specification. I also understand that the scope of claim terms may be limited by
`
`statements in the specification or prosecution history where the applicant clearly
`
`disavows or disclaims subject matter in a clear and unmistakable manner.
`
`88
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103)
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that a patent may be invalid if the claimed
`
`invention considered as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`
`was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103. I have been
`
`informed that the following factors must be evaluated to determine whether
`
`Petitioner has met its burden of proof on obviousness: (1) the scope and content of
`
`the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (3) the differences between
`
`the claimed subject matter and the prior art. Based on these factual inquiries, it must
`
`then be determined, as a matter of law (4) whether or not the claimed subject matter
`
`as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the alleged invention was made.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a finding of obviousness requires a showing that as of
`
`the date of the invention (a) the prior art teaches or suggests each of the limitations
`
`of the claim; (b) there exists an apparent reason or motivation to combine and/or
`
`modify the prior art as proposed; and (c) a person of ordinary skill would have a
`
`reasonable expectation of success, including that the proposed combination and/or
`
`modification of the prior art would operate for its intended purpose.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of the elements was independently known in the prior art. I
`
`have been informed that many, if not all, inventions rely on building blocks already
`
`known, and claimed inventions almost of necessity will likely be combinations of
`
`99
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 18
`
`
`
`
`what is already known.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed that it is important in the obviousness inquiry to
`
`identify whether a reason existed at the time of the invention that would have given
`
`a POSITA motivation to combine and/or modify the prior art references in the
`
`manner proposed by the Petitioners so as to arrive at the claimed invention. Put
`
`another way, a finding of obviousness should be supported by an apparent reason to
`
`combine and/or modify the prior art references as proposed by the Petitioners.
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that the obviousness inquiry should guard against
`
`hindsight bias or hindsight reconstruction where after-the-fact reasoning is applied
`
`to combine prior art elements using the claimed invention as a template, without
`
`establishing that, as of the date of the invention, there exists a motivation to
`
`combine or apparent reason to combine and/or modify the prior art as proposed.
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that it is important in the obviousness inquiry
`
`that it is understood how the combination of references is supposed to work. An
`
`explanation of the operation of the combined references is often a prerequisite to
`
`showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`make the proposed combination and would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in doing so.
`
`31.
`
`In assessing obviousness, I have been instructed to consider both the
`
`ordinary creativity and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art. I
`
`also understand that it is impermissible for common sense to be applied so as to fill
`
`11
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 19
`
`
`
`
`gaps in prior art that fails to teach or suggest a limitation of the claim.
`
`32.
`
`In assessing obviousness, I have been instructed that, in order to
`
`qualify as proper prior art for an obviousness analysis, a reference must qualify as
`
`analogous art. I have been informed that a reference qualifies as analogous art with
`
`respect to the claims if it is either: (1) from the same field or endeavor as the patent;
`
`or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem addressed by
`
`the invention. I have also been informed that in order for a reference to be
`
`reasonably pertinent, it must logically have commended itself during the ordinary
`
`course of development to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.
`
`TERMINOLOGY
`
`3.33. The claims of the ’038 patent use the term “first user” to refer to the
`
`sender and “second user” to refer to the recipient of a message. The specification
`
`and the prior art references use other terminology as well, including “user,”
`
`“client,” “subscriber,” “person,” etc. To avoid confusion, Patent Owner usesand I
`
`use the terms “sender” and “recipient” herein. Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at
`
`12, ^[33.
`
`GROUND I - DIACAKIS DOES NOT OBVIATE CLAIMS 7,10-12,
`22-24, 33-36, 38-41, 46, 49, 51-53, 55, 57-58 OR 64-66
`
`A. Diacakis (Exhibit 1007)
`
`4.34. Diacakis teaches a “presence and availability management system.”
`
`Diacakis defines “presence” as “the ability of an individual to access a particular
`
`11
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 20
`
`
`
`
`communications network” and “availability” as “the willingness of an individual who
`
`is present in one or more communications networks to be reached by one or more
`
`persons.” Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0003], [0026], [0027]; Exhibit 2005, Rouskas
`
`Declaration at 12, ^[34.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 21
`
`
`
`
`],
`
`5.35. Diacakis’s presence and availability (P&A) management system
`
`detennrmines whether a user is present on the network (i.e., whether the user’s
`
`device is powered on); detennrmines whether a user is available on the network
`
`(whether the user is willing to receive communications from others); and
`
`communicates P&A information to others, depending on the user’s preference.
`
`infonnation to others, depending on the user’s preference.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at Fig. 4; Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 12-13, ^354.
`
`6.36. Diacakis teaches that an individual may create profiles, such as the
`
`office profile in Fig. 2, to instruct the P&A system how to distribute his/her contact
`
`infonnation. A profile specifies what subset of the individual’s contact infonnation
`
`subscribers at a given access level receive:
`
`For example, an individual may have an office profile as indicated in FIG. 2.
`Thus, a subscriber with an access level of “Important” would receive the
`items marked “Yes” in the “Important” column, with the preference
`indicated (where appropriate), thereby making it very easy for “important”
`subscribers to communicate with the individual.
`Persons in the “Normal” access level would receive less contact information
`than persons in the “Important” access level, and persons in the “Restricted”
`access level would receive even less contact information.
`
`Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0032] (emphasis added); Exhibit 2005, Rouskas
`Declaration at 13, p6.).
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`7.37. Diacakis Fig. 3 also shows that subscribers at the “Restricted” access
`
`level receive only the voicemail number, subscribers in the “Normal” access level
`
`receive the work phone number, voicemail number, and e-mail, and subscribers in
`
`the “Important” access level receive two phone numbers, a voicemail number, two
`
`e-mails, and an IM address. Also, “the indicator module 110 may determine
`
`whether an address for each data content type (e.g., telephone, text (IM), video,
`
`graphic, audio, etc.) has been transmitted from the P&A management server 12.”
`
`Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0066]; Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 14, ^37.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 24
`
`
`
`
`],
`
`
`
`Important
`
`Work: (412) 555-0101 (preferred)
`Mobile: (412) 555-4567 Voicemal:
`(800) 555-mail
`
`E-mail: user@domain.com E-mail:
`user@company.com
`
`IM: user@someplace.com
`
`Normal
`
`Work: (412) 555-0101 (preferred)
`Voicemal: (800) 555-mail
`
`E-mail: user@company.com
`
`Important
`
`Work: (412) 555-0101 (preferred)
`Mobile: (412) 555-4567 Voicemal: (800)
`555-mail
`
`E-mail: user@domain.com E-mail:
`user@company.com
`
`Normal
`
`IM: user@someplace.com
`
`Work: (412) 555-0101 (preferred)
`Voicemal: (800) 555-mail
`
`
`Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at Fig. 3; Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 14, ^[373.
`
`E-mail: user@company.com
`
`8.38. According to Diacakis, the P&A management system employs a
`
`publishersubscriberpublisher-subscriber model that updates the subscribers of an
`
`individual’s presence and availability status as soon as the individual publishes a
`
`change to the profile:
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`When the individual transmits a change in profile to the server 12, the server
`publishes the change to each of the connected clients 22 that are subscribers
`of the individual's informnnation. The publishersubscriber model enables
`subscribers to observe a particular individual’s P&A infonnation instantly.
`
`Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0029]; Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 14-15,
`^38.],
`
`9.39. Subscribers access an individual’s P&A infonnation on their client
`tenninals via a “Contacts Program” akin to the Contacts application in today’s
`smartphones.
`
`smartphones. Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0056] and Fig. 8; Exhibit 2005, Rouskas
`Declaration at 15439.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 26
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`
`
`
`
`Contact Properties
`
`Contact:
`
`Jonathan
`
`Addresses:
`
`Voice
`
`Voice Mall
`Work vmall: (412) 555-1111 Cell watt:
`<412) 555-2222 Home wall: (4'.2)
`5S5-3333
`
`Instant Message
`
`».com
`
`Primary work E-mail: lerathan^abo.ccm
`
`Personal - web based E-mail: jonaLbar@3dq.ccm
`
`Close
`
`Fig. 8
`
`As shown in the left-hand window of Fig. 8, a subscriber has access to the contact
`
`infonnation of an individual:
`
`As illustrated, the subscriber may navigate the list of names in the right hand
`window (“Contacts Program”) to access the P&A information regarding the
`highlighted individual in the left hand window (“Contact Properties”).
`
`11
`
`
`
`Epic Games Ex. 1040
`Epic Games v. IngenioShare
`IPR2022-00294 p. 27
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at [0056]; Exhibit 2005, Rouskas Declaration at 15-16, ^39.
`
`], For instance, the left-hand window in Fig. 8 shows multiple phone numbers,
`
`voice numbers, IM addresses, and e-mails for the contact “Jonathan” who is
`
`highlighted in the right-hand window of Fig. 8. Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at Fig. 8.
`
`in the right-hand window of Fig. 8. Exhibit 1007, Diacakis at Fig. 8; Exhibit 2005,
`
`Rouskas Declaration at 15-16, p9.
`
`10.40. Diacakis’s P&A management system updates the availability
`
`informnnation by updating the indicator next to each availability means (i.e., piece
`
`of contact infonnation):
`
`The contact information in the left hand window may b