`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC, MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CAROLYN W. HAFEMAN,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2022-01189
`Patent 10,325,122
`____________
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01191
`Patent 10,789,393
`____________
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01193
`Patent 9,892,287
`____________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. SCOTT SCHAEFER
`
`
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1. My name is Scott Schaefer. I have been retained as an expert witness
`
`to provide my independent opinion in regard to the matters at issue in the inter
`
`partes reviews of United States Patent Nos. 9,892,287 (the “’287 patent”),
`
`10,325,122 (the “’122 patent”), and 10,789,393 (the “’393 patent”) (together, the
`
`“Challenged Patents”). I have been retained by Carolyn W. Hafeman
`
`(“Hafeman”), the Patent Owner in the above proceedings. The Petitioners are
`
`Google LLC and Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at the hourly rate of $500 per
`
`hour. My compensation does not depend on my conclusions or the outcome of this
`
`case, and I have no other interest in this litigation or the parties thereto.
`
`3.
`
`I am 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 conclusion.
`
`II.
`
`Qualifications
`
`4.
`
`I received a B.S. in Computer Science and Mathematics in 2000 from
`
`Trinity University. Afterwards, I attended Rice University and received an M.S. in
`
`Computer Science in 2003 and a Ph.D. in Computer Science in 2006.
`
`5.
`
`In 2006, I began a faculty position at Texas A&M University as an
`
`Assistant Professor. I was promoted to Associate Professor in 2012 and to Full
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`Professor in 2016. I served as the person in charge of accreditation for our
`
`Computer Science degree from 2013-2017. I became Associate Department Head
`
`of the Department of Computer Science & Engineering in 2017 and I was
`
`appointed Department Head in 2019, a role in which I have served since that time.
`
`6.
`
`In 2019, I was awarded the Eppright Professorship in Engineering and
`
`was named the holder of the Lynn ‘83 and Bill Crane ‘84 Department Head Chair
`
`in 2020.
`
`7.
`
`I have been awarded multiple awards for my teaching and research
`
`activities. I was named a member of the 2008 DARPA Computer Science Study
`
`Panel. I was awarded the Gunter Enderle Award in 2011 for my research. In
`
`2012, I received an NSF CAREER Award for my research work. My research was
`
`subsequently recognized in 2015 when I was named the Herbert H. Richardson
`
`Faculty Fellow by the College of Engineering. I was also awarded the 2019 TEES
`
`Research Impact Award to recognize significant contributions and impact in the
`
`area of research. In addition to these awards, I have received multiple best paper
`
`awards for my research in the past.
`
`8.
`
`I have received multiple teaching awards from the Computer Science
`
`& Engineering department for teaching excellence over the years. In 2017, I was
`
`awarded the Distinguished Achievement Award in Teaching at the College level.
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`In 2019, I was awarded the Distinguished Achievement Award for Teaching at the
`
`University level, one of the highest university honors that is awarded.
`
`9.
`
`In addition to my academic experience, I have worked for a number of
`
`companies in different capacities. Before becoming involved in academia, I was
`
`employed by Southwest Research Institute to work on radio direction finding
`
`algorithms for the U.S. Navy in 1999-2000. I worked at WholeBrain Media on
`
`early mobile development from 1997-1999 including network communications. At
`
`Rare Medium, I performed what is now called full stack development and
`
`developed e-commerce platforms for various companies in 2000. I spent time at
`
`SensAble Technologies in 2003 developing implicit modeling algorithms for their
`
`haptic feedback system. In 2004, I was also employed by a startup company called
`
`Mok3 that was developed out of MIT to work on core computer vision algorithms
`
`for their image-based modeling software. I was also employed by Microsoft
`
`Research as an intern in 2005 and subsequently as a visiting researcher in 2006
`
`where we worked on a number of surface modeling methods in computer graphics.
`
`My work at Microsoft Research motivated the inclusion of what is now called the
`
`tessellator unit in DirectX 11, which is an application programming interface
`
`(“API”) that governs the relationship between multimedia hardware. Every
`
`graphics card produced since 2009 has been influenced by my work there.
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`10. My research broadly lies in the field of computer graphics, though I
`
`have worked in many areas of Computer Science as is evidenced by my
`
`background. My research has been implemented by a number of companies
`
`including Microsoft, Pixar, Adobe, and Nvidia. In addition, my work on
`
`architectural optimization to create surfaces out of small numbers of discrete
`
`panels was used to design and construct a ski lift in Switzerland.
`
`11.
`
`In addition, I have served as an Associate or Guest Editor for a
`
`number of journals including Graphical Models, The Visual Computer, Computer
`
`Aided Design, Computer Aided Geometric Design, Transactions on Visualization
`
`and Computer Graphics, Computer Graphics and Applications, and ACM
`
`Transactions on Graphics. In addition to this service I have served as papers chair
`
`for most major computer science conferences in my area. I also serve on the
`
`steering committee of the Geometric Modeling and Processing conference.
`
`12.
`
`In terms of instruction, I teach and have developed courses on a
`
`variety of topics in Computer Science. I have taught courses in computer graphics,
`
`geometric modeling, game development, data structures and algorithms, as well as
`
`both our lower level and upper-level undergraduate seminar courses.
`
`13. A detailed curriculum vitae showing my credentials is attached to this
`
`report as Error! Reference source not found.A.
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`III.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`
`14.
`
`In my opinion, Hafeman is entitled to a priority date of September 20,
`
`2004 based on her filing of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/945,332, published as
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0071670, now U.S. Patent No. 8,601,606.
`
`15. The Challenged Claims do not lack written description because the
`
`’332 Application fully disclosed the remote initiating of return or recovery
`
`information.
`
`16. The Challenged Claims are entitled to a priority date of September 20,
`
`2004.
`
`17. The Challenged Claims were not rendered obvious by the
`
`combination of Hafeman 298 and Chiu, and a POSITA would not have been
`
`motivated to combine Hafeman 298 and Chiu.
`
`IV.
`
`Legal Principles
`
`18.
`
`I am not an attorney. For purposes of this report, I have been
`
`informed by counsel of the following legal standards that apply to the issues I
`
`address in this declaration.
`
`19.
`
`I am not offering any legal opinions in this declaration nor am I
`
`qualified to do so. I only consider such legal standards in framing my opinions and
`
`conclusions as well as placing assertions made by Petitioner in the Petition into the
`
`proper context. Additionally, from a subject matter perspective, I understand that
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`the petitioner always has the burden of persuasion regarding a challenge of
`
`patentability of an invention under an inter partes review.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that an inventor establishes priority of an invention by
`
`conceiving of the invention and reducing the invention to practice.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a patent application may establish priority of
`
`invention when it supports all elements of the Challenged Claims.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that invalidation by anticipation occurs only when a
`
`single alleged prior art reference discloses each and every limitation of the claim at
`
`issue, either expressly or inherently. In other words, every limitation of the claim
`
`must identically appear in a single prior art reference for the reference to anticipate
`
`that claim. I also understand that all elements of the claim must be disclosed in the
`
`reference as they are arranged in the claim.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that to be considered anticipatory, the prior art reference
`
`must be enabling and must describe the patentee’s claimed invention sufficiently to
`
`have placed it in possession of a person of ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`invention.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a claim may be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`
`if “that invention was known or used by others in this country or patented or
`
`described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before that invention
`
`thereof by the applicant for patent.” I further understand that a claim may be
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if the claimed invention was patented or
`
`described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on
`
`sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for a
`
`patent in the United States.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that patent may be rendered “obvious” based on an
`
`alleged prior art reference or a combination of such references plus what a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand based on his or her knowledge and the
`
`references. I understand that a patent cannot be properly granted for subject matter
`
`that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the alleged invention, and that a patent claim directed to such obvious subject
`
`matter is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103. It also is my current understanding that in
`
`assessing the obviousness of claimed subject matter, one should evaluate
`
`obviousness over the prior art from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a patent claim composed of several elements is not
`
`proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was
`
`independently known in the prior art. But multiple prior art references or elements
`
`may, in some circumstances, be combined to render a patent claim obvious,
`
`provided that the references collectively disclose expressly or inherently every
`
`limitation of the challenged claim. I understand that I should consider two factors.
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`First, I should consider whether there is an “apparent reason” to combine the prior
`
`art references or elements in the way the patent claims. Requiring a reason for the
`
`prior art combination protects against the distortion caused by hindsight. Along the
`
`same lines, one cannot use the patent as a blueprint to piece together the prior art in
`
`order to combine the right ones in the right way as to create the claimed inventions.
`
`To determine whether such an “apparent reason” exists to combine the prior art
`
`references or elements in the way a patent claims, it will often be necessary to look
`
`to the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, to the effects of demands known to
`
`the design community or present in the marketplace, and to the background
`
`knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Second, I should
`
`consider whether the combination would work for its intended purpose to achieve
`
`the claimed invention. If a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`the references could not be physically combined in an operational manner because
`
`they are technically incompatible, it would not be obvious to combine them to
`
`practice the invention even if the references collectively disclosed all the
`
`limitations of a challenged claim.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that when the prior art “teaches away” from combining
`
`prior art references or certain known elements, discovery of a successful means of
`
`combining them is less likely to be obvious. A prior art reference may be said to
`
`“teach away” from a patent when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the patent or
`
`would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the patent.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the question of obviousness is to be determined
`
`based on:
`
`a. The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`b. The differences between the subject matter of the claim and the prior
`
`art (whereby in assessing the possibility of obviousness one should
`
`consider the manner in which a patentee and/or a Court has construed
`
`the scope of a claim);
`
`c. The level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`of the subject matter of the claim; and
`
`d. Any relevant objective factors or secondary considerations of non-
`
`obviousness, which may include commercial success of a product using
`
`the invention, if that commercial success is due to the invention; long-
`
`felt need for the invention; evidence of copying of the claimed
`
`invention; industry acceptance; the taking of licenses under the patent
`
`by others; initial skepticism; failure of others; and praise of the
`
`invention.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that when a patentee can demonstrate commercial
`
`success, usually shown by significant sales in a relevant market, and that the
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`successful product is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent, it is
`
`presumed that the commercial success is due to the patented invention. I also
`
`understand that courts may find the commercial success of the infringer and other
`
`members of the industry persuasive even though the patentee was not successful
`
`with a product covered by the patent.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a need or problem known in the field at the time of
`
`an invention can provide an obvious reason to combine elements in the manner
`
`claimed. A patent’s subject matter would have been obvious if at the time of that
`
`invention, there was a known problem for which the patent claims encompassed an
`
`obvious solution. Further, if a patent claims a structure known in the prior art that
`
`only substitutes one element for another that is known in the field, I understand
`
`that the combination would have been obvious unless the result is unexpected and
`
`fruitful. Therefore, a predictable variation of prior art is obvious.
`
`31.
`
`It is also my understanding that if a technique was used to improve a
`
`device or method, and if a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that
`
`the technique would improve similar devices or methods in the same way, using
`
`the technique is obvious unless applying it is beyond the person’s skill.
`
`32.
`
`It is my further understanding that an alleged improvement claimed in
`
`a particular patent must do more than use prior art elements according to their
`
`established functions.
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`33.
`
`It is my additional understanding that items may have obvious uses
`
`beyond their primary purposes. Thus, as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court,
`
`“common sense teaches … that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
`
`primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit
`
`the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). I understand that neither a particular
`
`motivation nor an avowed purpose of a patentee controls how a piece of prior art
`
`may be used.
`
`34.
`
`I also understand that if a combination was obvious to try, it may be
`
`obvious. I understand that obviousness is therefore not confined to a formalistic
`
`conception of “teaching, suggestion, and motivation” or by overemphasizing
`
`published publications and the explicit content of issued patents.
`
`35.
`
`It is my further understanding that multiple prior art references can be
`
`combined to show that a claim is obvious. To determine whether there was an
`
`apparent reason to combine those references in the way a patent claims, it is my
`
`understanding that I can look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents, to the
`
`effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace,
`
`and/or to the background knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. I also understand that neither a particular motivation nor the alleged purpose of
`
`the patentee controls that investigation of obviousness.
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`36.
`
`I am also aware that another way to decide whether one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would combine what is described in various items of prior art is
`
`whether there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art for a
`
`skilled person to make the combination covered by the patent claims. It is my
`
`further understanding that the analysis of a motivation to combine must be explicit
`
`37.
`
`I am also aware that references that teach away cannot serve to create
`
`a prima facie case of obviousness. A reference is said to reach away when a
`
`POSITA, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
`
`path set out in the reference or would be led in a direction divergent from the path
`
`that was taken by the applicant.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that in developing opinions as to whether or not certain
`
`claimed subject matter would have been obvious, each claim of a given patent
`
`should be considered in its entirety and separately from any other claims. In so
`
`doing, it is my further understanding that while I should consider any differences
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art, I should also assess the
`
`obviousness or non-obviousness of the entirety of a claim covering an alleged
`
`invention, not merely some portion of it.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that patent specification must contain a written
`
`description of the invention sufficient to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed. I understand that the test
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`for sufficiency of the written description is whether the disclosure of the
`
`application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the
`
`inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that in analyzing whether a patent specification provides
`
`sufficient written description of a claim, I must consider the description from the
`
`viewpoint of one of skill in the art when the application was filed. The written
`
`description requirement is satisfied if a person having ordinary skill reading the
`
`original patent application would have recognized that it describes the full scope of
`
`the claimed invention as it is finally claimed in the issued patent and that the
`
`inventor actually possessed that full scope by the filing date of the original
`
`application.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that the written description requirement may be satisfied
`
`by any combination of the words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc.,
`
`contained in the patent application. The full scope of a claim or any particular
`
`requirement in a claim need not be expressly disclosed in the original patent
`
`application if a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would
`
`have understood that the full scope or missing requirement is in the written
`
`description in the patent application.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that my interpretation of the patent claims and my
`
`validity analysis must be undertaken from the perspective of a hypothetical person
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). In determining the characteristics of a
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art of the patent at the time of the
`
`claimed invention, I considered several things, including the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art, the solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the education level
`
`and experience of people working in the field.
`
`43. Based on my experience, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention of the Challenged Patents would have
`
`had a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science or a related field, and two years of
`
`experience working in the field of software development. An individual with less
`
`technical education but more experience, or vice versa, could also qualify as a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`44.
`
`I consider myself a person with at least ordinary skill in the art with
`
`respect to the Challenged Patents at the time of their priority dates.
`
`45. My opinions as stated in this declaration are valid even if the Board
`
`adopts a different definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., Dr.
`
`Zadok’s proposed definition or the Board’s definition in the Institution Decisions).
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`V.
`
`Overview of the Asserted References
`
`A. Hafeman 298
`
`46. Hafeman 298 is a now-abandoned patent application that bears
`
`similarity to the Challenged Patents. Hafeman 298 discloses a return/recovery
`
`system for the return of lost or stolen computers using a recovery screen that
`
`appears during or after boot-up.1 The recovery screen displays “ownership
`
`information concerning who owns the computer and return information for
`
`returning the computer to the owner” from “data stored in the memory.”2 The
`
`display of return information is preferably before satisfying a security prompt such
`
`as entering a password into the computer.3
`
`B. Chiu
`
`47. Chiu is a BlackBerry patent that discloses a system for remote control
`
`of mobile communication devices. The mobile device is associated with an event
`
`driven redirection computer program operating at a host (desktop) computer that
`
`redirects data items from the host system to the mobile device upon sensing a
`
`particular user-defined event has occurred.4 Chiu indicates that data items such as
`
`e-mail messages, calendar events, meeting notifications, address entries, journal
`
`entries, and personal reminders may be stored at the host system and pushed to the
`
`1 Hafeman 298 ¶ 15.
`2 Hafeman 298 ¶ 15.
`3 Hafeman 298 ¶ 32.
`4 Chiu ¶ 2.
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`mobile device in response to a triggering event at the host system.5 These events
`
`might be external such as sensing the user is no longer in the vicinity of the host
`
`system or internal such as a calendar alarm, screen saver activation, keyboard
`
`timeout, or programmable timer.6
`
`48. Chiu also discloses that an owner “may wish to exercise some
`
`controls over the use of devices 24 and redirection of other device surfaces” to
`
`“control access to both the information stored on its devices and the functions
`
`supported by the devices.”7 Chiu indicates that different control messages could
`
`disable a device to render it totally or partially inoperable to a user, resetting an
`
`existing device password, setting a new device password, or locking a device.8
`
`Chiu indicates that a message to completely disable the device would destroy all
`
`data on the device and disable all functionality on the device with a predetermined
`
`or administrator composed text message to be displayed on the screen of a disabled
`
`device.9
`
`49. While Chiu is not primarily about recovering lost devices, one
`
`sentence mentions that a “display message as described above may also indicate
`
`5 Chiu ¶¶ 23, 25.
`6 Chiu ¶ 25.
`7 Chiu ¶ 92.
`8 Chiu ¶ 93.
`9 Chiu ¶ 101.
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`that the device is lost and to whom or where it should be returned.”10 However, the
`
`display of the message is displayed in the context of a remote disable command,
`
`which destroys the data on a device or renders the device inoperable.11 There is no
`
`indication that the display of the message is before/with a lock screen or that a lock
`
`screen even exists since the device is disabled and potentially has had all data
`
`wiped.
`
`C. Hafeman 670
`
`50. Hafeman 670 is the publication of Hafeman’s ’332 Application, filed
`
`on September 20, 2004. The Challenged Patents each claim priority to the ’332
`
`Application and contain an identical specification (except for the claims) as the
`
`’332 Application.
`
`VI.
`
`The Challenged Claims Were Not Rendered Obvious by Hafeman 298
`in View of Chiu.
`
`51. Petitioner argues that the Challenged Claims were rendered obvious
`
`by the combination of Hafeman 298 and Chiu. I disagree.
`
`52.
`
`In my opinion, Petitioner’s proposed combination does not support
`
`remotely initiating or changing return/recovery information without assistance by a
`
`user.
`
`10 Chiu ¶ 102.
`11 Chiu ¶ 101.
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`a. Petitioner acknowledges that the application that published as
`
`Hafeman 298 did not disclose remotely initiating or changing
`
`return/recovery information.12 Thus, Petitioner must show that Chiu
`
`discloses initiating or changing return information through remote
`
`communication.
`
`b. Chiu does not disclose this limitation. Chiu teaches that the message
`
`is “predetermined” and is stored on the remote device.13 Chiu does
`
`not teach a way to change the message that is displayed. Moreover,
`
`once Chiu’s disable control message is processed, all communication
`
`ability has been shut down and the device cannot receive later
`
`communications.14
`
`53.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine
`
`Hafeman 298 with Chiu.
`
`a. As discussed above, only one sentence of Chiu mentions adding a
`
`display message to indicate that a device is lost.15 However, this
`
`message appears in the context of destroying all of the data on the
`
`device and then displaying the message. Hafeman 298 was not
`
`12 IPR2022-01189 Pet., 28 (“Hafeman 670 contains new matter relating to remotely changing the return/recovery
`information with an interactive program … that was not disclosed or described in the original disclosure of Hafeman
`298”); IPR2022-01191 Pet., 28 (same); IPR2022-01193 Pet., 28 (same).
`13 Chiu ¶¶ 101, 103, 109.
`14 Chiu ¶ 103.
`15 Chiu ¶ 102.
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`directed at destroying device data and, in my opinion, a POSITA
`
`would not connect displaying a message after data destruction with
`
`displaying a message before or with the lock screen without user
`
`assistance.
`
`b. In addition, whereas Chiu teaches disabling the communications
`
`functions of a device, Hafeman 298 requires a network connection to
`
`change the ownership information. Thus, the systems would not be
`
`compatible together.
`
`54. Chiu is a redirection system that is geared toward synchronizing a
`
`mobile device with a host system. Petitioner fails to explain how a reference for
`
`synchronizing a mobile device with a host system could be combined with
`
`Hafeman 298, which describes initiating return/recovery information before or
`
`with a security prompt, or why a POSITA would have any motivation to combine
`
`such references.
`
`VII.
`
`Because the Challenged Claims Are Entitled to a Priority Date of
`September 20, 2004, Hafeman 670 and Hafeman 298 Are Not Prior Art.
`
`55.
`
`I understand that Petitioner claims that Hafeman is not entitled to
`
`priority based on the ’332 Application for only one reason: an alleged lack of
`
`support for “initiating . . . [return/recovery] information through remote
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`communication.”16 In my opinion, the ’332 Application fully disclosed remote
`
`initiating as recited in the Challenged Claims.
`
`56. This limitation is present in each of the Challenged Claims, either
`
`directly for the independent claims, or via dependence for the dependent claims.
`
`57. The ’332 Application uses the word “initiate,” making clear that the
`
`owner can “initiate a download of changes to the protected equipment.”17
`
`58. During prosecution of the ’332 Application, Hafeman amended the
`
`claim language “changing recovery information” to read “initiating and changing
`
`recovery information.”18 Hafeman explained that “support for . . . the amendment
`
`to the claims is found on page 31, line 2 regarding the owner ‘initiating’
`
`limitation.”19
`
`59. The patent examiner accepted this amendment without objection.20 I
`
`understand that by accepting the amendment, the patent examiner necessarily
`
`concluded that remote initiating was supported by the original ’332 Application.
`
`60.
`
`I understand that Petitioner claims that this disclosure stating “initiate
`
`a download of changes” relates only to remote changing of return or recovery
`
`information and not remote initiating a download of changes. I disagree. In
`
`16 IPR2022-01189 Pet., 15; IPR2022-01191 Pet., 15; IPR2022-01193 Pet., 15.
`17 Ex. 1012, 37 (31:2-3).
`18 Ex. 1012, 115.
`19 Ex. 1012, 123.
`20 Ex. 1012, 129-38.
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`computer operations, “initiate” is well understood as causing an action or process
`
`to begin and a POSITA reading this disclosure would understand that the
`
`Challenged Claims can “initiate,” or begin, the process of changing return/recovery
`
`information through remote communication.
`
`61. Changing in some ways is very much linked to initiating. If, for
`
`example, the “download of changes” does not successfully reach completion and
`
`the changes are not made or made at a later time, the owner of the device would
`
`still be “initiating” return/recovery information “through remote communication”
`
`without “changing” such information. Thus, this disclosure in the ’332 Application
`
`supports the well accepted understanding of “remote initiating” to those skilled in
`
`the art.
`
`62.
`
`In addition to the use of the term “initiat[ing],” several other portions
`
`of the ’332 Application provide support for the owner remotely initiating the
`
`display of return or recovery information:
`
`a. The ’332 Application states that “remote communication ability” made
`
`Hafeman’s invention “completely unique and very different” from prior
`
`art.21 The remote communication of return or recovery information
`
`21 Ex. 1012, 37 (31:21-23).
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`enabled by Hafeman’s invention included “[s]atellite, WI-FI, cable,
`
`bluetooth, or any other type of remote communication.”22
`
`b. The ’332 Application explains that the owner “control[s] the recovery
`
`information displayed by remote.”23 The owner can “control the entire
`
`recovery screen, and even override the ‘assigned to’ person’s input.”24
`
`For example, this control “allows the owner to eliminate erroneous or
`
`misleading ‘assigned to’ recovery information that might have been
`
`created by the rogue ‘assigned to’ individual, replace the display 18
`
`screen with correct owner recovery information and even change or
`
`delete the ‘assigned to’ password to stop access to the equipment
`
`information.”25 In my opinion, a POSITA would understand that
`
`“control[ing] the entire recovery screen” by “remote” encompasses not
`
`just remotely changing return or recovery information, but also
`
`remotely initiating return or recovery information.
`
`c. The ’332 Application further specifies that the owner controls the
`
`recovery screen by “interactively enter[ing], chang[ing][,] and
`
`22 Ex. 1012, 43 (37:17-19); see also Ex. 1012, 37 (31:7:11) (“The [invention] allows the owner to make changes at the
`recovery center level, have the recovery center attempt to communicate those changes to the ‘stolen equipment’ via
`phone line (or cable, wi-fi, bluetooth, satellite etc. in the future).”).
`23 Ex. 1012, 38 (32:7).
`24 Ex. 1012, 37 (31:3-5); see also Ex. 1012, 38, (32:9-13) (“The ‘owner’ can control both the owner information and
`all the ‘assigned to’ recovery information at the recovery enter level, and then attempt to communicate this to the
`protected equipment using the Retriever licensed security recovery program.”)
`25 Ex. 1012, 37 (31:12-16).
`
`HAFEMAN EXHIBIT 2040
`
`
`
`updat[ing] [return or recovery information] at anytime.”26 The ’332
`
`Application reiterates that return or recovery information would be
`
`“interactively inputted by the owner, and the owner would have control
`
`over how much recovery information is displayed.”27 In my opinion, a
`
`POSITA would understand
`
`that “interactively enter[ing]” or
`
`“interactively input[ting]” return or recovery information encompasses
`
`remotely initiating return or recovery information.
`
`63. Petitioner claims that the ’332 Application only refers to locally
`
`initiating return/recovery information and that the references to remote
`
`communicati
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
