`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR
`U.S. Patent 6,922,632
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JAMES L. MULLINS
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Dr. James L. Mullins, declare as follows:
`
`My name is Dr. James L. Mullins.
`
`I have been retained by petitioner Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) in the above-
`
`captioned inter partes review relating to U.S. Patent 6,922,632 to provide opinions
`
`on various documents.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I am presently Dean Emeritus of Libraries and Esther Ellis Norton
`
`Professor Emeritus at Purdue University. My career as a professional and
`
`academic/research spanned more than 44 years including library positions at Indiana
`
`University, Villanova University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and
`
`Purdue University. Appendix A is a true and correct copy of my curriculum vitae
`
`describing my background and experience.
`
`2.
`
`In 2018, I founded the firm Prior Art Documentation Librarian
`
`Services, LLC, located at 106 Berrow, Williamsburg, VA 23188 after purchasing
`
`the intellectual property of and successor to Prior Art Documentation, LLC located
`
`at 711 South Race Street, Urbana, IL 61801. Further information about my firm,
`
`Prior Art Documentation Librarian Services, LLC (PADLS), is available at
`
`www.priorartdoclib.com.
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained by Meta to offer my opinion on the authenticity
`
`and dates of public accessibility of various documents. For this service, I am being
`
`
`
`1
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`paid my usual hourly fee of $275.00/hour. I have no stake in the outcome of this
`
`proceeding or any related litigation or administrative proceedings, and my
`
`compensation in no way depends on the substance of my testimony or the outcome
`
`of this proceeding.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`I received a Bachelor of Arts degree in History, Religion and Political
`
`Science in 1972 as well as a Master of Arts degree in Library Science in 1973 from
`
`the University of Iowa. I received my Ph.D. in Academic Library Management in
`
`1984 from Indiana University. Over the past forty-seven years, I have held various
`
`positions in the field of library and information sciences.
`
`5.
`
`I am presently Dean Emeritus of Libraries and Esther Ellis Norton
`
`Professor Emeritus at Purdue University, and have been since January 1, 2018. I
`
`have been previously employed as follows:
`
`(a) Dean of Libraries and Professor and Esther Ellis Norton
`
`Professor, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN (2004-December 31, 2017)
`
`(b) Assistant/Associate Director for Administration, Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology (MIT) Libraries, Cambridge, MA (2000-2004)
`
`(c) University Librarian and Director, Falvey Memorial Library,
`
`Villanova University, Villanova, PA (1996-2000)
`
`
`
`2
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`(d) Director of Library Services, Indiana University South Bend,
`
`South Bend, IN (1978-1996)
`
`(e)
`
`Part-time Instructor, School of Library and Information Science,
`
`Indiana University, Bloomington, IN (1979-1996)
`
`(f) Associate Law Librarian, and associated
`
`titles, Indiana
`
`University School of Law, Bloomington, IN (1974-1978)
`
`(g) Catalog Librarian, Assistant Professor, Georgia Southern
`
`College (now University), Statesboro, GA (1973-1974)
`
`6.
`
`I am a member of the American Library Association (“ALA”), where I
`
`served as the chair of the Research Committee of the Association of College and
`
`Research Libraries (“ACRL”). My service to ALA included service on the editorial
`
`board of the most prominent library journal, College and Research Libraries. I also
`
`served on the Standards Committee, College Section of the Association of College
`
`and Research Libraries, where I was instrumental in developing a re-issue of the
`
`Standards for College Libraries in 2000. Over 20 years I was actively engaged in
`
`academic library professional associations on the international level including
`
`invited papers and lectures in Germany, Norway, Israel, Argentina, Australia, South
`
`Africa, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Greece, Canada, France, Belgium, China, Japan,
`
`South Korea, Finland, Sweden, Poland, Switzerland, Singapore, and the United
`
`Kingdom.
`
`
`
`3
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`I am an author of numerous publications in the field of library science,
`
`and have given presentations in library sciences at national and international
`
`conferences. During more than 44 years as an academic librarian and library science
`
`scholar, I have gained extensive experience with catalog records and online library
`
`management systems (LMS) built using Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC)
`
`standards. As an academic library administrator, I have had responsibility to ensure
`
`that students were educated to identify, locate, assess, and integrate information
`
`garnered from research library resources. I have also facilitated the research of
`
`faculty colleagues either directly or through the provision of and access to the
`
`requisite print and/or digital materials and services at the universities where I
`
`worked.
`
`8.
`
`Based on my experience identified above and detailed in my curriculum
`
`vitae, which is attached hereto as Appendix A, I consider myself to be an expert in
`
`the field of library science and academic library administration. I have previously
`
`offered my opinions on the public availability and authenticity of documents in over
`
`40 cases.
`
`III. BACKGROUND ON PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY
`A.
`Scope of This Declaration
`9.
`I am not a lawyer, and I am not rendering an opinion on the legal
`
`question of whether a particular document is, or is not, a “printed publication” under
`
`
`
`4
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`the law. I am, however, rendering my expert opinion on the authenticity of the
`
`document referenced herein and when and how this document was disseminated or
`
`otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled
`
`in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, could have located the
`
`document.
`
`10.
`
`I am informed by counsel that an item is considered authentic if there
`
`is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the item is what it is claimed to be. I
`
`am also informed that authenticity can be established based on the contents of the
`
`document itself, such as the appearance, content, substance, internal patterns, or
`
`other distinctive characteristics of the item.
`
`11.
`
`I am informed by counsel that a given reference qualifies as “publicly
`
`accessible” if it was disseminated or otherwise made available such that a person
`
`interested in and ordinarily skilled in the relevant subject matter could locate it
`
`through the exercise of ordinary diligence.
`
`12. While I understand that the determination of public accessibility under
`
`the foregoing standard rests on a case-by-case analysis of the facts particular to an
`
`individual publication, I also understand that a printed publication is rendered
`
`“publicly accessible” if it is cataloged and indexed by a library such that a person
`
`interested in the relevant subject matter could locate it (i.e., I understand that
`
`cataloging and indexing by a library is sufficient, though there are other ways that a
`
`
`
`5
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`printed publication may qualify as “publicly accessible”). One manner of sufficient
`
`indexing is indexing according to subject matter. I understand that it is not necessary
`
`to prove someone actually looked at the printed publication in order to show it was
`
`publicly accessible by virtue of a library’s cataloging and indexing thereof. I
`
`understand that cataloging and indexing by a single library of a single instance of a
`
`particular printed publication is sufficient. I understand that, even if access to a
`
`library is restricted, a printed publication that has been cataloged and indexed therein
`
`is publicly accessible so long as a presumption is raised that the portion of the public
`
`concerned with the relevant subject matter would know of the printed publication. I
`
`also understand that the cataloging and indexing of information that would guide a
`
`person interested in the relevant subject matter to the printed publication, such as the
`
`cataloging and indexing of an abstract for the printed publication, is sufficient to
`
`render the printed publication publicly accessible.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that evidence showing the specific date when a printed
`
`publication became publicly accessible is not necessary. Rather, routine business
`
`practices, such as general library cataloging and indexing practices, can be used to
`
`establish an approximate date on which a printed publication became publicly
`
`accessible.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`
`
`6
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this declaration, I have reviewed
`
`the documents and appendices referenced herein. These materials are records
`
`created in the ordinary course of business by publishers, libraries, indexing services,
`
`and others. From my years of experience, I am familiar with the process for creating
`
`many of these records, and I know that these records are created by people with
`
`knowledge of the information contained within the record. Further, these records
`
`are created with the expectation that researchers and other members of the public
`
`will use them. All materials cited in this declaration and its appendices are of a type
`
`that experts in my field would reasonably rely upon and refer to in forming their
`
`opinions.
`
`15. Counsel has informed me that the subject matter of this proceeding
`
`relates to computer implemented tracking systems and virtual reality devices.
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a “person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the inventions” (POSITA) is a hypothetical person who is presumed
`
`to be familiar with the relevant field and its literature at the time of the inventions.
`
`This hypothetical person is also a person of ordinary creativity, capable of
`
`understanding the scientific principles applicable to the pertinent field.
`
`17. Counsel has informed me that persons of ordinary skill in this subject
`
`matter or art would have included someone with a Bachelor’s degree in Computer
`
`
`
`7
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`Science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with
`
`computer implemented tracking systems.
`
`18.
`
`It is my opinion that such a person would have been actively engaged
`
`in academic research and learning through study and practice in the field, and
`
`possibly through formal instruction through the bibliographic resources relevant to
`
`his or her research. By the 2000s, such a person with the educational background
`
`and research expectation would have had access to a vast array of print resources,
`
`including at least the documents referenced below, as well as to a fast-changing set
`
`of online resources.
`
`C. Library Catalog Records and Other Resources
`19. Some background on MARC
`(Machine-Readable Cataloging)
`
`formatted records, OCLC, and WorldCat is helpful to understand the library catalog
`
`records discussed in this declaration. I am fully familiar with the library cataloging
`
`standard known as the MARC standard, which is an industry-wide standard method
`
`of storing and organizing library catalog information.1 MARC practices have been
`
`consistent since the MARC format was developed by the Library of Congress in the
`
`1960s, and by the early 1970s became the U.S. national standard for disseminating
`
`bibliographic data. By the mid-1970s, MARC format became the international
`
`
`1 The full text of the standard is available from the Library of Congress at
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/.
`8
`
`
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`standard, and persists through the present. A MARC-compatible library is one that
`
`has a catalog consisting of individual MARC records for each of its items. The
`
`underlying MARC format (computer program) underpins the online public access
`
`catalog (OPAC) that is available to library users to locate a particular holding of a
`
`library. Today, MARC is the primary communications protocol for the transfer and
`
`storage of bibliographic metadata in libraries.2 The MARC practices discussed
`
`below were in place during the late 1990s time frame relevant to the documents
`
`referenced herein.
`
`20. Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) is a not-for-profit worldwide
`
`consortium of libraries. Similar to MARC standards, OCLC’s practices have been
`
`consistent since the 1970s through the present. Accordingly, the OCLC practices
`
`discussed below were in place during the time frame discussed in my opinions
`
`section. OCLC was created “to establish, maintain and operate a computerized
`
`library network and to promote the evolution of library use, of libraries themselves,
`
`and of librarianship, and to provide processes and products for the benefit of library
`
`
`2 Almost every major library in the world uses a catalog that is MARC-compatible.
`See, e.g., Library of Congress, MARC Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ),
`https://www.loc.gov/marc/faq.html (last visited Jan. 18, 2022) (“MARC is the
`acronym for MAchine-Readable Cataloging. It defines a data format that
`emerged from a Library of Congress-led initiative that began nearly forty years
`ago. It provides the mechanism by which computers exchange, use, and interpret
`bibliographic information, and its data elements make up the foundation of most
`library catalogs used today.”). MARC is the ANSI/NISO Z39.2-1994
`(reaffirmed 2009) standard for Information Interchange Format.
`9
`
`
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`users and libraries, including such objectives as increasing availability of library
`
`resources to individual library patrons and reducing the rate of rise of library per-
`
`unit costs, all for the fundamental public purpose of furthering ease of access to and
`
`use of the ever-expanding body of worldwide scientific, literary and educational
`
`knowledge and information.”3 Among other services, OCLC and its members are
`
`responsible for maintaining the WorldCat database (http://www.worldcat.org/), used
`
`by libraries throughout the world.
`
`21. Libraries worldwide use the machine-readable MARC format for
`
`catalog records. MARC-formatted records include a variety of subject access points
`
`based on the content of the document being cataloged. A MARC record for a
`
`particular work comprises several fields, each of which contains specific data about
`
`the work. Each field is identified by a standardized, unique, three-digit code
`
`corresponding to the type of data that follows. For example, a work’s title is
`
`recorded in field 245, the primary author of the work is recorded in field 100, a
`
`work’s International Standard Book Number (ISBN) is recorded in field 020, and
`
`the work’s Library of Congress call number (assigned by Library of Congress) is
`
`recorded in field 050. Some fields can contain subfields, which are indicated by
`
`
`3 OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., Amended Articles of Incorporation
`of OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., Third Article (OCLC, Dublin,
`Ohio)
`Revised
`November
`30,
`2016,
`https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/membership/articles-of-
`incorporation.pdf.
`
`
`
`10
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`letters. For example, a work’s publication date is recorded in field 260 under the
`
`subfield “c.”
`
`22. The MARC Field 040, subfield “a,” identifies the library or other entity
`
`that created the catalog record in the MARC format. The MARC Field 008 identifies
`
`the date when this first MARC record was created.
`
`23. MARC records also include several fields that include subject matter
`
`classification information. An overview of MARC record fields is available through
`
`the Library of Congress at http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/. For example,
`
`6XX fields are termed “Subject Access Fields.”4 Among these, for example, is the
`
`650 field; this is the “Subject Added Entry – Topical Term” field. See
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd650.html. The 650 field is a “[s]ubject
`
`added entry in which the entry element is a topical term.” Id. The 650 field entries
`
`“are assigned to a bibliographic record to provide access according to generally
`
`accepted thesaurus-building rules (e.g., Library of Congress Subject Headings
`
`(LCSH), Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)).” Id. Thus, a researcher can easily
`
`discover material relevant to a topic of interest with a search using the terms
`
`employed in the MARC Fields 6XX.
`
`24. Further, MARC records include call numbers, which themselves
`
`include a classification number. For example, the 050 field is dedicated as the
`
`
`4
` See http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd6xx.html.
`11
`
`
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`“Library of Congress Call Number”5 as assigned by the Library of Congress. A
`
`defined portion of the Library of Congress Call Number is the classification number,
`
`and “source of the classification number is Library of Congress Classification and
`
`the LC Classification-Additions and Changes.” Id. Thus, included in the 050 field
`
`is a subject matter classification. As an example: TK5105.59 indicates books on
`
`computer networks – security measures. When a local library assigns a classification
`
`number, most often a Library of Congress derived classification number created by
`
`a local library cataloger or it could be a Dewey Decimal classification number for
`
`example, 005.8, computer networks – security measures, it appears in the 090 field.
`
`In either scenario, the MARC record includes a classification number in the call
`
`number field that represents a subject matter classification.
`
`25. The 9XX fields, which are not part of the standard MARC 21 format,6
`
`were defined by OCLC for use by the Library of Congress, processing or holding
`
`notes for a local library, and for internal OCLC use. For example, the 955 field is
`
`reserved for use by the Library of Congress to track the progress of a new acquisition
`
`from the time it is submitted for Cataloging in Publication (CIP) review until it is
`
`published and fully cataloged and publicly available for use within the Library of
`
`Congress. Fields 901-907, 910, and 945-949 have been defined by OCLC for local
`
`
`5 See http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd050.html.
`6 See https://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/9xx.html.
`12
`
`
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`use and will pass OCLC validation. Fields 905 or 910 are often used by an individual
`
`library for internal processing purposes for example the date of cataloging and/or the
`
`initials of the cataloger (e.g., MIT Libraries)
`
`26. WorldCat is the world’s largest public online catalog, maintained by
`
`the OCLC, a not-for-profit international library consortium, and built with the
`
`records created by the thousands of libraries that are members of OCLC. OCLC
`
`provides bibliographic and abstract information to the public based on MARC-
`
`compliant records through its OCLC WorldCat database. WorldCat requires no
`
`knowledge of MARC tags and code and does not require a login or password.
`
`WorldCat is easily accessible through the World Wide Web to all who wish to search
`
`it; there are no restrictions to be a member of a particular community, etc. The date
`
`a given catalog record was created (corresponding to the MARC Field 008) appears
`
`in some detailed WorldCat records as the Date of Entry but not necessarily all.
`
`WorldCat does not provide a view of the underlying MARC format for a specific
`
`WorldCat record. In order to see the underlying MARC format the researcher must
`
`locate the book in a holding library listed among those shown in WorldCat, and
`
`search the online public catalog (OPAC) of a holding library. Whereas WorldCat
`
`records are widely available, the availability of library specific MARC formatted
`
`records varies from library to library. When a specific library wishes to make the
`
`
`
`13
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`underlying MARC format available there will be a link from the library’s OPAC
`
`display, often identified as a MARC record or librarian/staff view.
`
`27. When a MARC record is created by the Library of Congress or an
`
`OCLC member institution, the date of creation for that record is automatically
`
`populated in the fixed field (008), with characters 00 through 05 in year, month, day
`
`format (YYMMDD).7 Therefore, the MARC record creation date reflects the date
`
`on which the publication associated with the record was first cataloged. Thereafter,
`
`the local library’s computer system may automatically update the date in field 005
`
`every time the library updates the MARC record (e.g., to reflect that an item has
`
`been moved to a different shelving location within the library, or a reload of the
`
`bibliographic data with the introduction of a new library management system that
`
`creates and manages the OPAC).
`
`D. Monograph Publications
`28. Monograph publications are written on a single topic, presented at
`
`length, and distinguished from an article and include books, dissertations, and
`
`technical reports. A library typically creates a catalog record when the monograph
`
`is acquired by the library. First, it will search OCLC to determine if a record has
`
`already been created by the Library of Congress or a contributing member library.
`
`
`7 Some of the newer library catalog systems also include hour, minute, second
`(HHMMSS).
`
`
`
`14
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`If the record is found in OCLC, the record is downloaded into the library’s LMS
`
`(Library Management System) that includes typically the acquisitions, cataloging,
`
`and circulation integrated functions. Once the item is downloaded into the library’s
`
`LMS, the library adds its identifier to the OCLC database so when a search is
`
`completed on WorldCat, the library will be indicated as an owner of the title. With
`
`the creation of the record in the LMS it is searchable and viewable through the library
`
`Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC), by author, title, and subject heading, at the
`
`library and from anywhere in the world through the internet. The OPAC also
`
`connects with the circulation function of the library which typically indicates
`
`whether the book, dissertation, or tech report is available, in circulation, etc., with
`
`its call number and location in a specific departmental/disciplinary library. The
`
`OPAC not only provides immediate bibliographic access on site, it also facilitates
`
`interlibrary loan of items, that is, the loan of an item from one library to another to
`
`meet a research need.
`
`E. Dissertation/Theses publications
`29. Dissertations (doctoral level) and theses (master and bachelor level)
`
`often exist in only one paper copy, held at the institution where it was written and
`
`cataloged, and shelved in the institution’s archives or special collections. Often,
`
`there is only one library record and one holding library, the one in which the degree
`
`was granted. An additional copy may be added by another library when a copy is
`
`
`
`15
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`purchased and added to that library collection. Dissertations/theses in the past were
`
`made available in print and on microform, however, requested copies are now more
`
`often provided as a digital copy. During the past ten years many institutions no
`
`longer require the submission of a hard-copy of the dissertations/theses, and solely
`
`rely on the digital format. The originating cataloging would typically still be done
`
`by the degree granting institution’s library.
`
`F. Ownership and date stamp
`30. Every library sets its own practice or policy on whether or not to date
`
`stamp, but all will have an ownership stamp somewhere in the publication —
`
`typically on the cover page, verso of the cover page, or a designated page within the
`
`publication, but sometimes even on the top, side, or bottom edge of the monograph.
`
`The ownership and date stamp can also vary from one library to another when the
`
`date stamp is entered on the monograph. It could occur when received in acquisitions
`
`after shipment to the library, or it could be at time of cataloging. Therefore, there
`
`could be instances when the date of receipt precedes the cataloging date or vice
`
`versa.
`
`G. Databases consulted
`Internet Archive/Wayback Machine. The Internet Archive is a
`31.
`
`digital archive/library that began in 1996 to ‘scrape’ publicly accessible webpages.
`
`The Internet Archive created a service called the Wayback Machine that enables
`
`
`
`16
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`public access to surf more than 450 billion web pages stored in the Internet Archive.
`
`Searches on the Wayback Machine can be undertaken by URL or name of entity. If
`
`an archive record for a URL is available, it will be shown. Through the Wayback
`
`Machine it is possible to view a specific webpage at a URL and see that page on that
`
`date as it then appeared. It is more or less a ‘snapshot’ of the website on that date
`
`https://archive.org.
`
`IV. OPINION REGARDING AUTHENTICITY AND
`PUBLIC
`ACCESSIBILITY:
` WELCH, GREGORY FRANCIS., SCAAT:
`INCREMENTAL TRACKING WITH INCOMPLETE INFORMATION,
`PHD THESIS,
` DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE,
`UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, 1996. (“WELCH”) (EX. 1007)
`A. Authentication
`32.
`I have been asked to opine on a thesis authored by Gregory Francis
`
`Welch that has the title, SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete Information,
`
`a PhD Thesis submitted to the Department of Computer Science, University of North
`
`Carolina at Chapel Hill in October 1996 (“Welch”). Welch is comprised of 207
`
`leaves.
`
`33. Attachment A-1 is the entire Welch thesis provided to me by counsel.
`
`I understand that counsel obtained the Welch thesis as shown in Attachment A-1
`
`from the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill Libraries through this
`
`website: https://www.cs.unc.edu/~tracker/ (see Attachment A-2).
`
`
`
`17
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`34. Welch was available through this website from at least May 25, 1998,
`
`as documented by the Wayback Machine, a database of the Internet Archive, as
`
`shown
`
`in
`
`this
`
`website,
`
`as
`
`shown
`
`in
`
`Attachment
`
`A-3:
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/19980525090056/http://www.cs.unc.edu/~tracker/.
`
`The Welch thesis was available for download (postscript or PDF) from this webpage
`
`as shown in the second bullet point under “Publications:”
`
`
`35. This URL documents that the page “Wide-Area Tracking” was
`
`archived by the Wayback Machine on the date: 19980525090056, i.e., 1998, May,
`
`25th (the remaining digits are check digits). Therefore, this page documents the
`
`authenticity of Welch and
`
`its public accessibility
`
`through
`
`the URL:
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/19980525090056/http://www.cs.unc.edu/~tracker/.
`
`36. Welch does not include any stamps or labels that indicate ownership by
`
`the UNC at Chapel Hill Libraries. However, by locating Welch as a reference
`
`through the Tracker webpage housed at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
`
`Hill (Attachment A-2); Attachment A-2 being documented as available on the web
`
`by the Wayback Machine record (Attachment A-3) on May 25, 1998; in WorldCat,
`
`(Attachment A-4); by locating Welch in the UNC at Chapel Hill Libraries OPAC
`18
`
`
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`(Attachment A-5) and its MARC record (Attachment A-6); I have no doubt that
`
`Welch, as shown in Attachment A-1, is an authentic document. Attachments A-4,
`
`A-5, and A-6 will be fully described in Public Accessibility section below.
`
`37.
`
`In my opinion, Welch is an authentic document created as a thesis and
`
`submitted for partial fulfillment for the degree of doctor of philosophy at the
`
`University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in October 1996.
`
`B.
`Public Accessibility
`38. Attachment A-4 is the OCLC WorldCat entry for Welch that I
`
`downloaded on December 27, 2021. The WorldCat holding record shows it is held
`
`by only one library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which would be
`
`expected for a thesis since typically theses are held by only the degree granting
`
`institution.
`
`39. Welch could have been located in WorldCat and its predecessor
`
`database, FirstSearch, during the timeframe 1996-2002 by completing a search by
`
`author: Gregory Francis Welch; by title: SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with
`
`Incomplete Information; and/or by subject descriptors: Kalman filtering; Three-
`
`dimensional display systems; and/or Computers-Optical equipment.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`40. Attachment A-5 is a download from the UNC at Chapel Hill Libraries
`
`OPAC that I completed on January 7, 2022. Upon review of the OPAC record it is
`
`possible to determine that Welch is available as shown below in the OPAC record:
`
`41. Attachment A-5 demonstrates that Welch is available as a microfiche
`
`in the Davis Library of the UNC at Chapel Hill Libraries with the call number:
`
`“Thesis Compt. Sci. 1996 W43962”, and it shows as “Available.” In addition, the
`
`print copy of Welch is available in the “North Carolina Collection.”
`
`42. Verification that this OPAC record reflects Welch is shown by author:
`
`Gregory Francis Welch; by title: SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`
`Information, and that it is noted on the OPAC record (Attachment A-5) as shown
`
`below:
`
`
`
`43. Having located Welch through the UNC at Chapel Hill Libraries
`
`OPAC, Attachment A-5 indicates that Welch is held in the Davis Library as a
`
`microfiche with the call number “Thesis Compt. Sci. 1996 W63962;” and also held
`
`as an archival copy in the North Carolina Collection. Thus, I affirm that Welch is
`
`an authentic document and would have been publicly accessible through the UNC at
`
`Chapel Hill Libraries OPAC.
`
`
`
`20
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`44. MARC records, as shown in Attachment A-6, confirm that Welch
`
`would have been publicly accessible through the UNC at Chapel Hill Libraries by
`
`author: Gregory Francis Welch; by title: SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with
`
`Incomplete Information; and/or by subject descriptors: Kalman filtering; Three-
`
`dimensional display systems; Computers-Optical equipment; Image processing –
`
`Digital techniques; Signal processing; and/or Random noise theory.
`
`
`
`45.
`
`In most instances, the original cataloging (008 MARC field) of a
`
`published book is completed by the Library of Congress shortly after its publication
`
`and receipt by the Library of Congress, while the 005 MARC field indicates the date
`
`cataloged by the local library.
`
`46. However, for a thesis, original cataloging is completed by the library
`
`cataloging department of the university granting the degree. Therefore, the dates in
`
`the 008 MARC field and the 005 MARC field are the same as is the case for Welch.
`
`47. The 008 MARC field in Attachment A-6 reads: “008 970514s1996 …”
`
`The number string “970514s1996” is interpreted as follows: 97=1997; 05=May; 14
`
`= 14th day of May; 1996 is entered for the date of publication. The 005 ARC field in
`
`Attachment A-6 reads: “005 19970514” and is followed with “115641.0” computer
`
`check digits. This 005 MARC field is interpreted as follows: 1997; 05 = May; and
`
`
`
`21
`
`META 1020
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`14 = 14th date of May. Therefore, Welch was cataloged and entered into the UNC at
`
`Chapel Hill Libraries OPAC on May 14, 1997.
`
`48. Therefore, as of at least May 14, 1997, Welch was searchable and could
`
`be easily located in the OPAC of the UNC at Chapel Hill Libraries as well as
`
`WorldCat, or its predecessor database, FirstSearch. By this date, any member of the
`
`public could search for and access Welch using these methods.
`
`49. As is typical from my extensive experience, it would take no more than
`
`one week to ten days for the thesis to be processed, labeled, and shelved in a research
`
`library such as UNC at Chapel Hill Libraries once it had been cataloged and entered
`
`into the UNC at Chapel Hill Libraries OPAC. Therefore, Welch would have been
`
`available in the North Carolina Collection no later than May 24, 1997.
`
`C. Conclusion
`50. Base
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
