UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent No. 7,748,005
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES L. MULLINS, Ph.D.
`
`Google Exhibit 1029
`Google v. Valtrus
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VALTRUS INNOVATIONS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent No. 7,748,005
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES L. MULLINS, Ph.D.
`
`Google Exhibit 1029
`Google v. Valtrus
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`(cid:3) BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .................................................... 1(cid:3)
`(cid:3) BACKGROUND ON PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY ............................................ 4(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3) Scope of This Declaration .............................................................................. 4(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3) Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 7(cid:3)
`C.(cid:3) Library Catalog Records and Other Resources .............................................. 8(cid:3)
`(cid:3) OPINION REGARDING INDIVIDUAL DOCUMENTS ............................... 17(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3) Exhibit 1014 - Document A ......................................................................... 17(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3) Authenticity .................................................................................................. 18(cid:3)
`C.(cid:3) Public Accessibility ...................................................................................... 23(cid:3)
`(cid:3) CONCLUSION. ................................................................................................ 35(cid:3)
`(cid:3) AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION .......................................... 35(cid:3)
`(cid:3) RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT ............................................................................. 36(cid:3)
`(cid:3)JURAT .............................................................................................................. 36(cid:3)
`
`i
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, James L. Mullins, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Google LLC (“Google” or the
`
`“Petitioner”) in the above-captioned IPR proceeding (“the IPR”) to provide certain
`
`of my opinions concerning authenticity and dates of public accessibility of various
`
`documents. I make this Declaration in support of Google’s petition in the IPR.
`
`2.
`
`For my work as an expert in this matter, I am being compensated for
`
`my services at my standard rate of $275 per hour, plus actual expenses. My hourly
`
`compensation is based solely on the amount of time that I devote to activity related
`
`to this case and is in no way contingent on the nature of my findings, the presentation
`
`of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this or any other proceeding. I have
`
`no other personal or financial stake or interest in the outcome of the present
`
`proceeding. I do not have any expectation or promise of additional business with the
`
`Petitioner in exchange for the positions explained herein.
`
`3.
`
`I make this Declaration based on my personal knowledge, including my
`
`education, training, research, and professional experience.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`I am presently Dean Emeritus of Libraries and Esther Ellis Norton
`
`Professor Emeritus at Purdue University. My career as a professional and
`
`academic/researcher spanned more than 44 years including library positions at
`
`Indiana University, Villanova University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`and Purdue University. Attachment A-16 is a true and correct copy of my curriculum
`
`vitae describing my background and experience.
`
`5.
`
`In 2018, I founded the firm Prior Art Documentation Librarian
`
`Services, LLC, located at 205 St. Cuthbert, 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.
`
`6.
`
`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 forty-four years, I held various positions and
`
`as a leader in the field of library and information sciences.
`
`7.
`
`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:
`
`(cid:120) Dean of Libraries and Professor and Esther Ellis Norton Professor,
`
`Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN (2004-2017)
`
`(cid:120) Assistant/Associate Director
`
`for Administration, Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology (MIT) Libraries, Cambridge, MA (2000-2004)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`(cid:120) University Librarian and Director, Falvey Memorial Library, Villanova
`
`University, Villanova, PA (1996-2000)
`
`(cid:120) Director of Library Services, Indiana University South Bend, South
`
`Bend, IN (1978-1996)
`
`(cid:120) Part-time Instructor, School of Library and Information Science,
`
`Indiana University, Bloomington, IN (1979-1996)
`
`(cid:120) Associate Law Librarian, and associated titles, Indiana University
`
`School of Law, Bloomington, IN (1974-1978)
`
`(cid:120) Catalog Librarian, Assistant Professor, Georgia Southern College (now
`
`University), Statesboro, GA (1973-1974)
`
`8.
`
`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.
`
`9.
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`10. Based on my experience identified above and detailed in my curriculum
`
`vitae, which is attached hereto as Attachment A-16, 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
`
`90 cases.
`
` BACKGROUND ON PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY
`A.
`Scope of This Declaration
`
`11.
`
`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
`
`the law. I am, however, rendering my expert opinion on the authenticity of the
`
`documents referenced herein and when and how these documents were disseminated
`
`or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested in and ordinarily
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, could have
`
`located the documents.
`
`12.
`
`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.
`
`13.
`
`I am informed by counsel that a given reference qualifies as “publicly
`
`accessible” if it were 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 reasonable diligence.
`
`14. 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 have been advised by counsel that a printed publication is
`
`rendered “publicly accessible” if it is cataloged and indexed by a library such that a
`
`person interested in and ordinarily skilled in the relevant subject matter could locate
`
`it with the exercise of reasonable diligence (i.e., I understand that cataloging and
`
`indexing by a library is sufficient, though there are other ways that a printed
`
`publication may qualify as “publicly accessible”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`15. 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.
`
`16.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`17.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this declaration, I have reviewed
`
`the documents and exhibits 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 exhibits are of a type
`
`that experts in my field would reasonably rely upon and refer to in forming their
`
`opinions.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the subject matter of this
`
`proceeding relates to dynamic resource allocation in computer systems having
`
`multiple computing domains.
`
`19.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that persons of ordinary skill in this
`
`subject matter or art at all times would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in Computer
`
`Science, Computer Engineering, or a related field, with three years of experience in
`
`the area of virtualization and distributed computer systems, including performance
`
`and/or resource optimizations. A higher level of education may substitute for less
`
`experience. Such a person would have been familiar with UNIX and operating
`
`systems for distributed systems, and conferences concerned with those topics.
`
`21.
`
`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. In the 1990s, such a person would have had access to a vast
`
`array of print resources, including at least the documents referenced below, as well
`
`as to an evolving set of online resources.
`
`C. Library Catalog Records and Other Resources
`
`22. 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`1 The full text of the standard is available from the Library of Congress at
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/.
`
`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. 24, 2018) (“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
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`below were in place during the late 1990s-time frame relevant to the documents
`
`referenced herein.
`
`23. 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
`
`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
`
`
`library catalogs used today.”). MARC is the ANSI/NISO Z39.2-1994 (reaffirmed
`
`2009) standard for Information Interchange Format.
`
`3 OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., Amended Articles of Incorporation
`
`of OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., Third Article (OCLC, Dublin,
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`responsible, since 2005, for maintaining WorldCat, its open access database
`
`(http://www.worldcat.org/), used by libraries and researchers throughout the world
`
`as well as its subscription, fee-based, database: FirstSearch, which preceded and still
`
`continues access to the OCLC bibliographic database.
`
`24. 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
`
`letters. For example, a work’s publication date is recorded in field 260 under the
`
`subfield “c.”
`
`
`Ohio) Revised November 30, 2016,
`
`https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/membership/articles-of-incorporation.pdf.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`25. 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.
`
`26. 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.
`
`27. Further, MARC records include call numbers, which themselves
`
`include a classification number. For example, the 050 field is dedicated as the
`
`“Library of Congress Call Number”5 as assigned by the Library of Congress. A
`
`
`4 See http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd6xx.html.
`5 See http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd050.html.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`28. 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
`
`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
`
`
`6 See https://www.oclc.org/bibformats/en/9xx.html.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`the initials of the cataloger. The MARC field 955 has been reserved exclusively by
`
`the Library of Congress to insert its receipt, processing, and cataloging of a new
`
`addition to the Library of Congress’ holdings.
`
`29. 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 lay
`
`user to have knowledge of MARC tags and code and does not require a login or
`
`password.
`
`30. 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
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`wishes to make the 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.
`
`31. 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).
`
`
`Periodical Publications: Print and Online
`In the late 20th century, every scholarly journal was published in print
`
`32.
`
`with a few beginning to offer a digital version as well, typically on a CD-ROM or
`
`internet access to a proprietary database for a fee. Beginning in the early 2000s,
`
`many publishers of periodicals, including publishers of academic journals, published
`
`
`7 Some of the newer library catalog systems also include hour, minute, second
`
`(HHMMSS).
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`their materials online and in print. By 2010 many academic scholarly publishers
`
`moved to publishing only digitally, that is providing access only to a digital copy.
`
`Publishers also began to scan and make available within their databases backfiles of
`
`journals, thereby allowing older articles and publications to be readily retrievable
`
`through an online search.
`
`33. A library typically creates a catalog record for a periodical publication
`
`when the library receives its first issue. Normal practice dictates that when the
`
`institution receives subsequent issues/volumes of the periodical, the issues/volumes
`
`are checked in, often by applying a stamp or label containing the date. Typical
`
`library practice is to apply a stamp or label the same day as or shortly after receipt.
`
`The stamp or label bears the date on which it is applied (the “check-in” date). After
`
`the date-stamp is applied, the issue is added to the institution’s holding records, and
`
`made available very soon thereafter—normally within a few days, a week or at most
`
`ten days after receipt.
`
` Online Database Services and Third Party Document Retrieval
`Services
`IEEE Xplore – The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers is
`
`34.
`
`the world’s largest organization for the advancement of technology with some
`
`430,000 members in 160 countries. Known by its acronym IEEE, it has created a
`
`database, IEEE Xplore, that provides access to its hundreds of publications and those
`
`of it publishing partners. This includes the content of over 170 journals, more than
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`1,400 conference proceedings, some 5,100 technical standards, 2,000 eBooks and
`
`400 educational courses. In all, more than 3 million documents, dating from 1872
`
`on, are searchable and available for purchase either through subscription or
`
`individually. Many of these records are accessible via Google Scholar.
`
`https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/home.jsp
`
`35. Springer Link - Providing researchers with access to millions of
`
`scientific
`
`documents
`
`from
`
`journals, books, series, protocols,
`
`reference
`
`works and proceedings. https://link.springer.com/.
`
`36. Wisconsin TechSearch (WTS) – WTS is a set of services offered by
`
`the University of Wisconsin Libraries. WTS offers an array of article delivery and
`
`research services to any individual or organization who requests the specialized
`
`skills of WTS staff in locating and retrieving information, regardless of whether the
`
`individual is affiliated with the University of Wisconsin.
`
` OPINION REGARDING INDIVIDUAL DOCUMENTS
`A. Exhibit 1014 - Document A
`
`37.
`
`I have been asked form an opinion on the authenticity and dates of
`
`public accessibility of the following article:
`
`Michel Gien and Lori Grub. “Micro-kernel Based Operating Systems:
`
`Moving UNIX onto Modern System Architectures,” published in UNIX and
`
`Open Systems: Go For It!; Proceedings of the UniForum ’92 Conference, San
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Francisco, California, USA. January 20-24, 1992, published by UniForum:
`
`The International Conference of UNIX and Open Systems Professionals,
`
`pages: 45-55. (Exhibit A to Exhibit 1014, “Document A” or “Exhibit 1014-
`
`A”)
`
`38. For the reasons explained below, it is my opinion that Exhibit 1014-A
`
`is a true and accurate, and authentic, copy of Document A as was published in the
`
`UNIX and Open Systems: Go For It!; Proceedings of the UniForum ’92 Conference,
`
`San Francisco, California, USA. January 20-24, 1992.
`
`39. For the reasons explained below, it is also my opinion that Exhibit
`
`1014-A was publicly accessible before January 28, 1999 because of Gien’s
`
`availability at the British Library and Cornell University Libraries, and at least four
`
`citations to Gien published prior to January 28, 1999.
`
`B. Authenticity
`
`40.
`
`I have been asked to opine on the authenticity and public access of the
`
`article authored by Michel Gien and Lori Grub titled “Micro-kernel Based Operating
`
`Systems: Moving UNIX onto Modern System Architectures” presented at the
`
`UniForum ’92 Conference, held in San Francisco, California from January 20-24,
`
`1992. Published as: UNIX and Open Systems: Go For It!; Proceedings of the
`
`UniForum ’92 Conference, San Francisco, California, USA. January 20-24, 1992 by
`
`UniForum: The International Conference on UNIX and Open Systems
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Professionals, on pages 45-55. The UniForum Conference 1992 had the unique title:
`
`Unix and Open Systems: Go For It!.
`
`41.
`
`In this declaration “Gien” is used not only to describe the article titled:
`
`“Micro-kernel Based Operating Systems: Moving UNIX onto Modern System
`
`Architectures” but also the published proceedings in which Gien was published, that
`
`is: UNIX and Open Systems: Go For It!; Proceedings of the UniForum ’92
`
`Conference, San Francisco, California, USA. January 20-24, 1992, and when
`
`appropriate, for the serial record of the Proceedings of the UniForum Conference
`
`when issued and cataloged/indexed as a recurring annual publication.
`
`42. Exhibit 1014 (provided to me by counsel) is a “Statutory Declaration”
`
`made by Anthony Corsini of The British Library, 96 Euston Road, London,
`
`NW12DB, United Kingdom dated May 11th, 2022 and notarized also on May 11th,
`
`2022 by Lara Giuliana Gouveia Simonetti, Notary Public.
`
`43. Using several web tools, I verified Tony Corsini’s position as a business
`
`information specialist at the British Library and has been since April 1994.
`
`44. Mr. Corsini details in his declaration that the records of the British
`
`Library indicate one copy of Gien was received by the British Library on January
`
`17th, 1994. Mr. Corsini furthers states that the date it was conference indexed,
`
`January 19th, 1994, it would have been available for public use to the best of his
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`knowledge. The paragraph from Mr. Corsini’s ‘Statutory Declaration’ in Exhibit
`
`1014 is inserted below:
`
`3.
`
`On the 17th January 1994 the Library received a copy of Uniforum Conference;
`Unix and Open Systems: go for it!, which contained the paper Micro-Kernal
`Based Operating Systems: Moving Unix onto Modern System Architecture by M.
`Glen and L. Grob. It was to the best of my knowledge received intact and was
`assigned the Library Shelfmark 9090.666990. It was then sent to be ‘conference
`indexed’ for the catalogue on 19th January 1994 and then shelved on 19th
`January 1994 and would have been available for public use to the best of my
`knowledge and belief from that date. There is now produced to me and marked
`“A” a true and correct copy of the book cover, title page, content pages and
`paper showing the Library pressmark and receipt date barcode 17th January
`1994 and the ‘conference index’ date stamp 19th January 1994.
`
`
`45. Exhibit 1014-A includes a scan of the Proceedings cover: UniForum
`
`Conference Unix and Open Systems: Go For It!, Conference Proceedings, January
`
`20-24, 1992, Moscone Center, San Francisco, California with a label that reads: “17-
`
`Jan-1994 BLDSC BOSTON SPA LS23 7BQ UNIFORUM-CONFERENCE-,
`
`barcode, 9090.666990 Year 1992 (shown below); title page with two stamps, one
`
`located toward the center that reads: “[illegible] Document Supply Centre
`
`19JAN1994 CONFERENCE INDEXED” and a second label or stamp in the upper
`
`left hand corner which reads “Return date 11 FEB 94, 2120, return loan to Centre,
`
`Boston Spa” (shown below); copyright page; Table of Contents; Gien article cover
`
`page; blank page; Gien article on pages 45-55.
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`46.
`
` The above stamp documents Mr. Corsini’s statement that the British
`
`Library Boston Spa received a copy of Gien on January 17, 1994 and that Gien
`
`would have been accessible when it was ‘conference indexed’ on January 19, 1994.
`
`The shelf mark at the British Library, based on my knowledge that includes a visit I
`
`made to the Boston Spa facility during my professional career, serves as a ‘call
`
`number.’ The third stamp or label indicates a circulation record of Gien showing
`
`return date of Gien of 11FEB94 (February 11, 1994) thereby documenting that Gien
`
`was in circulation as of February 11, 1994.
`
`47. Attachment A-1 is included within my declaration to compare it with
`
`the copy of Gien in Exhibit 1014.
`
`48. Attachment A-1 was retrieved at my request by the Wisconsin
`
`TechSearch (WTS) on May 16, 2022 from the Cornell University Libraries after I
`
`determined that Cornell University Libraries owned a print copy of Gien (UniForum
`
`Conference Unix and Open Systems: Go For It!, Conference Proceedings,
`
`Proceedings of the UniForum ’92 Conference, San Francisco, California, USA.
`
`January 20-24, 1992).
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`49. Attachment A-1 includes: Cover with a label that reads: “QA76.73
`
`O63U58 1992” (shown below); the title page with a s
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
