IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VIZIO, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`MAXELL, LTD
`Patent Owner.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,730,507
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2022-01459
`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D.
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page1 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 1 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION 0... ccc eeessecsesssceeccessecceeesseneeseneeseeeseecacenaeensesenseeceaseeseenes 1
`
`A.—Professional Background..............cc:cccsscccsstseeesnecesseeeesseecesesecesaeeessarecsees 2
`
`
`
`B.—-_-Compensation ..........eecscccssseceseeseeceeeeseseecsseseneeceaceceneesseessseseeeseaseneneess 7
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Documents and Information Considered...............cscccsssceessteeseseeseneeeres 7
`
`Identification of Grounds... eeeeseeeseeeneeeeeceeeeseeseeseaeeeneeeeaeeneneees 9
`
`Il.
`
`Legal Standard to be Applied.............cccsccssscecsssecesseccsssseceseeecsseseessuseseaeeeses 10
`
`
`
`A.—-—-Claim Construction... esecsesseseseeeseeeesecesseeessevennecseneesasesseeesseeeuss 11
`
`B.
`
` —-AMtICIPATION 0.0.0... ee eesccesseecesscesstccssscecesneeceseeessasecssaeecessseceseeesseeessaes 12
`
`C.-_ODVIOUSTESSose eeeeeceeceeseceseneeseeeseeenaeeeeeeesceseseeeneeecaeeeseseneeseneeseneees 13
`
`III.
`
`THE 7507 PATENT....0.....ccccccsccssesseceseeseeecseeenecescesesesscseeesaecenecsesesessaneneeseneees 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Summary and Prosecution History ...........::cccsscccssreccsseccsssecessneeessneceses 15
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill In The Art ..00... 0. eeeseeceteeeessessseeeesenseesees 16
`
`The Prior Art Cited Herein is Not Cumulative With the
`References Cited During Prosecution. .............cccscccsssccsessesessseesseceesens 18
`
`IV.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION........ccccccsscsscessecssessseeseeseeeseeseaeencesesesseseaneseeseneess 20
`
`STATE OF THE PRIOR ART .......ceccsccsseseecseeseeceeseseesaeeseesseeeseeeenssseeseneees 25
`
`A.—The problemsof standby power consumption and slow start-up
`times and the desire to provide enhanced standby functionality
`were Well-known in the prior art........c..ccccccccsscssseecssseesssseessseeeseseeesees 26
`
`B. Multiple “standby” modes were well-known ................cscccsstseeesseceees 28
`
`C.
`
` Sub-processorcircuit power control was also well-known................ 30
`
`VIL.
`
`SUMMARYOFOPINIONS...........c:ccssceesesseecseeesteseessaceseeceeseseeeeseeseneeseeenes 35
`
`ii
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page2 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 2 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`VII. GROUNDS 1 AND 2: TICHELAAR IN VIEW OF THE
`KNOWLEDGEOF A POSITA ALONE, OR IN FURTHER VIEW
`OF RELAN, RENDERS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS OBVIOUS....... 36
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the Grounds 1 and 2 Prior Aft... ee eeeeeeeeseeeneeeeees 38
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`TiChedaar... eeecesseesseesseeesecesccesseceeeceseeeccesaeeenseseaeeseseeeaneees 38
`
`Relate... eeeeeeeecseceseeeesecesseeceacecaaeceeeseseeseseeenseeeeasessseneeseseeseseees 40
`
`Bl. Cat Lone eescecceseeeneeceneeseceseesccenaseneesaeesessaeeeceseasesesaeeeeeaseseees 42
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`[Preamble] “A broadcast program receiving apparatus to
`display a program broadcastvia a digital broadcasting
`SEQNAL, COMPHISING??......csccccessecesececsesccesssesesnecsuseecsunecesensesssneseas 42
`
`[Limitation 1A] “afirst controller configured to control
`a waiting condition ofthe broadcast program receiving
`CAPPATALUS| NA? ....ecccceesccecscccsssccesuscesseneesseessuaueesuaueceaueeseuaeeesaees 43
`
`[Limitation 1B] “a second controller configured to be
`started up by a predetermined OS to control a processing
`ofa received digital broadcasting signal via a decoder’’......... 47
`
`[Limitation 1C] “a display portion, which is configured
`to display an imageusing a signal processed by the
`SECON CONVO]EH”? ..eeecccsccccensecesscccssencesasecsnnecssseessusecessnsesseneseaes 52
`
`[Limitation 1D] “an electric power source unit whichis
`configured to supply predeterminedelectric power’?......:..00+ 53
`
`Limitation 1E “a remote control signal receiving portion,
`which is configured to receive a remote control signalfor
`operating the display POTtiON?......scccccsccccssecsessecesssesssssecenseeessees 55
`
`[Limitation 1F] “where thefirst controller being smaller
`in consumption ofelectric power than the second
`controller, and configured to control the electric power
`suppliedfrom the electric power source unit, responsive
`to the remote control signal received by the remote
`control signal receiving POTtiONn,”......sccccscccssssecsssrecessseseseecesees 56
`
`il
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. y. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 3 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 3 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`[Limitation 1G] “wherein the waiting condition in which
`an imageis not displayed after stopping a supply ofthe
`electric powerto the display portion, is controlled by the
`first controller, so as to be placeable into either ofafirst
`waiting condition or a second waiting CONdItION”..........:000000+ 59
`
`[Limitation 1H] “thefirst controller is controlled to be
`set in operation via supply ofthe electric powerfrom the
`electronic power source unit thereto, underthefirst or
`SECONA WAITING CONILION?.......seccccsscccsersecesnescsncccsenseeessesesnesenes 66
`
`[Limitation 1]] “the electric power suppliedfrom the
`power source unitis controlled, so as to supply the
`electric powerto the remote control signalreceiving
`portion, as well as, not to supply the electric powerto the
`secondcontroller including the decoder, underthefirst
`WAILING CONAILION, ANA?......cccseccccsseccssseessssccssssesensecesseecesasessanes 68
`
`[Limitation 1J] “the electric power suppliedfrom the
`powersource unit is controlled so as to supply the
`electric power to the remote control signal receiving
`portion and the secondcontroller including the decoder,
`underthe second Waiting CONGITION.......scccccscccssscccesseecessceeeees 71
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Claim 2 oie. eccececccscccecccccsseseccecccasesessececesscsccseeseessncseceeeececcucseseceeceasaueees 76
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`[Preamble] “A display apparatus, COMPTISING”..........0cceceee 77
`
`[Limitation 2A] “a receiving portion, which is configured
`to receive a digital broadcasting Signal”........cccscccessesessseeessnes 77
`
`[Limitation 2B] “a decoder, which is configured to
`decode the digital broadcasting signal received by the
`YECELVING POTION?.....cscccccesersccessnsecesssnceecessnneceesneceeseaueesesseeeeeees 78
`
`[Limitation 2C] “a display portion, which is configured
`to display an image using a signal decoded within the
`ACCOM?”oo. .eesesscsensessccnseeseesecenscenscenaeesesensenseseaseaeeeeateneceasenseseaseas 78
`
`[Limitation 2D] “an electric power source unit whichis
`configured to supply predeterminedelectric power’?.........00+ 78
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page4 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 4 of 146
`
`

`

`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`[Limitation 2E] “a remote control signal receiving
`portion, which is configured to receive a remote control
`signalfor operating the display DOtiOn”?.......csccccssccsersecesseseess 78
`
`[Limitation 2F] “a main control circuit, which is
`configured to be started up by a predetermined OS to
`control parts ofthe display POTtion”.......:ccccscccsssseessneeeeseesereees 78
`
`[Limitation 2G] “a sub-control circuit, being smaller in
`consumption ofelectric power than the main control
`circuit, which is configured to control the electric power
`suppliedfrom the electric power source unit, responsive
`to the remote control signal received by the remote
`control signal receiving POTION”......scccccsecsesssccssssccessscsenseseeaees 78
`
`[Limitation 2H] “wherein a waiting condition ofthe
`display apparatus in which an imageis not displayed
`after stopping a supply ofthe electric power to the
`display portion, is controlled by the sub-controlcircuit,
`so as to be placeable into either ofa first waiting
`condition or a second Waiting CONITION”?........cccscccesseeesseeeeseees 79
`
`[Limitation 21] “the sub-controlcircuit is controlled to be
`set in operation via supply ofthe electric powerfrom the
`electronic power source unit thereto, underthefirst or
`SECONA WAITING CONILION?..1....seccccsscccsersecensecssscecessecessnsecensesenes 719
`
`[Limitation 2J] “the electric power suppliedfrom the
`powersource unit is controlled, so as to supply the
`electric power to the remote control signal receiving
`portion, as well as, not to supply the electric powerto the
`decoder and the main controlcircuit, underthefirst
`WAITING CONGITION”?......cscccsseccssccessccenscesccsssccescccecessecesaeessaeesseees 79
`
`[Limitation 2K] “the electric power suppliedfrom the
`power source unit is controlled so as to supply the
`electric power to the remote control signal receiving
`portion, the decoder and the main controlcircuit, under
`the second Waiting CONAItION”.......ccscccsescecessecessesseneesstseeesnneees 79
`
`Claim 8 “The display apparatus, as describedin the [sic] claim
`2, comprising: a timer, which is configured to detect a present
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. y. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page5 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 5 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`time, wherein underthefirst waiting condition, the apparatusis
`shiftedfrom thefirst waiting condition into the second waiting
`condition, when the present time detected by the timerlies
`within a predetermined time range, and under the second
`waiting condition, the apparatus is shiftedfrom the second
`waiting condition into thefirst waiting condition, when the
`present time does notlie within a predeterminedtime range’”........... 80
`
`Claim 9 “The display apparatus, as describedin the [sic] claim
`8, wherein the predetermined time range can be changedin
`accordance with a user’s instructiONn.”....ccccssccsccessessceesceseeseseseseeseteees 81
`
`Claim 10 “The display apparatus, as describedin the [sic]
`claim 2, comprising: a light emitting element which changes an
`emitting condition thereofdepending on whetherthe display
`apparatusis in thefirst waiting condition or the second waiting
`condition, and wherein the light emitting element makes the
`display portion distinguishable whether the display apparatus
`is in thefirst waiting condition or the second waiting
`CONGILION.”?...cesccssccesccenecenessceeseceaceececsaceacecseeeseeeaeeeesesseeueeeanseeeeeaeeneeseneess 82
`
`Claim 13 “The display apparatus, as describedin the [sic]
`claim 2, wherein when a powerbutton ofthe display apparatus
`is turned ON underthefirst waiting condition or the second
`waiting condition, the sub-controlcircuit controls the
`electronic power source unit, so as to supply the electric power
`to the receiving portion and the display portion, so as to
`operate the display apparatus in a normal MANNE?”.....1..ccscccseeeeeeees 84
`
`It would have been Obvious to Modify Tichelaar in view of a
`POSITA’s Knowledge (Ground 1) ............cccsssccsssteceseresssseesssneesenesenes 86
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Obviousness Rationales ...........ccscccsssscessscsestcccessecsssecesseeeeseseees 87
`
`Reasonable Expectation Of SUCCESS............ccssccssssccesseesssneeeseees 94
`
`It would have been Obvious to Modify Tichelaar in view of a
`POSITA’s Knowledge and Relan (Ground 2) .0.......eeceesseseseeseeeteeeees 97
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Relan is Analogous Art in the Same Field of Endeavor........... 97
`
`Obviousness Rationales .............cseceesseeseeeeeccesseeesseeeeeeeseneesacenes 97
`
`vl
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 6 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 6 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`3.
`
`Reasonable Expectation Of SUCCESS...........:ccscccsssesssreeeeseeeenes 100
`
`VII. GROUND3-4: TICHELAAR, IN VIEW OF RELAN,KIM’616,
`AND THE KNOWLEDGEOFA POSITA, RENDERS THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS OBVIOUS.......cccccsccsscessessresseeseesseeseeenneseneeaes 102
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Kim’616 is Analogous Art in the Same Field of Endeavor.............. 104
`
`Obviousness Rationales for Limitations 1B/2F ........... ee eeeeeeeeeeeees 104
`
`Reasonable expectation Of SUCCESS ............csscccesssceseeceseecessseceeseeeeses 105
`
`IX.
`
`GROUND5: KITAMURA,IN VIEW OF KIM’616 AND THE
`KNOWLEDGEOF A POSITA, RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS1,
`2, AND 13 oo..eeeeeccessssscesccesceescesscesseceaceeeccanecsnecaesenecsaeeeeeeaesenecaueseeseaeensseeeees 106
`
`A.
`
`C1aLone eee eecceseecenceceeceeeeseeenceseeceneeseecoeseseseacenaecenseeeeseseneeenseaeeas 109
`
`1.—§PREAMBLE1... eee esceecesseeenenensenecenseescensceeaeseneeseseaceseeeues 109
`
`2.
`
`3,
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Limitation 1A u......eeeeececeesceessecescceeeeeseecseceseeeeseaeeseeeseeeseneeeaees 110
`
`Limitation 1B... eeeescesseeeesceceseeeseseeeaceseessecesserseseneeeees 111
`
`Limitation 1.0.0... ceesscccsscecssccessseeeesenecssaeecssaeecssneeeseneeesseesengs 114
`
`Limitation 1D o.... ee eeccssecsecesccesseseneeceseeseeeeeaneeseessseeseneneenes 115
`
`Limitation LE oo... cee cccessccsssesceesecseceeescsseeseceseeseeseseeseeeseeseees 116
`
`Limitation 1F oo... ee eeessceeseecenesesseeeeecsscecsneesseeesneeeeeseseeenees 117
`
`Limitation 1G oo... eeeescesseeceneereneeeeseseeeeeeseeenesesseceeseseeesees 119
`
`Limitation 1H oo... eeeeeesseecesecesseeeseeesseecseeesaeeeneessteeseneeeaaes 122
`
`10.
`
`Limitation 1a... cccssecsssccessecessneessseecsseeecssesecssneesseesenas 123
`
`TL.
`
` Litmtation lye... eeeseeesseeeseeeeseeeeseseseeeneeeeeeeeseseeseeesseees 124
`
`Cat 2.0... eee eeeceesceseccesceeesceesseecsnceseneesseceneeseaeecnseneeeessesssneeeaeeeaeenes 126
`
`Claim 13... escescesccsecceseeseeeeseceeceeeeceaseaeseeseseesseeeaeeeesaeseeseaeeseees 126
`
`vil
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 7 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 7 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`D.
`
`It would have been Obvious to a POSITA to Modify Kitamura
`with Kim’616 OS-Based CPU ........cceccssccsssesssseseecesssessrsesesenesesseees 127
`
`X.
`
`GROUND 6: KITAMURA,IN VIEW OF KIM’616, TICHELAAR
`AND THE KNOWLEDGEOFA POSITA, RENDERS OBVIOUS
`CLAIM 10.00. ee eececsseeessescsneesseecseeseseessaeecssecsseseseessaeessaeessssosseseseessaetonees 128
`
`XI.
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS... ee eessessseseseessesessessseeseeeeeees 129
`
`XII. CONCLUSION.....ec ccccseeesesssecsseeseesseecesessessesesseseeseeaeseeseseseseeeeseeos 129
`
`viii
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page8 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 8 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
` I
`
` declare that all statements made herein are of my own knowledge and are
`
`true, and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true;
`
`and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`Date: ______________________________
`
`
`
`Signature: __________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`8/27/2022
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 9 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`My nameis Dr. Andrew Wolfe.
`
`I understand that I am submitting a
`
`declaration in connection with a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding
`
`before the United States Patent and Trademark Office for U.S. Patent No. 7,730,507
`
`(“the °507 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Petitioner VIZIO, Inc. (“Petitioner”
`
`or “VIZIO”) to offer technical opinions with respect to the ’507 Patent and the prior
`
`art referencescited in this Petition for Inter Partes Review.
`
`3.
`
`I have personal knowledge ofall facts set forth herein.
`
`I expect to be
`
`available to testify competently to the matters contained in this declaration if called
`
`uponto testify.
`
`4.
`
`This declaration is based on information currently available to me.
`
`I
`
`intend to continue my investigation, and study, which may include a review of
`
`documents and information that may yet be produced. Therefore, I expressly reserve
`
`the right to expand or modify my opinions as my investigation and study continue,
`
`and to supplement my opinions in response to any additional information that
`
`becomesavailable to me, any matters raised by Patent Owner and/or other opinions
`
`provided by experts, or in light of any relevant order from an authoritative body.
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 10 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 10 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`A. Professional Background
`
`5.
`
`I have more than 35 years of experience in consumerelectronics and
`
`interactive graphics and interactive video computer systems,including as a computer
`
`architect, computer system designer, PC graphics designer, educator, and as an
`
`executive in the consumerelectronics business.
`
`6.
`
`In 1985, I earned the B.S.E.E. degree in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science from the Johns Hopkins University. In 1987, I received the M.S.
`
`degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University
`
`and then in 1992, I received a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering from Carnegie Mellon
`
`University. My doctoral dissertation proposed a new approachfor the architecture
`
`of a computer processor.
`
`7.
`
`In 1983, I began designing microprocessor-based computer systems
`
`and I/O cards for personal computers as a senior design engineer for Touch
`
`Technology, Inc.
`
`In some of these design projects, I designed interrupt-based I/O
`
`cards for PC-compatible computer systems including the IBM PC-ATto interface
`
`interactive touch-based computer terminals that I designed for use in public
`
`information systems. I later worked for the Carroll Touch division of AMP where I
`
`designed additional touchscreen technologies, developed system firmware, and
`
`designed the company’s first custom integrated circuit.
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 11 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 11 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`8.
`
`From 1986 through 1987, I designed and built a high-performance
`
`computer system at Carnegie Mellon University. From 1986 through 1988,I also
`
`developed the curriculum and supervised the teaching lab for the processor design
`
`courses.
`
`9.
`
`From 1986 through 1987, I designed and built a high-performance
`
`computer system at Carnegie Mellon University. From 1986 through 1988,I also
`
`developed the curriculum and supervised the teaching lab for the processor design
`
`courses.
`
`10.
`
`In 1987-88, I worked as a senior design engineer for ESL-TRW
`
`Advanced Technology Division.
`
`I designed and built a bus interface and memory
`
`controller for a workstation-based computer system and worked on the design of a
`
`multiprocessor system.
`
`11. At
`
`the end of 1989, along with some partners, I reacquired the
`
`technology I had developed at Touch Technology and at AMP and founded The
`
`Graphics Technology Company. As an officer and a consultant,
`
`I managed
`
`engineering development activities at that company and personally developed
`
`dozens ofinteractive graphics and interactive video computer systems over the next
`
`seven years.
`
`12.
`
`I have consulted, formally and informally, for a number of consumer
`
`electronics design companies. In particular, I have served on the technical advisory
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 12 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 12 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`boards for two media processor design companies, BOPS,Inc., where I chaired the
`
`board, and Siroyan Ltd.
`
`I served in a similar role for three networking chip
`
`companies, Intellon, Inc., Comsilica, Inc., and Entridia, Inc. and one 3D game
`
`accelerator company, Ageia, Inc.
`
`I have also served as a technology advisor to
`
`Motorola and to several venture capital funds in the U.S. and Europe. Currently, I
`
`am a director of Turtle Beach Corporation, providing guidancein its developmentof
`
`premium audio peripheral devices for a variety of commercial electronic products.
`
`13.
`
`From 1991 through 1997, I served on the Faculty ofPrinceton University
`
`as an Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering. At Princeton,
`
`I
`
`taught
`
`undergraduate and graduate-level courses in Computer Architecture, Advanced
`
`Computer Architecture, Display Technology, and Microprocessor Systems courses as
`
`well as conducting sponsored research in the area of computer systems and related
`
`topics. I conducted DOD-sponsoredresearchinto client-server video streaming and
`
`supervised Ph.D. students working in this area. From 1999 through 2002, I also
`
`taught the Computer Architecture course to both undergraduates and graduate
`
`students at Stanford University several
`
`times as a Consulting Professor. At
`
`Princeton, I received several teaching awards, both from students and from the
`
`School of Engineering. I have also taught advanced microprocessor architecture to
`
`industry professionals in IEEE and ACM sponsored seminars. I am currently a
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 13 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 13 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`lecturer at Santa Clara University teaching courses on Embedded Systems, Real-
`
`Time Computing, Mechatronics, and Engineering Practice.
`
`14.
`
`From 1997 through 2002, I held a variety of executive positions at a
`
`publicly-held PC graphics company originally called $3, Inc. and later called
`
`Sonicblue Inc. These included Chief Technology Officer, Vice President of Systems
`
`Integration Products, Senior Vice President of Business Development, and Director
`
`of Technology. At the time I joined S3, it supplied graphics accelerators for more
`
`than 50% of the PCs sold in the United States.
`
`15.
`
`In these roles, I managed teams of engineers developing complex
`
`graphics chips for use in personal computers. I also managed the video researchlab.
`
`I supervised several engineering design teams that developed 2D/3D graphics chips
`
`for notebook PCs including digital video playback hardware.
`
`I was involved in
`
`every aspect ofthe relationship with PC manufacturers ranging from discussions of
`
`product
`
`requirements,
`
`testing and qualification procedures, and competitive
`
`analysis,
`
`to market segmentation and pricing discussions.
`
`I met with senior
`
`executives in major PC manufacturers on numerous occasions to discuss business
`
`opportunities and general market trends. I also developed numerous consumeraudio
`
`and video products including the Rio MP3 players, the ReplayTV digital video
`
`recorders, and the GoVideo DVD and VCRproducts. I further assisted in the launch
`
`of streaming services.
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 14 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 14 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`16.
`
`I have published more than 50 peer-reviewed papers in computer
`
`architecture and computer systems design including papers related to video
`
`streaming. I have also chaired IEEE and ACM conferences in microarchitecture and
`
`integrated circuit design. I am a named inventoronat least fifty-seven U.S. patents
`
`and thirty-seven foreign patents,
`
`including on video recording and playback
`
`technology. I am an IEEE Fellow and an IEEE Computer Society Distinguished
`
`Contributor.
`
`17.
`
`Ihave been the invited keynote speaker at the ACM/IEEE International
`
`Symposium on Microarchitecture and at the International Conference on Multimedia.
`
`I have also been an invited speaker on various aspects oftechnology or the PC industry
`
`at numerous industry events including the Intel Developer’s Forum, Microsoft
`
`Windows Hardware Engineering Conference, Microprocessor Forum, Embedded
`
`Systems Conference, Comdex, and ConsumerElectronics Show as well as at Harvard
`
`Business School and the University of Illinois Law School.
`
`I have been interviewed
`
`on subjects related to computer graphics and video technology andthe electronics
`
`industry by publications such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, LA Times,
`
`Time, Newsweek, Forbes, and Fortune as well as CNN, NPR, and the BBC. I have
`
`also spoken at dozens of universities including MIT, Stanford, University of Texas,
`
`Carnegie Mellon, UCLA, University of Michigan, Rice, and Duke.
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 15 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 15 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`18. Additional details of my education and work experience, awards and
`
`honors, and publications that maybe relevantto the opinions I have formedare set
`
`forth in my CV, attached to this declaration as Appendix A.
`
`19.
`
`IT have includeda list of cases in which I havetestified as an expert at
`
`trial or by deposition for the date range specified in Appendix A.
`
`B. Compensation
`
`20.
`
`Iambeing compensated at my standard consulting rate of $650 per hour
`
`for my work on this declaration. My compensation is not dependent on the outcome
`
`of this case, and I have nofinancial interest in the outcome.
`
`C. Documents and Information Considered
`
`21.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I reviewed the 507 Patent, including the
`
`claimsof the patent in view ofthe specification, and I have reviewed the prosecution
`
`history of the 507 Patent and numerousprior art and technical references from the
`
`time of the alleged invention. In addition, I have reviewedall of the materials cited
`
`as an exhibit in this petition. For reference, I have includeda table of the exhibits
`
`that appear in the petition, as well as other documents referenced in this declaration,
`
`if any, below:
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,730,507 (“the ’507 Patent’) Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 7,730,507 (downloaded from
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`PAIR)
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 16 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 16 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`1003=|Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`1004|Challenged Claim Listing With Limitation Designations
`1005
`Proof of Service in Maxell, Ltd. et al v. VIZIO, Inc., Case No. 2:21-
`cv-06758-GW-DFMx(C.D.Cal.)
`
`1006=|U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0223404 (“Ishiguro’’)
`
`1007‘|U.S. Patent No. 7,558,977 (“Kim ’977”)
`
`1008|U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0094036 (“Tichelaar’”)
`
`1009=|U.S. Patent No. 6,462,437 (“Marmaropoulos”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0229226(“Relan”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0046833 (“Kitamura”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,068,732 (“Tamayama”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,636,026 (“Nomoto”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,334,132 (“Kumaret al.’’)
`
`Ole Steinfatt, Peter Klapproth and HansTichelaar, “TCP: A Next
`1016|Generation for TV Control Processing,” ICCE 1999, THPM 19.5, pp.
`
`ime 354-355,LosAngelesUSA,June1999)(“Steinfatt’’)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,252,907 (“Hwang”’)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0013856 (“Hamakadaetal.”’)
`
`(downloaded from PAIR)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,411,631 (“Joshi et al.”)
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent App. No. 12/788,892
`(downloaded from PAIR)
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent App. No. 13/160,542
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,768,520 (“Rilly et al.”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,209,044 (“Vaughan”’)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,749 (“Mitarai”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,990,958 (“Bhedaetal.”)
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 17 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 17 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`VIZIO,Inc.’s Preliminary Claim Constructions And Extrinsic
`Evidence (August 18, 2022)
`Maxell Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence,
`Ex. A (August 18, 2022)
`
`1029
`
`1028
`
`Central District of California Case Milestone Timelines
`
`Maxell, Ltd. et al v. VIZIO, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-06758-GW-DFM
`(C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 115 (“Scheduling Order’)
`Maxell Extrinsic Evidence for Preliminary Claim Constructions
`(Aug. 18, 2022)
`
`1030
`
`D. Identification of Grounds
`
`22.
`
`Inmy opinion, Claims 1, 2, 8—10 and 13 (the “Challenged Claims”) of
`
`the ’507 Patent are rendered obviousbythepriorart.
`
`23.
`
`Specifically, it is my opinion that:
`
`e Ground 1: Tichelaar in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the °507 Patent (a “POSITA”) a POSITA
`
`render obvious Challenged Claims1, 2, 10, and 13;
`
`e Ground 2: Tichelaar in view of Relan and the Knowledge of a POSITA
`
`render obvious the Challenged Claims;
`
`e Ground 3: Tichelaar in view of Kim’616, and the Knowledge of a
`
`POSITArender obvious Challenged Claims 1, 2, 10, and 13;
`
`e Ground 4: Tichelaar in view of Relan, Kim’616, and the Knowledge of
`
`a POSITArender obvious the Challenged Claims;
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 18 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 18 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`e Ground 5: Kitamura in view of Kim’616, and the Knowledge of a
`
`POSITArender obvious Challenged Claims 1, 2, and 13; and
`
`e Ground 6: Kitamura in view of Kim’616, Tichelaar, and the Knowledge
`
`of a POSITArender obvious Challenged Claim 10.
`
`24.
`
`Iam informed that Tichelaar (EX1008), Relan (EX1010), and Kim’616
`
`(EX1011) qualify as are prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§102 (a), (b), and/or (e).
`
`I am
`
`informed that Kitamura (EX1012) qualifies as prior art under §§102 (a)/(e).
`
`25.
`
`It is my understanding that the foregoing prior art references were not
`
`cited by the Examinerin the patent application corresponding to the ’507 Patent or
`
`any related patent application. Further, I have reviewedthe prior art asserted by the
`
`Examinerandit is my opinionthat the prior art relied upon below is not cumulative
`
`with prior art cited by the Examiner.
`
`II.
`
`Legal Standard to be Applied
`
`26.
`
`Iam not an attorney. For the purposesof this declaration, Petitioner’s
`
`counsel has informed me about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my
`
`opinions.
`
`27.
`
`Ihave been informed that the patentability analysis is conducted on a
`
`claim-by-claim basis and that there are several possible reasons that a patent claim
`
`may be found to be unpatentable.
`
`10
`
`VIZIO,Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO,Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 19 of 146
`
`VIZIO, Inc. Exhibit 1003
`VIZIO, Inc. v. Maxell, LTD, IPR2022-01459
`Page 19 of 146
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01459; U.S. Patent 7,730,507
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`28.
`
`Itis my understandingthat in order to properly evaluate the ’507 Patent,
`
`the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that the
`
`claimsare to be construed according to the same claim construction standard applied
`
`by the district courts.
`
`29.
`
`Petitioner's counsel has informed me that a patent claim may describe
`
`a particular element in a “means-plus-function” format, meaning that the claim
`
`describes what the particular element does (its function) rather than what it is (its
`
`structure). Petitioner's counsel has informed me that a claim in a means-plus-
`
`function format is construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
`
`described in the specification, and equivalent structures, materials, or acts, for
`
`performing the function recited in the claim element.
`
`30.
`
`Petitioner's counsel has informed methat a claim term that does not
`
`recite the words “means” can be in means-plus-function format if the term does not
`
`recite sufficiently definite structureor else recites function withoutreciting sufficient
`
`structure for performing that function. Petitioner's counsel has informed me that
`
`terms such as "mechanism,"
`
`"off
`
`"e