UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ANGEL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2023-00059
`U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275
`_____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ELI SABER, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 1
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.(cid:3)
`
`II.(cid:3)
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1(cid:3)
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 3(cid:3)
`
`III.(cid:3) MATERIALS REVIEWED AND TIME OF ALLEGED INVENTION ...... 8(cid:3)
`
`IV.(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3)
`2.(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)
`5.(cid:3)
`6.(cid:3)
`7.(cid:3)
`8.(cid:3)
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................... 10(cid:3)
`Overview ...................................................................................................... 10(cid:3)
`Patent Claims ............................................................................................... 10(cid:3)
`Burden of Proof for Invalidity ..................................................................... 11(cid:3)
`Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 12(cid:3)
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .............................................................. 12(cid:3)
`Prior Art ....................................................................................................... 12(cid:3)
`Anticipation .................................................................................................. 13(cid:3)
`Obviousness ................................................................................................. 14(cid:3)
`
`V.(cid:3)
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSITA) ...................... 18(cid:3)
`
`VI.(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3)
`2.(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)
`
`THE ’275 PATENT ..................................................................................... 19(cid:3)
`Existing Technology .................................................................................... 19(cid:3)
`Advantages Provided by the ’275 Patent ..................................................... 20(cid:3)
`System Components ..................................................................................... 21(cid:3)
`The Operation of the ’275 Patent’s System ................................................. 24(cid:3)
`
`VII.(cid:3) CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 26(cid:3)
`
`i
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 2
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`VIII.(cid:3) OVERVIEW OF ALLEGED PRIOR ART REFERENCES ........................ 27(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3)
`Sharpe ........................................................................................................... 27(cid:3)
`2.(cid:3)
`Eintracht ....................................................................................................... 31(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)
`FotoFile ........................................................................................................ 33(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)
`Carey ............................................................................................................ 34(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`3.(cid:3)
`
`THE ALLEGED PRIOR ART DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR SUGGEST
`IX.(cid:3)
`THE CLAIMS OF THE ’275 PATENT ................................................................. 35(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3)
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine Sharpe with
`Eintracht and FotoFile to Arrive at the Challenged Claims ........................ 35(cid:3)
`The Petition Fails to Explain How the Combination of Sharpe and Eintracht
`Would Operate ............................................................................................. 36(cid:3)
`Ground 1: Sharpe, Eintracht, and FotoFile Do Not Disclose or Suggest the
`Limitations of Claims 1-12 .......................................................................... 37(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Limitation 1[d]: “in response to receiving from the identifying user
`the input indicating the selection of the named user from the list of
`other users, determining a unique user identifier of the named user”
` ........................................................................................................... 37(cid:3)
`Limitation 1[e]: “receiving, from the identifying user, one or more
`inputs indicating a set of coordinates corresponding to a location of
`the named user within the image; and” ............................................. 42(cid:3)
`Limitation 1[f]: “applying artificial intelligence algorithms to image
`data of other images accessible to said computer system to locate
`images matching characteristics of a subset of image data bound by
`the set of coordinates corresponding to the location of the named user
`within the image, wherein the set of coordinates corresponding to the
`location of the named user within the image is associated with the
`unique user identifier of the named user and the unique image
`identifier.” .......................................................................................... 47(cid:3)
`D.(cid:3) Dependent Claims 2-12 ..................................................................... 51(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`ii
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 3
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`a.(cid:3)
`Claims 3 and 4 ................................................................................... 51(cid:3)
`Claim 7 ............................................................................................... 53(cid:3)
`b.(cid:3)
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................... 53(cid:3)
`c.(cid:3)
`Claim 9 ............................................................................................... 55(cid:3)
`d.(cid:3)
`Claim 11 ............................................................................................. 56(cid:3)
`e.(cid:3)
`Ground 2: Sharpe, Eintracht, FotoFile, and Carey Do Not Disclose or
`Suggest the Limitations of Claims 1-12 ...................................................... 57(cid:3)
`
`4.(cid:3)
`
`X.(cid:3)
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 58(cid:3)
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 4
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`I, Dr. Eli Saber, declare as follows:
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert consultant on behalf
`
`of Angel Technologies, LLC (“Patent Owner” or “Angel Technologies”) in this
`
`Inter Partes Review proceeding (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“Board” or PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”)
`
`regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,417,275 (“the ’275 patent” or “the Challenged
`Patent”) (Ex. 1001).1 I am being compensated for the time I spend on this matter,
`
`in addition to expenses. My compensation in this case 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 interest in this proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`In particular, I have been asked to consider, and provide my opinions
`
`regarding, whether the alleged prior art references cited in this proceeding
`
`discloses or suggests the features recited in claims 1-12 (“the Challenged
`
`Claims”) of the ’275 patent, which I understand Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner” or “Meta”) has challenged in this IPR. In my view, the alleged prior
`
`art references do neither. This declaration is based on the information currently
`
`
`1 In this Declaration, I reference documents by exhibit numbers that, as I
`
`understand, are attached to exhibits in this Inter Partes Review of the ’275 Patent.
`
`1
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 5
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`available to me. To the extent that additional information becomes available, I
`
`reserve the right to continue my investigation and study, which may include
`
`review of documents and information that may be produced, as well as testimony
`
`from depositions that have not yet taken place. My opinions are set forth below.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 6
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background,
`
`career history, publications, and other relevant qualifications. My full curriculum
`
`vitae is attached as Appendix A to this declaration.
`
`4.
`
`I am a Professor in the Department of Electrical and Microelectronic
`
`Engineering (EME) and at the Chester F. Carlson Center for Imaging Science at
`
`the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in Rochester, New York. I also serve
`
`as the Director of the Image, Video and Computer Vision Laboratory. I joined
`
`RIT’s full-time faculty in 2004. I received a BS degree in Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering (ECE) from the University of Buffalo in 1988, and the MS and PhD
`
`degrees in the same discipline from the University of Rochester in 1992 and 1996
`
`respectively. I have over 34 years of industry and academic experience, 29 of
`
`which are in the field of imaging.
`
`5.
`
`Before becoming a full-time professor, I worked for Xerox
`
`Corporation from 1988 to 2004. During my 16 years at Xerox, I was – generally
`
`speaking – responsible for: a) delivering color management solutions, image
`
`processing innovations, architectures, and algorithms for high-end color printing
`
`systems, b) xerographic sub-systems for a variety of color products, and c) control
`
`systems for toner production facilities. Among other roles, as an Advanced
`
`Development Scientist and Manager, I established the Advanced Design
`
`3
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 7
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`Laboratory – an Imaging/Xerographics lab – and provided technical and
`
`managerial leadership for the Electrical, Imaging and Xerographics Department.
`
`As a Product Development Scientist and Manager, I led the research and
`
`development of color management algorithms and image quality metrics for
`
`various product platforms. I also led the Image Science, Analysis, and Evaluation
`
`area, with twelve to fifteen direct reports and a budget of approximately $2
`
`million.
`
`6.
`
`From 1997 until 2004, I was an adjunct faculty member at the
`
`Electrical Engineering Department of the Rochester Institute of Technology and
`
`at the Electrical & Computer Engineering Department at the University of
`
`Rochester. I was responsible for teaching undergraduate and graduate coursework
`
`in signal, image, video processing, pattern recognition, and communications and
`
`performing research in multimedia applications, pattern recognition, image
`
`understanding and color engineering.
`
`7.
`
`Since joining RIT full time, I have been responsible for teaching
`
`several undergraduate and graduate courses in Digital Signal Processing, Digital
`
`Image Processing, Digital Video Processing, Engineering Analysis, Random
`
`Signal & Noise, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, Matrix Methods, Pattern
`
`Recognition, Communications, Modern Control Theory, and Linear Systems.
`
`8.
`
`I proposed, developed and introduced the Digital Video Processing
`
`4
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 8
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`and Pattern Recognition courses to the Electrical Engineering Department at RIT.
`
`These graduate courses were instrumental in providing MS/PhD students with the
`
`proper foundation and knowledge in all aspects of the subject areas in order to
`
`perform in-depth research in the field and continue to advance the state of the art.
`
`9.
`
`The Digital Video Processing course is designed to provide a
`
`thorough and comprehensive coverage of the field. Topics covered include the
`
`mathematical representation of digital video including motion and time-varying
`
`image formation models, spatio-temporal sampling/reconstruction, sampling
`
`structure conversions, motion estimation using optical flow, block-based, pel-
`
`recursive, Bayesian and point correspondence type methodologies, segmentation,
`
`motion tracking, filtering, restoration, super-resolution and compression.
`
`10. The Pattern Recognition course, on the other hand, covers pertinent
`
`concepts in Bayes decision theory, linear and nonlinear classifiers, artificial
`
`neural networks, feature selection/generation/extraction and clustering.
`
`11.
`
`I am currently working to develop a graduate course titled:
`
`“Advanced Neural Networks and Deep Learning: Theory, Mathematics and
`
`Algorithms”. The course is intended to provide an in-depth comprehensive study
`
`of the theory, mathematics and algorithms for advanced neural networks and their
`
`usage in deep learning. It is primarily targeted for upper graduate students that
`
`are planning to pursue advanced studies/research in the field. The course provides
`
`5
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 9
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`a thorough study of shallow and deep neural networks architectures and
`
`algorithms, activation functions, backpropagation, initialization, optimization
`
`strategies, etc. It then progresses to convolutional and recurrent style neural
`
`networks and, if time permits, will provide an overview of attention
`
`mechanisms/transformers and deep reinforcement learning. The course is set to
`
`debut in Spring 2024.
`
`12. My current research focuses on image/video processing for
`
`multimedia, military & biomedical applications; computer vision and three-
`
`dimensional
`
`scene
`
`reconstruction; and machine
`
`learning
`
`for object
`
`tracking/remote sensing applications. As a principal investigator (PI) or co-
`
`principal investigator, I have acquired research funding in excess of $5 million
`
`since joining RIT and have managed multiple government grants from the
`
`Department of Defense as well as several corporate grants from Hewlett-Packard,
`
`Lenel, and Data Physics. I am currently managing (as PI) a multiyear government
`
`grant from the Department of Defense titled “Target Detection/Tracking and
`
`Activity Recognition from Multimodal Data.” In 2012, I was awarded the
`
`Prestigious Trustees Scholarship, the highest award at RIT with regard to research
`
`recognition.
`
`13.
`
`I am the author or co-author of 38 peer-reviewed journal
`
`publications.
`
`6
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 10
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`14.
`
`I have also authored or co-authored 102 conference and workshop
`
`publications and a book entitled Advanced Linear Algebra for Engineers with
`
`MATLAB, published by CRC Press in February 2009, and am a named inventor
`
`on multiple U.S. and foreign patents.
`
`15. Prior to November 2000, I have proposed and worked extensively
`
`on developing a variety of color, shape texture and edge type image processing
`
`algorithms for web-based media applications that employ content-based image
`
`indexing and retrieval. The above was archived in several journal type
`
`publications
`
`(See attached CV Journal publications 35
`
`to 39) and
`
`disclosed/presented at a variety of international conferences (See attached CV for
`
`conference publications 97 to 102).
`
`16.
`
`I am a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
`
`Engineers and a member of the IEEE Signal Processing Society, the Electrical
`
`Engineering Honor Society, and Eta Kappa Nu.
`
`17. A complete statement of my industrial and academic records
`
`including a listing of the above publications and patents is included with my
`
`curriculum vitae.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 11
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND TIME OF ALLEGED INVENTION
`
`18. The opinions contained in this declaration are based on the
`
`documents that I reviewed, my professional judgment, as well as my education,
`
`experience, and knowledge regarding technologies related to the ’275 patent.
`
`19.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I reviewed:
`
`
`
`
`
`(cid:120) the ’275 patent (Ex. 1001);
`
`(cid:120) the file history of the ’275 patent (Ex. 1002);
`
`(cid:120) the declaration of Dr. Bederson (Ex. 1003);
`
`(cid:120) the deposition transcript of Dr. Bederson in this IPR (Ex.
`
`2019);
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Patent No. 7,461,099 to Sharpe, et al. (“Sharpe” – Ex.
`
`1005);
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Patent No. 6,687,878 to Eintracht, et al. (“Eintracht” – Ex.
`
`1006);
`
`(cid:120) Allan Kuchinsky et al., FotoFile: A Consumer Multimedia
`
`Organization and Retrieval System, CHI ’99: PROCEEDINGS OF
`
`THE SIGCHI CONFERENCE ON HUMAN FACTORS IN COMPUTING
`
`SYSTEMS, 496-503 (May 1999) (“FotoFile” – Ex. 1011);
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Patent No. 6,714,793 to Carey, et al. (“Carey” – Ex. 1007);
`
`8
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 12
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`(cid:120) The Parties’ papers and exhibits in this case (IPR2023-
`
`00059); and
`
`(cid:120) any other materials that I refer to in this declaration in support
`
`of my opinions.
`
`20.
`
`I have been asked to consider the time of the alleged invention to be
`
`around November 15, 2000, which I understand is the filing date of the
`
`application (U.S. Patent Application No. 15/933,531) to which the ’275 patent
`
`claims priority via a series of continuation applications (Ex. 1001, Cover). My
`
`opinions reflect how a person of ordinary skill in the art (as I define in Section V
`
`below) would have understood the claims and the specification of the ’275 patent,
`
`the prior art to the patent, and the state of the art, at the time of the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`21. As I discuss in detail below, it is my opinion that the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’275 patent are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art references
`
`cited by Petitioner in this Inter Partes Review.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 13
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`1. Overview
`I am not an attorney or a legal expert. The legal standards I applied
`
`22.
`
`in reaching the conclusions expressed throughout this declaration were provided
`
`to me by counsel. In preparing this declaration, I have endeavored to faithfully
`
`apply these legal standards. I do not intend to offer opinions on the law. Below, I
`
`describe the law I applied in considering whether the claims of the Challenged
`
`Patent are patentable.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that an issued patent is presumed valid and that
`
`the challenger of the patent’s validity bears the burden of proving invalidity of
`
`the patent.
`
`2.
`Patent Claims
`24. Patent claims describe the invention made by the inventors and
`
`describe what the patent owner owns and what the owner may prevent others
`
`from doing.
`
`25. Claims may describe products, such as machines or chemical
`
`compounds, or processes for making or using a product. Claims are usually
`
`divided into parts or steps called limitations.
`
`26. There are two types of claims: independent claims and dependent
`
`claims. An independent claim sets forth all the requirements that must be met in
`
`order to be covered by that claim. Thus, it is not necessary to look at any other
`
`10
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 14
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`claim to determine what an independent claim covers. A dependent claim does
`
`not itself recite all of the requirements of the claim, but refers to another claim
`
`for some of its requirements. In this way, the claim depends on another claim.
`
`The law considers a dependent claim to incorporate all of the requirements of the
`
`claims to which it refers.
`
`27. The dependent claim then adds its own additional requirements. To
`
`determine what a dependent claim covers, it is necessary to look at both the
`
`dependent claim and any other claims to which it refers.
`
`28.
`
`In that case, the dependent claims incorporate the limitations of the
`
`independent claim upon which they depend and, if a reference fails to disclose
`
`any of the limitations of an independent claim, the claims which depend on that
`
`claim cannot be made invalid by that reference. As a result, any of the references
`
`at issue in this proceeding that fail to disclose all of the limitations of an
`
`independent claim necessarily also fail to disclose all of the limitations of claims
`
`which depend on that claim.
`
`3.
`
`Burden of Proof for Invalidity
`
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the party challenging the validity of an issued U.S.
`
`patent in an IPR bears the burden of proving invalidity through facts supported
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that a “preponderance of the
`
`evidence” means evidence sufficient to prove that a fact is more likely true that it
`
`11
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 15
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`is not.
`
`4.
`Claim Construction
`I understand that the first step in determining validity is to properly
`
`30.
`
`construe the claims. I further understand that, in this proceeding, the Board must
`
`determine the scope of the claims by using the same claim construction standard
`
`that United States District Courts use. Under this standard, words of a claim are
`
`given their “ordinary” and “customary” meaning as understood by a person of
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention. I understand that such a person looks
`
`to the claims, specification, and file history in understanding the meaning of the
`
`claim terms. I have applied this understanding in this declaration.
`
`5.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I understand that a person having ordinary skill in the art may be
`
`31.
`
`defined by factors such as: (a) the levels of education and experience of the
`
`inventor and other persons actively involved in the field; (b) the types of problems
`
`encountered in the field; (c) prior art solutions to those problems; (d) rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made; and (e) the sophistication of the technology.
`
`6.
`Prior Art
`I understand that a patent cannot be invalidated based on one
`
`32.
`
`person’s
`
`testimony alone without corroborating evidence, particularly
`
`documentary evidence. Moreover, I understand that corroboration is required of
`
`any witness whose testimony alone is asserted to invalidate a patent, regardless
`
`12
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 16
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`of his or her level of interest in relation to that patent. Accordingly, even if the
`
`testifying individual has no interest in the litigation, I understand that that
`
`corroboration is still required.
`
`33.
`
`In this declaration, I may use the phrase “prior art” when describing
`
`specific references. However, my use of this phrase should not be interpreted as
`
`agreement that the item(s) described qualify as prior art under the patent laws. I
`
`merely use this phrase to address the items labeled as “prior art” by Petitioner and
`
`its expert.
`
`
`
`7.
`Anticipation
`I understand that a patent claim can be found invalid as anticipated
`
`34.
`
`if each and every element of the claim, as properly construed, is found either
`
`explicitly or inherently in a single prior art reference. If the single prior art
`
`reference does not disclose any one claim limitation, then that claim is not
`
`anticipated. I further understand that the single prior art reference cannot merely
`
`disclose each element; rather, it must disclose all of the elements as arranged in
`
`the claim. I have been informed that for a prior art reference to “inherently”
`
`disclose something, the reference must necessarily function in accordance with,
`
`or include the claimed limitations, to anticipate. The missing descriptive matter
`
`cannot merely probably or possibly include the claimed limitations. I further
`
`understand that, with respect to an anticipation analysis, it is improper to combine
`
`13
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 17
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`separate, distinct embodiments of a single prior art reference.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that for a claim to be anticipated, each claim limitation
`
`must be disclosed in a single prior art reference, and the claimed arrangement or
`
`combination of those limitations must also be disclosed in that same prior art
`
`reference. I understand that for a reference to be anticipatory, the reference must
`
`contain an enabling disclosure. I understand that merely naming or describing the
`
`subject matter is insufficient if it cannot be produced without undue
`
`experimentation.
`
`8. Obviousness
`I understand that a patent claim can be found invalid as obvious if
`
`36.
`
`the differences between the claim and the prior art references would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, taking
`
`into account (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between
`
`the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) any
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness. I further understand that a claim can be
`
`found to be obvious in light of either a single prior art reference or multiple prior
`
`art references. I understand that references qualify as prior art for an obviousness
`
`determination only when they are analogous to the claimed invention. Two
`
`separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from
`
`the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed; and (2) if the
`
`14
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 18
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference
`
`still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
`
`involved.
`
`37. To be obvious in light of a single prior art reference or multiple prior
`
`art references, there must be a reason either to modify either the single prior art
`
`reference or to combine the two or more prior art references to achieve the
`
`claimed invention. I understand that this reason may come from a teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine or may come from the reference or
`
`references themselves, the knowledge or “common sense” of one skilled in the
`
`art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved, and may be explicit or implicit
`
`from the prior art as a whole.
`
`38. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
`
`is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`39.
`
`I further understand that there is no suggestion to combine, however,
`
`if a reference teaches away from its combination with another source. A reference
`
`may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
`
`reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference,
`
`or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the
`
`applicant, or if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the
`
`reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the
`
`15
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 19
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`applicant. If when combined, the references would produce a seemingly
`
`inoperative device, then they teach away from their combination. I understand
`
`that it is improper to combine references where the references teach away from
`
`their combination.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that the degree of teaching away will depend on the
`
`particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line
`
`of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be
`
`productive of the result sought by the applicant. I understand that a reference
`
`teaches away, for example, if (1) the combination would produce a seemingly
`
`inoperative device, or (2) the references leave the impression that the product
`
`would not have the property sought by the applicant.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that if the teachings of a prior art reference would lead
`
`one skilled in the art to make a modification that would render another prior art
`
`device inoperable, then such a modification would generally not be obvious. I
`
`understand that if a proposed modification would render the prior art device
`
`unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then the proposed modification would
`
`generally not be obvious.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that it is improper to use hindsight in making the
`
`obviousness determination.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that some articulated reasoning with some rational
`
`16
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 20
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness must be made. For
`
`example, I understand that there may be no rational underpinning to support the
`
`legal conclusion of obviousness where systems are already complete and the party
`
`challenging validity seeks to mix and match components, which each exist in the
`
`separate systems, from these complete systems.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 21
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSITA)
`
`V.
`
`
`
`44. Based on my review of the ’275 patent, the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art at and prior to the time of the alleged invention, prior
`
`solutions to those problems, the pace with which innovations were made during
`
`the relevant time period, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational
`
`level of active professionals in the field, I believe that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (POSITA), at the time of the alleged invention, would have had at least
`
`a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, or a similar technical field, with at least two years of experience in
`
`the field of networked and Web-based media applications. Additional experience
`
`could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise
`
`substitute for less experience.
`
`45. All of my opinions in this declaration are from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, as I have defined it above and during the
`
`relevant time frame (e.g., late 2000, including November 15, 2000). During this
`
`time frame, I possessed at least the qualifications of a POSITA, as defined above.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 22
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`VI. THE ’275 PATENT
`46. The ’275 patent is titled “Artificial Intelligence Assisted Tagging of
`
`Users in Digital Media Online.” (Ex. 1001, Cover). The ’275 patent is directed to
`
`a system, computer program, and method for storing and sharing images such as
`
`photographs via a communications network and for permitting the identification
`
`of objects within the images. The invention allows the identification of objects
`
`such as persons within the photos, without requiring the person submitting the
`
`photos to type in identification information for each photo in a photo album. Ex.
`
`1001, Abstract.
`
`Existing Technology
`1.
`In the late 1990s and early 2000s at the time of the invention, people
`
`47.
`
`began creating web pages for online photo albums, which offered advantages
`
`over traditional photo albums. Ex. 1001, 1:35-40. Several websites existed which
`
`allowed users without programming skills to create and maintain online photo
`
`albums by simply uploading photos they wished to add to the album. Ex. 1001,
`
`1:45-60.
`
`48. These websites offered many advantages to users, but also suffered
`
`from many limitations. For example, the websites did not allow users to identify
`
`objects and individuals within the photos without cumbersome limitations such
`
`as requiring individuals to wear a badge in the photos for identification. Further,
`
`the websites did not provide search capabilities for identifying photos of specific
`
`19
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 23
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`individuals once identified, or ways to distinguish between different types of the
`
`same object (i.e., identifying one clown from another clown). Finally, the
`
`websites did not offer a way to quickly and easily send notifications to individuals
`
`that they had been identified in a photo. Ex. 1001, 1:62-3:44.
`
`Advantages Provided by the ’275 Patent
`2.
`49. The ’275 patent addressed these deficiencies with a system that
`
`allows users to supply and/or receive information about the existence of objects
`
`within images. Figure 2 of the ’275 patent, reproduced below, demonstrates some
`
`of the novel aspects in a particular embodiment. As shown below, a user database
`
`receives, stores, and provides information about people and/or objects identified
`
`within the photo.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Angel Tech Ex. 2021, p. 24
`Meta v. Angel Tech
`IPR2023-00059
`
`

`

`50. For example, the Users database 230 can be populated to include a
`
`user identifier with information such as the user’s name, email-addr