`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DYNAPASS IP HOLDINGS LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`IPR2023-00425
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658
`
`__________________
`
`DECLARATION OF RAJEEV SURATI, IN SUPPORT OF
`DYNAPASS IP HOLDINGS LLC’S PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`
`I, Rajeev Surati, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I make this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge and, if
`
`called upon to testify, would testify competently to the matters contained herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to render opinions in inter partes review proceeding
`
`IPR2023-00425, regarding claims 1 and 3-6 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,993,658 (Ex. 1001, the “’658 Patent”).
`
`3.
`
`This declaration is a statement of my opinions on issues related to the
`
`patentability of the Challenged Claims.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual rate. My compensation is in no
`
`way related to the outcome of this case.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`I, Rajeev Surati, have been retained by counsel for Dynapass IP
`
`Holdings LLC (“Patent Owner”) as an expert in Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass
`
`IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425.
`
`6.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied on my knowledge, training,
`
`and experience in the relevant field, which I will summarize briefly here. In addition,
`
`my curriculum vitae (CV) is attached to this declaration (Ex. 2004).
`
`7.
`
`I hold a Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (awarded in 1999) with a
`
`Grade Point Average of 5.0/5.0. I obtained a Master of Science in Electrical
`
`
`
`2
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`Engineering and Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
`
`(awarded in 1995) with a Grade Point Average of 5.0/5.0. I have a Bachelor of
`
`Science in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
`
`(awarded 1992) and graduated with a Grade Point Average of 4.9/5.0.
`
`8. My Ph.D. thesis was entitled “Scalable Self-Calibrating Technology for
`
`Large Scale Displays.” My master’s thesis was entitled “Practical Partial
`
`Evaluation.” My undergraduate thesis, which I received the MIT EECS’s William
`
`A. Martin thesis prize for best undergraduate thesis, was entitled “A Parallelizing
`
`Compiler based on Partial Evaluation.” Lastly, I was awarded the highly selective
`
`Department of Energy’s Computational Science Fellowship in 1995, which funded
`
`my Ph.D. studies.
`
`9.
`
`Between 1989 and 1999 I was employed as a researcher/programmer at
`
`the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab. At the lab, I worked for Thomas F. Knight Jr.,
`
`Ph.D. He is one of the noted inventors of the first bit-mapped displays for
`
`computers, a core programmer on the ITS (intelligent time-sharing operating
`
`system), creator of several innovations in VLSI, and most recently noted as being
`
`one of the grandfathers of synthetic biology. I also worked for Professor Anant
`
`Agarwal on parallel computing and Professors Hal Abelson and Gerald J. Sussman
`
`on parallel and scientific computing.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`In 1990 I learned and used EPROM’s for the first time in a Computer
`
`10.
`
`Architecture course and learned the labor-intensive process used to erase and
`
`reprogram them using UV and EPROM programmers.
`
`11.
`
`In 1996, I began working on a Ph.D. thesis related to the display of
`
`multimedia across large displays. My Ph.D. thesis system was a special kind of
`
`display allowing one to create ultra-high-resolution displays composed of multiple
`
`projectors tiled with a slight overlap. A camera-based feedback system is used to
`
`create an inverse map to drive the system such that a person would only see a
`
`continuous, seamless display with no bezel or overlap. What content and how to
`
`drive it onto the display was a topic I became familiar with. Also, at this time, several
`
`interactive TV projects were going on at MIT, which I had exposure to from this
`
`vantage, especially concerning the idea that these large displays would be in the
`
`living rooms of the future. Thus, I became familiar with content encoding/decoding,
`
`user interfaces for driving large displays, multimedia content storage, high-
`
`resolution imagery, networks, recording, GPUs, storage of content, etc.
`
`12.
`
`In 2002, MIT was awarded U.S. Patent 6,456,339, entitled “Super-
`
`resolution Display,” for my Ph.D. work. Today this technology is better known as
`
`automatic calibration for projection mapping. My experience, along with a patent I
`
`developed and licensed based on my Ph.D. thesis, were used to create a new startup
`
`
`
`4
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`company called Scalable Display Technologies that works with a variety of Pro AV
`
`display companies’ products.
`
`13. While at MIT pursuing my doctorate, I started a company called Flash
`
`Communications in 1997, which invented an instant messaging platform focused on
`
`enterprise needs. It had its basis from my having observed the popularity at MIT of
`
`the Zephyr Instant Messaging Service from 1988 onwards. Given this enterprise
`
`focus, Microsoft soon acquired the company in 1998. We built both a client and
`
`server product, and the basic protocol we invented became the basis of the well-
`
`known XMPP protocol that was widely used in the mid-2000s among instant
`
`messaging providers. I worked on developing both the client and server products
`
`and particularly dealt with many, if not all, of the issues one might have to face when
`
`implementing contact lists. Notably I implemented the login authorization system
`
`for this system.
`
`14. Upon graduation, I joined Microsoft (as was required by Microsoft in
`
`the acquisition of Flash Communications) and worked on both client and server
`
`technologies related to instant messaging, covering both the Microsoft Exchange
`
`Instant Messaging product that was released in 2000 and MSN Messenger. At
`
`Microsoft, I also worked on the client and server side of the products.
`
`15. At Microsoft, I participated in development of the Instant Messaging
`
`and Presence Protocol (IMPP), which was at least partially derived from a similar
`
`
`
`5
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`protocol that I worked on at Flash. The IMPP protocol was later incorporated into
`
`the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) protocol that was used
`
`widely for instant messaging by Microsoft, Google, Cisco, Jabber, and several
`
`others.
`
`16. As this XMPP adoption was going on, there was further internal
`
`discussion regarding the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) protocol, which was
`
`eventually adopted more broadly by Microsoft for Instant Messaging. The SIP
`
`protocol is used for signaling and controlling multimedia communication sessions
`
`in applications of Internet telephony for voice and video calls, instant messaging
`
`over Internet Protocol (IP) networks, as well as mobile phone calling over LTE
`
`(VoLTE). While working at Flash and Microsoft, I was personally responsible for
`
`developing source code for parsing and processing input messages and generating
`
`output messages in accordance with the above-described protocols, and thus I have
`
`an extensive working knowledge of many different protocols used in multimedia
`
`communications systems. Furthermore, I worked on an SDK integrating the
`
`Exchange Servers with the MSN Servers.
`
`17.
`
`In 2002, I served as a technical consultant for Cordant Communication,
`
`which was founded for the purpose of archiving instant messages. During this time,
`
`I also served as an informal adviser to IMLogic, which also worked on message
`
`archiving. Later in 2007, I served as a technical adviser to Unify Square, which built
`
`
`
`6
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`software to manage Microsoft telephony and messaging solutions deployed in
`
`Fortune 500 companies. Unify Square was recently sold to Unisys.
`
`18. From 2000 to 2007, I cofounded, led, and sold a business called
`
`photo.net to Namemedia, which is now part of GoDaddy.com. In 2000, while
`
`running the site, I worked on many features including a chat feature, a WAP interface
`
`to photo.net, and a rich user interface based on JavaScript. Photo.net for a time in
`
`early 2000 was considered a top 1,000 website so it received large amounts of traffic.
`
`Having built the site from running on a single computer that I installed in a datacenter
`
`to a full rack of computers in that data center, I became very familiar with the careful
`
`design and programming one needs to employ in building and maintaining such
`
`systems. I became intimately familiar with implementing file systems for use with
`
`multimedia and super high performance image encoding/decoding systems as well
`
`as real time delivery of high bandwidth content.
`
`19. At photo.net, we prototyped many fundamental Internet community
`
`features such as photo sharing, social networking, and memberships in the late 1990s
`
`and early 2000s. This system was written on top of Oracle SQL Database and had
`
`to serve up many millions of web pages a day (corresponding to millions of records),
`
`with high volume inserts and also incorporated an ecommerce system used for
`
`billing of subscriptions, tracking users etc. I spent seven years running the site both
`
`writing new features driven by the Oracle SQL database and maintaining tables with
`
`
`
`7
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`many millions of records being generated. I also served as the database
`
`administrator for seven years, which provided me with personal and extensive
`
`operational experience running such a system, dealing with database query speed-
`
`up and more mundane day-to-day issues regarding maintaining relational databases
`
`such as backups, etc.
`
`20. Again at photo.net I maintained and implemented the login system.
`
`21.
`
`I also worked with the team at ArsDigita including Dr. Philip
`
`Greenspun, who created the photo.net site as a hobby in 1993 while we were at MIT,
`
`and who asked me to cofound the business with him in 1999 when I came back from
`
`Microsoft. ArsDigita built public open source community web site creation tools
`
`similar to what people today call Drupal on which many thousands of websites were
`
`built, including both enterprise and consumer web sites. ArsDigita’s product came
`
`out of the work to develop photo.net, and photo.net served as a prime example site
`
`of one using the ArsDigita System as its underlying content management system.
`
`22. The photo sharing system on photo.net was built on top of a photo
`
`database engine called PhotoDB including features like key word tagging, folder,
`
`and even making custom fields that users could customize for making their own
`
`personal tables. I rebuilt and maintained much of the user interface for this in 2001
`
`until the site was sold.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`23. Because photo.net was focused on high-end amateur photographers, I
`
`worked with many consumer electronics manufacturers in the digital camera
`
`business. There, I implemented a photo sharing system involving the delivery of
`
`multimedia content. Additionally, I worked on e-commerce capabilities that
`
`involved some product configuration options. In running photo.net, I became
`
`intimately familiar with implementing file systems for use with multimedia and
`
`super high performance image encoding/decoding systems as well as real time
`
`delivery of high bandwidth content.
`
`24. Messaging and broadcasting content were a core part of the offering of
`
`the site, and I managed the implementation and hosting aspect of setting up and
`
`running various SMTP, MTA, WAP, and SMS servers to enable communication
`
`with our user base. In that regard, WAP PUSH, which is a relevant protocol to
`
`messaging, was something I worked on as well at the time.
`
`25.
`
`In 2001, I became involved with helping a rich user interface (UI) web
`
`company, Nexaweb, as both an investor and advisor. In that role, I worked on the
`
`underlying infrastructure for a device independent (mobile device, PC, etc.) way to
`
`write UIs for web application utilizing Java as a rendering engine backed by web
`
`server backend. Underlying that technology required providing server pushes over
`
`HTTP. At that time JavaScript could provide a UI but it was not standardized across
`
`
`
`9
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`browsers, which made it hard to implement reliable systems that worked across
`
`browsers—especially ones that required server push underneath it.
`
`26.
`
`In 2004, I founded Scalable Display Technologies (SDT) and I have
`
`been the President and Chairman of the company since the founding. Among its
`
`operations, SDT operates in the Audio Video domain and has licensed software and
`
`firmware to various companies including Hitachi and NEC. I also wrote a network
`
`synchronized media playback system involving encoding and decoding of video and
`
`audio content as well as real time recording and video capture, a product known as
`
`“ScalablePlayer.” I was also involved in building a network architecture using both
`
`broadcast and point-to-point communication mechanisms.
`
`27. Also, as detailed in my attached CV, I am an inventor of subject matter
`
`in approximately 10 U.S. Patents. I have also received additional patents, including:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,817,111, entitled “System and method of calibrating a display
`
`system free of variation in system input resolution”; U.S. Patent No. 8,994,757,
`
`“System and method for providing improved display quality by display adjustment
`
`and image processing using optical feedback”; U.S. Patent No. 9,215,455, “System
`
`and method of calibrating a display system free of variation in system input
`
`resolution”; U.S. Patent No. 9,369,683, “System and method for calibrating a display
`
`system using manual and semi-manual techniques”; and U.S. Patent No. 9,497,447,
`
`
`
`10
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`“System and method for color and intensity calibrating of a display system for
`
`practical usage.”
`
`28.
`
`I am co-inventor of patented technology related to instant messaging
`
`upon I which focused on technology related to U.S. Patent No. 5,943,478 and
`
`associated technology that I had developed related to pop-up, two-way messaging
`
`over the Internet. While at Microsoft, I was an inventor on several patents including:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,260,148 relating to methods and systems for message forwarding
`
`and property notifications using electronic subscriptions; and U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`6,415,318 and 6,604,133 relating to inter-enterprise messaging systems using
`
`bridgehead servers. Aspects of these patents relate specifically to messaging and
`
`notification technology in telecommunications systems.
`
`29.
`
`I am on the advisory boards of several technology companies,
`
`including: Paneve, which develops general purpose ASICs coupled with compiler
`
`technology; Nexaweb, which develops real-time web application frameworks using
`
`HTTPS; Antix Labs, which develops compiler technology for a universal gaming
`
`platform; and Permabit, which develops content addressable storage.
`
`30.
`
`I have received several awards for my contributions as an inventor and
`
`entrepreneur, including the Global Indus. Technovator Award 2009 and Laureate of
`
`2009 Computer World Honors Program.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`In parallel with my work at SDT, I lectured at MIT on many subjects
`
`31.
`
`including the Android operating system, and I worked with a group of students on
`
`developing mobile applications for Android in 2008 with Rich Miner, who is a co-
`
`founder of Android. Many students created applications involving Google Maps
`
`and localization, so I was familiar with these. I also served as a lecturer and mentor
`
`at MIT Play Labs, which was an incubator for augmented reality (AR) and virtual
`
`reality (VR) software for mobile handsets and headset applications. Notably in
`
`addition to mobile handsets, Android runs on the Oculus headset. As part of that
`
`program, I worked with several startup companies on mobile applications including
`
`one that developed applications for Telegram, which is a cross-platform, cloud-
`
`based instant messaging system.
`
`32. Since 2014, I have been working as an independent consultant for
`
`several companies including NEC, Hitachi, Hi Marley, and Estee Lauder.
`
`33.
`
`In 2018, I became a senior partner at nCent Labs. In this role, I
`
`consulted on the development of an incentive market-based platform for block
`
`chains and cryptocurrency. Part of my work at nCent Labs focused on the
`
`development of SMS messaging applications for the nCent platform. In my role
`
`there I also implemented an OTP based user authorization system.
`
`34. Between 2019 and 2020, I served as a Technical Lead of the
`
`Skunkworks at Hydrow, which is a startup company that develops indoor rowing
`
`
`
`12
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`machines. In this role, I worked on special projects including development of a
`
`virtual reality experience using Magic Leap and Oculus to immerse users in a world
`
`of team-based rowing crew on a scull based on virtual reality (VR) cinematography.
`
`35.
`
`I have published numerous papers on subjects relating to computing
`
`systems, computer network communications, databases, and other subjects within
`
`the realm of electrical and computer engineering.
`
`36.
`
`In 2020, I started a company called Skyline Nav AI Inc. that develops
`
`technology using visual location (using skyline) to geo-locate the place a picture was
`
`taken as an alternative to GPS. There I have built and maintained a login
`
`authentication system for our app skyline nav for Android Tactical Assault Kit
`
`(ATAK) a US Military program for GIS based collaboration in the field. I
`
`implemented an OTP based authentication system.
`
`37. Over the past decade, I have served as a technical consultant and expert
`
`witness on matters relating to numerous patent infringement cases. In the course of
`
`this work, I have provided consulting services to a wide variety of technology
`
`companies including BritishTelecom, Apple, IBM, Philips, Shopify, Zillow, Polaris
`
`Powered Technologies, Amazon, Salesforce, Hitachi, Slack, Harris Teeter, and
`
`others.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
` I have been teaching a Big Data class at Harvard Medical School one
`
`38.
`
`month of every year since 2018. The name of the class is “Computationally Enabled
`
`Medicine.”
`
`39. Finally, for the last 10 years I have served as an angel investor and also
`
`as a mentor for startup companies as part of different programs at MIT.
`
`40. Lastly over the last 35 years as a practicing computer scientist and
`
`engineer I have regularly interacted with login authentication systems including OTP
`
`based ones. RSA authentication based ones as well as other public and private key
`
`based ones.
`
`41. As such, I am qualified to provide opinions regarding the state of the
`
`art at the effective filing date of the ’658 Patent (which I understand to be March 6,
`
`2000) and how a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at that time would
`
`have interpreted and understood the ’658 Patent.
`
`42.
`
`I am being compensated for my work and any travel expenses in
`
`connection with this proceeding at my standard consulting rates. My compensation
`
`is in no way dependent on or contingent on the outcome of my analysis or opinions
`
`rendered in this proceeding and is in no way dependent on or contingent on the
`
`results of these or any other proceedings relating to the above-captioned patent.
`
`43. Although I am not rendering an opinion about the level of skill of a
`
`POSITA proffered by Petitioner, based on my professional experience, I have an
`
`
`
`14
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`understanding of the capabilities of a POSITA (as such a POSITA is defined by
`
`Petitioner). Over the course of my career, I have supervised and directed many such
`
`persons. Additionally, I myself, at the time the ’658 Patent was filed and at its
`
`priority date, qualified as at least a POSITA.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`44.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I reviewed the ’658 Patent, including its
`
`claims in view of its specification, the prosecution history of the ’658 Patent, and
`
`various prior art and technical references from the time of the invention.
`
`45.
`
`In addition, in preparing this declaration, I have reviewed all of the
`
`papers and exhibits in the record for inter partes review proceeding IPR2023-00425.
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`
`46.
`
`I have worked with counsel for Patent Owner in the preparation of this
`
`Declaration. Nevertheless, the opinions, statements, and conclusions offered in this
`
`Declaration are purely my own and were neither suggested nor indicated in any way
`
`by counsel or anyone other than myself. I confirmed with counsel my understanding
`
`that the term “obvious,” as used in the Petitions addressed herein and as a general
`
`matter under United States law, refers to subject matter that would have occurred to
`
`a POSITA to which the ’658 Patent is directed without inventive or creative thought.
`
`That which is obvious, it is my understanding, flows naturally from the art and the
`
`
`
`15
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`education one of skill practicing in that art would have had in the relevant time
`
`frame, which for the ’658 Patent is 2000.
`
`A. Obviousness
`
`47.
`
`I understand that a patent claim can be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if
`
`the claimed subject matter would have been “obvious” to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art as of the priority date of the patent based upon one or more prior art
`
`references. I understand that an obviousness analysis should consider each of the
`
`following so-called “Graham factors”: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2)
`
`the differences between the claims and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the pertinent art; and (4) secondary considerations, if any (such as unexpected
`
`results, commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, copying
`
`by others, licensing, and skepticism of experts).
`
`48.
`
`I understand that a conclusion of obviousness may be based upon either
`
`a single prior art reference or a combination of prior art references. However, I
`
`understand that merely demonstrating that each of the claim elements was,
`
`independently, known in the prior art does not prove that a claim composed of
`
`several known elements is obvious. In other words, I have been informed that
`
`obviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate
`
`references covering each limitation in a claim. Rather, obviousness requires the
`
`additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would
`
`
`
`16
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`have selected and combined those elements in the normal course of research and
`
`development to yield the claimed invention.
`
`49. Moreover, I understand that it can be important to identify a reason that
`
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
`
`elements in a way the claimed new invention does.
`
`50.
`
`I further understand that, to determine obviousness, courts look to the
`
`interrelated teachings of multiple patents or other prior art references, the effects of
`
`demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`51.
`
`I also understand that, in determining whether a combination of prior
`
`art references renders a claim obvious, it may be helpful to consider whether there
`
`is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references and a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in doing so. I understand, however, that the
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine inquiry is not required and may not
`
`be relied upon in lieu of the obviousness analysis outlined above.
`
`52.
`
`I understand that the following exemplary rationales may lead to a
`
`conclusion of obviousness: the combination of prior art elements according to
`
`known methods to yield predictable results; the substitution of one known element
`
`for another to obtain predictable results; and the use of known techniques to improve
`
`similar devices in the same way.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`53. However, a claim is not obvious if the improvement is more than the
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
`
`Similarly, a claim is not obvious if the application of a known technique is beyond
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`54. Further, when the prior art teaches away from combining certain known
`
`elements, discovery of successful means of combining them is not obvious. I
`
`understand that similar subject matter may not be sufficient motivation for a person
`
`of skill in the art to combine references if the references have conflicting elements.
`
`55.
`
`I understand that, in order to be used in an obviousness combination, a
`
`prior art reference must be “analogous.” I understand that 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 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. In regard to
`
`test (2), the problems to which both the reference and the claimed invention relate
`
`must be identified and compared. I also understand that Petitioner has the burden of
`
`showing a cited reference is analogous art.
`
`56.
`
`I understand that obviousness of a patent claim cannot properly be
`
`established through hindsight, and that elements from different prior art references,
`
`or different embodiments of a single prior art reference, cannot be selected to create
`
`
`
`18
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`the claimed invention using the invention itself as a roadmap. I understand that the
`
`claimed invention as a whole must be compared to the prior art as a whole, and courts
`
`must avoid aggregating pieces of prior art through hindsight that would not have
`
`been combined absent the inventors’ insight.
`
`57.
`
`I understand that obviousness is not established by simply combining
`
`previously known elements from the prior art. A patent composed of several
`
`elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements
`
`was, independently, known in the prior art. An invention is unpatentable as obvious
`
`if the differences between the patented subject matter and the prior art would have
`
`been obvious at the time of invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`58.
`
`I understand that obviousness of a patent cannot properly be established
`
`by mere conclusory statements. Instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
`
`with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
`
`When an expert opines that all the elements of a claim disparately exist in the prior
`
`art, the expert should provide the rationale to combine the disparate references. A
`
`reason for combining disparate prior art references is a critical component of an
`
`obviousness analysis. The obviousness analysis should be made explicit and needs
`
`to provide an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to identify the
`
`reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
`
`combine the elements in the way the claimed invention does.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`I also understand that inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon
`
`59.
`
`building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity
`
`will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known. This is another
`
`reason why merely pointing to the elements being known in the art in separate
`
`locations is not the end of the obviousness inquiry.
`
`60.
`
`I understand that technical experts may testify to matters like the level
`
`of skill in the art at the time of the invention and what a POSITA might find obvious
`
`in light of the prior art without addressing objective indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`However, where an expert purports to testify not just to certain factual components
`
`underlying the obviousness inquiry, but to the ultimate question of obviousness, the
`
`expert must consider all factors relevant to that ultimate question, including all
`
`objective evidence of non-obviousness. Accordingly, I have undertaken such
`
`considerations here.
`
`61.
`
`I understand that, to render obvious a patent claim the prior art
`
`references must be enabling. That is, the references must provide sufficient
`
`information to allow one skilled in the art to practice what is disclosed without undue
`
`experimentation. I understand that, while a prior art reference may support any
`
`finding apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior art references that
`
`address different problems may not, depending on the art and circumstances, support
`
`an inference that the POSITA would consult both of them simultaneously.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`
`B.
`
`Secondary Considerations
`
`62.
`
`I understand that one of the so-called Graham factors that must be
`
`considered in determining obviousness is the existence of any secondary
`
`considerations, which tend to show that a patent claim is not obvious. Such
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness of a patent include (1) long-felt and
`
`unmet need in the art that was satisfied by the claimed invention of the patent; (2)
`
`failure of others to achieve the results of the claimed invention; (3) commercial
`
`success or lack thereof of the products and processes covered by the claimed
`
`invention; (4) deliberate copying of the claimed invention by others in the field; (5)
`
`taking of licenses under the patent by others; (6) whether the claimed invention was
`
`contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art; (7) expression of disbelief or
`
`skepticism by those skilled in the art upon learning of the claimed invention; (8)
`
`unexpected results achieved by the claimed invention; (9) praise of the claimed
`
`invention by others skilled in the art; and (10) lack of contemporaneous and
`
`independent invention by others.
`
`63.
`
`I understand that each of these considerations may form an independent
`
`basis for non-obviousness of a patent. I also understand that the fact that another
`
`person simultaneously and independently created the same invention claimed in an
`
`asserted patent can serve as an indication that the invention was obvious.
`
`
`
`21
`
`Ex. 2003
`Unified Patents, LLC v. Dynapass IP Holdings LLC, IPR2023-00425
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00425
`Patent 6,993,658
`I also have been informed by counsel that there must be a nexus
`
`64.
`
`between any such secondary