UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner
`Case IPR2023-00701
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407 B1
`
`_____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN KEMBEL
`
`
`____________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner
`Case IPR2023-00701
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,510,407 B1
`
`_____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN KEMBEL
`
`
`
`I.
`
`I, John Kembel, declare as follows.
`Introduction
`1.
`I am one of the named co-inventors for United States Patent No.
`
`8,510,407. At the time of the invention, I was the Chief Technology Officer and a
`
`co-founder of DoDots, Inc.
`
`2.
`
`Along with my twin brother, George Kembel, we founded DoDots,
`
`Inc. with a goal of disrupting and changing the paradigm of how internet content
`
`was created by companies and how it was delivered to users.
`
`3.
`
`As discussed below in detail, we realized that existing web browsers
`
`had significant limitations -- trapping content in monolithic documents, and
`
`requiring users to navigate from site to site, one page at a time. This presented an
`
`unexpected opportunity for a novel internet technology, one that broke out of the
`
`page-based browsing model and instead packaged interactive content in forms that
`
`felt more like “apps”, while maintaining all the flexibility of the web.
`
`4.
`
`At the time, other (large) technology companies were taking a range
`
`of approaches to advancing the web, including: developing portals, media
`
`channels, news streams, even pursuing the webification of operating systems. We
`
`took a different approach, breaking out of the dominant browser and web-page
`
`paradigm, and envisioning a more “app”-centric internet. This paradigm proved to
`
`be prophetic as it is now reflected in the ubiquitous App and App ecosystem.
`
`1
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Identifying a Long-Felt Need & a Non-obvious Innovation Opportunity
`5.
`As a threshold matter, I am not a lawyer, but I have been informed by
`
`counsel that courts may often look at “evidence that an invention satisfied a long-
`
`felt and unmet need that existed on the patent’s filing date.” With this in mind,
`
`there was certainly the existence of a need to change how users accessed and
`
`interacted with content on the internet. At the time of invention, my brother and I
`
`began to appreciate that there was a constellation of needs from users and content
`
`providers that was not being met by the primary means of accessing internet
`
`content at the time, a web browser. Specifically, the limitations of web browsers
`
`and page-based web sites kept companies from engaging customers directly,
`
`content creators from developing interactive app-like experiences, and users from
`
`easily accessing the information and functionality they wanted from the
`
`burgeoning internet.
`
`6.
`
`As our patents note, “internet content and web applications are
`
`designed to fill the entire web page.” See ’083 patent, 2:5-35. “Users and
`
`application developers therefore have limited control over the presentation of
`
`internet content: content is typically trapped within the frame of the browser.” Id.
`
`Under this paradigm, the internet at the time of the invention had the following
`
`limitations:
`
`2
`
`
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`Internet content was typically viewed by users one page at a time,
`with each page displayed serially in a browser application window
`which took up the majority of a user's computer screen real estate.
`Internet content was designed by companies and web developers for
`delivery in the form of web pages. Even if content was modularized, it
`was reassembled into full web pages and served up as part of a larger
`document or site.
`There was a distinction both visually and architecturally between the
`“viewer application” (browser) and the “content/document” (web
`page) such that a browser window was not tailored to the content
`being displayed, but rather mediated the display of any web page.
`Internet content was effectively limited and trapped within the
`“frame” of the browser (viewer application). Therefore, content and
`web developers were limited in how interactive their content could be
`as well as in the types of user experiences they could offer.
`Although internet programming technologies (such as Java script,
`CSS, layers, flash, etc.) gave web pages more functionality, the pages
`had limited access to application functionality such as controlling the
`window and frame, the size of the frame, branding, application
`behavior such as size and menu items, etc.
`See also ’083 patent, 2:60-3:29.
`7.
`As we began to commercialize our product, it became apparent that
`
`e)
`
`multiple people had recognized the limitations of accessing internet content with a
`
`web browser.
`
`8.
`
`In fact, leading experts in the field recognized that the paradigm of
`
`web browsers navigating web pages was holding the internet back. In a February
`
`21, 2000 article published in Forbes magazine, the author wrote “Tim Berners-Lee,
`
`the creator of the World Wide Web, thinks [the browser] stifles creativity. Jakob
`
`3
`
`
`
`Nielsen, the reigning guru of Web usability, thinks [web browsers are] a disgrace.
`
`Bill Gates wishes it would just go away and become ‘part of the operating
`
`system.’” See Ex. 2022 (Gimein, Mark, “Imagining a Web Beyond the Browser,”
`
`Forbes, Feb. 21, 2000 (DODOTS0026225)).
`
`9.
`
`These experts and others pointed to the “bookification” of the internet
`
`and emphasized that it created a slow and unwieldy process of browsing web
`
`content by clicking on links to navigate forward or backward, step-by-step.
`
`Moreover, the paged-based paradigm of the web led to information being
`
`predominantly organized in hierarchical structures akin to document outlines –
`
`which worked well for news, articles, and other static content, but was
`
`cumbersome and counterintuitive as content became increasingly interactive.
`
`10. The web browser also meant whoever owned the initial browser
`
`landing page, search engines and portals became the mediator of the user
`
`experience separating users from direct access to the content and services they
`
`might want and companies from their customers. And the rising internet
`
`disconnected companies from their customers, customers from their solution
`
`providers and developers and users. It anointed a new class of intermediaries (web
`
`portals, search engines and more) to navigate the web page by page document
`
`model.
`
`4
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Indeed, the 2000 Forbes article noted that the prevailing knowledge
`
`was that people “hate[d] the browser because it turns the Web into nothing more
`
`than ‘pages.’ That metaphor works well for reading text, but less well for other
`
`purposes. Like a book, the browser functions best when one is looking at one page,
`
`and much worse if one wants to look at several at once. It does little to help people
`
`exchange information (unless pasting Web addresses into email is your ideal
`
`information-management solution). When it comes to building applications,
`
`adapting software to the ‘page’ makes for clunky design.” See Ex. 2022 at
`
`DODOTS0026225.
`
`12. This point was echoed by another article stating that “[t]he big
`
`problem with the typical browser is that it relies on the metaphor of pages in a
`
`book; you can view only one page at a time then click on another. That is fine for
`
`displaying a simple brochure, but it’s a big step backward as far as users’ interfaces
`
`are concerned. Some experts liken it to the limited interfaces of computers in the
`
`1970s. The printed page is a wonderful thing for communication but it is crippling
`
`what we can do on the internet.” See Ex. 2023, Lyons, D., “Browser Bashers,”
`
`Forbes, May 15, 2000 (DODOTS0026105).
`
`13. As such, navigating the internet was a tedious process. One article
`
`noted that “There’s too much happening, and accessing even the simplest stuff - a
`
`quickie stock quote or weather forecast - takes too long. Sure, I can bookmark
`
`5
`
`
`
`favorite sites or customize a portal page. But those involve surfing from site to site.
`What if I’m not in the mood, or simply don’t have the time? Why must I be exposed
`
`to a full Web page each time I want to digest a slice of the material on display?” See
`
`Ex. 2024, Baig, E., “Bits of Organization Clear Clutter,” USA Today,
`
`(DODOTS 0026099).
`
`14. Elaborating on this point, another article noted that browsers were an
`
`issue because “[l]inks go only in one direction instead of two, so it is difficult to
`
`retrace your steps; it takes too many mouse clicks to get from one place to another;
`
`the arrangement of information sometimes makes no sense. And many sites are just
`
`plain ugly.” See Ex. 2023 at DODOTS0026105-06.
`
`15.
`
`Put another way, “the basic problem is that typical Web sites arrange
`
`information in a hierarchical structure. You spot an underlined ‘link,’ click on it
`
`and go down one step, then another, then another-then realize you're in the wrong
`
`place. So, you back up, back up, back up, then start all over again on a different
`
`ladder.” Id. at DODOTS0026104.
`
`16. This archaic structure was simply cumbersome. “Nobody would
`
`expect to explore the world’s biggest library page by page, yet some would say
`
`that’s exactly what it’s like trying to get around on the Internet” using a web
`
`browser. Navigating, using a web browser was neither “intuitive nor as visual as it
`
`6
`
`
`
`ought to be.” See Ex. 2025, Heim, K., “Tools turn browser into galaxy,” SJ
`
`Mercury News, July 7, 2000 (DODOTS0026228).
`
`17.
`
`In fact, Donald Norman – recognized interaction design guru and
`
`President of Unext’s learning division – at the time noted, “We need to just forget
`
`the browser. The browser has set us back ten years.” See Ex. 2023 at
`
`DODOTS0026106-07.
`
`18.
`
`In sum, a “growing dissatisfaction with the way the Web looks and
`
`works. Many critics blame the browser.” And, another expert noted “Web usability
`
`is a disgrace. … For seven years, we’ve had close to zero progress in enhancing
`
`the user’s main tool for using the internet.” Id. at DODOTS0026105.
`
`19. People craved change. In May 18, 2000, an article in the Wall Street
`
`Journal also noted that “[f]or lots of people, the Web has ceased to be about idle
`
`browsing. Instead, they’ve settled on a routine collection of sites related to their work
`
`or interests, …. When you approach the Web that way, the standard browser
`
`experience becomes tedious.” See Ex. 2026, Mossberg, W., “New Metabrowsers
`
`Allow You To Create a Quilt of Web Pages,” Wall Street Journal, May 18, 2000
`
`(DODOTS0026232).
`
`20. Because of these issues several companies were working on ways to
`
`change the basic architecture of standard web pages. Id. For example, Microsoft
`
`sought to merge the internet into the operating system through “webification” of
`
`7
`
`
`
`their ubiquitous Windows products. Likewise, other companies created web
`
`portals, media channels, and search engines. But none of those strategies moved in
`
`the direction our company eventually took.
`
`21.
`
`This is where we directed our energies because the limitations of web
`
`browsers and page-based web sites were clear. We believed that the potential of
`
`the internet extended far beyond simply consuming information and content
`
`trapped in documents.
`
`III.
`
`Inventing & Developing a Novel Internet Technology: The Dot
`22.
`To address these limitations, we applied a rigorous design and
`
`innovation process to create a new and novel set of internet technologies. We
`
`realized that by breaking out of the dominant page-based paradigm of the web,
`
`companies would be able to engage their customers directly, web developers
`
`would be able to develop new app-like experiences, and users would be able to
`
`more easily access the information and interactive functionality they wanted from
`
`the rapidly growing internet.
`
`23. We envisioned a new way to package and distribute interactive web
`
`content outside of the web browser in small configurable windows that felt more
`
`like native software applications than static web pages. By packaging and
`
`delivering select web content in lightweight and configurable windows, new
`
`internet-powered and interactive “app”-like experiences were made possible across
`
`8
`
`
`
`a range of computer and mobile devices. We called these new web-based
`
`applications “Dots”.
`
`24. We founded a venture-backed startup (“DoDots”) to pursue this vision
`
`and to commercialize the technology. At the time, our company’s marketing
`
`materials described Dots as follows:
`
`See Ex. 2027 – DoDots Brochure (DODOTS0025768).
`
`25.
`
`Each Dot could be tailored for a specific purpose and deliver select
`
`information and interaction features accordingly – such as for weather, games,
`
`dictionaries, maps & traffic, financial information, or e-commerce. As an
`
`example, here’s a screenshot of one of the first Dots offered by ecommerce leader
`
`mySimon:
`
`9
`
`
`
`Ex. 2033 at DODOTS0024868.
`
`26. Dots could be branded by the companies or web developers that
`
`created them, and they could be distributed directly to their end-users, rather than
`
`having to reach customers through content mediators such as portals and search
`
`engines. Moreover, instead of navigating cumbersome browsers to different web
`
`sites (page-by-page), users could simply open up the Dots they wished to use. And,
`
`because Dots lived outside the browser, they could stay visible and persistent as
`
`users used other native software applications. An example of the range of Dots could
`
`been seen in the example below:
`
`10
`
`
`
`Id. Ex. 2028 at 11.
`27. Because Dots could be persistent on a user’s computer or device,
`
`companies could make timely information and interactive applications available
`
`directly to their customers, as described below.
`
`Ex. 2027 at DODOTS0025771.
`
`28. And, since Dots were independent of each other, multiple Dots could
`
`be used at the same time. Users could collect, organize, and share Dots in sets
`
`called “DotPacks”. DotPacks could be easily opened and closed with a single
`
`11
`
`
`
`click. This simplified task switching and helped users seamlessly integrate useful
`
`Dot applications into their day-to-day computing experience. Our marketing
`
`materials explained this as follows:
`
`Id. at DODOTS0025768.
`
`29.
`
`Leveraging these capabilities, companies could offer sophisticated,
`
`real-time, multi-dot “application” experiences, tailored for their customers' unique
`
`needs. Moreover, companies could better track and understand how their users
`
`interacted with specific content. The following financial Dots show this:
`
`12
`
`
`
`Id. at DODOTS0025773.
`30. Additionally, because Dots enabled interactive web content and
`
`applications to be displayed in smaller, dedicated windows, Dots could naturally be
`
`made available on various devices with displays of all sizes, as noted below:
`
`Id . at DODOTS0025772.
`
`31.
`
`Importantly, this also allowed for Dots to offer a seamless experience
`
`across customer mobile devices as seen in the following excerpt:
`
`13
`
`
`
`Id. at DODOTS0025769.
`
`32. At the heart of the Dot architecture was the notion of “Dot Templates”
`
`(also known as “Dot Definitions”). Dot Templates defined the “package” – the
`
`attributes of the small, dedicated windows – for each Dot’s web content and
`
`interactive applications, as described in the excerpt below:
`
`14
`
`
`
`Ex. 2028 – Technical Overview at 1.
`
`33. Dot Templates could consist of three primary elements: a Topbar, a
`
`Bottombar, and a Web Control. Every element could be designed and branded in a
`
`manner consistent with the Dot’s functionality and purpose. Id.
`
`34.
`
`Through the Dot Templates, DoDots offered a lightweight and
`
`configurable system that enabled fully configurable Dots with content in
`
`interactive applications that existed outside the browser.
`
`35. Additionally, Dot-enabled devices were described in the following
`
`excerpts:
`
`15
`
`
`
`Ex. 2028 – Technical Overview at 4-5. The Dot-enabled devices could access
`
`collection of Dots – get new Dots, open and close specific Dots and DotPacks,
`
`even share Dots and DotPacks.
`
`36. As we continued to refine and develop the Dots technology, we
`
`created a digital infrastructure and development platform for content creators and
`
`web developers to create and publish Dots.
`
`37. Becoming a Dot Developer was easy, as it did not require advanced
`
`software coding skills, but rather was accessible to anyone versed in the fast-
`
`emerging web design and development practices. As such, we launched a Dot
`
`Developer program and made development tools and documentation available to
`
`companies, brands, and independent developers.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Ex. 2029 (DoDots Developer Brochure) at 1.
`
`38. Using our tools, a Dot Developer could quickly define a new Dot, set
`
`its window size and attributes, and customize its branding. This was done as
`
`follows:
`
`17
`
`
`
`Id. at 1-2.
`
`39. A Dot Developer could create the interactive web content and
`
`application functionality for the Dot. Anything that could be rendered in a browser
`
`could be packaged in a Dot. Moreover, this “Dot Content” could be hosted and
`
`served by their own standard web servers. Companies and developers appreciated
`
`this as developing Dots did not require extra expensive tooling or custom
`
`hardware.
`
`Ex. 2027 at DODOTS0025772.
`
`40.
`
`In addition to offering interactivity through the development of Dot
`
`Content, Dot Developers could also leverage the DoDots “Dot Messaging”
`
`18
`
`
`
`protocol to give users a full, application-like experience. Dot Messages enabled
`
`Dot Content to modify a Dot’s behavior, communicate with and access additional
`
`HomeDot services, and interact with other Dots. Examples of Dot messages
`
`included:
`
`Ex. 2045 at 2.
`
`19
`
`
`
`And, Dot messages could be routed as follows:
`
`Ex. 2045 at 3.
`
`41. Once a Dot’s Content was designed and developed, a Dot developer
`
`finished defining their new Dot by specifying an URL pointing to where that
`
`content was hosted.
`
`Ex. 2029 – Dot Developer Guide at 2.
`
`20
`
`
`
`42. A key benefit of allowing companies and developers to host their own
`
`Dot Content was that the content could be delivered directly to end users without
`
`going through any intermediaries such as portals, search engines, or even browsers.
`
`43.
`
`Finally, to publish a new Dot, a Dot Developer simply needed to
`
`provide enough information to index it appropriately and for end users to find it.
`
`Ex. 2029 – Dot Developer Guide at 2.
`
`44. All of the relevant characteristics of a Dot’s design could be described
`
`in XML as described below:
`
`Ex. 2027 at DODOTS0025850.
`
`45. DoDots maintained XML schemas for valid Dot Templates (along
`
`with Dot Shares, User Profiles, and Sessions) . Here’s an excerpt from such a spec:
`
`21
`
`
`
`Ex. 2045 at 4.
`
`46. When a new Dot was published the Dot’s description was saved to the
`
`DoDots application server, and the Dot became immediately accessible to end
`
`users.
`
`Ex. 2027 at DODOTS0025772.
`
`22
`
`
`
`47.
`
`End users could collect Dots they were interested in a variety of ways.
`
`And instead of downloading custom software for each Dot “application”, only Dot
`
`Templates needed to be transferred to the user’s device. A Dot’s definition was all
`
`that was required for a new Dot instance to be rendered, pulling all necessary
`
`branding and interactive content directly from the internet.
`
`Ex. 2028 at 4.
`
`48.
`
`The Dot digital infrastructure allowed for the transmission of requests
`
`for Dot descriptions or content for dots over a web server, receive those Dots
`
`descriptions, and the presentation of information on devices after receiving that
`
`content, as seen in the exemplary diagrams below:
`
`23
`
`
`
`Ex. 2027 at DODOTS0025773.
`
`Ex 2045 at 1.
`
`49. This technology was decades ahead of its time. Indeed, we believed
`
`that creating interactive web applications that felt like user-friendly apps rather
`
`than “pages” had the potential to change the way users interacted with the Web. A
`
`thought validated by the fact that our invention has been adopted across modern
`
`mobile devices.
`
`50.
`
`I was involved in the design/development and commercialization of
`
`Dots at DoDots and am also an inventor on all the DoDots patents. Based on my
`
`knowledge of Dots as well as my review of DODOTS-2026, 2027, 2028, 2029,
`
`and 2045, which is source code and detailed technical materials describing the
`
`operation/configuration of Dots, I believe that the ’083 patent, ’407 patent, and
`
`’545 patent accurately describes the Dot technology.
`
`24
`
`
`
`IV. Closing
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own
`51.
`knowledge 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
`
`and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the results of these
`
`proceedings.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`zoth
`BOULDER,C O
`Sworn to this __day of February, 2024 in ______, _______.
`fundha
`hl
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`John Kembel
`
`25
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
