IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` Attorney Docket No.: 39843-0157IP1
`
`Gregory G. Raleigh, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`9,521,578
`U.S. Patent No.:
`December 13, 2016
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 14/689,512
`Filing Date:
`April 17, 2015
`Title:
`WIRELESS END-USER DEVICE WITH APPLICATION
`PROGRAM INTERFACE TO ALLOW APPLICATIONS TO
`ACCESS APPLICATION-SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF A WIRELESS
`NETWORK ACCESS POLICY
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. PATRICK McDANIEL
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made of my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true. I further
`
`declare 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 the Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Dated: August 25, 2023
`
`By:
`
` Patrick McDaniel, Ph.D.
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`ASSIGNMENT .............................................................................................. 3
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED .............................................. 7
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Terminology ........................................................................................ 9
`
`Legal Standards ................................................................................... 9
`
`Anticipation ....................................................................................... 10
`
`D. Obviousness ....................................................................................... 10
`
`VI. MATERIALS CONSIDERED .................................................................... 14
`
`VII. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW.................................................................... 17
`
`A. Mobile Devices .................................................................................. 17
`
`B.
`
`Resource Management in Mobile Devices ....................................... 20
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’578 PATENT ........................................................ 22
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Specification ...................................................................................... 22
`
`Claims ................................................................................................ 24
`
`Prosecution History ........................................................................... 31
`
`IX.
`
`INTERPRETATION OF THE ’578 PATENT CLAIMS ........................... 32
`
`X.
`
`SUMMARY OF RELEVANT PRIOR ART .............................................. 32
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Rao (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2006/0039354) .................................. 32
`
`Oestvall (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2007/0038763) ........................... 37
`
`C. Montemurro (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2009/0207817) .................... 40
`
`XI. GROUND 1: Rao in view of Oestvall and Montemurro renders
`obvious claims 1-22 ..................................................................................... 43
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Combination of Rao and Oestvall ..................................................... 43
`
`Combination of Rao, Oestvall, and Montemurro .............................. 47
`
`Analysis of the Claims ...................................................................... 50
`
`XII. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 129
`
`2
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`
`
`I, Patrick McDaniel of Verona, Wisconsin, declare that:
`
`I.
`
`ASSIGNMENT
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`(“Samsung”) to offer technical opinions related to 9,521,578 (“the ’578 patent”)
`
`(SAMSUNG-1001). I understand that Samsung is requesting that the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`proceeding of the ’578 patent.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent analysis of the ’578
`
`patent based on the prior art publications cited in this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I am not and never have been, an employee of Samsung. I received no
`
`compensation for this declaration beyond my normal hourly compensation based
`
`on my time actually spent analyzing the ’578 patent, the prior art publications cited
`
`below, and issues related thereto, and I will not receive any added compensation
`
`based on the outcome of any IPR or other proceeding involving the ’578 patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`I am over the age of 18 and am competent to write this declaration. I
`
`have personal knowledge, or have developed knowledge of these technologies
`
`based upon education, training, or experience, of the matters set forth herein.
`
`5. My qualifications are summarized here and explained in more detail
`
`in my curriculum vitae, which is attached as Appendix A to this report. Appendix
`
`3
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`A also includes a list of my publications and the cases in which I have testified at
`
`deposition, hearing, or trial within the past four years.
`
`6.
`
`I earned a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the Computer Science and
`
`Engineering Department at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor in 2001. I earned a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from Ohio University in 1989,
`
`and a Master of Science degree, also in Computer Science, from Ball State
`
`University in 1991.
`
`7.
`
`Since 2022, I have been Tsun-Ming Shih Professor of Computer
`
`Sciences in the School of Computer, Data and Information Sciences at the
`
`University of Wisconsin-Madison. Prior to my move to Wisconsin, I was the
`
`William L. Weiss Professor of Information and Communications Technology in
`
`the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the Pennsylvania
`
`State University in University Park, PA. I was also the director of the Institute for
`
`Network and Security Research, and founder and co-director of the Systems and
`
`Internet Infrastructure Security Laboratory, a research laboratory focused on the
`
`study of security in diverse network and computer environments. My research
`
`efforts primarily involve computer systems, network management and
`
`authentication, systems security, and technical public policy.
`
`8.
`
`Prior to 2017, I was an Assistant Professor (2004-2007), Associate
`
`Professor (2007-2011), Full Professor (2011-2015), and Distinguished Professor
`
`4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`(2016-2017) of Computer Science and Engineering and the William L. Weiss
`
`Professor of Information and Communications Technology (2017-2022) at the
`
`Pennsylvania State University. Since 2004, I have taught courses in the field of
`
`computer systems, systems programming, mobile device security, networks, and
`
`network and computer security at both the undergraduate and graduate level. I
`
`created and maintained several of these courses at Penn State. I began teaching
`
`cybersecurity courses at the University of Wisconsin-Madison but will teach a
`
`network security course in Fall of 2023.
`
`9.
`
`From 2003-2009, I was also an Adjunct Professor at the Stern School
`
`of Business at New York University in New York, NY. At the Stern School of
`
`Business, I taught courses in computer and network security and online privacy.
`
`10.
`
`I am a Fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM,
`
`the leading professional association for computer science), a Fellow Institute for
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IEEE, the leading professional association
`
`for engineering), and Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of
`
`Science (AAAS, the leading professional association for science).
`
`11.
`
`I am the director of the NSF Frontier Center for Trustworthy Machine
`
`Learning (CTML), a research organization exploring security and privacy of
`
`machine learning (and AI in general). Funded by the US National Science
`
`Foundation, the CTML is led by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and has
`
`5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`members from Stanford, the University of California, Berkeley, The University of
`
`California-San Diego, and the University of Virginia.
`
`12.
`
`I was the Program Manager (PM) and lead scientist for the Cyber
`
`Security Collaborative Research Alliance (CRA). The CRA is led by Penn State
`
`University and includes faculty and researchers the Army Research Laboratory,
`
`Carnegie Mellon University, Indiana University, the University of California-
`
`Davis, and the University of California-Riverside. This initiative is a major
`
`research project aimed at developing a new science of cyber-security for military
`
`networks, computers, and installations.
`
`13.
`
`I have served as an advisor to several Ph.D. and master’s degree
`
`candidates, several of whom have gone on to become professors at various
`
`institutions such as North Carolina State University, Purdue University, the
`
`University of Toronto, the University of Oregon, and the Georgia Institute of
`
`Technology and the University of Florida. I am currently an advisor to seven Ph.D.
`
`students.
`
`14. Before joining Pennsylvania State University as a professor, I was a
`
`software developer and project manager for companies in the networking industry
`
`including Applied Innovation, Inc., and Primary Access Corporation. I was also a
`
`senior researcher at AT&T Research-Labs (previously known as Bell Labs). As
`
`part of my duties in these industrial positions, I informed, reviewed, and formed
`
`6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`corporate policies and practices relating to the security of mobile devices,
`
`networks, and software systems.
`
`15. As shown in Appendix A, I have published extensively in the field of
`
`mobile security, network and security management, computer systems,
`
`authentication, systems security, applied cryptography and network security. In
`
`addition to writing several articles for industry journals and conferences, I have
`
`authored portions of numerous books related to computer systems, applied
`
`cryptography and network security. I have served on the editorial boards of several
`
`peer-reviewed journals including ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, for
`
`which I was the Editor-in-Chief. I was also an Associate Editor for ACM
`
`Transactions on Information and System Security and IEEE Transactions of
`
`Software Engineering, two highly regarded journals in the field. My curriculum
`
`vitae, attached as Appendix A, includes a list of publications on which I am an
`
`author. It contains details regarding my experience, education, publications, and
`
`other qualifications to provide an expert opinion in connection with this
`
`proceeding.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED
`
`16. This Declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed based on
`
`my analysis. Based on my review, claims 1-22 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the
`
`’578 patent are unpatentable. To summarize those conclusions:
`
`7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
` Ground 1: Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of
`
`the prior art publications in this declaration, I believe that claims 1-22 are
`
`obvious in view of the Rao, Oestvall, and Montemurro references.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have the skill and
`
`experience of an ordinary worker in the field at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`The ’578 patent was filed April 17, 2015, and claims priority to many provisional
`
`applications, the earliest of which was filed January 28, 2009, which I refer to as
`
`the “Critical Date” in this proceeding. Because I do not know at what date the
`
`invention as claimed was made, if ever, I have used the Critical Date of the ’578
`
`patent as the point in time for claim interpretation purposes. My opinion does not
`
`change if the invention date is earlier.
`
`18. Based on my knowledge and experience in the field and my review of
`
`the ’578 patent and file history, I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`this matter would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`
`electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) three to five years of experience
`
`with networking, power consumption of networked computing devices, and/or
`
`wireless digital communications systems. Additional graduate education could
`
`substitute for professional experience, and vice versa. Based on my experiences, I
`
`8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`have a good understanding of the capabilities of a POSITA. Indeed, I have taught,
`
`mentored, advised, and collaborated closely with many such individuals over the
`
`course of my career.
`
`V. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A. Terminology
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that the best
`
`indicator of claim meaning is its usage in the context of the patent specification as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill. I further understand that the words of the
`
`claims should be given their plain meaning unless that meaning is inconsistent with
`
`the patent specification or the patent’s history of examination before the Patent
`
`Office. Counsel has also informed me, and I understand that, the words of the
`
`claims should be interpreted as they would have been interpreted by one of
`
`ordinary skill at the time of the invention was made (not today). I have been
`
`informed by Counsel that I should use January 28, 2009 as the point in time for
`
`claim interpretation purposes.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standards
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that documents and
`
`materials that qualify as prior art can render a patent claim unpatentable as being
`
`anticipated or obvious. I am informed by Counsel and understand that all prior art
`
`references are to be looked at from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention, and that this viewpoint prevents one from using
`
`9
`
`

`

`his or her own insight or hindsight in deciding whether a claim is anticipated or
`
`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`rendered obvious.
`
`C. Anticipation
`
`21.
`
`I understand that patents or printed publications that qualify as prior
`
`art can be used to invalidate a patent claim as anticipated or as obvious. I
`
`understand that, once the claims of a patent have been properly construed, the
`
`second step in determining anticipation of a patent claim requires a comparison of
`
`the properly construed claim language to the prior art on a limitation-by-limitation
`
`basis. I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted claim, and
`
`thus renders the claim invalid, if all limitations of the claim are disclosed in that
`
`prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently (i.e., necessarily present).
`
`D. Obviousness
`
`22.
`
`I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if
`
`the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`
`was made to a POSITA. I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a
`
`claim is unpatentable for obviousness and that obviousness may be based upon a
`
`combination of references. I am informed by Counsel and understand that the
`
`combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
`
`obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. However, I am
`
`10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`informed by Counsel and understand that a patent claim composed of several
`
`elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements
`
`was, independently, known in the prior art.
`
`23.
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that when a patented
`
`invention is a combination of known elements, a court determines whether there
`
`was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by
`
`the patent at issue by considering the teachings of prior art references, the effects
`
`of demands known to people working in the field or present in the marketplace,
`
`and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`24.
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that a patent claim
`
`composed of several limitations is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating
`
`that each of its limitations was independently known in the prior art. I am informed
`
`by Counsel and understand that identifying a reason those elements would be
`
`combined can be important because inventions in many instances rely upon
`
`building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity
`
`will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known. I am informed by
`
`Counsel and understand that it is improper to use hindsight in an obviousness
`
`analysis, and that a patent’s claims should not be used as a “roadmap.” I am
`
`informed by Counsel and understand that an obviousness inquiry requires
`
`11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`consideration of the following factors: (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 so called “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness,
`
`which include: (i) “long felt need” for the claimed invention, (ii) commercial
`
`success attributable to the claimed invention, (iii) unexpected results of the claimed
`
`invention, and (iv) “copying” of the claimed invention by others.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that an obviousness
`
`evaluation can be based on a single reference or a combination of multiple prior art
`
`references. I understand that the prior art references themselves may provide a
`
`suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine, but that the nexus linking two or
`
`more prior art references is sometimes simple common sense. I have been
`
`informed by Counsel and understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace. I have been informed by Counsel and understand that if a technique
`
`has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill at the time of
`
`invention would have recognized that it would improve similar devices in the same
`
`way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
`
`her skill.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that practical and
`
`common sense considerations should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because
`
`familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I have been
`
`informed by Counsel and understand that a person of ordinary skill looking to
`
`overcome a problem will often be able to fit together the teachings of multiple
`
`prior art references. I have been informed by Counsel and understand that
`
`obviousness analysis therefore takes into account the inferences and creative steps
`
`that a person of ordinary skill would have employed at the time of invention.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a proper
`
`obviousness analysis focuses on what was known or obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill at the time of invention, not just the patentee. Accordingly, I
`
`understand that any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`
`invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the
`
`elements in the manner claimed. I have been informed by Counsel and understand
`
`that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference, without the need to
`
`combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not found explicitly or
`
`inherently in the reference can be supplied by the common sense of one of skill in
`
`the art.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that there must be a
`
`relationship between any such secondary considerations and the invention, and that
`
`13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary consideration
`
`supporting an obviousness determination. In sum, my understanding is that prior
`
`art teachings are properly combined where one of ordinary skill having the
`
`understanding and knowledge reflected in the prior art and motivated by the
`
`general problem facing the inventor, would have been led to make the combination
`
`of elements recited in the claims. Under this analysis, the prior art references
`
`themselves, or any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`
`the invention, can provide a reason for combining the elements of multiple prior art
`
`references in the claimed manner. I have been informed by Counsel and understand
`
`that in an inter partes review, “the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a
`
`proposition of unpatentability,” including a proposition of obviousness, “by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. §316(e).
`
`VI. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`29. My analysis and conclusions set forth in this declaration are based on
`
`my educational background and experiences in the field (see Section II). Based on
`
`my knowledge and experience, I believe that I am considered to be an expert in the
`
`field. Also, based on my knowledge and experience, I understand and know of the
`
`capabilities of persons of ordinary skill in the field around 2009, and I taught,
`
`participated in organizations, and worked closely with many such persons in the
`
`field during that time frame.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`30. As part of my independent analysis for this declaration, I have
`
`considered the following: the background knowledge/technologies that were
`
`commonly known to persons of ordinary skill in this art during the time before the
`
`earliest claimed priority date for the ’578 patent; my own knowledge and
`
`experiences gained from my work experience in the field of the ’578 patent and
`
`related disciplines; and my experience in working with others involved in this field
`
`and related disciplines.
`
`31.
`
`In addition, I have analyzed the following publications and materials:
`
` SAMSUNG-1001
`‘578 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,521,578 to Raleigh, et al. (“the
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ‘578
` SAMSUNG-1002
`Patent (“the Prosecution History”)
`
` SAMSUNG-1005
`
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2006/0039354 (“Rao”)
`
` SAMSUNG-1006
`(“Oestvall”)
`
` SAMSUNG-1007
`(“Montemurro”)
`
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2007/0038763
`
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2009/0207817
`
` SAMSUNG-1009
`
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2008/0080458 (“Cole”)
`
` SAMSUNG-1010
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,987,611 (“Freund”)
`
` SAMSUNG-1011
`
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2009/0217065 (“Araujo”)
`
` SAMSUNG-1012
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,821,985 (“Van Megen”)
`
`15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
` SAMSUNG-1013
`
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2008/0101293 (“Woo”)
`
` SAMSUNG-1014
`
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2007/0173283 (“Livet”)
`
` SAMSUNG-1015
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,381,127 (“Singh”)
`
`Flinn, Jason, et al. “The case for intentional
` SAMSUNG-1016
`networking,” Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Mobile Computing
`Systems and Applications, 2009 (“Flinn”)
`
` SAMSUNG-1018
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,407,345 (“Lim”)
`
` SAMSUNG-1019
`(“Schallert”)
`
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2009/0019022
`
`David Flanagan, O’Reilly & Associates, Inc.,
` SAMSUNG-1020
`“Java in a Nutshell,” 1996, ISBN: I-56592-183-6
`
` SAMSUNG-1021 W. Richard Stevens, et. al, “UNIX Network
`Programming Volume 1, Third Edition: The Sockets Networking API,”
`2004, ISBN: 0-13-141155-1
`
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2009/0093247 to
` SAMSUNG-1022
`Srinivasan (“Srinivasan”)
`
` SAMSUNG-1023
`(“Segal”)
`
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2008/0311897 to Segal
`
`Buxton, B., “Integrating the Periphery and
` SAMSUNG-1024
`Context: A New Model of Telematics,” in Proceedings of Graphics
`Interface ’95, 1995
`
` SAMSUNG-1025 Hinckley et al., “Foreground and background
`interaction with sensor-enhanced mobile devices,” ACM Trans. Comput.
`Hum. Interact., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 31–52, Mar. 2005
`
`International Publication No. WO 03/100581 to
` SAMSUNG-1026
`Dive-Reclus (“Dive-Reclus”)
`
`16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
` SAMSUNG-1027
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,757,185 (“Paquette”)
`
` SAMSUNG-1028 Westerinen, et al., IETF RFC 3198, Terminology
`for Policy-Based Management, November 2001, available at
`https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3198.txt
`
`Durham, et. al., IETF RFC 2748, “The COPS
` SAMSUNG-1029
`(Common Open Policy Service) Protocol,” January 2000, downloaded
`from the internet at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2748.html on
`August 1, 2023
`
` SAMSUNG-1034 W. Richard Stevens, UNIX Network
`Programming, Prentice Hall, 1990
`
`A. Freier, et al., The Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)
` SAMSUNG-1035
`Protocol Version 3.0, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Request
`for Comments: 6101, ISSN: 2070-1721, August 2011
`
`32. My analysis and conclusions set forth in this declaration are based on
`
`the perspective of a POSITA.
`
`VII. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
`
`33.
`
`In this section I provide a broad overview of the relevant technology
`
`and state of the technical community at the priority date of the ’578 patent. This
`
`description is not intended to be exhaustive, but to provide sufficient background
`
`to support and contextualize my analysis below.
`
`A. Mobile Devices
`
`34.
`
`In 2009, use of smartphones experienced a significant surge, marking
`
`a pivotal moment in the evolution of mobile technology. The year saw a growing
`
`number of consumers transitioning from traditional feature phones (e.g., flip
`
`17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`phones) to more capable and versatile smartphones. Key factors driving this uptake
`
`included advancements in mobile operating systems such as Apple’s iOS and
`
`Google’s Android, offering a user-friendly interface and access to a burgeoning
`
`app ecosystem. Additionally, the earlier introduction of 3G networks enabled faster
`
`mobile data speeds, prompting users to embrace smartphones for tasks beyond
`
`voice and messaging. As a result, smartphone sales soared, laying the groundwork
`
`for the transformative impact they would have on communication, productivity,
`
`and entertainment in the years to come.
`
`35. However, smartphones in 2009 were resource-limited compared to the
`
`current devices. For example, smartphones of 2009 were equipped with single-core
`
`processors, usually running at speeds below 1 GHz. These processors lacked the
`
`computing power of today’s multi-core CPUs found in modern smartphones. As a
`
`result, tasks that required significant processing, such as running complex
`
`applications or playing graphically intensive games, were often slow and less
`
`efficient. Similarly, (non-transitory1) memory capacities in smartphones of 2009
`
`were generally limited, typically ranging from 128 MB to 512 MB. Long term
`
`
`1 In patents, the term “non-transitory” can refer to computer-readable media
`
`(CRM) that stores data for short periods or in the presence of power such as a
`
`memory device or Random Access Memory (RAM).
`
`18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`storage was also limited, consisting of between 4 to 16GB of space. Devices were
`
`connected to wireless networks using WWAN (cellular) and WLAN (Wi-Fi)
`
`modems.2
`
`36. The networks that were being used in 2009 were also limited in speed
`
`and throughput. In 2009 wide-area (WWAN) cellular 3G networks, as
`
`implemented by the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM)3 and Code
`
`Division Multiple Access (CDMA) protocols were becoming widespread, but 4G
`
`networks were still in the early stages of deployment. This meant slower internet
`
`speeds and limited coverage for mobile data, affecting the overall online
`
`experience. Wi-Fi technology as implemented in the 802.11 suite of protocols
`
`complemented cellular networks. Smartphones, laptops, and other devices could
`
`connect to Wi-Fi hotspots in homes, offices, cafes, and public spaces to access the
`
`
`2 The term modem refers to a modulator/demodulator, which is a device to process
`
`electrical signals received and sent over a physical media (e.g., copper wire) or
`
`over the air. In mobile devices modems are software supported radios that process
`
`specific network access protocols.
`
`3 Note that GSM predates 3G networks (actually back to 1991), but, for the
`
`purposes of this report, I will focus only on those variants of GSM which were
`
`classified as 3G.
`
`19
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`internet at much higher speeds than what 3G networks could offer. Wi-Fi also
`
`allowed users to offload data usage from their cellular plans, which was
`
`particularly helpful due to the relatively limited data caps on mobile plans during
`
`that time. Regardless of the network protocol it was running on, the IP protocol
`
`was used to connect each device with the Internet.
`
`37. At the same time, battery technology had not yet seen significant
`
`advancements, leading to smartphones with relatively short battery life. The
`
`computational requirements and increased user engagement (using the phone for
`
`longer periods) led to increased demand for energy. Here, the combination of
`
`power-hungry processors, smaller batteries, and less optimized software meant that
`
`users often had to charge their phones frequently.
`
`B. Resource Management in Mobile Devices
`
`38. A key challenge in 2009 was finding ways to address the rapidly
`
`increasing needs of mobile users using the resource-limited devices and networks.
`
`Solutions to these problems were developed by adapting known techniques in
`
`computer systems and networks (e.g., priority queuing), as well as developing new,
`
`faster devices and networks.
`
`39. Policy for computational systems has been a part of the technical
`
`landscape since the 1970s, with a primary focus on differentiating resource usage
`
`in various environments. For example, a policy might specify that data from
`
`20
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`interactive applications, such as multi-player games, are assigned the highest
`
`priority to ensure the best user experience. These policies were implemented to
`
`manage and allocate computing resources efficiently in diverse computing
`
`environments. For instance, differentiated services emerged as a crucial policy in
`
`this context, especially as mobile devices such as phones began to traverse
`
`heterogeneous environments, transitioning between Wi-Fi and cellular networks
`
`seamlessly. By employing policies like differentiated services, computing systems
`
`could optimize resource allocation, ensuring a smooth and reliable user experience
`
`while adapting to changing network conditions and device capabilities in these
`
`dynamic environments. Such techniques were particularly important to address the
`
`challenges faced by early mobile devices.
`
`40. A Policy Decision Point (PDP)4 and Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) 5
`
`are essential components in policy-based systems.6 The PDP functions as the
`
`determining logic of the system, responsible for evaluating policy rules and
`
`making decisions based on the input received from sources. Conversely, the PEP
`
`
`4 A PDP is “[a] logical entity that makes policy decisions for itself or for other
`
`network elements that request such decisions.” SAMSUNG-1028, 8.
`
`5 A PEP is “[a] logical entity that enforces policy decisions.” SAMSUNG-1028, 8.
`
`6 SAMSUNG-1029, 3-6.
`
`21
`
`

`

`Declaration of Patrick McDaniel
`
`serves to enforce policy. PEPs are located at the point where policies are applied.
`
`The PEP communicates with the PDP to obtain the relevant policy decisions and
`
`then enacts them by controlling access to resources. In the example given above,
`
`the PDP would determine whether data are from an interactive game, and if so, the
`
`PEP would assign the highest priority to the data, e.g., by adding the data to a high-
`
`priority queue. Again, this would ensure the user does not experience performance
`
`problems (e.g., lag).
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’578 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Specification
`
`41.
`
` The ’578 Patent relates to “a wireless end-user device that has
`
`wireless wide-area network (WWAN) and wireless local-area network (WLAN)
`
`modems.” SAMSUNG-1001, Abstract. For example, the system “analyzes traffic
`
`from [a] network service consuming