IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Gregory G. Raleigh, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`9,647,918
`U.S. Patent No.:
`May 9, 2017
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 15/227,814
`Filing Date:
`August 3, 2016
`Title:
`MOBILE DEVICE AND METHOD ATTRIBUTING MEDIA
`SERVICES NETWORK USAGE TO REQUESTING
`APPLICATION
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 39843-0182IP2
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. PATRICK TRAYNOR
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own 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 under Section 1001 of Title 18 of
`
`the United States Code.
`
`Date: _______________
`
`By: __________________________
`Patrick Traynor, Ph.D.
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG 1003
`
`

`

`I. 
`II. 
`
`Table of Contents
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................... 3 
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 8 
`  Anticipation ............................................................................................... 8 
`  Obviousness .............................................................................................. 9 
`III.  OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED ............................................. 10 
`IV.  BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE ONE OF SKILL IN THE ART WOULD
`HAVE HAD PRIOR TO THE PRIORITY DATE OF THE ’918 PATENT11 
`INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ’918 PATENT CLAIMS AT ISSUE......... 11 
`V. 
`VI.  THE ’918 PATENT ....................................................................................... 12 
`  Overview of the ’918 Patent ................................................................... 12 
`  Prosecution History of the ‘918 Patent ................................................... 14 
`VII.  OVERVIEW AND COMBINATIONS OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES .. 15 
`  Overview of Bennett ............................................................................... 15 
`  Overview of Rakoshitz ........................................................................... 16 
`  The combination of Bennett and Rakoshitz ........................................... 18 
`  Overview of Rybak ................................................................................. 22 
`  The combination of Bennett, Rakoshitz, and Rybak .............................. 23 
`  Overview of Riggs .................................................................................. 27 
`  The combination of Bennett, Rakoshitz, Rybak, and Riggs ................... 28 
`  Overview of Hendrickson ....................................................................... 31 
`  The combination of Bennett, Rakoshitz, Rybak, Riggs, and Hendrickson
`
`32 
`  Overview of Srikantan ............................................................................ 34 
`  The combination of Bennett, Rakoshitz, Rybak, Riggs and Srikantan .. 36 
`VIII.  MANNER IN WHICH THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES RENDER THE
`’918 CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE ............................................................... 38 
`  Claims 1, 9, and 13-14 are obvious over Bennett in view of Rakoshitz
`and Rybak ............................................................................................... 38 
`  Claims 2-6, 8, 11, and 15-17 are obvious over Bennett in view of
`Rakoshitz, Rybak, and Riggs .................................................................. 73 
`  Claims 7, 12, and 18 are obvious over Bennett in view of Rakoshitz,
`Rybak, Riggs, and Hendrickson. ............................................................ 91 
`  Claim 10 is obvious over Bennett in view of Rakoshitz, Rybak, Riggs,
`and Srikantan. .......................................................................................100 
`IX.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................105 
`
`2
`
`

`

`DECLARATION OF DR. PATRICK TRAYNOR
`
`I, Patrick Gerard Traynor, of Gainesville, Florida, declare that:
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
`1. My name is Patrick Gerard Traynor and I have been retained as an
`
`expert witness by Samsung in the matter of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`(“Samsung”) vs. Headwater Research, LLC. My qualifications for forming these
`
`conclusions are summarized below.
`
`2.
`
`I earned a B.S. in Computer Science from the University of Richmond
`
`in 2002 and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering from the
`
`Pennsylvania State University in 2004 and 2008, respectively. My dissertation,
`
`entitled “Characterizing the Impact of Rigidity on the Security of Cellular
`
`Telecommunications Networks,” focused on security problems that arise in cellular
`
`infrastructure when gateways to the broader Internet were created.
`
`3.
`
`I am currently a Professor in the Department of Computer and
`
`Information Science and Engineering (CISE) at the University of Florida. I was hired
`
`under the “Rise to Preeminence” Hiring Campaign and serve as the Associate Chair
`
`for Research in my Department. I also hold the endowed position of the John and
`
`Mary Lou Dasburg Preeminent Chair in Engineering.
`
`4.
`
`Prior to joining the University of Florida, I was an Associate Professor
`
`from March to August 2014 and an Assistant Professor of Computer Science from
`
`3
`
`

`

`2008 to March 2014 at the Georgia Institute of Technology. I have supervised many
`
`Ph.D., M.S., and undergraduate students during the course of my career.
`
`5. My area of expertise is security, especially as it applies to mobile
`
`systems and networks, including cellular networks. As such, I regularly teach
`
`students taking my courses and participating in my research group to program and
`
`evaluate software and architectures for mobile and cellular systems. I have taught
`
`courses on the topics of network and systems security, cellular networks, and mobile
`
`systems at both Georgia Tech and the University of Florida. I also advised and
`
`instructed the Information Assurance Officer Training Program for the United States
`
`Army Signal Corps in the Spring of 2010.
`
`6.
`
`I have received numerous awards for research and teaching, including
`
`being named a Kavli Fellow (2017), a Fellow of the Center for Financial Inclusion
`
`(2016), and a Research Fellow of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (2014). I also won
`
`the Lockheed Inspirational Young Faculty Award (2012), was awarded a National
`
`Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER Award (2010), and received the Center for
`
`Enhancement of Teaching and Learning at Georgia Tech’s “Thanks for Being a
`
`Great Teacher” Award (2009, 2012, 2013).
`
`7.
`
`I have published over 100 articles in top conferences and journals in the
`
`areas of information security, mobile systems, and networking. Many of my results
`
`are highly cited, and I have received multiple “Best Paper” Awards. I have also
`
`4
`
`

`

`written a book entitled “Security for Telecommunications Networks”, which is used
`
`in wireless and cellular security courses at a number of top universities.
`
`8.
`
`I am a Senior Member of the Association for Computing Machinery
`
`(ACM) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). I am also a
`
`member of the USENIX Advanced Computing Systems Association.
`
`9.
`
`I serve as an Associate Editor for IEEE Security and Privacy Magazine,
`
`have been the Program Chair for eight conferences and workshops, and have served
`
`as a member of the Program Committee for over 50 different conferences and
`
`workshops. I am also currently the Security Subcommittee Chair for the ACM US
`
`Technology Policy Committee (USACM).
`
`10.
`
`I was a co-Founder and Research Fellow for a private start-up, Pindrop
`
`Security, from 2012 to 2014. Pindrop provides anti-fraud and authentication
`
`solutions for Caller-ID spoofing attacks in enterprise call centers by creating and
`
`matching acoustic fingerprints. Pindrop Security currently employs over 200 people,
`
`and their technology is based off of my research (US Patent 9,037,113 B2).
`
`11.
`
`I was a co-Founder and Chief Executive of a private start-up,
`
`CryptoDrop. CryptoDrop developed a ransomware detection and recovery tool to
`
`provide state of the art protection to home, small business, and enterprise users. This
`
`technology was also based off of my research (US Patent 10,685,114 B2).
`
`5
`
`

`

`12.
`
`I was also a co-Founder and Chief Executive of a private start-up, Skim
`
`Reaper. Skim Reaper developed tools to detect credit card skimming devices, and
`
`worked with a range of banks, international law enforcement, regulators, and
`
`retailers. This technology was also based off of my research (US Patent 10,496,914
`
`B2).
`
`13.
`
`I am a named inventor on ten US patents. These patents detail methods
`
`for determining the origin and path taken by phone calls as they traverse various
`
`networks, cryptographically authenticating phone calls, providing a secure means of
`
`indoor localization using mobile/wireless devices, detecting credit card skimmers,
`
`identifying cloned credit cards, and blocking ransomware from encrypting data.
`
`14. My curriculum vitae, included with this declaration as SAMSUNG-
`
`1003, includes a list of publications on which I am a named author. It contains further
`
`details regarding my experience, education, publications, and other qualifications to
`
`render an expert opinion in connection with this proceeding.
`
`15.
`
`In writing this Declaration, I have considered the following: my own
`
`knowledge and experience, including my work experience in mobile systems and
`
`networks; my experience in teaching those subjects; and my experience in working
`
`with others involved in those fields. In addition, I have analyzed the following
`
`publications and materials, in addition to other materials I cite in my declaration:
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No 9,647,918 (SAMSUNG-1001), and its accompanying
`
`prosecution history (SAMSUNG-1002)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No 2006/0149811 (“Bennett”) (SAMSUNG-1041)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,429,516 (“Riggs”) (SAMSUNG-1043)
`
`EP Patent Publication No. 1 850 575 A1 (“Rybak”) (SAMSUNG-1044)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0260630 (“Benco”) (SAMSUNG-1045)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,578,077 (“Rakoshitz”) (SAMSUNG-1046)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0223495 (“Cassett”) (SAMSUNG-1047)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0080458 (“Cole”) (SAMSUNG-1048)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0209451 (“Michels”) (SAMSUNG-1049)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0039354 (“Rao”) (SAMSUNG-1050)
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/435,564 (SAMSUNG-1053)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,754,470 (“Hendrickson”) (SAMSUNG-1054)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0056126 (“Srikantan”) (SAMSUNG-
`
`1055)
`
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 24th Edition (SAMSUNG-1056)
`
` Webster’s New World, Telecom Dictionary (SAMSUNG-1057)
`
` Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IEEE) Dictionary
`
`(SAMSUNG-1058)
`
`
`
`The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms (SAMSUNG-1059)
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2008/0122796 (“Jobs”) (SAMSUNG-1062)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2010/0017506 (“Fadell”) (SAMSUNG-
`
`1063)
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
` Anticipation
`16.
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 if each and every element of a claim, as properly construed, is found
`
`either explicitly or inherently in a single prior art reference. Under the principles of
`
`inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes the
`
`claimed limitations, it anticipates.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) if
`
`the claimed invention was known or used by others in the U.S., or was patented or
`
`published anywhere, before the applicant’s invention. I further have been informed
`
`that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if the invention was patented or
`
`published anywhere, or was in public use, on sale, or offered for sale in this country,
`
`more than one year prior to the filing date of the patent application (critical date).
`
`And a claim is invalid, as I have been informed, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), if an
`
`invention described by that claim was described in a U.S. patent granted on an
`
`application for a patent by another that was filed in the U.S. before the date of
`
`invention for such a claim.
`
`8
`
`

`

` Obviousness
`18.
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of one or more prior art references if it would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA, 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 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. For purposes of
`
`my analysis, I have applied a date of January 28, 2009 as the date of invention in my
`
`obviousness analyses, although in many cases the same analysis would hold true
`
`even at an earlier time than January 28, 2009. I understand the priority date of
`
`the ’918 Patent is in dispute.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`prior art reference or multiple prior art references. To be obvious in light of a single
`
`prior art reference or multiple prior art references, there must be a reason to modify
`
`the single prior art reference, or combine two or more references, in order to achieve
`
`the claimed invention. 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
`
`9
`
`

`

`problem to be solved, and may be explicit or implicit from the prior art as a whole.
`
`I have been informed that the combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`I also understand it is improper to rely on hindsight in making the obviousness
`
`determination.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED
`20. This expert Declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed
`
`based on my analysis. To summarize those conclusions:
`
` Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior
`
`art publications listed above, I believe that claims 1, 9, and 13-14 of
`
`the ’918 Patent are obvious over Bennett in view of Rakoshitz and
`
`Rybak.
`
` Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior
`
`art publications listed above, I believe that claims 2-6, 8, 11, 15-17, 19
`
`of the ’918 Patent are obvious over Bennett in view of Rakoshitz,
`
`Rybak, and Riggs.
`
` Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior
`
`art publications listed above, I believe that claims 7, 12, and 18 of the
`
`’918 Patent are obvious over Bennett in view of Rakoshitz, Rybak,
`
`Riggs, and Hendrickson.
`
`10
`
`

`

` Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior
`
`art publications listed above, I believe that claim 10 of the ’918 Patent
`
`is obvious over Bennett in view of Rakoshitz, Rybak, Riggs, and
`
`Hendrickson.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE ONE OF SKILL IN THE ART
`WOULD HAVE HAD PRIOR TO THE PRIORITY DATE OF THE
`’918 PATENT
`21. Based on the foregoing and upon my experience in this area, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) relating to the subject matter of the ’918
`
`Patent would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer
`
`engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of
`
`industry experience in wireless communication network applications and software.
`
`Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice
`
`versa.
`
`22. Based on my experiences, I have a good understanding of the
`
`capabilities of a POSITA as I was such an individual at the time of the Critical Date.
`
`Moreover, I have taught, participated in organizations, and worked closely with
`
`many such persons over the course of my career.
`
`V.
`
`INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ’918 PATENT CLAIMS AT ISSUE
`23.
`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
`
`11
`
`

`

`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. I
`
`understand the priority date of the ’918 Patent is in dispute.
`
`VI. THE ’918 PATENT
` Overview of the ’918 Patent
`24. The ’918 Patent is directed to “a wireless end-user device” that includes
`
`a “proxy network service manager” (also referred to as a “proxy”) that facilitates
`
`media requests from resident applications. SAMSUNG-1001, Abstract, 71:21-42,
`
`110:12-111:17, 119:49-60, FIGS. 30, 35. In an example embodiment depicted in
`
`FIG. 30, the application “utilizes an API to trigger the proxy 3012 which in turn
`
`passes through a socket connection at the socket 3016 as traffic.” Id., 110:46-53.
`
`FIG. 35 depicts another example embodiment that includes “a proxy service
`
`manager 3502,” a “proxy/library API 3504,” a “stack API 3518,” and a
`
`“usage/classification reconciliation engine 3526.” Id., 119:49-60. The ’918 Patent
`
`12
`
`

`

`describes that example “stack API level … requests” are “socket open/send requests.”
`
`Id., 93:33-36.
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG-1001, FIG. 301.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Annotations to figures are shown in color.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`SAMSUNG-1001, FIG. 35
`
`
`
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘918 Patent
`25. The Examiner issued only one office action during the ’918 Patent’s
`
`prosecution, including prior art rejections of claims 2-4, 11, and 13-16 (issued claims
`
`1-2, 9, and 11-14) under §102 over Deu-Ngoc (US 8,402,165), and a rejection of
`
`claim 5 (issued claim 3) under §103 over Deu-Ngoc in view of Constantinof (US
`
`2014/0241342). SAMSUNG-1002, 381-390. The Examiner also indicated that
`
`claims 6-10 and 12 (issued claims 4-8 and 10) were allowable. Id. The applicant
`
`amended the claims to overcome the above rejections and added new claims 17-21
`
`14
`
`

`

`(issued claims 15-19). SAMSUNG-1002, 99-112. All claims were then allowed.
`
`SAMSUNG-1002, 21-25.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW AND COMBINATIONS OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES
` Overview of Bennett
`26. Bennett discloses a “media client” including a “user agent to
`
`communicate with a multimedia application in the networked communication
`
`device,” a “signaling agent … to establish and maintain communication sessions,”
`
`and a “media agent” which “performs media operations.” SAMSUNG-1041,
`
`Abstract, ¶¶[0024]-[0026], [0029]-[0031], FIG. 3. These media operations include
`
`“Push-to-Talk over Cellular (PoC), presence and Instant Messaging (IM), video and
`
`audio streaming, voice over IP videoconferencing, interactive gaming, white-
`
`boarding and content sharing.” SAMSUNG-1041, ¶[0024]. Bennett discloses that
`
`its media client is implemented in a “mobile device” that includes “a [user agent]
`
`202, [signaling agent] 204 and [media agent] 206.” SAMSUNG-1041, ¶¶[0028],
`
`[0078]. Bennett’s media agent “stream[s]” media to a “media player” on the device,
`
`which outputs the media to the user using “a local media rendering device (e.g.,
`
`speaker and/or display of a mobile terminal 100).” SAMSUNG-1041, ¶¶[0025],
`
`[0076], FIG. 3. Additionally, Bennett discloses that media can also be routed
`
`directly to the application. ¶[0076], FIG. 10.
`
`15
`
`

`

`SAMSUNG-1041, FIG. 3.
`
` Overview of Rakoshitz
`27. Rakoshitz discloses a “set of techniques or mechanisms including
`
`policies that can be applied in a network to manage limited network resources such
`
`as bandwidth and the like.” SAMSUNG-1046, 4:22-40. Rakoshitz effectuates its
`
`policy-based network management with a “tool 208,” coupled with an “application-
`
`programming interface (‘API’) 223,” that “performs inbound and outbound
`
`monitoring and control of flows by application, source address, destination address,
`
`URL, time of day, day of week, day of month, and other variations.” SAMSUNG-
`
`1046, 9:18-48, FIG. 2. The tool 208 includes various modules, to include a “Flow
`
`Analysis and Session Tagging” (“FAST”) module, a “Flow Analysis and Intelligent
`
`16
`
`

`

`Regulation” (“FAIR”) module, and a “Policy Engine Module.” SAMSUNG-1046,
`
`12:12-58, FIG. 2. The FAST module “implements rich, application level traffic
`
`classification, and measurement,” the FAIR module “implements traffic control
`
`based on a combination of flow control and queuing algorithms,” and the policy
`
`engine module “oversees the FAST and FAIR modules” and “includes a security
`
`policy 201, a traffic policy 202, and other policies 221.” Id. Rakoshitz’s traffic
`
`policy “defines specific limitations or parameters for the traffic.” Id.
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG-1046, FIG. 2.
`
`17
`
`

`

` The combination of Bennett and Rakoshitz
`28.
`It would have been obvious for a POSITA to incorporate Rakoshitz’s
`
`techniques of managing data traffic—to include Rakoshitz’s tool 208 and traffic
`
`policies—into the media clients of Bennett to monitor data usage for applications
`
`making “media object network data transfers” and using “respective data packet
`
`flows.” SAMSUNG-1041, ¶[0078]; SAMSUNG-1046, 9:18-48, 12:51-58, FIG. 2.
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to make this combination for multiple
`
`reasons.
`
`29. First, Rakoshitz’s Quality of Service (“QoS”) “bandwidth management”
`
`techniques would have enhanced the performance of media streaming applications
`
`on the Bennett device by prioritizing packet transmission for these applications
`
`during times of congestion—reducing “latency,” “jitter,” and “packet loss[es].”
`
`SAMSUNG-1046, 3:27-31, 3:61-5:39, 7:14-37. Media streaming applications were
`
`known to have high QoS requirements (especially in earlier wireless networks) and
`
`a POSITA would have known that bandwidth management, as described in
`
`Rakoshitz, was an invaluable tool for making the most of limited resources. Further,
`
`Rakoshitz describes “real-time audio and video” applications as “[h]igh bandwidth”
`
`applications. SAMSUNG-1046, 7:40-50, 14:61-67, Table-2.
`
`30. Second, because Rakoshitz’s traffic monitoring and policies are applied
`
`at an application level, Rakoshitz’s techniques would have enabled the users of
`
`18
`
`

`

`Bennett’s devices to have greater control over specific application activity that was
`
`data-intensive. SAMSUNG-1046, 3:27-31, 9:39-47, 12:20-33, FIG. 2. Rakoshitz’s
`
`application-level traffic management would have enabled users to prevent data-
`
`intensive activity from a particular application or application type from consuming
`
`unacceptable levels of data or impeding use of the network. Id. As described above,
`
`“real-time audio and video” applications are “[h]igh bandwidth” applications, and a
`
`user would have benefitted from the ability to monitor and control these applications,
`
`in particular.
`
` SAMSUNG-1046, 7:40-50, 14:61-67, Table-2.
`
` Rakoshitz
`
`acknowledges that audio and video applications “hog a lot of bandwidth” but are
`
`also “bandwidth sensitive,” and thus “are controlled best by Setting a high priority
`
`and a policy to limit admission of sessions so that bandwidth use is capped but
`
`admitted Sessions have a reasonable quality. SAMSUNG-1046, 14:61-67.
`
`31. Finally, incorporating per-application traffic monitoring into the
`
`Bennett device would have enabled device manufacturers and service providers to
`
`incorporate additional applications and functionality into wireless devices while
`
`being mindful of individual application QoS requirements. SAMSUNG-1046, 3:27-
`
`31, 9:39-47, 12:20-33, FIG. 2. Bennett acknowledges that “[t]he convergence of
`
`mobile and IP networks will allow service providers to offer new IP services to
`
`mobile subscribers that were previously available only to users in fixed networks,
`
`such as the Internet.” SAMSUNG-1041, ¶[0002]. Rakoshitz’s techniques would
`
`19
`
`

`

`have allowed service providers to incorporate the “new IP services” described by
`
`Bennett while ensuring the QoS requirements of these services could be met (or at
`
`least optimized). SAMSUNG-1041, ¶[0002]; SAMSUNG-1046, 3:27-31, 9:39-47,
`
`12:20-33, FIG. 2.
`
`32.
`
`Incorporating Rakoshitz’s techniques into the Bennett device would
`
`have been nothing more than the application of known techniques (e.g., managing
`
`data traffic according to Rakoshitz) to a known structure (e.g., Bennett’s devices) to
`
`yield predictable results (e.g., the management of the Bennett-Rakoshitz device’s
`
`data traffic). A POSITA would have expected success in implementing this
`
`combination because the monitoring of outgoing API data traffic on a mobile device
`
`(such as the UA, SA, and MA APIs of Bennett) was known as of the Critical Date
`
`and would have involved only routine programming skill. For example, Rakoshitz
`
`describes that “tool 208” “interfaces with [an] API” to enforce a “traffic policy [that]
`
`defines specific limitations or parameters for the traffic.” SAMSUNG-1046,
`
`Abstract, 9:18-24, 12:12-58, Claim 1. Michels provides another example of a system
`
`for “monitoring and control of access to [an] API” with a processor that “monitors
`
`the distribution of the API elements” and “the number of API requests made by [a]
`
`developer client over a period of time, the identity of the developer client, usage
`
`trends by the developer client, and usage trends based on IP address.” SAMSUNG-
`
`1049, ¶¶[0002]-[0015], [0043]-[0063].
`
`20
`
`

`

`33. Further, Rakoshitz describes that its techniques can be implemented “at
`
`a single point of access such as a computer terminal or firewall” (e.g., Bennett’s
`
`devices). SAMSUNG-1046, 3:21-23. A POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`incorporate Rakoshitz’s techniques at a “single point of access”—particularly, the
`
`Bennett device—because “the transfer of data over a wireless network is resource
`
`expensive, and remote monitoring of local device resource consumption would have
`
`required significant bandwidth itself.” SAMSUNG-1046, 3:21-23. Additionally, as
`
`of the Critical Date, it was already well known for a mobile device to locally monitor
`
`application usage and enforce policy restrictions. SAMSUNG-1048, ¶¶[0034]-
`
`[0036] (disclosing a mobile device with a “connection manager” that enforces
`
`policies for “communication interfaces”); SAMSUNG-1050, ¶¶[0088], [0099]-
`
`[0104] (disclosing a mobile client with an “agent 326” and “filter 322” that classify
`
`and prioritize packet transmissions for applications).
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`SAMSUNG-1041, FIG. 3 (as modified by Rakoshitz).
`
` Overview of Rybak
`34. Rybak discloses techniques for “monitoring resource usage of a mobile
`
`communications device” with respect to a “mobile communication plan profile
`
`associated with a subscriber” that includes “at least a value representing a limit of
`
`mobile communication resource usage within a specified calendar period.”
`
`SAMSUNG-1044, ¶¶[0003], [0030]-[0042], FIG. 4. Rybak effectuates resource
`
`monitoring and control with a “usage control module 216” for “calculating usage
`
`statistics based on the resource consumption data and the service plan profile.”
`
`SAMSUNG-1044, ¶¶[0022]-[0029], FIGS. 2-3. The usage control module “acquires
`
`the quantity of current period usage of at least one limited wireless resource” to
`
`include “on-peak cellular voice minutes, megabytes of data or quantity of SMS
`
`22
`
`

`

`messages.” SAMSUNG-1044, ¶[0033]. A “display screen,” shown below, is used
`
`to depict a current usage level to the user for different applications. SAMSUNG-
`
`1044, ¶¶[0043]-[0051], FIGS. 5-8.
`
`SAMSUNG-1044, FIG. 7.
`
`
`
`
`35.
`
`The combination of Bennett, Rakoshitz, and Rybak
`It would have been obvious for a POSITA to incorporate Rybak’s
`
`techniques of monitoring and tracking aggregate application data usage—to include
`
`the techniques of Rybak’s usage monitoring module—into the media clients of
`
`Bennett (e.g., within the tool of Rakoshitz) to monitor aggregate data usage for
`
`applications making “media object network data transfers” and using “respective
`
`23
`
`

`

`data packet flows.” SAMSUNG-1041, ¶[0078]; SAMSUNG-1044, ¶¶[0022]-[0029],
`
`FIGS. 2-3. A POSITA would have been motivated to make this combination for
`
`multiple reasons.
`
`36. First, the benefits of data usage monitoring were well-known and would
`
`have been part of a POSITA’s general knowledge. Rybak’s techniques for
`
`“monitoring resource usage of a mobile communications device” would have
`
`prevented the user from exceeding data usage limits imposed by a “mobile
`
`communication plan” while using the streaming applications disclosed by Bennett.
`
`SAMSUNG-1044, ¶¶[0003]-[0004],
`
`[0030]-[0042],
`
`[0047], FIGS. 2, 7;
`
`SAMSUNG-1041, Abstract, ¶¶[0024]-[0026], [0029]-[0031], FIG. 3. Rybak notes
`
`that resource usage correlates to a “billing period” or “plan” that would be
`
`chargeable to a user. SAMSUNG-1044, ¶¶[0031]-[0034], [0045], [0060], FIGS. 7-
`
`8. Benco describes another example of a “method for providing mobile telephone
`
`subscribers with data on accumulated usage” where “[s]ubscribers are warned if
`
`their accumulated usage threatens to exceed or exceeds the allowable basic usage of
`
`their billing plan.” SAMSUNG-1045, Abstract, ¶¶[0001]-[0020]. Jobs provides
`
`another example, where a user interface of a mobile device “displays an updated
`
`account usage metric for an account associated with usage of the device (e.g., a
`
`cellular phone account).” SAMSUNG-1062, ¶[0213]. Fadell is yet another example
`
`of “metering” network resource usage on a mobile device to prevent a user from
`
`24
`
`

`

`exceeding a “resource allocation.” SAMSUNG-1063, ¶¶[0002]-[0007], [0017],
`
`[0050]-[0053], [0056]. With this background and knowledge of the benefits of data
`
`usage monitoring, a POSITA would have been motivated to consider and include
`
`Rybak’s data usage monitoring in Bennett’s device.
`
`SAMSUNG-1044, FIG. 8.
`
`
`
`37. Second, incorporating per-application data usage limits into the Bennett
`
`device would have enabled device manufacturers and service providers to
`
`incorporate additional applications and functionality into wireless devices while
`
`being mindful of aggregate device data usage. SAMSUNG-1044, ¶¶[0003]-[0004],
`
`[0030]-[0042], [0047]. Specifically, Bennett acknowledges that “[t]he convergence
`
`of mobile and IP networks will allow service providers to offer new IP services to
`
`25
`
`

`

`mobile subscribers that were previously available only to users in fixed networks,
`
`such as the Internet.” SAMSUNG-1041, ¶[0002]. Rybak’s techniques would have
`
`allowed service providers to incorporate the “new IP services” described by Bennett
`
`while ensuring these new services did not come with unacceptable levels of data
`
`usage. SAMSUNG-1041, ¶[0002]; SAMSUNG-1044, ¶¶[0003]-[0004], [0030]-
`
`[0042], [0047].
`
`38. Finally, Rybak’s techniques of controlling data usage limits and
`
`throttling application usage by the user would have allowed service providers the
`
`flexibility to establish different usage levels for different individuals based on
`
`different factors (e.g., a more comprehensive service plan would have included a
`
`higher usage limit). SAMSUNG-1044, ¶¶[0050]-[0052], [0058]; SAMSUNG-1045,
`
`Abstract, ¶¶[0001]-[0020].
`
`39.
`
`Incorporating Rybak’s techniques into the Bennett-Rakoshitz device
`
`would have been nothing more than the application of known techniques (e.g.,
`
`monitoring aggregate per-application data usage) to a known structure (e.g.,
`
`Bennett-Rakoshitz’s devices) to yield predictable results (e.g., the monitoring of per-
`
`application data usage on the Bennett-Rakoshitz device). A POSITA would have
`
`expected success in implementing this combination because the monitoring and
`
`tracking per-application data usage on a mobile device (such as the applications of
`
`Bennett) was known