UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`PGR2021-00028
`PGR2021-00029
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046
`______________
`
`DECLARATION OF STEPHEN GRAY
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`GOOG-1003
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 1 of 300
`
`PGR2022-00003
`Apple EX1003 Page 1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`PGR2021-00028, PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046)
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ........................ 5
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART.............................................. 8
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS.............................................................. 9
`
`A. Entitlement to an Earlier Priority Date........................................................10
`
`B. Written Description Requirement ...............................................................11
`
`C. Subject-Matter Eligibility............................................................................12
`
`D. Obviousness.................................................................................................13
`V. (cid:55)(cid:43)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:1932)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:55)(cid:40)(cid:49)(cid:55) .........................................................................................16
`A. Overview of (cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:1932)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)........................................................................16
`B. (cid:51)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:1932)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87) .......................................................21
`VI. PRIORITY DATES OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS.............................25
`
`A. The “displaying a denial” step in claim 1 lacks written description support
`in the pre-AIA applications..................................................................................28
`
`B. Claims 1 and 12 include subject matter that lacks written description
`support in any application in the ’046 Patent family. ..........................................32
`
`C. The “account and bank information of the registered merchant” limitation
`in claims 6 and 15 lacks written description support in the pre-AIA applications.
`32
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................35
`
`VIII. Challenge #1: Claims 1-17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 101. .........37
`
`A. Guidance Step 1: Statutory Category..........................................................37
`B. Guidance Step 2A, Prong (cid:20)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:1932)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:80)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:69)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:68)(cid:3)
`of presenting and settling an invoice, a fundamental economic practice. ...........37
`
`C. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2: The ’046 Patent claims do not integrate the
`abstract idea into a practical application..............................................................39
`D. Guidance (cid:54)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:83)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:37)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:1932)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:80)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:3)
`concept. ................................................................................................................45
`
`1. The additional claim elements simply append well-understood, routine,
`and conventional e-commerce activities to the abstract idea...........................45
`
`GOOG-1003
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 2 of 300
`
`PGR2022-00003
`Apple EX1003 Page 2
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`PGR2021-00028, PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046)
`
`2. The ordered combination of elements does not add “significantly more”
`to the abstract idea of presenting and settling an invoice. ...............................60
`
`E.
`
`Independent Claim 12 .................................................................................61
`
`F. Claims 2, 5, and 13 ......................................................................................64
`
`G. Claims 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, and 17......................................................................67
`
`H. Claims 4 and 8 .............................................................................................70
`
`I.
`
`Claims 6 and 15 ...........................................................................................74
`
`J. Claims 11 and 16 .........................................................................................76
`
`IX. Challenge #2: Claims 1-17 are invalid for failing to satisfy the written
`description requirement of 35 U.S.C § 112. ............................................................78
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ...................................................................................78
`
`1. The specification does not describe sending a payment request to a
`payment gateway only when an e-purse balance is sufficient.........................78
`
`2. The specification does not describe “displaying a confirmation in the
`mobile device that the balance in the e-purse has been reduced by the total
`amount.” ...........................................................................................................92
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claim 12 .................................................................................96
`
`3. The specification does not describe sending a payment request to a
`payment gateway only if an e-purse balance is sufficient. ..............................96
`
`4. The specification does not describe a payment gateway configured to
`cause the balance in the e-purse to be reduced. ...............................................98
`
`C. Dependent Claim 7 ....................................................................................102
`
`D. Dependent Claims 2–17 ............................................................................103
`
`X. Challenge #3: Claims 1-5 and 12-14 are obvious over Moshal in view of Jogu
`and Dessert .............................................................................................................104
`
`A. Overview of Moshal..................................................................................104
`
`B. Overview of Jogu ......................................................................................108
`
`C. Overview of Dessert..................................................................................119
`
`D. Motivation to Modify Moshal with Jogu and Dessert ..............................121
`
`1. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Moshal to include a
`local balance verification, as taught by Jogu. ................................................122
`
`GOOG-1003
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 3 of 300
`
`PGR2022-00003
`Apple EX1003 Page 3
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`PGR2021-00028, PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046)
`
`2. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Moshal so that the
`payment gateway reduces the e-wallet balance of the mobile device, and the
`mobile device displays the updated balance. .................................................133
`
`3. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Moshal to utilize
`different types of conventional, machine-readable tags. ...............................147
`
`E. Analysis of Claims ....................................................................................155
`
`1. Claim 1 ...................................................................................................155
`
`2. Claim 2 ...................................................................................................220
`
`3. Claim 3 ...................................................................................................222
`
`4. Claim 4 ...................................................................................................226
`
`5. Claim 5 ...................................................................................................230
`
`6. Claim 12 .................................................................................................236
`
`7. Claim 13 .................................................................................................258
`
`8. Claim 14 .................................................................................................261
`
`XI. Challenge #4: Claims 6, 15, and 16 are rendered obvious by Moshal in view
`of Jogu, Dessert, and Ohlhausen............................................................................268
`
`A. Overview of Challenge #4.........................................................................268
`
`1. Claim 6 ...................................................................................................268
`
`2. Claim 15 .................................................................................................273
`
`3. Claim 16 .................................................................................................273
`
`XII. Challenge #5: Claims 7-11 and 17 are obvious over Moshal in view of
`Jogu, Dessert, and Aabye.......................................................................................276
`
`A. Overview of Aabye ...................................................................................276
`
`1. Claim 7 ...................................................................................................278
`
`2. Claim 8 ...................................................................................................285
`
`3. Claim 9 ...................................................................................................290
`
`4. Claim 10 .................................................................................................291
`
`5. Claim 11 .................................................................................................293
`
`6. Claim 17 .................................................................................................294
`
`XIII. DECLARATION.......................................................................................296
`
`GOOG-1003
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 4 of 300
`
`PGR2022-00003
`Apple EX1003 Page 4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`PGR2021-00028, PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046)
`
`I, Stephen Gray, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`My name is Stephen Gray, and I have been retained by counsel for
`
`GOOGLE LLC (“Google” or “Petitioner”) as a technical expert in connection with
`
`the proceedings identified above. I submit this declaration in support of Google’s
`
`Petition for Post-Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 (cid:11)(cid:179)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:1932)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:25) Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my accustomed
`
`hourly rate. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not contingent on the results of my study, the substance of my opinions, or the
`
`outcome of this matter.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding (1) whether any
`
`of claims 1-20 of the ’046 Patent contain subject matter that has an effective filing
`
`date on or after March 16, 2013, (2) whether any of claims 1-17 of the ’046 Patent
`
`recite patent-ineligible subject matter, (3) whether the specification and drawings
`
`of the ’046 Patent fail to contain a written description of any of claims 1-17 of the
`
`’046 Patent, and (4) whether any of claims 1-17 are unpatentable as they would
`
`have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the
`
`time of the alleged invention, in light of the prior art. The following table shows
`
`1
`
`GOOG-1003
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 5 of 300
`
`PGR2022-00003
`Apple EX1003 Page 5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`PGR2021-00028, PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046)
`
`the challenges discussed in this Declaration and how they correspond to the above-
`
`listed proceedings:
`
`Challenge No.
`in Declaration
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`
`Ground
`
`#1
`
`#2
`
`1-17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`1-17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
`
`#3
`
`1-5 and 12-14
`
`Moshal in view of Jogu
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`and Dessert
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`#4
`
`6, 15, and 16
`
`Moshal in view of Jogu,
`
`Dessert, and Ohlhausen
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Corresponding
`Petition
`Challenge
`PGR2021-00028,
`
`Challenge #2
`
`PGR2021-00028,
`
`Challenge #1
`
`PGR2021-00029,
`
`Challenge #1
`
`PGR2021-00029,
`
`Challenge #2
`
`#5
`
`7-11 and 17
`
`Moshal in view of Jogu,
`
`PGR2021-00029,
`
`Dessert, Ohlhausen, and
`
`Challenge #3
`
`Aabye
`
`4.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration I have reviewed the following,
`
`each of which is a type of material that experts in my field would reasonably rely
`
`upon when forming their opinions:
`
`a)
`
`the ’046 Patent, GOOG-1001;
`
`2
`
`GOOG-1003
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 6 of 300
`
`PGR2022-00003
`Apple EX1003 Page 6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`PGR2021-00028, PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046)
`
`the prosecution file history of the ’046 Patent (“’046 patent file history”),
`GOOG-1002;
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0310117 to Moshal
`(“Moshal”), GOOG-1005;
`
`Verified English Language Translation of Japanese Patent No. 4901053
`B2 (“Jogu”), GOOG-1006;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,027,827 to Dessert et al. (“Dessert”), GOOG-1007;
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0365371 to Ohlhausen
`(“Ohlhausen”), GOOG-1008;
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0211507 to Aabye et al.
`(“Aabye”), GOOG-1009; and
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0297381 to Park (“Park”),
`GOOG-1010;
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0066550 to Shank et al.
`(“Shank”), GOOG-1011;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,170,527 to Granucci (“Granucci”), GOOG-1012;
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0166448 to Narayanan
`(“Narayanan”), GOOG-1013;
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0173060 to Gallagher
`(“Gallagher”), GOOG-1015;
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`g)
`
`h)
`
`i)
`
`j)
`
`k)
`
`l)
`
`m)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0048717 to Brendell et al.
`(“Brendell”), GOOG-1016;
`
`n)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,202,330 to Boucher (“Boucher”), GOOG-1017;
`
`o) Mifare in Action, GOOG-1018;
`
`p)
`
`q)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,890,371 to Chao (“Chao”), GOOG-1019;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,380,573 to Lin (“Lin”), GOOG-1020;
`
`3
`
`GOOG-1003
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 7 of 300
`
`PGR2022-00003
`Apple EX1003 Page 7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`PGR2021-00028, PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046)
`
`r)
`
`s)
`
`t)
`
`u)
`
`v)
`
`w)
`
`x)
`
`y)
`
`z)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0094123 to Killian
`(“Killian”), GOOG-1021;
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0174650 to Nonaka
`(“Nonaka”), GOOG-1022;
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0296819 to Lu (“Lu”),
`GOOG-1024;
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0287095 to Ueno
`(“Ueno”), GOOG-1025;
`
`Comparison of the specification of U.S. Patent 9,047,601 and the
`specification of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/350,832, GOOG-1026;
`
`Comparison of the specification of U.S. Patent 9,047,601 and U.S.
`Provisional No. 61/618,802, GOOG-1027;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218, GOOG-1028;
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0130838, GOOG-1029;
`
`U.S. Provisional No. 61/618,802, GOOG-1030;
`
`aa) U.S. Patent 9,047,601, GOOG-1031;
`
`bb) Vuorinen, GOOG-1035;
`
`cc)
`
`Shopping Without Cash, GOOG-1036;
`
`dd) History of Money and Payments, GOOG-1037;
`
`ee)
`
`PayPal, Britannica, GOOG-1039;
`
`ff)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,597, 250, GOOG-1040;
`
`gg)
`
`and any other document cited in this Declaration.
`
`4
`
`GOOG-1003
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 8 of 300
`
`PGR2022-00003
`Apple EX1003 Page 8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`PGR2021-00028, PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046)
`
`5.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed within this declaration, I have
`
`considered:1
`
`a. The documents listed above; and
`
`b. My own knowledge and experience, including my work experience in
`
`the field of mobile payment techniques, as described below.
`
`6.
`
`I am over 18 years of age and, if I am called upon to do so, I am
`
`competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein. I am willing to provide
`
`testimony about the opinions provided in this declaration if asked to do so.
`
`7.
`
`Although I have attempted to organize the information presented in
`
`this declaration into helpful sections and/or divisions, my opinions are supported
`
`by the information in the declaration in its entirety.
`
`8.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis in any quoted material has been
`
`added.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`9.
`
`My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which can be found in GOOG-1004. The
`
`following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional
`
`experience.
`
`1 All exhibit numbers use the prefix “GOOG-” (e.g., GOOG-1001 is used for
`Exhibit 1001).
`
`5
`
`GOOG-1003
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 9 of 300
`
`PGR2022-00003
`Apple EX1003 Page 9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`PGR2021-00028, PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046)
`
`10.
`
`Throughout my career, I have designed, developed, and deployed
`
`computing systems and products related to payment systems. As such, I have
`
`acquired expertise and am an expert in the areas of distributed computing
`
`architecture and design, distributed data management, web-based commerce,
`
`payment techniques, and various programming languages used in the development
`
`of those systems and products.
`
`11.
`
`I have several relevant professional experiences that demonstrate my
`
`expertise with systems developed to operate in World Wide Web computing
`
`environments deployed over the Internet. For example, in the 1998 to 2000 time
`
`period, I served as the CTO for Sicommnet: an e-Commerce Internet start-up. The
`
`firm developed a product that specialized in procurement for public agencies over
`
`the Internet. For another example, in the 2001-2002 time period, I was the Chief
`
`Technology Officer of Networld Exchange Inc. In both assignments, I was
`
`responsible for the design, development and deployment of a suite of products that
`
`delivered e-Commerce functions. These functions were provided over the Internet
`
`and included product catalog information display, purchase and/or purchase order
`
`creation, order delivery to fulfillment systems, order status reporting, and
`
`interoperability with third party inventory and pricing systems. The products that I
`
`had responsibility for utilized protocols and technologies common for web-based
`
`systems.
`
`6
`
`GOOG-1003
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 10 of 300
`
`PGR2022-00003
`Apple EX1003 Page 10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`PGR2021-00028, PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046)
`
`12. Additionally, as my curriculum vitae shows, I have performed a
`
`detailed analysis of the competitive environment for retail point-of-sale hardware
`
`and software systems. This analysis included technology, marketing,
`
`compensation, and back office interface issues. I also led the design of an image-
`
`assisted remittance processing system using IBM system components and Sybase
`
`relational database in a client/server architecture for TRW. Additionally, I
`
`designed an object-oriented front end to the database so that the UNIX platform
`
`could execute Sybase applications.
`
`13. My practical experience regarding mobile device computing software
`
`includes development at NTN Communication of a multiplayer game system
`
`operating over mobile phones where issues of data synchronization, event
`
`handling, and centralized control of distributed devices was required. I have been
`
`retained in several matters relating to mobile computing software. For example, I
`
`have been retained in patent and copyright matters involving touch screen user
`
`interface operations on mobile phones, Internet protocol implementation on mobile
`
`phones, and data synchronization between centralized servers and distributed
`
`computing devices.
`
`14.
`
`In addition, on several occasions, I have served as an expert witness
`
`where web and Internet protocols and technology analysis were required to render
`
`an opinion. These matters include HyVee v. Inmar Inc., Diet Goal Innovations v.
`
`7
`
`GOOG-1003
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 11 of 300
`
`PGR2022-00003
`Apple EX1003 Page 11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`PGR2021-00028, PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046)
`
`Chipotle, et al., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., et al., Optimize Technology
`
`Solutions, LLC v. Staples, Inc., et al., and others.
`
`15.
`
`In summary, I have extensive familiarity with the field of electronic
`
`payment techniques and mobile computing, and, as I have worked in this field
`
`since the early 2000s, I am familiar with what the state of this field was at the
`
`relevant time of the ’046 Patent and before.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill may be reflected by the
`
`prior art of record and that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) to
`
`which the claimed subject matter pertains would have the capability of
`
`understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent
`
`art.
`
`17.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention, (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology, (3) the types of problems encountered in the field,
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`18.
`
`For purposes of this Declaration, I have been asked to apply an
`
`effective filing date for the ’046 Patent of March 29, 2013. I note that claims 1-17
`
`claims may have a later effective filing date of June 2, 2015 based on lack of
`
`8
`
`GOOG-1003
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 12 of 300
`
`PGR2022-00003
`Apple EX1003 Page 12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`PGR2021-00028, PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046)
`
`written description support in the ’046 Patent, but the definition of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (noted below) is the same for both dates.
`
`19. A POSITA on and before March 29, 2013 would have had a working
`
`knowledge of mobile payment techniques pertinent to the ’046 Patent, including
`
`art describing mobile payment techniques. A POSITA would have had a bachelor’s
`
`degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and one year
`
`of professional experience relating to mobile payment. Lack of professional
`
`experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.
`
`20.
`
`For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field at least as early as
`
`March 29, 2013. Unless otherwise stated, when I provide my understanding and
`
`analysis below, it is consistent with the level of a POSITA on or before the
`
`effective filing (cid:71)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:1932)046 Patent.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`21.
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ’046 Patent, I am relying on certain legal
`
`principles that counsel has explained to me. These principles are discussed below.
`
`9
`
`GOOG-1003
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 13 of 300
`
`PGR2022-00003
`Apple EX1003 Page 13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`PGR2021-00028, PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046)
`
`A. Entitlement to an Earlier Priority Date
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a patent is eligible for post-grant review if the patent
`
`contains or contained at any time, a claim having an effective filing date of March
`
`16, 2013.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that a patent, such as the ’046 Patent, that claims
`
`priority to a prior patent application (non-provisional or provisional) may only
`
`obtain the benefit of the earlier filing date of the prior patent application if the prior
`
`patent application contains written description support for every element of a claim
`
`in question. I understand that this analysis is performed on a claim-by-claim basis.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claiming priority to several prior
`
`patent applications may not be entitled to the earlier filing date of all prior patent
`
`applications, such that the patent may be entitled to the benefit of only some of the
`
`prior patent application(s) that provide(s) written description support for every
`
`element of a claim in question. I understand that this analysis is performed on a
`
`claim-by-claim basis.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that a disclosure satisfies the written description
`
`requirement if it reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
`
`possession of the claimed subject matter as of the date in question. It is my
`
`understanding that one shows that one is in possession of the claimed invention by
`
`10
`
`GOOG-1003
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 14 of 300
`
`PGR2022-00003
`Apple EX1003 Page 14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`PGR2021-00028, PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046)
`
`describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, and that this requirement
`
`is not satisfied by a description which makes the claimed invention obvious.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed that a disclosure that satisfies the written
`
`description requirement may be incorporated by reference in the provisional
`
`application, by way of incorporation by reference of a U.S. patent or U.S. patent
`
`publication, but the incorporation by reference does not extend to material
`
`incorporated by reference within such referenced U.S. patent or U.S. patent
`
`publication.
`
`B. Written Description Requirement
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a patent must include a specification that contains “a
`
`written description of the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). I also understand that, to
`
`comply with the written description requirement, the specification or earlier-filed
`
`application must reasonably convey to a POSITA that the inventor had possession
`
`of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. I understand that such possession
`
`is established only by disclosure. I further understand that a disclosure is
`
`insufficient if it merely renders the later-claimed invention obvious, as the
`
`disclosure must describe the claimed invention with all its limitations.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the purpose of the written description requirement is
`
`to prevent an applicant from later asserting that he invented that which he did not. I
`
`therefore understand that, while it is legitimate to amend claims or add claims to a
`
`11
`
`GOOG-1003
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 15 of 300
`
`PGR2022-00003
`Apple EX1003 Page 15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`PGR2021-00028, PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046)
`
`patent application during prosecution, there must be support for such amendments
`
`or additions in the originally filed application.
`
`C. Subject-Matter Eligibility
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention may be patent-eligible if it is a
`
`new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, but that
`
`this includes exceptions, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
`
`are not patentable. I understand that the patent eligibility analysis follows a two-
`
`step framework. I understand that the first step of that inquiry is to ask whether the
`
`claim at issue is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. I
`
`understand that this inquiry requires looking at the focus of the claims, which may
`
`be informed by analyzing the specification to understand the problem facing the
`
`inventor.
`
`30.
`
`If a claim is directed to an abstract idea, I understand that the second
`
`step in the inquiry requires an examination of the claim elements to determine
`
`whether they contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed
`
`abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. I also understand that merely
`
`appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, is not enough
`
`to supply an inventive concept.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“USPTO”) has issued guidance (“Guidance”) for applying the two-part test
`
`12
`
`GOOG-1003
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 16 of 300
`
`PGR2022-00003
`Apple EX1003 Page 16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`PGR2021-00028, PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046)
`
`described above. I understand that, at Step 1 of the Guidance, the USPTO looks to
`
`whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of
`
`patentable subject matter: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
`
`matter. I further understand that Step 2 of the Guidance is divided into multiple
`
`parts. I understand that Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Guidance asks whether a claim
`
`recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or
`
`abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. I further understand that, at
`
`Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Guidance, one determines whether the claim as a whole
`
`integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the
`
`exception. Finally, I understand that Step 2B of the Guidance asks whether the
`
`claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial
`
`exception.
`
`D. Obviousness
`
`32.
`
`(cid:44)(cid:3)(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:1932)(cid:19)(cid:23)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:88)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate at least March 29, 2013.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable if it is either anticipated or
`
`rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a patent claim is unpatentable as
`
`anticipated if each element of that claim is present either explicitly or inherently in
`
`a single prior art reference. I have also been informed that, to be an inherent
`
`13
`
`GOOG-1003
`Google LLC v. RFCyber Corp. / Page 17 of 300
`
`PGR2022-00003
`Apple EX1003 Page 17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`PGR2021-00028, PGR2021-00029 (U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046)
`
`disclosure, the prior art reference must necessarily disclose the limitation, and the
`
`fact that the reference might possibly practice or contain a claimed limitation is
`
`insufficient to establish that the reference inherently teaches the limitation.
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable for
`
`obviousness if the differences between the invention 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 person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter
`
`pertains. I have also been informed by counsel that the obviousness analysis takes
`
`into account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and the
`
`claimed subject matter.
`
`36.
`
`It is my understanding th