Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`iControl Networks, Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,473,619
`Filing Date: Aug. 11, 2008
`Issue Date: June 25, 2013
`Title: Security Network Integrated with Premise Security System
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES PARKER IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONS FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,473,619
`
`Inter Partes Review No. ______
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 1
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 8
`A.
`Engagement Overview ......................................................................... 8
`B.
`Summary of Opinions .......................................................................... 8
`C. Qualifications and Experience ............................................................. 9
`1.
`Education ................................................................................... 9
`2.
`Career ....................................................................................... 10
`3.
`Publications .............................................................................. 11
`4.
`Curriculum Vitae ...................................................................... 11
`D. Materials Considered .......................................................................... 11
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN THE ANALYSIS ................................... 13
`A.
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) ...................... 13
`B.
`Prior Art .............................................................................................. 15
`C.
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretations .................................................. 15
`D.
`Legal Standards for Obviousness ....................................................... 16
`III. TECHNOLOGY TUTORIAL ...................................................................... 21
`A.
`Introduction ........................................................................................ 21
`B.
`Local Devices and Systems ................................................................ 21
`1.
`Sensors ..................................................................................... 21
`2.
`Controllers and User Interfaces ............................................... 23
`3.
`Security Systems ...................................................................... 24
`4.
`Security Systems and Home Automations............................... 25
`Remote Systems and Devices ............................................................ 27
`1.
`Centralized Monitoring Systems ............................................. 27
`2.
`Remote User Devices ............................................................... 28
`IV. THE ‘619 PATENT ...................................................................................... 29
`A. Overview of the ‘619 Patent ............................................................... 29
`B.
`Interpretation of Claim Limitations in the ‘619 Patent ...................... 29
`C.
`The Priority Claims of the ‘619 Patent .............................................. 30
`2
`
`C.
`
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 2
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................ 30
`A. Overview of Wimsatt ......................................................................... 30
`B. Overview of Johnson .......................................................................... 32
`C. Overview of Severson ........................................................................ 35
`D. Overview of Naidoo ........................................................................... 36
`E.
`Overview of Alexander ...................................................................... 36
`F.
`Overview of Anthony ......................................................................... 37
`G.
`The Cited References Are Analogous Art ......................................... 37
`VI. CLAIMS 1-9 AND 12-62 ARE OBVIOUS OVER WIMSATT IN
`VIEW OF JOHNSON, SEVERSON AND/OR OTHER
`REFERENCES UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A) .............................................. 38
`A.
`Independent claim 1 ........................................................................... 38
`1.
`Preamble: “A system comprising” ........................................... 38
`2.
`Claim element 1[a]: “a gateway located at a first
`location” ................................................................................... 38
`Claim element 1[b]: “a connection management
`component coupled to the gateway and automatically
`establishing a wireless coupling with a security system
`installed at the first location” ................................................... 39
`Claim element 1[c]: “the security system including
`security system components” ................................................... 42
`Claim element 1[d]: “wherein the connection
`management component forms a security network by
`automatically discovering the security system
`components and integrating communications and
`functions of the security system components into the
`security network” ..................................................................... 44
`Claim element 1[e]: “a security server at a second
`location different from the first location, wherein the
`security server is coupled to the gateway” ............................... 50
`
`6.
`
`3
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 3
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`
`7.
`
`Claim element 1[f]: “wherein the gateway receives
`security data from the security system components,
`device data of a plurality of network devices coupled to a
`local network of the first location that is independent of
`the security network, and remote data from the security
`server,” ..................................................................................... 52
`Claim element 1[g]: “wherein the gateway generates
`processed data by processing at the gateway the security
`data, the device data, and the remote data,” ............................. 55
`Claim element 1[h]: “wherein the gateway determines a
`state change of the security system using the processed
`data and maintains objects at the security server using the
`processed data, wherein the objects correspond to the
`security system components and the plurality of network
`devices” .................................................................................... 57
`B. Dependent claim 2 .............................................................................. 62
`C. Dependent claim 3 .............................................................................. 64
`D. Dependent claim 4 .............................................................................. 65
`E.
`Dependent claim 5 .............................................................................. 65
`F.
`Dependent claim 6 .............................................................................. 67
`G. Dependent claim 7 .............................................................................. 69
`H. Dependent claim 8 .............................................................................. 69
`I.
`Dependent claim 9 .............................................................................. 70
`J.
`Dependent claim 12 ............................................................................ 70
`K. Dependent claim 13 ............................................................................ 71
`L.
`Dependent claim 14 ............................................................................ 71
`M. Dependent claim 15 ............................................................................ 74
`N. Dependent claim 16 ............................................................................ 75
`O. Dependent claim 17 ............................................................................ 77
`P.
`Dependent claim 18 ............................................................................ 79
`Q. Dependent claim 19 ............................................................................ 80
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`4
`
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 4
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`
`R. Dependent claim 20 ............................................................................ 80
`S.
`Dependent claim 21 ............................................................................ 82
`T.
`Dependent claim 22 ............................................................................ 83
`U. Dependent claim 23 ............................................................................ 84
`V. Dependent claim 24 ............................................................................ 85
`W. Dependent claim 25 ............................................................................ 85
`X. Dependent claim 26 ............................................................................ 86
`Y. Dependent claim 27 ............................................................................ 86
`Z.
`Dependent claim 28 ............................................................................ 87
`AA. Dependent claim 29 ............................................................................ 88
`BB. Dependent claim 30 ............................................................................ 89
`CC. Dependent claim 31 ............................................................................ 90
`DD. Dependent claim 32 ............................................................................ 90
`EE. Dependent claim 33 ............................................................................ 91
`FF. Dependent claim 34 ............................................................................ 91
`GG. Dependent claim 35 ............................................................................ 92
`HH. Dependent claim 36 ............................................................................ 92
`II. Dependent claims 37 and 38 .............................................................. 93
`JJ. Dependent claim 39 ............................................................................ 95
`KK. Dependent claim 40 ............................................................................ 97
`LL. Dependent claim 41 ............................................................................ 98
`MM. Dependent claim 42 ............................................................................ 99
`NN. Dependent claims 43 and 44 ............................................................ 100
`OO. Dependent claim 45 .......................................................................... 100
`PP. Dependent claim 46 .......................................................................... 100
`QQ. Dependent claim 47 .......................................................................... 102
`RR. Dependent claim 48 .......................................................................... 102
`SS. Dependent claims 49 and 50 ............................................................ 104
`5
`
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 5
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`
`TT. Dependent claim 51 .......................................................................... 106
`UU. Dependent claim 52 .......................................................................... 108
`VV. Dependent claim 53 .......................................................................... 109
`WW. Dependent claim 54 .......................................................................... 110
`XX. Dependent claim 55 .......................................................................... 111
`YY. Dependent claim 56 .......................................................................... 112
`ZZ. Dependent claim 57 .......................................................................... 112
`AAA. Dependent claim 58 .......................................................................... 113
`BBB. Dependent claim 59 .......................................................................... 115
`CCC. Independent claim 60 ....................................................................... 116
`1.
`Preamble: “A security network comprising” ......................... 116
`2.
`Claim elements 60[a] to 60[d] ............................................... 116
`3.
`Claim element 60[e]: “wherein the security server is
`coupled to the gateway and includes a plurality of
`security network applications” ............................................... 117
`Claim elements 60[f]-60[i] .................................................... 118
`4.
`DDD. Independent claim 61 ....................................................................... 119
`1.
`Preamble: “A security network comprising” ......................... 119
`2.
`Claim element 61[a]: “a gateway including a connection
`management component located at a first location” .............. 119
`Claim element 61[b]: “a wireless coupling between the
`gateway and a security system installed at the first
`location” ................................................................................. 119
`Claim elements 61[c]-61[g] ................................................... 120
`Claim element 61[h]: “an interface coupled to the
`gateway, the interface providing communications with
`the security network and control of the functions of the
`security network from a remote client device” ...................... 122
`EEE. Dependent claim 62 .......................................................................... 125
`
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`
`6
`
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 6
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`VII. NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS
`EXIST ......................................................................................................... 125
`VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 126
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 7
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`
`1.
`
`I, James Parker, declare as follows:
`
`2.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration, and
`
`could and would testify to these facts under oath if called upon to do so.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A. Engagement Overview
`3.
`I have been retained by counsel for SecureNet Technologies, LLC
`
`(Petitioner) in this case as an expert in the relevant art. I am being compensated for
`
`my work at the rate of $350 per hour. No part of my compensation is contingent
`
`upon the outcome of these petitions.
`
`4.
`
`I was asked to study U.S. Patent No. 8,473,619 (“the ‘619 patent”), its
`
`prosecution history, and the prior art and to render opinions on the obviousness or
`
`non-obviousness of certain ones of the claims of the ‘619 patent in light of the
`
`teachings of the prior art, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`the 2005 time frame. I understand that the claims being challenged in the Petitions
`
`are claims 1-9 and 12-62 (“the challenged claims”).
`
`B.
`5.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`
`After studying the ‘619 patent, relevant excerpts of its file history, and
`
`the prior art, and considering the subject matter of the claims of the ‘619 patent in
`
`light of the state of technical advancement in the area of security alarm systems in
`
`the 2005 time frame, I reached the conclusions discussed herein.
`8
`
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 8
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`
`6.
`
`In light of these general conclusions, and as explained in more detail
`
`throughout this declaration, it is therefore my opinion that each of the challenged
`
`claims of the ‘619 patent addressed in this declaration are invalid as they were
`
`obvious in the 2005 time frame in light of the knowledge of skill in the art at that
`
`time and the teachings, suggestions, and motivations present in the prior art. This
`
`declaration, and the conclusions and opinions herein, provide support for the
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of the ‘619 patent filed by Petitioner. I have
`
`reviewed the Petitions in their entireties as well as their corresponding exhibits
`
`(which are identical).
`
`C. Qualifications and Experience
`7.
`I possess the knowledge, skills, experience, training and the education
`
`to form an expert opinion and testimony in this matter. I have over 33 years of
`
`experience in the fields of Electronic Security Systems and Sensors.
`
`Education
`
`1.
`I attended the RCC Institute of Technology from 1979-1982 and
`
`8.
`
`graduated with a Diploma in Electronic Engineering Technology, Electronic
`
`Engineering (Hardware & Software). RCC Institute of Technology is a division of
`
`Yorkville University, located in Toronto, Canada. I understand my Canadian
`
`Diploma is more or less equivalent to a Bachelor’s Degree in the US.
`
`9
`
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 9
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`
`Career
`
`2.
`I will discuss my current position first, followed by a synopsis of my
`
`9.
`
`career and work from shortly after I received my diploma to the present.
`
`10.
`
`I am currently the President of EE Systems Group, Inc. Canada ("EE-
`
`SGI") of Richmond Hill, Ontario Canada. EE-SGI is an innovator and technical
`
`solution provider with extensive R&D capabilities in the Security and Life Safety
`
`products industry. As part of my work at EE-SGI, I am responsible for all
`
`hardware design and system and/or software architectures, interacting and
`
`negotiating with key customers in all areas of business, spearheading new product
`
`development, and overseeing EE-SGI's China operations, including all component
`
`sourcing and design oversight.
`
`11. Previously, I spent 18 years working with Digital Security Controls
`
`(“DSC”), eventually becoming Vice President of Engineering. I first joined DSC
`
`in 1985 as a contractor. DSC is a major supplier of electronic security and
`
`monitoring systems. While at DSC, I had cross functional responsibilities in
`
`Marketing, New Business Development, and Manufacturing, and I managed 200
`
`employees. I was the principal architect of the “Power” and “Maxsys” families,
`
`including the PC1550, one of the most widely installed alarm control panels in the
`
`world, with an installed base in the millions. In addition, my work at DSC
`
`10
`
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 10
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`included software and hardware design, organizing and driving corporate speed to
`
`market
`
`initiatives, developing protocols
`
`for
`
`interconnecting components,
`
`negotiating agreements with key suppliers, and developing mixed mode ASIC's,
`
`among other things
`
`Publications
`
`3.
`I am a named inventor on over 25 patents (both domestic and foreign),
`
`12.
`
`in the areas of electronic security systems and sensors. The patent numbers and
`
`titles and abstracts are listed on the attached curriculum vitae. (Ex. 1013.)
`
`4.
`Curriculum Vitae
`13. Additional details of my education and employment history, patents,
`
`and publications are set forth in my current curriculum vitae, which is provided as
`
`Ex. 1013.
`
`D. Materials Considered
`14. My analysis is based on my experience in the alarm system,
`
`communications, and digital communications industries since 1983, including the
`
`documents I have read and authored and systems I have developed and used since
`
`then.
`
`15. Furthermore, I have reviewed the various relevant publications from
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention and the claim analysis that is included in
`
`the Petitions for Inter Partes Review of the ‘619 patent, to which this Declaration
`11
`
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 11
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`relates. I have also reviewed the Petitions in their entireties. Based on my
`
`experience as a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of
`
`the alleged invention, the references accurately characterize the state of the art at
`
`the relevant time. Specifically, I have reviewed the following:
`
`Description of Document
`
`Exhibit
`No.1
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,473,619 ("the ‘619 patent")
`1003
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,473,619
`1004 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0260427 to Wimsatt (“Wimsatt”)
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,580,950 to Johnson et al. (“Johnson”)
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 4,951,029 to Severson (“Severson”)
`1007 U.S. Publication No. 2003/0062997 to Naidoo et al. (“Naidoo”)
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,748,343 to Alexander et al. (“Alexander”)
`1009 U.S. Publication No. 2003/0137426 to Anthony et al. (“Anthony”)
`1010
`Installation Instructions for PC5401 Data Interface Module (2004)
`“Understanding Universal Plug and Play,” White Paper, Microsoft
`(2000)
`Waiver of Service, iControl Networks, Inc. v. SecureNet Techns.,
`LLC, No. 15-807-GMS, (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2015), ECF No. 5
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`
`
` 1
`
` The same exhibit numbers and exhibits are used for both petitions for ease of
`
`reference. For example, a reference to “Exhibit 1003”, which is the file history for
`
`the ‘619 patent, is the same for both petitions filed for the ‘619 patent.
`
`12
`
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 12
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN THE ANALYSIS
`16.
`I am not a patent attorney, nor have I independently researched the
`
`law on patent validity. Attorneys for the Petitioner explained certain legal
`
`principles to me that I have relied upon in forming my opinions set forth in this
`
`report.
`
`A.
`17.
`
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)
`
`I understand that I must undertake my assessment of the claims of the
`
`‘619 patent from the perspective of what would have been known or understood by
`
`a POSITA as of the earliest claimed priority date of the patent claim, which I
`
`understand is March 16, 2005. The opinions and statements that I provide herein
`
`regarding the ‘619 patent and the references that I discuss are made from the
`
`perspective of the person of ordinary skill in the art in the early 2005 time frame.
`
`18. Counsel has advised me that to determine the appropriate level of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, I may consider the following factors: (a) the types of
`
`problems encountered by those working in the field and prior art solutions thereto;
`
`(b) the sophistication of the technology in question, and the rapidity with which
`
`innovations occur in the field; (c) the educational level of active workers in the
`
`field; and (d) the educational level of the inventor.
`
`19. The relevant technology field for the ‘619 patent is digital systems
`
`design, especially as pertains to telecommunication system design and operation,
`13
`
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 13
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`as applicable to safety and security systems. Based on this, and the four factors
`
`above, it is my opinion that POSITA would hold a bachelor’s degree or the
`
`equivalent in electrical engineering (or related academic fields) and at least three
`
`years of additional experience in the area of digital and/or telecommunication
`
`system design, as applicable to safety and security systems, or equivalent work
`
`experience.
`
`20. Unless otherwise specified, when I mention a POSITA or someone of
`
`ordinary skill, I am referring to someone with at least the above level of knowledge
`
`and understanding.
`
`21. Based on my experiences, I have a good understanding of the
`
`capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. Indeed, in addition to
`
`being a person of at least ordinary skill in the art, I have worked closely with many
`
`such persons over the course of my career.
`
`22. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis and
`
`opinions regarding the ‘619 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in the March 2005 time frame.
`
`23. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on, among other things, the content of the ‘619 patent, my years of experience in
`
`14
`
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 14
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`the field of security alarm systems, my understanding of the basic qualifications
`
`that would be relevant to an engineer tasked with investigating methods and
`
`systems in the relevant area, and my familiarity with the backgrounds of colleagues
`
`and co-workers, both past and present.
`
`24. My opinions herein regarding the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and my other opinions set forth herein would remain the same if the person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art were determined to have somewhat more or less education
`
`and/or experience than I have identified above.
`
`B.
`25.
`
`Prior Art
`
`I understand that the law provides categories of information that
`
`constitute prior art that may be used to anticipate or render obvious patent claims.
`
`To be prior art to a particular patent under the relevant law, a reference must have
`
`been made, known, used, published, or patented, or be the subject of a patent
`
`application by another, before the priority date of the patent. I also understand that
`
`the POSITA is presumed to have knowledge of the relevant prior art.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the challenged claims of the ‘619 patent may be
`
`entitled to a March 16, 2005 priority date.
`
`C. Broadest Reasonable Interpretations
`27.
`I understand that, in Inter Partes Review, the claim terms are to be
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification.
`15
`
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 15
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In performing my analysis and rendering my opinions,
`
`I have interpreted claim terms for which the Petitioner has not proposed a BRI
`
`construction by giving them the ordinary meaning they would have to a POSITA,
`
`reading the ‘619 Patent with its earliest priority filing date (March 16, 2005) in
`
`mind, and in light of its specification and file history.
`
`D. Legal Standards for Obviousness
`28.
`I have been provided the following instructions from the Federal
`
`Circuit Bar Association Model Instructions regarding obviousness, which is
`
`reproduced in part below. I apply this understanding in my analysis, with the
`
`caveat that I have been informed that the Patent Office will find a patent claim
`
`invalid in inter partes review if it concludes that it is more likely than not that the
`
`claim is invalid (i.e., a preponderance of the evidence standard), which is a lower
`
`burden of proof than the “clear and convincing” standard that is applied in United
`
`States district court (and described in the jury instruction below):
`
`4.3c OBVIOUSNESS
`
`Even though an invention may not have been identically
`disclosed or described before it was made by an inventor,
`in order to be patentable, the invention must also not
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`field of technology of the patent at the time the invention
`was made.
`
`16
`
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 16
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`
`[Alleged infringer] may establish that a patent claim is
`invalid by showing, by clear and convincing evidence,
`that the claimed invention would have been obvious to
`persons having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`invention was made in the field of [insert the field of the
`invention].
`
`In determining whether a claimed invention is obvious,
`you must consider the level of ordinary skill in the field
`[of the invention] that someone would have had at the
`time the [invention was made] or [patent was filed], the
`scope and content of the prior art, and any differences
`between the prior art and the claimed invention.
`
`Keep in mind that the existence of each and every
`element of the claimed invention in the prior art does not
`necessarily prove obviousness. Most,
`if not all,
`inventions rely on building blocks of prior art. In
`considering whether a claimed invention is obvious, you
`may but are not required to find obviousness if you find
`that at the time of the claimed invention [or the patent’s
`filing date] there was a reason that would have prompted
`a person having ordinary skill in the field of [the
`invention] to combine the known elements in a way the
`claimed invention does, taking into account such factors
`as (1) whether the claimed invention was merely the
`predictable result of using prior art elements according to
`
`17
`
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 17
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`
`the claimed
`their known function(s); (2) whether
`invention provides an obvious solution to a known
`problem in the relevant field; (3) whether the prior art
`teaches or suggests
`the desirability of combining
`elements claimed in the invention; (4) whether the prior
`art teaches away from combining elements in the claimed
`invention; (5) whether it would have been obvious to try
`the combinations of elements, such as when there is a
`design need or market pressure to solve a problem and
`there are a finite number of identified, predictable
`solutions; and (6) whether the change resulted more from
`design incentives or other market forces. To find it
`rendered the invention obvious, you must find that the
`prior art provided a reasonable expectation of success.
`Obvious
`to
`try
`is not sufficient
`in unpredictable
`technologies.
`
`In determining whether the claimed invention was
`obvious, consider each claim separately. Do not use
`hindsight, i.e., consider only what was known at the time
`of the invention [or the patent’s filing date].
`
`In making these assessments, you should take into
`account any objective evidence (sometimes called
`“secondary considerations”) that may shed light on the
`obviousness or not of the claimed invention, such as:
`
`18
`
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 18
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,619
`
`
`(a) Whether the invention was commercially successful
`as a result of the merits of the claimed invention (rather
`than the result of design needs or market-pressure
`advertising or similar activities);
`
`(b) Whether the invention satisfied a long-felt need;
`
`(c) Whether others had tried and failed to make the
`invention;
`
`(d) Whether others invented the invention at roughly the
`same time;
`
`(e) Whether others copied the invention;
`
`(f) Whether there were changes or related technologies or
`market needs contemporaneous with the invention;
`
`(g) Whether the invention achieved unexpected results;
`
`(h) Whether others in the field praised the invention;
`
`(i) Whether persons having ordinary skill in the art of the
`invention expressed surprise or disbelief regarding the
`invention;
`
`(j) Whether others sought or obtained rights to the patent
`from the patent holder; and
`
`(k) Whether the inventor proceeded contrary to accepted
`wisdom in the field.
`
`Federal Circuit Bar Association Model Jury Instructions §4.3c (2014).
`
`29.
`
`I am also informed that the United States Patent Office supplies its
`19
`
`
`
`SecureNet Technologies, LLC Exhibit 1002 Page 19
`
`

`
`Declaration of James Parker
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,473,6