U.S. Patent No. 6,943,710
`Declaration In Support Of Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`GE Video Compression, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,943,710
`_______________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. IMMANUEL FREEDMAN IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,943,710
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000001
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................... 1
`UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ................................................................................. 9
`A.
`Prior Art ................................................................................................................ 10
`B.
`Anticipation........................................................................................................... 11
`C.
`Obviousness .......................................................................................................... 11
`D.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................................... 16
`E.
`Priority Date .......................................................................................................... 22
`Level of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 23
`Background of the Technology ......................................................................................... 25
`A.
`Introduction to Digital Data Compression ............................................................ 25
`B.
`Introduction to Binary Arithmetic Coding (“BAC”) ............................................ 26
`C.
`Introduction to Probability Modeling ................................................................... 28
`1.
`Importance of Accurate Probability Modeling ......................................... 28
`2.
`Static and Adaptive Statistical Probability Modeling ............................... 29
`3.
`Table-Based Probability Modeling ........................................................... 32
`BAC Tutorial ........................................................................................................ 33
`D.
`The ’710 Patent ................................................................................................................. 41
`A.
`Summary of the ’710 Patent ................................................................................. 41
`B.
`’710 Patent Prosecution History ........................................................................... 48
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ....................................................................................... 48
`SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART ................................................................................. 52
`A.
`Howard (Ex. 1004)................................................................................................ 52
`B.
`Printz (Ex. 1005) ................................................................................................... 56
`C.
`Kimura (Ex. 1006) ................................................................................................ 58
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................................. 61
`A.
`“interval division table” ........................................................................................ 61
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................................. 62
`A.
`Ground 1: Claims 25, 33, and 60-63 are Obvious Over Howard in view of Printz
`............................................................................................................................... 62
`
`VI.
`VII.
`
`IX.
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`- iii -
`
`

`

`I, Immanuel Freedman, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I make this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge and,
`
`if called upon to testify, would testify competently to the matters contained herein.
`
`2.
`
`As provided herein, I provide technical assistance in connection with
`
`the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,943,710 (“the ’710 Patent”), Exhibit
`
`1001.
`
`3.
`
`This declaration is a statement of my opinions on issues related to the
`
`patentability of claims 25, 33, and 60-63 of the ʼ710 Patent.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`My relevant qualifications, including my educational background and
`
`career history is summarized below. My full curriculum vitae is attached as
`
`Exhibit A to this report.
`
`5.
`
`I have over 30 years of industry experience, a substantial portion of
`
`which was spent working with image and video coding and developing models and
`
`simulations to analyze various video and imaging systems. I obtained a Bachelor
`
`of Science degree in Physics from the University of Durham, England in 1979.
`
`After graduating, I worked as a scientist for the National Coal Board, where I
`
`developed and validated a microcomputer system for detecting coalmine fires and
`
`heatings. In 1985 I began working as a software engineer for Laser-Scan Ltd. in
`
`Cambridge, England.
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000004
`
`

`

`6.
`
`I then obtained a Doctorate in Physics from the University of Durham,
`
`England in 1986. After receiving my Doctorate I served as a Research Assistant at
`
`University College London from September 1986 to June of 1987, where I
`
`developed digital image processing algorithms to improve image and stereo-
`
`matching quality for a digital terrain modeling system including software and
`
`algorithms for affine transformation, edge filtering, kriging interpolation and image
`
`stereo matching with sub-pixel acuity. I continued my work with digital image
`
`processing as a Research Associate at the University of Maryland, from June 1987
`
`to September 1988. During my time at the University of Maryland I designed low-
`
`complexity algorithms for filtering, segmenting, clustering, and path planning
`
`based on digital images organized by quad-tree data structures.
`
`7.
`
` From September 1988 to June 1994 I worked as a Senior Systems
`
`Engineer for the Hughes STX Corporation. As part of my work, I developed
`
`methods for comparison of sky maps from the Cosmic Background Explorer
`
`(COBE) mission with sky maps from other missions based on scientific data stored
`
`in a spatially referenced database using a quad-tree data structure. In my role I led
`
`the Systems Engineering and end-to-end development of a novel system for
`
`compressing data
`
`that combined scientific modeling with statistical data
`
`compression. I was also charged with designing and developing evaluation tools to
`
`ensure user-transparent, system-wide compression of a 380 GB dynamic database
`
`- 2 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000005
`
`

`

`at image quality acceptable to scientists. In recognition of my work, I received a
`
`Hughes STX Achievement Award in 1990 and NASA Group Achievement
`
`Awards in 1990 and 1992.
`
`8.
`
`After June 1994 I began a 6-month stint as a contract Software
`
`Engineer for the Federal National Mortgage Association in Washington District of
`
`Columbia, which I developed a graphical user interface to monitor and validate
`
`loan servicer input for a Loss Mitigation Project. I then served as an Independent
`
`Consultant to Optivision, Inc. for the next six months, where I researched and
`
`developed rate control algorithms and software based on the MPEG-2 Test Model
`
`5 for the OPTIVideo™ MPEG-2 video encoder, as well as adaptive quantization
`
`algorithms based on the JPEG-3 draft standard. As part of my role, I researched
`
`and developed algorithms to improve the quality of gray scale image compression
`
`for the medical imaging DICOM Standard by providing a lossless hybrid algorithm
`
`encoding image residuals with a diagonal Golomb code based on an Enhanced
`
`Universal Trellis Coded Quantization algorithm.
`
`9.
`
`Between December of 1995 and March of 1996, I served as a Senior
`
`Staff Engineer/Firmware Engineer for General Instrument Inc., Comstream Inc.,
`
`and Armor Safe Technologies Inc. At Comstream, I worked on integrating an
`
`MPEG-2 set top box with OpenTV interactive television middleware programmed
`
`- 3 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000006
`
`

`

`in the Microtec C language ported to a Motorola 68340 processor under the pSOS
`
`operating system.
`
`10. As Sole Proprietor of Anugraha, between January of 1996 to 1997, I
`
`researched and developed algorithms and processes to compress fine art
`
`photography at image quality acceptable to artists based on the JPEG imaging
`
`standard implemented with image pre-processing and adaptive quantization. For
`
`the next year or so I worked as an engineering contractor or consultant for various
`
`companies, working primarily on image processing systems.
`
`11.
`
`In October of 1998 I began a six-month stint with Rockwell Collins
`
`Inc., where I worked as a Lead Systems Engineer tasked with harmonizing
`
`requirements for an MPEG-2 in-flight entertainment system. I then moved to Sun
`
`Microsystems Inc. where I worked as a Software Engineer until November 1999.
`
`During my time at Sun Microsystems Inc., I developed a Distributed Component
`
`Object Model (DCOM) software interface between a TV control graphical user
`
`interface and a Microsoft broadcast application programming interface (API) with
`
`the goal of improving the visual quality of interactive TV displays derived from
`
`UDP/IP datagrams synchronized with MPEG-2 audio/video packet data.
`
`12.
`
`For the next 22 months, from January 2000 to October 2002, I worked
`
`as the Chief Systems Engineer for Media Logic Systems Ltd. During my time at
`
`Media Logic Systems, I designed and developed a live interactive television
`
`- 4 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000007
`
`

`

`system (iSeeTV) in which customers communicate with human sales agents in
`
`video-enabled call centers. To create this system, I researched and developed tools
`
`and encoder systems to optimize image quality at prescribed latency and bit rate
`
`for distributing live video and audio streams encoded via low latency methods. To
`
`perform the above I was required to understand the MPEG-2 Simple Profile at
`
`Main Level (CATV), MPEG-4 Visual Profile with background sprite coding, and
`
`the H.263+ Standard (now known as H.264).
`
`13.
`
`Since November of 2002 I have been an engineering contractor, and
`
`more recently an independent consultant in mathematical modeling, for several
`
`companies, such as Cyra Technologies Inc., Amgen Inc., and Merck & Co., Inc. I
`
`also serve as a manager at GlaxoSmithKline Inc. During this time, I have
`
`developed mathematical models and simulations related to various systems,
`
`signals, and images. Specifically, I have focused on analyzing, processing, storing,
`
`and deriving information from medical imaging and related data. Using the
`
`information derived from the medical images and related data, I have created a
`
`variety of models related to biology and the effects of drugs on the human body.
`
`In recognition of my work I have received GlaxoSmithKline R&D Recognition
`
`Awards in 2012, 2013, and 2016. In addition, in 2002, I was registered to practice
`
`as a Patent Agent (Reg. No. 51,704).
`
`- 5 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000008
`
`

`

`14.
`
`In addition to my over thirty years of industry experience I have
`
`authored many publications relating to video and imaging coding. In 2003 and
`
`2004, respectively, I authored chapters titled “Video Compression” and “Video”
`
`for the Internet Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia of Human-Computer
`
`Interaction. In 2007 I authored a chapter titled “Video Compression” for the
`
`Handbook of Computer Networks, and in 2014 I authored a chapter titled
`
`“Pharmaco-Imaging in Translational Science and Research” for Pharmaco-Imaging
`
`in Drug and Biologics Development.
`
`15.
`
`I am a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (“IEEE”) and served as the 2018 Chair of the Philadelphia Chapter of
`
`the Communications & Information Theory Societies. I also serve as the current
`
`Vice Chair of the IEEE P2673 Intelligence Augmentation for Medical Imaging
`
`Standards Working Group, and as a former Chair of the American Association of
`
`Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) Pharmaco-Imaging Focus Group and current
`
`facilitator of the AAPS Pharmaco-Imaging Community.
`
`16.
`
`Since 2017, I have also been affiliated with the State University of
`
`New York (SUNY) at Buffalo as a voluntary Research Scholar. In this role, I
`
`provide mentorship for doctoral candidates in computational and data-enabled
`
`science in areas relating to computer modeling and estimation. For example, one
`
`- 6 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000009
`
`

`

`project on which I am advising includes reliably deriving parameter estimates in
`
`chaotic settings, such as communication networks or cryptography.
`
`17.
`
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions, but, in my work, I
`
`have had experience studying and analyzing patents and patent claims from the
`
`perspective of a person skilled in the art.
`
`18.
`
`I have reviewed the specification and claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,943,710 to Detlef Marpe and Thomas Wiegand (the “’710 Patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`19.
`
`I have reviewed and understand the references cited in this
`
`Declaration, including the following references:
`
` Ex. 1001 - U.S. Patent No. 6,943,710 to Marpe et al. (“the ’710
`Patent”)
`
` Ex. 1002 - Prosecution File History for the ’710 Patent
`
` Ex. 1004 - Howard, “Design and analysis of fast text compression
`based on quasi-arithmetic coding,” Journal of Information
`Processing and Management, 30(6), 777–790 (1994) (“Howard”)
`
` Ex. 1005 - U.S. Patent No. 5,592,162 to Printz et al. (“Printz”)
`
` Ex. 1006 - U.S. Patent No. 6,351,569 to Kimura et al. (“Kimura”)
`
` Ex. 1007 - Howard, “Practical Implementations of Arithmetic
`Coding,” Image and Text Compression,” J.A. Storer, ed., Kluwer
`Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 85-112 (1992) (“Howard 2”)
`
`- 7 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000010
`
`

`

` Ex. 1008 - Howard, “Arithmetic Coding for Data Compression,”
`Proceedings of the IEEE (July 1994) (“Howard 3”)
`
` Ex. 1009 - Marpe, “Fast Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding (M
`Coder),” http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/mcoder.htm (accessed Nov.
`12, 2018).
`
` Ex. 1010 - Moffat, “Arithmetic Coding Revisited,” ACM
`Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 16, No. 3 (July 1998),
`Pages 256-294.
`
` Ex. 1011 - Duttweiler, Probability Estimation in Arithmetic
`Adaptive-Huffman Entropy Coders
`
` Ex. 1012 - Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fourth
`Edition, Microsoft Press (1999).
`
` Ex. 1013 - Langdon, Jr., “An Introduction to Arithmetic Coding,”
`IBM J. Res. Develop, Vol. 28, No. 2 (March 1984)
`
` Ex. 1014 - Nelson, Data Compression Book, 2nd Ed. (1996).
`
` Ex. 1015
`Techniques
`
`- Westwater, Real-Time Video Compression
`
` Ex. 1017 - Rissanen, “A Multiplication Free Multialphabet
`Arithmetic Code,” IEE Transactions on Communications, Vol.
`37, No. 2 (Feb. 1989)
`
` Ex. 1018 - Pennebaker, “An Overview of the Basic Principles of
`the Q-Coder Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coder,” IBM J. Res.
`
`- 8 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000011
`
`

`

`Develop., Vol. 32, No. 6 (Nov. 1988).
`
` Ex. 1021 – ITU-T Recommendation H.264
`
`20.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether the references listed above
`
`disclose or suggest the features recited in the claims of the ’710 patent. I have also
`
`been asked to consider the state of the art and the prior art available before the time
`
`of the alleged invention. My opinions are provided in this declaration.
`
`21.
`
`To the best of my knowledge, I have no financial interest in Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that GE Video Compression, LLC purports
`
`to own the ’710 patent. To the best of my knowledge, I have no financial interest in
`
`GE Video Compression. To the best of my knowledge, I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ’710 patent. To the extent any mutual funds or other
`
`investments I own have a financial interest in the Petitioner, Unified Patents Inc.,
`
`or the ’710 patent, I am not aware of, nor do I have control over, any financial
`
`interest that would affect or bias my judgment.
`
`II.
`
`UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`22.
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, Petitioner’s
`
`counsel has informed me about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my
`
`opinions, as set forth below. I understand that the patentability of a patent is
`
`analyzed on a claim-by-claim basis, from the perspective of a hypothetical person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”).
`
`- 9 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000012
`
`

`

`A.
`23.
`
`Prior Art
`I understand that earlier publications and patents, which may be
`
`referred to as “prior art,” may act to render a patent unpatentable for one of two
`
`reasons: (a) anticipation, and (b) obviousness. I further understand that the prior
`
`art must be viewed from the perspective of a POSITA at the time of the invention.
`
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as prior art before
`
`it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to an
`
`asserted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is prior to the invention of the
`
`asserted patent. I further understand that a printed publication, such as a book or
`
`an article published in a magazine or trade publication, qualifies as prior art to an
`
`asserted patent if the date of publication is prior to the invention of the asserted
`
`patent.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to an
`
`asserted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is more than one year before the
`
`filing date of the asserted patent. I further understand that a printed publication,
`
`such as a book or an article published in a magazine or trade publication,
`
`constitutes prior art to an asserted patent if the publication occurs more than one
`
`year before the filing date of the asserted patent.
`
`- 10 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000013
`
`

`

`26.
`
`I understand that a U.S. patent or patent publication qualifies as prior
`
`art to the asserted patent if the application for that patent was filed in the United
`
`States before the invention of the asserted patent.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that to qualify as prior art, a reference must contain an
`
`enabling disclosure that allows one of ordinary skill to practice the claims without
`
`undue experimentation.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that documents and materials that qualify as prior art can
`
`be used to invalidate a patent claim as anticipated or as obvious.
`
`B.
`29.
`
`Anticipation
`I was informed and understand that a patent claim may be
`
`“anticipated” if each element of that claim is present either explicitly or inherently
`
`in a single prior art reference. I was informed and understand that to be inherently
`
`present, 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.
`
`30.
`
`I have written this report with the understanding that in an inter partes
`
`review anticipation must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`C.
`31.
`
`Obviousness
`I have been instructed by counsel on the law regarding obviousness,
`
`and understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if the
`
`- 11 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000014
`
`

`

`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`32.
`
`I was informed and understand that a patent claim can be considered to
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention. This means that, even if all of the requirements of a claim are not found
`
`in a single prior art reference, the claim is not patentable if the differences between
`
`the subject matter in the prior art and the subject matter in the claim would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`33.
`
`I was informed and understand that in considering obviousness, it is
`
`important not to determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from
`
`the patent being considered.
`
`34.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the
`
`consideration of various factors such as (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the Asserted Claims, (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the existence of secondary considerations
`
`such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, etc.
`
`35.
`
`I am informed that secondary indicia of non-obviousness may include
`
`(1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the invention of
`
`the patent; (2) commercial success or lack of commercial success of processes
`
`- 12 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000015
`
`

`

`covered by the patent; (3) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (4) praise
`
`of the invention by others skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent
`
`by others; and (6) deliberate copying of the invention. I also understand that there
`
`must be a relationship between any such secondary indicia and the invention. I
`
`further understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a
`
`secondary consideration supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a
`
`combination of multiple prior art references. I understand that the prior art
`
`references themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine,
`
`but other times the nexus linking two or more prior art references is simple
`
`common sense. I further understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace.
`
`37.
`
`I also understand that practical and common sense considerations
`
`should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I further understand that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art looking to overcome a problem will often be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple publications together like pieces of a puzzle, although the
`
`prior art need not be like two puzzle pieces that must fit perfectly together. I
`
`- 13 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000016
`
`

`

`understand that obviousness analysis therefore takes into account the inferences
`
`and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious by
`
`showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For example, when there is a
`
`design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to
`
`pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp because the result is
`
`likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that the combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods may be proven obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`predictable results. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
`
`incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same
`
`field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
`
`variation, obviousness likely bars its patentability.
`
`40.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis
`
`focuses on what was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not
`
`just the patentee. Accordingly, I understand that any need or problem known in
`
`the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can
`
`provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`- 14 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000017
`
`

`

`41.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference,
`
`without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not
`
`found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the common
`
`sense of one of skill in the art.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill could have combined two
`
`pieces of prior art or substituted one prior art element for another if the substitution
`
`can be made with predictable results, even if the swapped-in element is different
`
`from the swapped-out element. In other words, the prior art need not be like two
`
`puzzle pieces that must fit together perfectly. The relevant question is whether
`
`prior art techniques are interoperable with respect to one another, such that that a
`
`person of skill would view them as a design choice, or whether a person of skill
`
`could apply prior art techniques into a new combined system.
`
`43.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a person of ordinary skill in the art having the understanding and
`
`knowledge reflected in the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing
`
`the inventor, would have been led to make the combination of elements recited in
`
`the claims. Under this analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or
`
`problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a
`
`reason for combining the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`- 15 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000018
`
`

`

`44.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the obviousness analysis
`
`requires a comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art on
`
`a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`45.
`
`I have written this report with the understanding that in an inter partes
`
`review obviousness must be shown by a preponderance evidence.
`
`D.
`46.
`
`Claim Construction
`I have been instructed by counsel on the law regarding claim
`
`construction and patent claims, and understand that a patent may include two types
`
`of claims, independent claims and dependent claims. An independent claim stands
`
`alone and includes only the limitations it recites. A dependent claim can depend
`
`from an independent claim or another dependent claim. I understand that a
`
`dependent claim includes all the limitations that it recites in addition to all of the
`
`limitations recited in the claim from which it depends.
`
`47.
`
`I was informed that claim terms in inter partes review proceedings are
`
`considered under what is known as the “Phillips standard,” where claim terms are
`
`given their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSITA at the time of
`
`the invention in light of the entire “intrinsic” record, which includes claim
`
`language, the specification, and prosecution history. My claim construction analysis
`
`below applies to and is consistent with a construction under the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning.
`
`- 16 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000019
`
`

`

`48.
`
`It is my further understanding that claim terms of an expired patent
`
`are given the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention, in view of the specification and file history. I understand
`
`that the standard used for expired patents is similar to that used in district court
`
`litigation, and that this standard is sometimes referred to as the Phillips standard.
`
`49.
`
`It is my understanding that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a
`
`claim term may be the same as or broader than the construction of a term under the
`
`Phillips standard, but it cannot be narrower.
`
`50.
`
`In comparing the claims of the ’710 patent to the prior art, I have
`
`carefully considered the ’710 patent and its file history in light of the
`
`understanding of a person of skill at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`51.
`
`I understand that to determine how a person of ordinary skill would
`
`understand a claim term, one should look to those sources available that show what
`
`a person of skill in the art would have understood the disputed claim language to
`
`mean. Such sources include the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of
`
`the patent’s specification, the prosecution history of the patent (all considered
`
`“intrinsic” evidence), and “extrinsic” evidence concerning relevant scientific
`
`principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.
`
`- 17 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000020
`
`

`

`52.
`
`I understand that, in construing a claim term, one looks primarily to
`
`the intrinsic patent evidence, including the words of the claims themselves, the
`
`remainder of the patent specification, and the prosecution history.
`
`53.
`
`I understand that extrinsic evidence, which is evidence external to the
`
`patent and the prosecution history, may also be useful in interpreting patent claims
`
`when the intrinsic evidence itself is insufficient.
`
`54.
`
`I understand that words or terms should be given their ordinary and
`
`accepted meaning unless it appears that the inventors were using them to mean
`
`something else. In making this determination, the claims, the patent specification,
`
`and the prosecution history are of paramount importance. Additionally, the
`
`specification and prosecution history must be consulted to confirm whether the
`
`patentee has acted as his/her own lexicographer (i.e., provided its own special
`
`meaning to any disputed terms), or intentionally disclaimed, disavowed, or
`
`surrendered any claim scope.
`
`55.
`
`I understand that the claims of a patent define the scope of the rights
`
`conferred by the patent. The claims particularly point out and distinctly claim the
`
`subject matter which the patentee regards as his/her invention. Because the
`
`patentee is required to define precisely what he/she claims his/her invention to be,
`
`it is improper to construe claims in a manner different from the plain import of the
`
`terms used consistent with the specification. Accordingly, a claim construction
`
`- 18 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000021
`
`

`

`analysis must begin and remain centered on the claim
`
`language itself.
`
`Additionally, the context in which a term is used in the claim can be highly
`
`instructive. Likewise, other claims of the patent in question, can inform the
`
`meaning of a claim term. For example, because claim terms are normally used
`
`consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often
`
`illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims. Differences among
`
`claims can also be a useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim
`
`terms.
`
`56.
`
`I understand that the claims of a patent define the purported invention.
`
`I understand that the purpose of claim construction is to understand how one
`
`skilled in the art would have understood the claim terms at the time of the
`
`purported invention.
`
`57.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read
`
`a claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed
`
`term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.
`
`For this reason, the words of the claim must be interpreted in view of the entire
`
`specification. The specification is the primary basis for construing the claims and
`
`provides a safeguard such that correct constructions closely align with the
`
`specification. Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be
`
`- 19 -
`
`Unified Patents, Ex. 1003
`
`000022
`
`

`

`determined and confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually
`
`invented and intended to envelop with the claim as set forth in the patent itself.
`
`58.
`
`I understand that it is improper to place too much emphasis on the
`
`ordinary meaning of the claim term without adequate grounding of that term within
`
`the context of the specification of the asserted patent. Hence, claim terms should
`
`not be broadly construed to encompass subject matter that, although technically
`
`within the b