UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941
`
`DECLARATION OF SYLVIA HALL-ELLIS, PH.D.
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 1/55
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941
`
`DECLARATION OF SYLVIA HALL-ELLIS, PH.D.
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 1/55
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis. I have been retained as an expert by
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioners”).
`
`2.
`
`I have written this declaration at the request of the Petitioners to
`
`provide my expert opinion regarding the authenticity and public availability of
`
`publications, identified in Section V below. My declaration sets forth my opinions
`
`in detail and provides the basis for my opinions regarding the authenticity and
`
`public availability of these publications. If called to testify in the above-captioned
`
`matter, I will testify with regard to the opinions and bases set forth below.
`
`3.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement or amend my opinions, and bases for
`
`them, in response to any additional evidence, testimony, discovery, argument,
`
`and/or other additional information that may be provided to me after the date of
`
`this declaration.
`
`4.
`
`As of the preparation and signing of this declaration, libraries across
`
`the nation are closed pursuant to an order of the federal and state governments due
`
`to the COVID-19 virus. However, were the libraries open, I would expect to be
`
`able to obtain paper copies of the documents cited in Sections V.A. through V.C.
`
`of this declaration. Additionally, it is my typical practice to obtain a paper copy of
`
`- 1 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 2/55
`
`
`
`
`
`each publication to further confirm my opinions that the documents were available
`
`prior to the alleged priority date of a patent under consideration. I reserve the right
`
`to supplement my declaration when the libraries reopen to provide such
`
`information.
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated for my time spent working on this matter at
`
`my normal consulting rate of $300 per hour, plus reimbursement for any additional
`
`reasonable expenses. My compensation is not in any way tied to the content of this
`
`report, the substance of my opinions, or the outcome of this proceeding. I have no
`
`other interests in this proceeding or with any of the parties.
`
`6.
`
`All of the materials that I considered and relied upon are discussed
`
`explicitly in this declaration.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`I am currently an Adjunct Professor in the School of Information at
`7.
`
`San José State University in San José, California. I obtained a Master’s of Library
`
`Science from the University of North Texas in 1972 and a Ph.D. in Library Science
`
`from the University of Pittsburgh in 1985. Over the last fifty years, I have held
`
`various positions in the field of library and information resources. I was first
`
`employed as a librarian in 1966 and have been involved in the field of library
`
`sciences since, holding numerous positions.
`
`8.
`
`I am a member of the American Library Association (ALA) and its
`
`- 2 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 3/55
`
`
`
`
`
`Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS) Division, and I
`
`served on the Committee on Cataloging: Resource and Description (which wrote
`
`the new cataloging rules) and as the chair of the Committee for Education and
`
`Training of Catalogers and the Competencies and Education for a Career in
`
`Cataloging Interest Group. I also served as the Chair of the ALCTS Division’s
`
`Task Force on Competencies and Education for a Career in Cataloging.
`
`Additionally, I have served as the Chair for the ALA Office of Diversity’s
`
`Committee on Diversity, as a member of the REFORMA National Board of
`
`Directors, and as a member of the Editorial Board for the ALCTS premier
`
`cataloging journal, Library Resources and Technical Services.
`
`9.
`
`I have also given over one hundred presentations in the field,
`
`including several on library cataloging systems and Machine-Readable Cataloging
`
`(“MARC”) standards. My current research interests include library cataloging
`
`systems, metadata, and organization of electronic resources.
`
`10.
`
`I have been deposed eleven times: (1) Symantec Corp. vs. Finjan,
`
`Inc., Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926, May
`
`26, 2016, on behalf of Symantec Corp.; (2) Symantec Corp. vs. Finjan, Inc.,
`
`14-cv-299-HSG (N.D. Cal.), on behalf of Symantec Corp., September 14,
`
`2017; (3) one deposition for ten matters: Intellectual Ventures I LLC vs. AT&T
`
`Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., SBC
`
`- 3 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 4/55
`
`
`
`
`
`Internet Services, Inc., Wayport, Inc., and Cricket Wireless LLC, C.A. No. 12-193
`
`(LPS); Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. AT&T Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II
`
`LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., SBC Internet Services, Inc., Wayport,
`
`Inc., and Cricket Wireless LLC, C.A. No. 13-1631 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I
`
`LLC vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1632 (LPS);
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc., C.A.
`
`No. 13-1633 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC, vs. Nextel Operations, Inc., Sprint
`
`Spectrum L.P., Boost Mobile, LLC and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., C.A. No. 13-1634
`
`(LPS); Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. Nextel Operations, Inc., Sprint Spectrum
`
`L.P., Boost Mobile, LLC and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., C.A. No. 13-1635 (LPS);
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC, vs. United States Cellular Corporation, C.A. No. 13-
`
`1636 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC vs. United States Cellular Corporation,
`
`C.A. No. 13-1637 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`
`AT&T Mobility II LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., C.A. No. 15-799
`
`(LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc.,
`
`C.A. No. 15-800 (LPS), on behalf of AT&T Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II
`
`LLC, Boost Mobile, LLC Cricket Wireless LLC, Nextel Operations, Inc., New
`
`Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., SBC Internet Services, Inc., Sprint Spectrum
`
`L.P., T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., United States Cellular Corporation
`
`Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., and Wayport, Inc., November 15, 2016; (4) Hitachi
`
`- 4 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 5/55
`
`
`
`
`
`Maxell, LTD., v. Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co. Ltd., et al., 2:14-cv-1121
`
`JRG-RSP (E.D. Texas), on behalf of Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co. LTD,
`
`et al., January 20, 2016; (5) Sprint Spectrum, L.P. vs. General Access Solutions,
`
`Ltd., Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,173,916, on behalf of
`
`Sprint Spectrum L.P., July 13, 2018; (6) Nichia Corporation vs. Vizio, Inc., 8:16-
`
`cv-00545; on behalf of Vizio, Inc., October 12, 2018; (7) Intellectual Ventures I
`
`LLC, vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., Ericsson Inc., and
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 2:17-cv-00557 (JRG), on behalf of T-Mobile
`
`USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., Ericsson Inc., and Telefonaktiebolaget LM
`
`Ericsson, October 19, 2018; (8) Pfizer, Inc. vs. Biogen, Inc., Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,821,873, on behalf of Pfizer, November 3,
`
`2018; (9) Finjan, Inc. vs. ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL. S.R.O., 3:17-cv-00183-
`
`CAB-BGS, on behalf of ESET, January 15, 2019; (10) Finjan, Inc. vs. Cisco
`
`Systems, Inc., 5:17-cv-00072-BLF-SVK, on behalf of Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`
`September 6, 2019; and, (11) Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC and Whatsapp Inc.
`
`vs. Blackberry Limited, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,349,120 B2, on behalf of Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC and Whatsapp Inc.
`
`December 20, 2019.
`
`11. My full curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Attachment 1.
`
`- 5 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 6/55
`
`
`
`
`
`III. PRELIMINARIES
`Scope of Declaration and Legal Standards
`A.
`12.
`I am not an attorney and will not offer opinions on the law. I am,
`
`however, rendering my expert opinion on the authenticity of the documents
`
`referenced herein and on when and how each of these documents was disseminated
`
`or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily
`
`skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, could have
`
`located the documents before the dates discussed below with respect to the specific
`
`documents.
`
`13.
`
`I am informed by counsel that a printed publication qualifies as
`
`publicly accessible as of the date it was disseminated or otherwise made available
`
`such that a person interested in and ordinarily skilled in the relevant subject matter
`
`could locate it through the exercise of ordinary diligence.
`
`14. While I understand that the determination of public accessibility under
`
`the foregoing standard rests on a case-by-case analysis of the facts particular to an
`
`individual publication, I also understand that a printed publication is rendered
`
`“publicly accessible” if it is cataloged and indexed by a library such that a person
`
`interested in the relevant subject matter could locate it (i.e., I understand that
`
`cataloging and indexing by a library is sufficient, though there are other ways that
`
`a printed publication may qualify as publicly accessible). One manner of sufficient
`
`- 6 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 7/55
`
`
`
`
`
`indexing is indexing according to subject matter category. I understand that the
`
`cataloging and indexing by a single library of a single instance of a particular
`
`printed publication is sufficient, even if the single library is in a foreign country. I
`
`understand that, even if access to a library is restricted, a printed publication that
`
`has been cataloged and indexed therein is publicly accessible so long as a
`
`presumption is raised that the portion of the public concerned with the relevant
`
`subject matter would know of the printed publication. I also understand that the
`
`cataloging and indexing of information that would guide a person interested in the
`
`relevant subject matter to the printed publication, such as the cataloging and
`
`indexing of an abstract for the printed publication, is sufficient to render the
`
`printed publication publicly accessible.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that routine business practices, such as general library
`
`cataloging and indexing practices, can be used to establish an approximate date on
`
`which a printed publication became publicly accessible. I also understand that the
`
`indicia on the face of a reference, such as printed dates and stamps, are considered
`
`as part of the totality of the evidence.
`
`B.
`16.
`
`Persons of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I am told by counsel that the subject matter of this proceeding
`
`generally relates to a method and system of identifying and restricting an
`
`unauthorized software program’s operation.
`
`- 7 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 8/55
`
`
`
`
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a “person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention” (POSITA) is a hypothetical person who is
`
`presumed to be familiar with the relevant field and its literature at the time of the
`
`inventions. This hypothetical person is also a person of ordinary creativity, capable
`
`of understanding the scientific principles applicable to the pertinent field.
`
`18.
`
`I am told by counsel that a person of ordinary skill in this subject
`
`matter or art would have had a either had a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`
`computer engineering, or in a related field, and about two or three years of
`
`experience in industry with respect to software security, storage systems, and
`
`operating systems. An advanced degree in a relevant field may substitute for a
`
`lesser amount of experience and vice versa. More education can supplement
`
`practical experience and vice versa. I am also informed that depending on the
`
`engineering background and level of education of a person, it would have taken a
`
`few years for the person to become familiar with the problems encountered in the
`
`art and become familiar with the prior and current solutions to those problems. I
`
`have been further informed by counsel that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have been familiar with and able to understand the information known in the
`
`art relating to these fields, including the publications discussed in this declaration.
`
`C. Use of Authoritative Databases
`In preparing this report, I used authoritative databases, such as the
`19.
`
`- 8 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 9/55
`
`
`
`
`
`OCLC bibliographic database and the Library of Congress Online Catalog, to
`
`confirm citation details of the publication discussed. Unless I note otherwise below
`
`in reference to a specific serial publication, it is my expert opinion that this
`
`standard protocol was followed for the publications discussed in Section V below.
`
`20.
`
`Indexing. A researcher may discover material relevant to his or her
`
`topic in a variety of ways. One common means of discovery is to search for
`
`relevant information in an index of periodical and other publications. Having found
`
`relevant material, the researcher will then normally obtain it online, look for it in
`
`libraries, or purchase it from the publisher, a bookstore, a document delivery
`
`service, or other provider. Sometimes, the date of a document’s public accessibility
`
`will involve both indexing and library date information.
`
`21.
`
`Indexing services use a wide variety of controlled vocabularies to
`
`provide subject access and other means of discovering the content of documents.
`
`The formats in which these access terms are presented vary from service to service.
`
`22. Online indexing services and digital repositories commonly provide
`
`bibliographic information, abstracts, and full-text copies of the indexed
`
`publications, along with a list of the documents cited in the indexed publication.
`
`These services also often provide lists of publications that cite a given document.
`
`A citation of a document is evidence that the document was publicly available and
`
`in use by researchers no later than the publication date of the citing document.
`
`- 9 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 10/55
`
`
`
`
`
`23. Google Scholar. Google Scholar1 is a freely accessible web search
`
`engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array
`
`of publishing formats and disciplines. Released in beta in November 2004, the
`
`Google Scholar index includes a significant number of peer-reviewed
`
`online academic journals, books, conference papers, selected theses and
`
`dissertations, preprints, abstracts, technical reports, and other scholarly
`
`literature. While Google does not publish the size of Google Scholar's database,
`
`scientometric researchers estimated it to contain roughly 389 million documents
`
`including articles, citations and patents making it the world's largest academic
`
`search engine in January 2018.
`
`24. Because many of Google Scholar's search results link to commercial
`
`journal articles, searchers will be able to access only an abstract and the citation
`
`details of an article and may have to pay a fee to access the entire article. The most
`
`relevant results for the searched keywords will be listed first, in order of the
`
`author's ranking, the number of references that are linked to it and their relevance
`
`to other scholarly literature, and the ranking of the publication that the journal
`
`appears in. Through its "cited by" feature, Google Scholar provides access to
`
`abstracts of articles that have cited the article being viewed. Through its "Related
`
`articles" feature, Google Scholar presents a list of closely related articles, ranked
`
`
`1 https://scholar.google.com
`
`- 10 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 11/55
`
`
`
`
`
`primarily by how similar these articles are to the original result, but also taking into
`
`account the relevance of each paper.
`
`25.
`
`Scopus. Scopus2 is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-
`
`reviewed literature: scientific journals, books, and conference proceedings.
`
`Delivering a comprehensive overview of the world's research output (more than 69
`
`million items) in the fields of science, technology, medicine, social sciences, and
`
`arts and humanities, Scopus features smart tools to track, analyze and visualize
`
`research. Researchers trust the information and data they discover with Scopus
`
`because the content comes from over 5,000 publishers that must be reviewed and
`
`selected by an independent Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB) to be,
`
`and continue to be, indexed on Scopus. Researchers use Scopus to assist with their
`
`research, to identify authors and learn more about content coverage and source
`
`metrics.
`
`26.
`
`Semantic Scholar. Semantic Scholar3 is a project developed at
`
`the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence. Publicly released in November 2015,
`
`Semantic Scholar is designed to be an AI-backed search engine for scientific
`
`journal articles which uses a combination of machine learning, natural language
`
`processing, and machine vision to add a layer of semantic analysis to the
`
`
`2 https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus
`3 www.semanticscholar.org
`
`- 11 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 12/55
`
`
`
`
`
`traditional methods of citation analysis, and to extract relevant figures, entities, and
`
`venues from papers. Semantic Scholar is designed to highlight important,
`
`influential papers, and to identify the connections between them.
`
`27. As of January 2018, following a 2017 project that added biomedical
`
`papers and topic summaries, the Semantic Scholar corpus included more than 40
`
`million papers from computer science and biomedicine. In March 2018, Doug
`
`Raymond, who developed machine learning initiatives for the Amazon
`
`Alexa platform, was hired to lead the Semantic Scholar project. As of August
`
`2019, the number of included papers had grown to more than 173 million after the
`
`addition of the Microsoft Academic Graph records, already used by Lens.org.
`
`28. ResearchGate. ResearchGate4 is a social networking site for scientists
`
`and researchers to share papers, ask and answer questions, and find
`
`collaborators. According to a 2014 study by Nature and a 2016 article in Times
`
`Higher Education, it is the largest academic social network in terms of active
`
`users, although other services have more registered users, and a 2015–2016 survey
`
`suggests that almost as many academics have Google Scholar profiles. Features
`
`available to ResearchGate members include following a research interest and the
`
`work of other individual participants, a blogging feature for users to write short
`
`reviews on peer-reviewed articles, private chat rooms for sharing data, editing
`
`
`4 www.researchgate.net
`
`- 12 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 13/55
`
`
`
`
`
`documents, or discussing confidential topics, and a research-focused job
`
`board. ResearchGate indexes self-published information on user profiles and
`
`suggests members to connect with others who have similar interests. Member
`
`questions are fielded to others who have identified relevant expertise on their
`
`profiles.
`
`29. Founded in 2008 by virologist and computer scientist Dr. Ijad
`
`Madisch with physician Dr. Sören Hofmayer, and computer scientist Horst
`
`Fickenscher, ResearchGate restricts its user accounts to people at recognized
`
`institutions and published researchers. As of 2018, ResearchGate had more than 15
`
`million users, with its largest user-bases coming from Europe and North
`
`America. Most of ResearchGate's users are involved in medicine,
`
`biology, engineering, computer science, agricultural sciences, and psychology.
`
`ResearchGate publishes a citation impact measurement in the form of an “RG
`
`Score,” which is reported to be correlated with existing citation impact measures.
`
`ResearchGate does not charge fees for putting content on the site and does not
`
`require peer review.
`
`30. CiteSeerx. CiteSeerx is an evolving scientific digital and search engine
`
`that has focused primarily on the literature in computer and information science.5
`
`CiteSeerx aims to improve the dissemination of scientific literature and to provide
`
`
`5 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/index
`
`- 13 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 14/55
`
`
`
`
`
`improvements in functionality, usability, availability, cost, comprehensiveness,
`
`efficiency, and timeliness in the access of scientific and scholarly knowledge.
`
`Rather than creating another digital library, CiteSeerx attempts to provide resources
`
`such as algorithms, data, metadata, services, techniques, and software that can be
`
`used to promote other digital libraries. CiteSeerx has developed new methods and
`
`algorithms to index PostScript and PDF research articles on the World Wide Web.
`
`31. CiteSeerx was the first digital library and search engine to provide
`
`automated citation indexing and citation linking by autonomous citation indexing.
`
`32. CiteSeerx was developed in 1997 at the NEC Research Institute,
`
`Princeton, New Jersey, by Steve Lawrence, Lee Giles and Kurt Bollacker. The
`
`service transitioned to the Pennsylvania State University's College of Information
`
`Sciences and Technology in 2003. Since then, the project has been led by Professor
`
`Lee Giles.
`
`33. After serving as a public search engine for nearly ten years, CiteSeerx,
`
`originally intended as a prototype only, began to scale beyond the capabilities of its
`
`original architecture. Since its inception, the original CiteSeerx grew to index over
`
`750,000 documents and served over 1.5 million requests daily, pushing the limits
`
`of the system's capabilities. Based on an analysis of problems encountered by the
`
`original system and the needs of the research community, a new architecture and
`
`data model was developed for the "Next Generation CiteSeer," or CiteSeerx, in
`
`- 14 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 15/55
`
`
`
`
`
`order to continue its legacy into the foreseeable future.
`
`34.
`
`Internet Archive. Founded in 1996, the Internet Archive is a non-
`
`profit digital library which maintains an archive of webpages collected from the
`
`Internet using software called a crawler. Crawlers automatically create a snapshot
`
`of webpages as they existed at a certain point in time. The WayBack Machine is an
`
`application using a crawler created by the Internet Archive to search its archive of
`
`Web page URLs and to represent, graphically, the date of each crawler capture.
`
`The Internet Archive captures data that is publicly available. Some sites are “not
`
`archived because they were password protected, blocked by robots.txt, or
`
`otherwise inaccessible to our automated systems. Site owners might have also
`
`requested that their sites be excluded from the WayBack Machine.”
`
`35. Many Internet Archive captures made by the WayBack Machine have
`
`a banner at the top with the capture date prominently displayed. Other dates when
`
`captures of the same URL have been made are indicated to the right and left of the
`
`date provided in the banner. Some captures may lack this banner. In any case, the
`
`URL for the capture begins with the identification of the Internet Archive page
`
`(e.g., http://web.archive.org/web/) followed by information that dates and time
`
`stamps the capture as follows: year in yyyy, month in mm, day in dd, time code in
`
`hh:mm:ss (e.g., 20071120082013, or November 20, 2007 at 8:20:13 a.m.). These
`
`elements are then followed by the URL of the original capture site. When links are
`
`- 15 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 16/55
`
`
`
`
`
`active, the WayBack Machine is programed to produce the archived file with the
`
`closest available date (not the closest available prior date) to the page upon which
`
`the link appeared and was clicked. I and other librarian professionals are familiar
`
`with the Internet Archive and the Wayback Machine.6
`
`D.
`36.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`I am informed by counsel that the priority date for the patent at issue
`
`is July 17, 2013, the date on which the application for the patent was filed.
`
`IV. LIBRARY CATALOGING PRACTICES
`A. MARC Records and OCLC
`I am fully familiar with the library cataloging standard known as the
`37.
`
`MARC standard, which is an industry-wide standard method of storing and
`
`organizing library catalog information. MARC was first developed in the 1960’s
`
`by the Library of Congress. A MARC-compatible library is one that has a catalog
`
`consisting of individual MARC records for works made available at that library.
`
`38. Since at least the early 1970s and continuing to the present day,
`
`MARC has been the primary communications protocol for the transfer and storage
`
`of bibliographic metadata in libraries.7 As explained by the Library of Congress:
`
`
`6 For more information about the Internet Archive see the WayBack Machine
`FAQ, https://archive.org/about/faqs.php#The_Wayback_Machine.
`7 A complete history of the development of MARC can be found in MARC: Its
`History and Implications by Henrietta D. Avram (Washington, DC: Library of
`Congress, 1975) and available online from the Hathi Trust
`
`- 16 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 17/55
`
`
`
`
`
`You could devise your own method of organizing the bibliographic
`
`information, but you would be isolating your library, limiting its options,
`
`and creating much more work for yourself. Using the MARC standard
`
`prevents duplication of work and allows libraries to better share
`
`bibliographic resources. Choosing to use MARC enables libraries to acquire
`
`cataloging data that is predictable and reliable. If a library were to develop a
`
`“home-grown” system that did not use MARC records, it would not be
`
`taking advantage of an industry-wide standard whose primary purpose is to
`
`foster communication of information.
`
`Using the MARC standard also enables libraries to make use of
`
`commercially available library automation systems to manage library
`
`operations. Many systems are available for libraries of all sizes and are
`
`designed to work with the MARC format. Systems are maintained and
`
`improved by the vendor so that libraries can benefit from the latest advances
`
`in computer technology. The MARC standard also allows libraries to replace
`
`one system with another with the assurance that their data will still be
`
`compatible.
`
`
`(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015034388556;view=1up;seq=1; last
`visited May 20, 2020).
`
`- 17 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 18/55
`
`
`
`
`
`Why Is a MARC Record Necessary? LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.8
`
`39. Thus, almost every major library in the world is MARC-compatible.
`
`See, e.g., MARC Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.9
`
`(“MARC is the acronym for MAchine-Readable Cataloging. It defines a data
`
`format that emerged from a Library of Congress-led initiative that began nearly
`
`[fifty] years ago. It provides the mechanism by which computers exchange, use,
`
`and interpret bibliographic information, and its data elements make up the
`
`foundation of most library catalogs used today.”). MARC is the ANSI/NISO
`
`Z39.2-1994 standard (reaffirmed in 2016) for Information Interchange Format. The
`
`full text of the standard is available from the Library of Congress.10
`
`40. A MARC record comprises several fields, each of which contains
`
`specific data about the work. Each field is identified by a standardized, unique,
`
`three-digit code corresponding to the type of data that follow.11 For example, a
`
`work’s title is recorded in field 245, the primary author of the work is recorded in
`
`field 100, a work’s International Standard Book Number (“ISBN”) is recorded in
`
`field 020, a work’s International Standard Serial Number (“ISSN”) is recorded in
`
`
`8 http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um01to06.html#part2
`9 https://www.loc.gov/marc/faq.html
`10 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/
`11 http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um07to10.html;
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/
`
`- 18 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 19/55
`
`
`
`
`
`field 022, and the publication date is recorded in field 260 under the subfield “c.” 12
`
`In some MARC records, field 264 is used rather than field 260 to record
`
`publication information.13 Information in field 264 is similar to information in field
`
`260 (Publication, Distribution, etc. (Imprint)). Field 264 is useful for cases where
`
`the content standard or institutional policies make a distinction between functions.
`
`If a work is a periodical, then its publication frequency is recorded in field 310, and
`
`the publication dates (e.g., the first and last publication) are recorded in field 362,
`
`which is also referred to as the enumeration/chronology field.14, 15
`
`41. The library that initially created the MARC record is reflected in field
`
`040 in subfield “a” with that library’s unique library code.16 Once a MARC record
`
`for a particular work is originally created by one library, other libraries can use that
`
`
`12 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/
`13 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd264.html
`14 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd3xx.html
`15 Upwards of two-thirds to three-quarters of book sales to libraries come from a
`jobber or wholesaler for online and print resources. These resellers make it their
`business to provide books to their customers as fast as possible, often providing
`turnaround times of only a single day after publication. Libraries purchase a
`significant portion of the balance of their books directly from publishers
`themselves, which provide delivery on a similarly expedited schedule. In general,
`libraries make these purchases throughout the year as the books are published and
`shelve the books as soon thereafter as possible in order to make the books available
`to their patrons. Thus, books are generally available at libraries across the country
`within just a few days of publication.
`16 http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um07to10.html;
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/
`
`- 19 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 20/55
`
`
`
`
`
`original MARC record to then create their own MARC records for their own
`
`copies of the same work. These other libraries may modify or add to the original
`
`MARC record as necessary to reflect data specific to their own copies of the work.
`
`However, the library that created the original MARC record would still be
`
`reflected in these modified MARC records (corresponding to other copies of the
`
`same work at other libraries) in field 040, subfield “a”. The modifying library (or
`
`libraries) is reflected in field 040, subfield “d.”17
`
`42.
`
`I consulted the Directory of OCLC Libraries18 in order to identify the
`
`institution that created or modified the MARC record. Moreover, when viewing the
`
`MARC record online via Online Computer Library Center’s (“OCLC”)
`
`bibliographic database, which I discuss further below, hovering over a library code
`
`in field 040 with the mouse reveals the full name of the library. I also used this
`
`method of “mousing over” the library codes in the OCLC database to identify the
`
`originating and modifying libraries for the MARC records discussed in this report.
`
`43. MARC records also include one or more fields that show information
`
`regarding subject matter classification. For example, 6XX fields are termed
`
`“Subject Access Fields.”19 Among these, for example, is the 650 field; this is the
`
`
`17 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd040.html
`18 http://www.oclc.org/contacts/libraries.en.html
`19 http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd6xx.html
`
`- 20 -
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1015 - 21/55
`
`
`
`
`
`“Subject Added Entry – Topical Term” field.20 The 650 field is a “[s]ubject added
`
`entry in which the entry element is a topical term.” Id. These entries “are assigned
`
`to a bibliographic record to provide access according to generally accepted
`
`thesaurus-building rules (e.g., Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH),
`
`Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)).” Id.
`
`44. Further, MARC records can include call numbers, which themselves
`
`contain a classification number. For example, a MARC record may identify a 050
`
`field, which is the “Library of Congress Call Number.”21 A defined portion of the
`
`Library of Congress Call Number is the classification number, and “source of the
`
`classification number is Library of Congress Classification and the LC
`
`Classification-Additions and Changes.” Id. Thus, the 050 field may be used to
`
`show information regarding subject matter classification. Further, the 082 field is
`
`th
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
