Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 19
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-cv-735-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-cv-737-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-cv-738-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`Defendant.
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`NINTENDO CO., LTD., and RETRO
`STUDIOS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
` Declaration of Benjamin Goldberg, Ph.D.
`
`I, Benjamin Goldberg, Ph.D., state as follows:
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`1. I am over the age of 18 and am competent to make this declaration.
`
`2. I have been retained by counsel for Defendant Google LLC in Ancora Technologies, Inc.
`
`v. Google LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-735-ADA to offer opinions as to the scope and
`
`meaning that would have been given certain disputed terms and phrases in U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,411,941 (“the ’941 Patent”) by a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the
`
`time of the invention.
`
`3. I reserve the right to supplement and/or amend my opinions in this declaration based on
`
`future opinions taken by the parties, their experts, additional documents, testimony, or
`
`other information provided by the parties or their witnesses, any orders from the Court, or
`
`as otherwise necessary.
`
`4. I am being compensated for my time in connection with this matter at my standard
`
`consulting rate of $475 per hour. My compensation is not dependent on the substance of
`
`my opinions, my testimony, or the outcome of this matter.
`
`5. In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my extensive experience in computer
`
`science. I have also reviewed and considered the ’941 Patent, its prosecution history, its
`
`reexamination file history, the parties’ proposed claim constructions, and Google’s
`
`disclosed extrinsic evidence.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`
`6. I am a tenured Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science of the
`
`Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University (“NYU”), in New
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`York, NY. I have held this position since September 1994. From 1987 to 1994, I was an
`
`Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science at NYU.
`
`7. Since September 2014, I have been the Director of Graduate Studies for the MS programs
`
`in the Department of Computer Science, having previously served in that role from
`
`September 2009 through August 2012. I served as the Director of Undergraduate Studies
`
`for the Department of Computer Science from September 1995 through August 1998 and
`
`from September 2003 through August 2006. In addition, I held a one-year visiting
`
`professorship at the Institut National de Recherche en informatique et en Automatique
`
`(“INRIA”), a national laboratory in France, and was twice appointed to a month-long
`
`position as an invited professor at the Ecole Normale Supérieur, a University in Paris.
`
`8. I received my Doctoral degree in Computer Science from Yale University, New Haven,
`
`Connecticut in 1988, having previously received Master of Science and Master of
`
`Philosophy degrees in Computer Science from Yale in 1984. My undergraduate degree
`
`from Williams College in 1982 was a Bachelor of Arts degree with highest honors in
`
`Mathematical Sciences. My Ph.D. thesis, entitled “Multiprocessor Execution of
`
`Functional Programs,” concerned parallel programming on a variety of multiprocessor
`
`(multiple CPU) computers. I have published a number of papers and have presented talks
`
`and tutorials in this area.
`
`9. I have taught courses and lectured at the undergraduate and graduate level in, among
`
`other things, software development, programming languages, operating systems,
`
`embedded systems (including mobile devices and media devices), object-oriented
`
`programming and other areas related to the technology of the ’941 patent, such as web
`
`services, HTML, Javascript, and databases. Additional information concerning the
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 4 of 19
`
`
`
`computer science courses that I have taught, my professional publications and
`
`presentations in the field of computer science are set forth in my current CV, a copy of
`
`which is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`10. In sum, I have over 30 years of experience in research and development in the areas of
`
`computer science as a professor, researcher and consultant. I consider myself to be at
`
`least a person of ordinary skill in the art, as described below.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`11. I understand that the purpose of claim construction is to determine the meaning and scope
`
`of the patent claims at issue. I further understand that the terms in patent claim generally
`
`are given the meaning that the terms would have to a person of POSITA at the time of the
`
`alleged invention.
`
`12. I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim terms
`
`not only in the context of the particular claims in which the disputed terms appear, but in
`
`the context of the entire patent, including the specification and the prosecution history. I
`
`further understand that while a claim is to be read in light of the specification, one
`
`generally must avoid importing limitations into the claim from the specification. I also
`
`understand that when a patentee explicitly defines a claim term or disavows the full scope
`
`of a claim term, the customary meaning does not apply.
`
`13. I understand that a POSITA may also look beyond the intrinsic evidence (e.g., the
`
`specification and the prosecution history) to consult “extrinsic evidence,” such as
`
`dictionaries, in order to understand, for example, the background technology or the way
`
`in which a POSITA might use the claim terms during the relevant time period. However,
`
`I understand that extrinsic evidence generally is given less weight than intrinsic evidence.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`14. I understand that a preamble can limit the invention if it recites essential structure or
`
`steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. I also understand
`
`that whether to treat a preamble as a claim limitation is determined on the facts of each
`
`case in light of the overall form of the claim, and the invention as described in the
`
`specification and as illuminated in the prosecution history.
`
`15. I further understand that a claim is indefinite if its language, when read in light of the
`
`specification and prosecution history, fails to inform persons having ordinary skill in the
`
`art about the scope of the claimed invention with reasonable certainty. I understand that
`
`reasonable certainty does not require absolute precision.
`
`16. I have been informed of the legal standard governing the determination of the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. I understand that factors that may be considered in determining
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art include the type of problems encountered in the art,
`
`prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the
`
`sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`17. For purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to assume that the priority date for the
`
`’941 Patent is May 21, 1998, which is the foreign application priority date listed on the
`
`face of the patents.
`
`18. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of
`
`the patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer or
`
`electrical engineering, or a related field of study; and at least two years of industry
`
`experience involving computer software security, BIOS and memory, or the educational
`
`equivalent thereof, such as a master’s degree.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`
`19. I meet these criteria and consider myself a person with at least ordinary skill in the art
`
`pertaining to the ’941 Patent and would have been such a person by May 21, 1998, based
`
`on my education and experience in the field of computer science by 1998.
`
`III. OPINIONS
`
`20. I have been asked to provide my opinions with respect to the terms at dispute between
`
`Ancora and Google in this case. I set forth below my understanding as to what a POSITA
`
`would understand each of these words and phrases to mean in view of the intrinsic
`
`evidence of the claims, specification, and prosecution history.
`
`“computer” (claims 1, 6, 7)
`
`21. I understand that Ancora has sought to construe the term “computer” as used in the
`
`claims of the ’941 Patent before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and has
`
`specifically argued that “[t]he specification also makes clear that the claimed ‘computer’
`
`is a ‘conventional’ one, i.e., one that does not require or utilize specialized or add-on
`
`hardware.” Roku, Inc. et al. v. Ancora Techs., Inc., No. IPR2021-01406, Paper No. 8 at
`
`*18 (PTAB Dec. 17, 2021) (citing ’941 Patent 1:27–32, 1:46–52). I agree with Ancora
`
`that a POSITA would understand the term “computer,” as used in the asserted claims of
`
`the ’941 Patent, would mean a conventional computer. However, I do not agree that a
`
`computer is “conventional” just because it does not require or utilize specialized or add-
`
`on hardware.
`
`22. As a preliminary matter, it is important to understand that “computer” when used in the
`
`abstract and not in the context of the claims of the ’941 Patent can have an exceedingly
`
`broad definition. Historically, the term “computer” referred to an occupation for a person
`
`who performs mathematical calculations. Microsoft Press Computer User’s Dictionary
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`
`defines “computer” as “[a]ny machine that accepts structured input, processes it
`
`according to prescribed rules, and produces the results as output.” NIN_ANC_0027190
`
`(Microsoft Press Computer User’s Dictionary). However, archaic or very broad
`
`definitions of “computer” is not what a POSITA would have understood the term
`
`“computer” to mean as used in the asserted claims of the ’941 Patent. This is because the
`
`claims and the specification of the ’941 Patent make clear that the “computer” referred to
`
`in the claims of the ’941 Patent has a BIOS. This is made clear in asserted Claim 1. See
`
`’941 Patent, Claim 1 (“. . . non-volatile memory area of a BIOS of the computer . . .”).
`
`This is also made clear in Claim 18, which is not being asserted. See, e.g., ’941 Patent,
`
`Claim 18 (“. . . in a second erasable, writable, non-volatile memory area of the BIOS of
`
`the computer . . .”). This is further supported by the specification. The only instance of
`
`the specification referring to a conventional computer mentions that it has a BIOS: “Thus,
`
`consider a conventional computer having a conventional BIOS module in which a key
`
`was embedded at the ROM section thereof, during manufacture.” ’941 Patent 1:45–48.
`
`23. The fact that the “computer” in the claims of the ’941 Patent has a BIOS means that the
`
`term is not referring to a “computer” defined broadly such as the definition “[a]ny
`
`machine that accepts structured input, processes it according to prescribed rules, and
`
`produces the results as output.” The fact that the “computer” in the claims of the ’941
`
`Patent has a BIOS means that the term is not referring to any device that can perform
`
`calculations or process input. Rather, a POSITA would have understood “computer” in
`
`the claims of the ’941 Patent to have been referring to “a conventional PC-compatible
`
`device.” A POSITA would have relied on technical dictionaries, such as the Microsoft
`
`Press Computer User’s Dictionary, in which the definition for BIOS reads:
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`Acronym for basic input/output system. On PC-compatible computers, the
`set of essential software routines that test hardware at startup, start the
`operating system, and support the transfer of data among hardware devices.
`The BIOS is stored in ROM so that it can be executed when the computer
`is turned on. Although critical to performance, the BIOS is usually invisible
`to computer users. See also CMOS setup, ROM BIOS.
`
`NIN_ANC_0027189 (Microsoft Press Computer User’s Dictionary) (underlining added).
`
`A POSITA would have also understood a “computer,” as used in the asserted claims of
`
`the ’941 Patent, as having a BIOS and thus being a PC-compatible computer based on the
`
`specification, which states: “In the context of the present invention, a ‘computer’ relates
`
`to a digital data processor. These processors are found in personal computers, or on one
`
`or more processing cards in multi-processor machines.” ’941 Patent 3:18–21 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`24. I understand that Ancora contends that a “computer” is “a digital data processor that
`
`includes one or more non-volatile memory and volatile memory areas.” While I agree
`
`that a “computer” as used in the claims of the ’941 Patent would have had a processor
`
`and memory, a POSITA would not have understood a “computer” to refer to any
`
`electronic device with a processor and memory. Rather, based on the claims and the
`
`specification, a POSITA would have understood “computer” as referring to a
`
`conventional PC-compatible device due to the requirement to have a BIOS and the
`
`specification’s reference to “personal computers.” ’941 Patent 3:18–21.
`
`25. A POSITA would not have understood the claims of the ’941 Patent to be referring to any
`
`device with integrated circuits that included a processor and memory, and would not have
`
`understood the claims of the ’941 Patent to have been referring to devices with
`
`application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) in lieu of the components mentioned
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`above, including a BIOS. A POSITA would not have understood the claims of the ’941
`
`Patent as referring to electronic devices with integrated circuits, but lacking a BIOS.
`
`“memory area of [a/the] BIOS” / “memory of the BIOS” (claims 1, 12)
`
`26. A POSITA would have understood, in view of the ’941 Patent, that a “memory area of
`
`the BIOS” was referring to “dedicated memory where the BIOS is stored.”
`
`27. As mentioned above, a POSITA would have relied on technical dictionaries, such as the
`
`Microsoft Press Computer User’s Dictionary, in which the definition for BIOS reads:
`
`Acronym for basic input/output system. On PC-compatible computers, the set of
`essential software routines that test hardware at startup, start the operating system,
`and support the transfer of data among hardware devices. The BIOS is stored in
`ROM so that it can be executed when the computer is turned on. Although critical
`to performance, the BIOS is usually invisible to computer users. See also CMOS
`setup, ROM BIOS.
`
`NIN_ANC_0027189 (Microsoft Press Computer User’s Dictionary) (underlining added).
`
`Thus, a POSITA would have understood that the BIOS is stored in Read Only Memory
`
`(ROM) so that it can be executed when the PC-compatible computer is turned on. This
`
`understanding is confirmed by the language of the claims, which indicate that the BIOS,
`
`as that term is used in the claims of the ’941 Patent, is located in an erasable, non-volatile
`
`memory area. See, e.g., ’941 Patent, Claim 1 (“. . . including an erasable, non-volatile
`
`memory area of a BIOS of the computer . . .”); id. (“ . . . set up a verification structure in
`
`the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS . . .”). Finally, that the BIOS is located in
`
`a memory area dedicated to the BIOS and separate from a device’s hard disk is further
`
`supported by the specification. The specification explains that:
`
`Software based products have been developed to validate authorized software
`usage by writing a license signature onto the computer’s volatile memory (e.g.
`hard disk). These products may be appropriate for restricting honest software
`users, but they are very vulnerable to attack at the hands of skilled system’s
`programmers (e.g. “hackers”).
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`
`’941 Patent, 1:19–24.1 The specification goes on to clearly distinguish between storing
`
`license signatures on memory such as a hard disk and memory dedicated to the BIOS:
`
`An important advantage in utilizing non-volatile memory such as that residing in
`the BIOS is that the required level of system programming expertise that is
`necessary to intercept or modify commands, interacting with the BIOS, is
`substantially higher than those needed for tampering with data residing in volatile
`memory such as hard disk.
`
`’941 Patent, 3:4–14 (emphasis added). Thus, a POSITA would not have understood the
`
`claim term “memory area of the BIOS” to mean any memory, such as a hard disk, but
`
`rather a memory area dedicated to storing the BIOS.
`
`“a BIOS of the computer” / “BIOS” (claims 1, 7, 9, 12)
`
`28. A POSITA would have understood, in view of the ’941 Patent, that “a BIOS of the
`
`computer” and “BIOS” was referring to “[a]n acronym for Basic Input / Output System.
`
`It is the set of essential software operations in PC-compatible computers that begin to run
`
`automatically when a computer is turned on, which test hardware, start the operating
`
`system, and supports the transfer of data among hardware devices. No file system is
`
`associated with the BIOS.” The ’941 Patent explains that the patented invention is
`
`directed to “a conventional computer having a conventional BIOS module,” and that “a
`
`‘computer’ relates to a digital data processor. These processors are found in personal
`
`computers, or on one or more processing cards in multi-processor machines.” ’941
`
`Patent, 1:46-47, 3:18-21.
`
`
`1 Typically, a computer’s hard disk would not be considered volatile memory, though I
`understand the Court’s prior statement that “[f]or the corner case where the hard disk drive is
`used as virtual RAM, the data is not accessible by normal means after the power is removed,” in
`its Final Claim Constructions of the Court in Ancora Techs., Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., Civil No. 1-
`20-CV-00034-ADA, ECF No. 69 at 2 (W.D. Tex. June 2, 2020).
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`29. At the time of the patent, a “conventional computer” meant a personal computer,
`
`including those from IBM, Apple Mac, and Commodore 64 personal computers. A
`
`POSITA at the time of the patent would understand that the “processing cards in multi-
`
`processor machines” referred to in the ’941 Patent indicated a PC-compatible device.
`
`30. Many of the computers in various products at the time of the invention, such as many of
`
`the computers in cars, calculators, and airplanes, did not have a BIOS.
`
`31. As mentioned above, a POSITA would have relied on technical dictionaries, such as the
`
`Microsoft Press Computer User’s Dictionary, in which the definition for BIOS reads:
`
`Acronym for basic input/output system. On PC-compatible computers, the set of
`essential software routines that test hardware at startup, start the operating system,
`and support the transfer of data among hardware devices. The BIOS is stored in
`ROM so that it can be executed when the computer is turned on. Although critical
`to performance, the BIOS is usually invisible to computer users. See also CMOS
`setup, ROM BIOS.
`
`NIN_ANC_0027189 (Microsoft Press Computer User’s Dictionary).
`
`“program residing in the volatile memory” (claim 1)
`
`32. A POSITA would have understood, in view of the ’941 Patent, that a “program residing
`
`in the volatile memory” would have meant an “operating system or application residing
`
`in the volatile memory, separate from the BIOS, that can be executed by a computer.”
`
`33. A “program residing in the volatile memory” is not a program located in the BIOS. The
`
`BIOS is the first software that is loaded when a computer turns on.
`
`34. A BIOS can be stored in ROM and EEPROM, which would be in non-volatile, but not in
`
`volatile (or RAM) memory. BIOS thus would be executed from a ROM or EEPROM
`
`module rather than within RAM. A “program residing in the volatile memory” thus could
`
`be executed as an application program or by a computer’s operating system, but it would
`
`not reside in the BIOS.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`
`“agent” (claims 1, 7)
`
`35. The term “agent” in the step of “using an agent to set up a verification structure in the
`
`erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS, the verification structure accommodating
`
`data that includes at least one license record” in claim 1 does not provide reasonable
`
`certainty to person of ordinary skill in the art as to the scope of this term.
`
`36. The term “agent” is not found anywhere in the specification, and was added to the claims
`
`at the end of prosecution after an interview with the Examiner. During prosecution, the
`
`Applicant never stated what was meant by “agent” or “using an agent” or where support
`
`for “using an agent” was found in the specification.
`
`37. The Examiner’s statements as to “agent” do not help provide reasonable certainty about
`
`the scope of this term. In the Examiner’s prior art rejection over the Misra reference, the
`
`Examiner stated “Misra et al. also teach encryption keys and programs (‘agent’) used in
`
`the license collation process that belong to various parties (column 8, lines 35–52;
`
`column 15, lines 37–54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`of the art to store these keys in non-volatile memory as these keys are used to securely
`
`communicate between and identify parties, as well as access encrypted data.” (Jan. 15,
`
`2002 Non-Final Rejection, pp. 5–6). But the Examiner was addressing the storage of
`
`encryption keys in non-volatile memory, which was a feature in other claims, such as
`
`claims 7, 12, 13, 15 and 18. Id. As to Smith, the Examiner used “agent” as an adjective to
`
`describe the particular program disclosed in Smith: “Smith et al. teach a system for
`
`distributing, registering and purchasing software over a network using an agent program
`
`embedded in each software application.” Id. at 198. In the Notice of Allowance, the
`
`Examiner only repeated the added claim language, stating: “The present invention
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 13 of 19
`
`
`
`overcomes this difficulty by using an agent to set up a verification structure in the
`
`erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS.” Id. at 170.
`
`38. In sum, the term “agent” can refer to many different and broad types of intelligent
`
`processes implemented by software and/or hardware but is not alone sufficiently definite
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`“verification structure” (claims 1, 7)
`
`39. In my opinion, a POSITA would understand that the term “verification structure,” as used
`
`in the asserted claims of the ’941 Patent, would mean “a data structure indicating that the
`
`program is licensed to operate on a specified computer.”
`
`40. The specification of the ’941 Patent explains that the claimed invention is designed to
`
`prevent use of a licensed program by an unauthorized computer. This is explained in the
`
`Background of the Invention section of the specification, which describes that the ’941
`
`Patent arose out of prior “[n]umerous methods [that] have been devices for the
`
`identifying and restricting of an unauthorized software program’s operation,” in response
`
`to “the grand proliferation of illegally copied software.” ’941 Patent 1:12–16. The
`
`Summary of the Invention section of the specification also explains that the ’941 Patent is
`
`“a method of restricting software operation within a license limitation,” which verifies
`
`that each program is “licensed to run on the specified computer.” ’941 Patent 1:39–40,
`
`1:53–55. The Summary of the Invention further describes that the invention includes a
`
`“verification structure [] set in the BIOS so as to indicate that the specified program is
`
`licensed to run on the specified computer.” Id. 1:59–62. This structure is described as
`
`restricting attempts by hackers “to run the specified application in a second computer,” in
`
`which case “the specified application is invalidated.” Id. 2:27–29, 2:53–56.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 14 of 19
`
`
`
`41. The prosecution of the ’941 Patent is consistent with this understanding of the
`
`specification. During prosecution, the patentee included similar explanations that “[t]he
`
`present invention provides a method and system for identifying and restricting operation
`
`of an unauthorized software program,” and that the disclosed program “verifies its
`
`authenticity” and is about “protecting software.” May 21, 2001 Amendment at 5, 9 [PH
`
`pdf at 278].
`
`42. For at least these reasons, a POSITA would understand “verification structure,” in the
`
`context of the ’941 Patent, to be “a data structure indicating that the program is licensed
`
`to operate on a specified computer.”
`
`“accommodating data” (claim 1)
`
`43. In my opinion, a POSITA would not be able to reasonably discern the scope of the term
`
`“accommodating data,” as used in the asserted claims of the ’941 Patent.
`
`44. Within the field of computer science, the term “accommodating” in reference to data is
`
`not a term of art and can have several different meanings. For example, a particular
`
`structure or program that “accommodates” data might, for example, store it, access it, or
`
`be capable of storing or accessing it. The ’941 Patent’s disclosure in claim 1 of a
`
`verification structure “accommodating data that includes at least one license record”
`
`therefore does not itself disclose whether the verification structure stores, accesses, is
`
`capable of either, or does something else in order to be “accommodating data.”
`
`45. The specification of the ’941 Patent provides no helpful guidance to discern the meaning
`
`of “accommodating data” and the related scope of the asserted claims. The specification
`
`does not define the term or explain its use. A POSITA therefore would not understand
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 15 of 19
`
`
`
`what a particular product must do or have in order to disclose something
`
`“accommodating data” as claimed in the ’941 patent.
`
`46. For at least these reasons, the term “accommodating data,” in the context of the ’941
`
`Patent, is indefinite and cannot reasonably be understood in light of the ’941 Patent
`
`specification.
`
`“license record” / “license-record” (claims 1, 6, 7, 9)
`
`47. In my opinion, there was no widely understood meaning of “license record” by those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of 1998, and thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would be
`
`motivated to examine the intrinsic evidence, including the ’941 Patent specification, to
`
`understand the use of that term in the claims of the ’941 Patent.
`
`48. In view of the intrinsic evidence, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a
`
`“license record” to be “a record of a license, where the record consists of author name,
`
`program name and number of licensed users, with information for verifying that a
`
`program is licensed for use on a specified computer,” where the data associated with the
`
`licensed program is distinct from the license. This is disclosed in the patent at column 1:
`
`“Further, according to the invention, each application program that is to be licensed to
`
`run on the specified computer, is associated with a license record; that consists of author
`
`name, program name and number of licensed users (for network). The license record may
`
`be held in either encrypted or explicit form.” ’941 Patent at 1:55–57.
`
`49. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also understand from the specification that the
`
`patentee intended to use this definition based on the use of words “consists of” which
`
`define what the license record is.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 16 of 19
`
`
`
`50. I also understand that in patent law, the use of the phase “consists of” is the way
`
`patentees define what items are contained within term, and that it is closed-ended,
`
`meaning that all the items in the list are required.
`
`51. Other parts of the specification indicate this definition was intended, such as the example
`
`of license record fields that match up to the definition of data that consists of author name
`
`(Lotus Inc.), program name (Lotus 123) and number of licensed users (1 or >1) as the
`
`term was previously defined in the Summary of the Invention section of the specification:
`
`The volatile memory accommodates a license program (16) having license
`record fields (13-15) appended thereto. By way of example said fields stand
`for Application names (e.g. Lotus 123), Vendor name (Lotus inc.), and
`number of licensed copies (1 for stand alone usage, >1 for number of
`licensed users for a network application). ’941 Patent at 5:27-34.
`
`52. Given this disclosure, a person of ordinary skill in the art could understand that the
`
`particular data within the license record would consist of author name, program name,
`
`and number of licensed users. These particular data items are covered by the “information
`
`for verifying that a program is licensed for use on a specified computer,” as construed
`
`above.
`
`53. A POSITA would know that the invention centers around the use of a pseudo-unique key
`
`to encrypt the contents of the licensed program. As explained below, the pseudo-unique
`
`key ensures that the established license record is also unique to the specified computer.
`
`Thus, verifying the program using the verification structure verifies whether the program
`
`is being run on the specified computer. A POSITA would therefore understand that if the
`
`licensed program is being run on a computer whose pseudo-unique key is different from
`
`the key used to set up the verification structure, the encrypted license records will not
`
`match and the verification will fail. Conversely, the verification will succeed only when
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 17 of 19
`
`
`
`the two pseudo-unique keys are identical. Put differently, a POSITA would know that if a
`
`computer’s data were to be copied, an unauthorized copy of the encrypted license record
`
`could be stored on a different (second) computer. When attempting to run the software on
`
`the second computer, the encrypted license records will not match as they were encrypted
`
`with two different keys.
`
`“license authentication bureau” (claim 2)
`
`54. In my opinion, a POSITA would understand that the term “license authentication
`
`bureau,” as used in the asserted claims of the ’941 Patent, would mean “a
`
`telecommunications accessible processor that formats, encrypts, and verifies the license
`
`record.”
`
`55. This construction is supported by the ’941 Patent’s specification, which explains that the
`
`“bureau is a telecommunications accessible processor where functions such as
`
`formatting, encrypting, and verifying may be performed,” in order “to limit the
`
`understanding of potential software hackers.” (’941 Patent, 3:42-47.) These functions are
`
`essential for carrying out the claimed invention of the ’941 Patent, which is encrypting
`
`and verifying a license record in order to ensure that a software program is authorized to
`
`operate on a specified computer. More specifically, “license authentication” indicates a
`
`need to verify the authenticity of a license, which under the ’941 Patent is done through
`
`the patent’s disclosed encryption schemes.
`
`56. Thus, based on this intrinsic evidence, a POSITA would understand that the “license
`
`authentication bureau” in the context of the ’941 Patent is a telecommunications
`
`accessible processor that formats, encrypts, and verifies the license record.
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 32-1 Filed 01/27/22 Page 18 of 19
`
`
`
`“pseudo-unique key”
`
`57. In my opinion, a POSITA would understand that the term “pseudo-