Paper No. ________
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SDI Technologies, Inc.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Bose Corporation,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,364,295
`Filing Date: December 7, 2006
`Issue Date: January 29, 2013
`Title: Interactive Sound Reproducing
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. [UNASSIGNED]
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANDREW B. LIPPMAN
`
`1
`
`000001
`
`

`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I, Andrew B. Lippman, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I have been retained by Foley & Lardner LLP to provide my
`
`opinion concerning the validity of U.S. Pat. No. 8,364,295 (“the ’295
`
`patent”). I am being compensated for my time at the rate of $550 per hour.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3. My experience and education are detailed in my curriculum
`
`vitae, which is attached as Exhibit A to this report. The curriculum vitae
`
`provides a listing of all publications on which I am a named author and also
`
`identifies all cases in which I have previously provided expert testimony.
`
`4.
`
`I am currently a Senior Research Scientist at the
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) and Associate director of the
`
`MIT Media Laboratory, a >$25,000,000 research and teaching facility at
`
`MIT that I helped establish in the early 1980s. In addition, I am a principle
`
`investigator and director of the Media Laboratory’s “Digital Life
`
`Consortium,” a multi-sponsor research program initiated in 1997 to address
`
`aspects of computing and personal expression. I am also co-principal
`
`investigator of the Communications Futures Program, a program that
`
`unifies diverse research across MIT that bear on the technology, policy,
`
`and economics of communications.
`
`2
`
`000002
`
`

`
`5.
`
`I have supervised over 50 Master’s and PhD theses in the MIT
`
`Media Arts and Sciences program. Through the course of my career, I have
`
`directed and been principal investigator of research supported by the
`
`defense department (DARPA), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), The
`
`National Science Foundation (NSF), and over 50 industrial companies. I
`
`have never totaled the net research volume, but it is in excess of
`
`$50Million. I have taught a course entitled Digital Video as well as MIT
`
`freshman physics seminars, and I direct a graduate research group that
`
`addresses the principles of Viral Communications systems that empower
`
`the end user to create innovative systems that can scale. Much of my
`
`current research in Viral Communications entails the design of the
`
`hardware and software environment for wireless, personal radio networking
`
`that can survive infrastructure failures such as a hurricane or storm.
`
`6.
`
`I received my undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from MIT in 1971. I received a Master’s of Science degree from MIT in
`
`1978, and a Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering from the École
`
`Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in 1995. My thesis was on the topic
`
`of scalable video, a technique for representing visual data in a fluid and
`
`variable networking and processing environment, much like what we today
`
`call streaming.
`
`3
`
`000003
`
`

`
`7.
`
`In the course of my undergraduate studies as an electrical
`
`engineering student at MIT, I worked in a research group that did early
`
`work on computer graphics and human interaction, called the Architecture
`
`Machine Group. I ultimately directed that group from 1982 until it became a
`
`foundation part of the MIT Media Lab in 1985. In the mid-1970's, at the
`
`Architecture Machine, I developed some of the first memory and display
`
`systems that allowed high quality display of text and pictures on television
`
`and commercial television-like displays. We deliberately focused on using
`
`consumer television displays because we wanted to enable them to display
`
`high quality data in a home environment.
`
`8.
`
`I also designed data storage schemes to embed digital data in
`
`analogue video using optical videodiscs, analogue video storage devices
`
`by which entertainment and interactive programming was distributed in the
`
`1980s and 1990s. These are all intended for consumer systems.
`
`9.
`
`In the early 1980s, I established a research program entitled
`
`“Movies of the Future” that was a multi-sponsor program addressing image
`
`distribution, analysis and interaction. In 1986, I established the “Television
`
`of Tomorrow” program to research digital and scalable video processing
`
`technology. The Television of Tomorrow program consisted initially of nine
`
`sponsors, one each representing the television industry, the consumer
`
`4
`
`000004
`
`

`
`electronics industry and a content company from three regions in the world,
`
`North America, Asia-Pacific, and Europe. Some of the ideas in this work
`
`was reported in the lead article in the June, 1995 IEEE Proceedings with
`
`co-author, Arun Netravali.
`
`10.
`
`I was a member from the second meeting of the Motion Picture
`
`Experts Group, an ISO standards committee effort that defined the
`
`standards by which “MP3” music is commonly distributed and by which
`
`“MPEG Video” is stored and distributed. I co-wrote the paper defining the
`
`requirements for the MPEG-2 standard with Okubo and McCann in 1995.
`
`11.
`
`I have six patents in the area of video and digital processing,
`
`and I have been on advisory boards for technology companies in various
`
`fields, ranging from video conferencing to music understanding. I have
`
`authored over 65 published papers in the fields of video and television.
`
`12.
`
`I have served as an expert for several patent and arbitration
`
`cases in the field of video communications systems and the human
`
`interface, mobile systems and music streaming, as shown in my CV,
`
`Exhibit B.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious.
`
`I understand that anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a
`
`5
`
`000005
`
`

`
`claim is disclosed expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference,
`
`arranged as in the claim.
`
`14.
`
`I further understand that obviousness of a claim requires that
`
`the claim be obvious from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art, at the time the invention was made. In analyzing obviousness,
`
`I understand that it is important to understand the scope of the claims, the
`
`level of skill in the relevant art, the scope and content of the prior art, the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claims, and any secondary
`
`considerations. I also understand that a claim of a patent is obvious if it is
`
`directed to a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the
`
`mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, and the
`
`combination yields only a predictable result, unless other evidence shows
`
`that the claim would not have been not obvious.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that secondary considerations can include
`
`evidence of commercial success caused by an invention, evidence of a
`
`long-felt need that was solved by an invention, evidence that others copied
`
`an invention, or evidence that an invention achieved a surprising result. I
`
`understand that such evidence must have a nexus, or causal relationship to
`
`the elements of a claim, in order to be relevant to the obviousness or non-
`
`6
`
`000006
`
`

`
`obviousness of the claim. I am unaware of any such secondary
`
`considerations.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that claims in an inter partes review are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the patent
`
`specification.
`
`17.
`
`I also understand that the earliest patent application filing
`
`leading to the ’295 patent was made on October 12, 2000. I have therefore
`
`analyzed obviousness as of that day or somewhat before, understanding
`
`that as time passes, the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`will increase. I understand that the owner of the patents (Bose) might try to
`
`prove an earlier date of invention. If this occurs, I reserve the right to revise
`
`my opinion.
`
`18.
`
`In forming my opinion, I have relied on the patent claims and
`
`disclosure, the prior art exhibits to the Petition for inter partes review, and
`
`my own experience and expertise of the knowledge of the person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art in the relevant timeframe.
`
`19. At the time of the invention, I believe that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering
`
`and several years of experience in designing audio systems. This
`
`7
`
`000007
`
`

`
`description is approximate, and a higher level of education or skill might
`
`make up for less experience, and vice-versa.
`
`20.
`
`I believe that I would qualify as at least a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in the relevant time frame, and that I have a sufficient level of
`
`knowledge, experience and education to provide an expert opinion in the
`
`field.
`
`21. My testimony in this declaration is given from the perspective of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the October 12, 2000 filing,
`
`and for some time before then, unless otherwise specifically indicated.
`
`This is true even if the testimony is given in the present tense.
`
`Architecture of the Claimed System
`
`22. Consider the elements of the system as a set or collection of
`
`functional elements organized as two separate, connectable units. The first
`
`of these is a "sound reproduction device" that includes loudspeakers,
`
`associated amplifiers, and potentially internal sources of audio1, and a
`
`remote control. There is also the requirement for a connector, although if
`
`there is more than one physical element in the aggregation then this is
`
`inherent: multiple boxes must have a means of communication between
`
`each. The second unit, described as a computer, is used as a source of
`
`
`1 In, for example, claims 5 and 32, a radio receiver; in claim 68, more generally, for example, a CD player
`
`8
`
`000008
`
`

`
`audio. Colloquially, one can consider these two elements as a radio or
`
`powered loudspeaker to which one can attach and control a controllable
`
`external audio source2.
`
`23. Each of these two units can be built in a variety of ways, many
`
`of which (but not necessarily all) existed in the art at the time of the original
`
`patent filing but generally fitting the architecture described above. For
`
`example, instead of a personal computer, one could envision a disk-based
`
`music player or a solid-state memory based music player. These are both
`
`examples of the same architecture. From an engineering perspective, it
`
`would be natural to make the speaker unit as future-proof as possible so
`
`that it could accommodate new external audio sources with little or no
`
`additional work and to make the speaker unit itself as attractive for a
`
`purchaser. For example, today, one can purchase speakers that have
`
`adapters to physically support a variety of compatible music players.
`
`The Sony Music System Combined With the
`Creative Nomad or Samsung Yepp
`I understand that the first asserted ground of invalidity alleged
`
`24.
`
`in the petition is the combination of the Sony Music System Manual and
`
`documents describing the Creative Nomad/Samsung Yepp Portable MP3
`
`player.
`
`2 In later claims there is a two-way control path but there is no claimed use for control flowing from the
`external computer to the sound reproduction device.
`
`9
`
`000009
`
`

`
`25.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1 and 27 would have been obvious by
`
`dint of the Sony Music System alone and in combination with the Creative
`
`Nomad or Samsung YEPP portable MP3 player. Dependent claims 2-11,
`
`18-21, 24, 29-37, 44-47, 50, 73, and 74 would have been obvious as well,
`
`as described in the claim charts in the petition and discussed in part below.
`
`26. The Sony Music System as described in the SMS manual
`
`adheres to the architecture described above. It included a housing,
`
`speakers, an amplifier, and a connector by which one can attach an
`
`external device. The Sony SMS manual describes attaching and using a
`
`MiniDisc (MD) recorder so that the music player could play audio from the
`
`MD recorder. These components correspond to part (A) of the claims.
`
`There is a remote control that replicates part (B). This remote control can
`
`control the MD recorder both to replay audio and to record CDs from the
`
`music player. The same remote also controlled the functions of the music
`
`player.
`
`27.
`
`In my opinion, it would be obvious engineering to substitute a
`
`different portable device from the MD recorder. Sony chose the MiniDisc
`
`because they manufactured and sold them but they could have elected to
`
`substitute an MP3 player or devices manufactured by others. One would
`
`have been motivated to make such a combination in order to, for example,
`
`10
`
`000010
`
`

`
`take advantage of the additional music storage space that was available in
`
`the MP3 device. One might need to change the connector, or alter the
`
`control signals to suit the particular device. One might also have to provide
`
`an analog path for the audio from the external device or an A-D converter if
`
`the audio data is digital. Each of these alterations are well understood
`
`engineering modifications that anyone skilled in the art could accomplish.
`
`They are also quite natural product evolutions as new attached devices
`
`become available. Included among the available audio sources at the time
`
`of the alleged invention were personal computers running software, such
`
`as, WinAmp or MusicMatch, designed to play MP3 music files on the
`
`computer and to “stream” music from the Internet.
`
`28. My opinion is based on the broadest reasonable construction of
`
`the term “computer” including a device with a processor that accepts input
`
`and provides and output (the definition advanced by Bose in the earlier
`
`litigation concerning the parent ’765 patent), and the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the term “network” including the radio network that was
`
`accessible by the Nomad/Yepp device.
`
`29. With respect to claims 18, 44, 73, 74, and 77 of the ’295 patent,
`
`which require that the computer provide audio information in digital form, it
`
`is my opinion that it would have been obvious to modify the MiniDisc or the
`
`11
`
`000011
`
`

`
`MP3 players to provide audio information in digital form, and to convert the
`
`digital information to analog format in the speaker. One would do that, for
`
`example, in order to allow for use of a higher quality D/A converter in the
`
`speaker, when the music is being amplified and broadcast to a wider area
`
`than would be the case if one were using headphones with the MiniDisc or
`
`the MP3 player. This is nothing more than a trivial exercise of moving the
`
`D/A converter from one box to the other.
`
`The Bose Wave CD Combined With the
`Creative Nomad or Samsung Yepp
`I understand that the second asserted ground of invalidity
`
`30.
`
`alleged in the petition is the combination of the Bose Wave/CD Manual and
`
`documents describing the Creative Nomad/Samsung Yepp Portable MP3
`
`player.
`
`31.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1 and 27 would have been obvious in
`
`view of the Bose Wave/CD Manual alone and in combination with the
`
`Creative Nomad or Samsung YEPP portable MP3 player. Dependent
`
`claims 2-11, 18-21, 24, 29-37, 44-47, 50, 73, and 74 would have been
`
`obvious as well, as described in the claim charts in the petition and
`
`discussed in part below.
`
`32. The system described in the Bose Wave/CD Manual operates
`
`in essentially the same manner as the speaker described in the patent (as I
`
`12
`
`000012
`
`

`
`understand it, the speaker that is described in the patent was a Bose Wave
`
`Radio), in that it included a remote control that allowed the user to control
`
`the speaker directly and also to control the operation of an integral digital
`
`music source also providing music though the speaker, in the form of a CD
`
`player.
`
`33.
`
`In my view, it would have been obvious to substitute a portable
`
`MP3 player, including the Creative Nomad/Samsung Yepp, for the CD
`
`player. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in
`
`order to, for example, take advantage of the additional music storage space
`
`that was available in the MP3 device, as well as to have a portable music
`
`player in addition to the stationary one. Adapting an MP3 player like the
`
`Nomad or Yepp to be controlled by the Bose Wave/CD’s remote control in
`
`the same way that the CD player was controlled by the remote would have
`
`been well within the abilities of one of skill in the art.
`
`34. The Wave Radio/CD and Nomad/Yepp combination is an
`
`“audio reproduction system,” namely the Bose radio combined with a digital
`
`audio player. The Wave Radio/CD unit included a CD player as an audio
`
`source device, but, in my opinion, it would have been obvious to one of skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention to substitute an MP3 player, like the
`
`Nomad/Yepp, for the CD player. I believe that one of skill in the art would
`
`13
`
`000013
`
`

`
`have been motivated to do this in order to combine the greater music
`
`storage capacity of the MP3 player (as compared to a single CD) with the
`
`Wave Radio/CD and the convenience of its remote control. While the CD
`
`player was a fixed part of the Wave/CD, substitution of a portable MP3
`
`player would have been a desirable modification because one would then
`
`have had the ability to play the MP3 music though the Wave radio or to
`
`take it elsewhere. The Creative Nomad/Samsung Yepp was configured to
`
`connect to a computer via a dock, and using a similar arrangement to
`
`removably connect the device to the Wave radio would have been well
`
`within the ability of one of skill in the art.
`
`35. My opinion is based on the broadest reasonable construction of
`
`the term “computer” including a device with a processor that accepts input
`
`and provides and output (the definition advanced by Bose in the earlier
`
`litigation concerning the parent ’765 patent), and the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the term “network” including the radio network that was
`
`accessible by the Nomad/Yepp device.
`
`36. With respect to claim 2 of the ’295 patent, which states that the
`
`connector comprises a dedicated cable, it is my opinion that it would have
`
`been obvious to use a dedicated cable to connect the portable player,
`
`14
`
`000014
`
`

`
`where the integral CD player would have been connected with dedicated
`
`cables or circuits.
`
`37. With respect to claims 18, 19, 44, 45, 73, 74, and 77 of the ’295
`
`patent, which state that the computer provides audio information in digital
`
`or analog form, it is my opinion that it would have been an obvious matter
`
`of design choice to located the D/A converter in either the MP3 player or
`
`the speaker, for the reasons described above in paragraph 29.
`
`The Combination of the Altec Lansing ADA310 Speakers,
`the IRMan Device, and the WinAmp Software
`I understand that the third asserted ground of invalidity alleged
`
`38.
`
`in the petition is the combination of the Altec Lansing ADA310 Speakers,
`
`the IRMan Device, and the WinAmp Software.
`
`39.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1 and 27 would have been obvious in light
`
`of this combination, and that dependent claims 2-11, 18-21, 24, 29-37, 44-
`
`47, 50, 73, and 74 would have been obvious as well, as described in the
`
`claim charts in the petition and discussed in part below.
`
`40. The Altec Lansing ADA310 speakers were powered computer
`
`speakers that included a remote control. The WinAmp software described
`
`in the MP3! book allowed a user to play both music files stored on a
`
`personal computer music streamed over the Internet. Finally, the IRMan
`
`system provided a remote control and an IR receiver that plugged into a
`
`15
`
`000015
`
`

`
`computer to control software running on the computer and, in particular, to
`
`control the WinAmp software. These components, which were designed to
`
`be used together, provided all of the functionality of the system claimed in
`
`the ’295 patent. Structurally, there would have been two remote controls
`
`instead of one (one to control the speaker and one to control the
`
`computer), and two IR receivers (one inside the speaker and one for the
`
`IRMan).
`
`41.
`
` I am of the opinion that it would have been obvious to combine
`
`the remote control and IR receiver hardware, in order to reduce duplication
`
`and clutter, such that one remote would control both the speaker and the
`
`computer and using the IR receiver positioned in the speaker. I also
`
`understand that Paul Beckmann, one of the inventors of the ’295 patent
`
`testified in a deposition in the earlier litigation that it would have been
`
`obvious to make that combination.
`
`42. With respect to claims 9, 10, 35, and 36, which provide that the
`
`remote transmits signals for selecting the music source, it would have been
`
`obvious to provide the feature, which is present in the both the Sony Music
`
`System and the Bose Wave/CD, as a matter of convenience.
`
`43. With respect to claim 21 and 47, which provides that a button
`
`on the speaker can control the computer in one mode and the radio in
`
`16
`
`000016
`
`

`
`another mode, it would have been obvious to provide this feature, which is
`
`present in the both the Sony Music System and the Bose Wave/CD, as a
`
`matter of convenience, where the remote was already configured to control
`
`both sources.
`
`44. With respect to claims 5 and 32 of the ’295 patent, which state
`
`that the housing includes an AM/FM radio, it is my opinion that it would
`
`have been obvious to add a radio to the speaker. The notion of a radio
`
`with a speaker is well precedented and it would have had the advantages
`
`of allowing a user to listen to the radio without using any of the computer
`
`resources and risking any reception interference from the circuitry internal
`
`to the computer. Further it is uncommon for a PC to include a standard
`
`broadcast radio receiver. However, it remains an obvious engineering
`
`combination with no undue design challenges and was well within the
`
`ability of anyone designing powered speakers for use with computers.
`
`45. With respect to claims 6 and 33 of the ’295 patent, which state
`
`that the housing includes an alarm clock, it is my opinion that it would have
`
`been obvious to add such a clock. Alarm clocks were of course well
`
`known, there would have been nothing unique or surprising about adding a
`
`clock, the patent does not identify anything unsual or surprising about it,
`
`17
`
`000017
`
`

`
`and it would have been well within the ability of anyone designing powered
`
`speakers for use with computers.
`
`Multi-Level Music Sorting
`I understand that the fourth through sixth asserted grounds of
`
`46.
`
`invalidity alleged in the petition are the combinations described in Grounds
`
`I-III with the addition of U.S. Patent No. 5,969,283 (“the “’283 patent”).
`
`47.
`
`I am of the opinion that claims 12-17, 38-43, 63, 64, 68-70, 77,
`
`and 78 would have been obvious in view of this combination.
`
`48. The ’283 patent concerns a music organizer and entertainment
`
`center. In the Abstract, the patent explains that “[t]he interface can be
`
`organized according to various music categories that each appear as
`
`buttons” and that “[w]ithin each button can be contained sub-categories for
`
`further organization.” (See 2:27-29.) The patent explains that “[t]he
`
`following categories, among others can be used in conjunction with the
`
`database program to catalog each individual musical selection—song title,
`
`artist, date, main music category, sub-main music category, special music
`
`category, sub-music category, music style, dance type, music speed and a
`
`subject music “energy level” determined by the service provider.” (See
`
`6:53-60.) The mechanism for displaying the categories and subcategories
`
`is described at, for example, 10:22-34, 11:1-22, and in Fig. 7.
`
`18
`
`000018
`
`

`
`49. Claims 12-15 and 38-41 of the ’295 patent concern using the
`
`remote control to cause the computer to select assemblages of music files
`
`based on metadata included in the files, with some claims specifically
`
`directed to metadata concerning music genre, artists, or albums. Assuming
`
`that “the music files” would include the database of the ’283 patent that
`
`includes the metadata, I believe this limitation is described in the ’283
`
`patent, as explained in the preceding paragraph, and that it would have
`
`been obvious to provide such an organization feature in the systems of
`
`Grounds I-III or order to allow the user to find music in his or her collection.
`
`Sorting music, including by genre, artist, and albums, is a concept at least
`
`as old as the record store. If “the music files” would not include the
`
`database used in the ’283 patent, I still believe that it these claims would
`
`have been obvious, as the location of the data used to perform the sorting
`
`is simply a matter of design choice.
`
`50. Claims 16, 17, 42, and 43 concern the selection of a subset of
`
`the original assemblage, with claims 17 and 43 stating that the subset is
`
`based on information about the artist. I believe this limitation is described
`
`in the ’283 patent, as explained above, and that it would have been obvious
`
`to provide such an organization feature in the systems of Grounds I-III in
`
`order to allow the user to find music in his or her collection.
`
`19
`
`000019
`
`

`
`51.
`
`Independent claim 63 is essentially the same as independent
`
`claim 27, except that it adds the sorting, where the first and second
`
`assemblages are displayed to the user. Independent claim 78 is
`
`essentially the same as claim 63, except that it adds the sorting, where the
`
`first and second assemblages are displayed to the user, and specifically
`
`claims a processor. Again, for the reasons explained above, I believe that
`
`it would have been obvious to employ the technique of the ’283 patent to
`
`provide the user with the ability to find music in their collection.
`
`
`
`I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
`
`States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that all
`
`statements made of my own knowledge are true and that all statements
`
`made on information and belief are believed to be true. I understand that
`
`willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment,
`
`or both (18 U.S.C. § 1001).
`
`Executed on June 12, 2013
`
`
`
`___________________________
`Andrew B. Lippman
`
`20
`
`000020
`
`

`
`              
`
`Exhibit  A  
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`
`ANDREW B. LIPPMAN
`
`Andrew B. Lippman
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
`Senior Research Scientist
`Associate Director, MIT Media Lab
`E14-348F, 75 Amherst Street, Cambridge, MA 02142
`617-253-5113, lip@media.mit.edu
`
`Education
`École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland,
`PhD, Electrical Engineering, 1995
`
`MIT, Master of Science, Computer Graphics, 1978
`
`MIT, Bachelor of Science, Electrical Engineering, 1971
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology
`(MIT, a teaching and research university)
`Media Laboratory, Associate Director, 2008-present
`
`Media Laboratory, Associate Director, 1987-2000
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Senior Research Scientist, 2000-present
`
`Media Laboratory, Graduate Officer, Media Arts and Sciences, 2002-2007
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Principal Research Scientist, 1995-2000
`
`Media Laboratory, Associate Director and Lecturer, 1987-2000
`
`Media Laboratory, NEC Career Development Professor of Computers and Communications,
`1985-1986
`
`Architecture Machine Group, Associate Professor, 1983-1987
`
`Architecture Machine Group, Assistant Professor, 1980-83
`
`Architecture Machine Group, Research Associate, 1977-80
`
`Architecture Machine Group, Research Assistant, 1976-77
`
`Architecture Machine Group, Technical Instructor, 1975-76
`
`Architecture Machine Group, Technical Assistant, 1971-75
`
`Other Professional Experience
`Diamond Management & Technology Consultants Fellow, 1999-present
`
`Nortel Visiting Fellow, 2007-2008
`
`École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland,
`Visiting Professor of Electrical Engineering, 1995
`
`- 1 -
`
`8 April 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Curriculum Vitae
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
` Curriculum Vitae
`
`ANDREW B. LIPPMAN
`
`Publications
`
`“CoCam: A collaborative content sharing framework based on opportunistic P2P networking,” E.
`Toledano, D. Sawada, A. Lippman, H. Holtzman, F. Casalegno. Consumer Communications and
`Networking Conference (CCNC), 2013 IEEE, January 2013.
`
`“Barter - Mechanism Design of A Market-incented Wisdom Exchange for Organizations and
`Communities,” D. Shen, M. Van Alstyne, A. Lippman. Workshop on Social Computing and User
`Generated Content, ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, San Jose, CA, June, 2011.
`
`“Barter - Mechanism Design for a Market Incented Wisdom Exchange,” D. Shen, M. Van Alstyne,
`A. Lippman, H. Benbya. ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),
`Seattle, WA, February, 2012.
`
`“Design of Currency, Markets, and Economy for Knowledge,” D. Shen, A. Pentland, M. Van
`Alstyne, A. Lippman. “Design of Currency, Markets, and Economy for Knowledge” Workshop on
`Information in Networks (WIN), New York, NY, September, 2012.
`
`“The Impacts of Just-In-Time Social Networks on People's Choices in the Real World,” K.H. Lee,
`A. Lippman, A. Pentland, E. Dugundji. The Third IEEE International Conference on Social
`Computing. October 9-11, 2011.
`
`“The Glass Infrastructure: Using Common Sense to Create a Dynamic, Place-Based Social
`Information System,” C. Havasi, R. Borovoy, B. Kizelshteyn, P. Ypodimatopoulos, J. Ferguson, H.
`Holtzman, A. Lippman, D. Schultz, M. Blackshaw, G. Elliott, C. Ng, Innovative Applications of
`Artificial Intelligence, Twenty-Third IAAI Conference, San Francisco, August, 2011.
`
`“The Effects of Just-In-Time Social Networks on People's Choices in the Real World,” K.H. Lee,
`A. Lippman, A. Pentland. Interdisciplinary Workshop on Information and Decision in Social
`Networks (WIDS). May 31-June 1, 2011.
`
`“X-Ray Audio,” A. Lippman, B. Kizelshteyn, V. Hung, Proceedings of Interacting with Sound
`Workshop: Exploring Context-Aware, Local and Social Audio Applications, IwS ’11, ACM, New
`York, NY.
`
`“Open Transaction Network: Connecting Communities of Experience through Mobile
`Transactions,” K.H. Lee, D. Shen, A. Lippman, E. Ross. The Second International Conference on
`Mobile Computing, Applications and Services (MobiCASE 2010). October 25~27, 2010.
`
` “Follow Me: A Web-Based, Location-Sharing Architecture for Large, Indoor Environments,” P.
`Ypodimatopoulos, A. Lippman. 19th International World Wide Web Conference, WWW2010,
`Raleigh, NC, April 2010.
`
`“Simple, Zero-Feedback, Distributed Beamforming with Unsynchronized Carriers,” A. Bletsas,
`A. Lippman, J. Sahalos. IEEE JSAC Special Issue, to be published 2010.
`
`“Simple, Zero-Feedback, Collaborative Beamforming for Emergency Radio,” A. Bletsas, A.
`Lippman, J. Sahalos, The Sixth International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems
`2009 (ISWCS’09) 
Siena-Tuscany, University of Siena, Italy, September, 2009.
`
`“What Can Failures Teach Us?” A. Lippman, Editorial, The Boston Globe, July 19, 2009.
`
`"Separation of Multiple Passive RFID Signals Using Software Defined Radio," D. Shen, G. Woo,
`D.P. Reed, A. Lippman, IEEE RFID 2009, Orlando, FL.
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`8 April 2013
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
` Curriculum Vitae
`
`ANDREW B. LIPPMAN
`
`
`"On Frame Synchronization for Multiple Access Channels,” D. Shen, W. Zhang, D.P. Reed, A.
`Lippman, IEEE ICC - MACOM 2009, Dresden, Germany.
`
`"Connected Consumption: The Hidden Networks of Consumption,” K.H. Lee, D. Shen, D.P. Reed,
`A. Lippman, H. Schumacher, IEEE CCNC 2009, Las Vegas.
`
`"Minimum Energy Cooperative Path Routing in All-Wireless Networks: NP-Completeness and
`Heuristic Algorithms", F. Li, K. Wu, A. Lippman, Journal of Communications and Networks (JCN),
`special issue on Cooperative Transmission and its Applications, June 2008.
`
`"Presence Information in Mobile Mesh Networks," P.P. Ypodimatopoulos, D..P. Reed, A.
`Lippman, M. Bletsas, Consumer Communications and Networking Conference, 2008. CCNC
`2008. 5th IEEE
`
`"Demonstrating SnapN'Share: Content Sharing Over a Socially Informed, Hyper-Local, Face-to-
`Face Networking Platform," Nadav Aharony, Andrew Lippman and David P. Reed, CCNC IEEE
`2008; Las Vegas, NV.
`
`“Performance Evaluation of EVRC-Encoded Voice Traffic Over CD