UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ADVANCED AUDIO DEVICES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE: To Be Assigned
`Patent No. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`I hereby declare that all the statements made in this Declaration are of my
`
`own knowledge and true; that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and that such willful false
`
`statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issued
`
`thereon.
`
`I declare under the penalty of perjury that all statements made in this
`
`Declaration are true and correct.
`
`
`
`Executed 10 July, 2014 in Boulder, Colorado.
`
`
`/Christopher Schmandt/
`
`CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .......................................................................... 3 
`II. 
`III.  QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .................................................... 4 
`A. 
`Education and Work Experience .......................................................... 4 
`B. 
`Compensation ....................................................................................... 5 
`C. 
`Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon ..................................... 5 
`IV.  STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................... 6 
`A. 
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 6 
`B. 
`Anticipation .......................................................................................... 6 
`C. 
`Obviousness .......................................................................................... 7 
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 7 
`V. 
`VI.  TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND OF CLAIMED SUBJECT
`MATTER OF THE 888 PATENT.................................................................. 9 
`A.  Digital Audio Recording ...................................................................... 9 
`B. 
`Playlists/Song Lists ............................................................................ 13 
`C. 
`User Interfaces for Audio Recording and Playback Devices ............. 17 
`D. 
`Touch Screens .................................................................................... 23 
`VII.  OVERVIEW OF THE 888 PATENT ........................................................... 27 
`VIII.  PRIORITY DATE ........................................................................................ 31 
`IX. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE PRIOR ART AND SUMMARY OF
`OPINIONS .................................................................................................... 35 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 36 
`A. 
`“A display” in all Claims ................................................................... 37 
`B. 
`“At least one of… and” in all Claims ................................................. 37 
`XI.  UNPATENTABILITY OF THE 888 PATENT CLAIMS ........................... 38 
`A.  GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-15 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A) AS OBVIOUS OVER KELLER
`393 IN VIEW OF MARTIN .............................................................. 38 
`
`X. 
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`1. 
`2. 
`
`Page
`Claim 1 is Obvious Over Keller 393 in View of Martin ......... 43 
`Claims 2-15 are Obvious Over Keller 393 in View of
`Martin ....................................................................................... 49 
`GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1-15 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) AS BEING OBVIOUS OVER NATHAN
`259 AND NATHAN 255 ................................................................... 54 
`1. 
`Overview of Nathan 259 .......................................................... 54 
`2. 
`Nathan 259 Solves the Same Problems Identified in the
`888 Patent in a Similar Manner and Achieves the Same
`Results. ..................................................................................... 55 
`Overview of Nathan 255 .......................................................... 57 
`Claim 2-15 Are Obvious Over Nathan 259 And Nathan
`255 ............................................................................................ 76 
`GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1-15 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) AS BEING OBVIOUS OVER SOUND
`BLASTER, LUCENTE AND OZAWA ............................................ 81 
`1. 
`Claim 1 Is Obvious Over Sound Blaster, Lucente And
`Ozawa ....................................................................................... 95 
`Claims 2-15 Are Obvious Over Sound Blaster, Lucente
`And Ozawa ............................................................................. 109 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`3. 
`4. 
`
`2. 
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`List of Appendices
`
`Appendix A
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Christopher Schmandt
`
`Appendix B
`
`Alan Marr, Computer Aided Film Sound Editing, Aug. 27, 1984
`
`Appendix C
`
`Appendix D
`
`James Moorer et al., The Digital Audio Processing Station: A
`New Concept in Audio Postproduction, May 1985
`
`David M. Schwartz, Specifications and Implementation of a
`Computer Audio Console for Digital Mixing and Recording,
`Oct. 1984
`
`Appendix E
`
`John P. Stautner, Musical Recording, Editing, and Production
`Using the CompuSonics DSP-2000, Oct. 1984
`
`Appendix F
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,147,940 to Yankowski
`
`Appendix G
`
`Appendix H
`
`Appendix I
`
`Excerpt from Christopher Yavelow, MacWorld Music & Sound
`Bible (1992)
`
`Deb Kumar Roy, NewsComm: A Hand-held Device for
`Interactive Access to Structured Audio, June 1995
`
`Matthew Lake & Yael Li-Ron, Sight and Sound: Multimedia,
`PC Computing, Sept. 1995
`
`Appendix J
`
`Fujitsu, Stylistic 1200 Pen Tablet User’s Guide, 1997
`
`Appendix K
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,983,073 to Ditzik
`
`Appendix L
`
`Provisional U.S. Pat. App. No. 60/051,999, filed July 9, 1997
`
`Appendix M
`
`Appendix N
`
`Non-provisional U.S. Pat. App. No. 09/111,989, filed July 8,
`1998
`
`Comparison between the ‘999 Provisional and the ‘989 Non-
`Provisional Applications
`
`Appendix O
`
`Appendix P
`
`[Not used]
`
`[Not used]
`
`
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`Appendix Q
`
`Excerpt from Mark K. Jones, Human-Computer Interaction: a
`design guide (1988)
`
`Appendix R
`
`IBM ThinkPad 755CX User's Guide, March 1995
`
`Appendix S
`
`Creative Labs, Sound Blaster 16 Getting Started, May 1995
`
`
`
`
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Christopher Schmandt. I have been a Principal Research
`
`Scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Laboratory (“MIT
`
`Media Lab”) since 1985.
`
`2.
`
`I have been engaged by HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation
`
`(“HTC”) to investigate and opine on certain issues relating to U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,400,888 B2 entitled “Personal Digital Stereo Player Having Controllable Touch
`
`Screen” (“888 Patent”) in HTC’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of the 888 Patent
`
`(“HTC IPR Petition”) which requests the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)
`
`to review and cancel selected claims of the 888 Patent—claims 1-15 (“Challenged
`
`Claims”). I have also been engaged by HTC to investigate and opine on certain
`
`issues relating to four other patents to which the 888 Patent claims priority— U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 6,587,403 B1, 7,289,393 B2, 7,817,502 B2, and 7,933,171 B2, and in
`
`additional petitions for inter partes review by HTC. I understand that Advanced
`
`Audio Devices, LLC are asserting all five patents against HTC America, Inc. in an
`
`on-going patent infringement lawsuit, No. 1:13-cv-07582, filed in the U.S. District
`
`Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on Oct. 22, 2013.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the 888 Patent was assigned to Advanced Audio
`
`Devices, LLC (“AAD”). AAD is therefore referred to as the “Patent Owner” in
`
`this declaration.
`
`
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`4.
`
`In this declaration, I will first discuss the technology related to the 888
`
`Patent, including an overview of that technology as it was known before July 9,
`
`1997, which I understand Patent Owner AAD claims as the earliest priority date of
`
`the 403 Patent. This overview of the relevant technology, the prior art references
`
`provides some of the bases for my opinions with respect to the 888 Patent.
`
`5.
`
`This declaration is based on the information currently available to me.
`
`To the extent that additional information becomes available, I reserve the right to
`
`continue my investigation and study, which may include a review of documents
`
`and information that may be produced, as well as testimony from depositions that
`
`may not yet be taken.
`
`6.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied on information and evidence
`
`identified in this declaration, including the 888 Patent, the prosecution history of
`
`the 888 Patent, and prior art references including U.S. Patent No. 7,289,393 B2 to
`
`Peter J. Keller, et al. (“Keller 393”), U.S. patent No. 5,335,302 to Martin, et al.
`
`(“Martin”), International Patent Application Publication No. WO/1996/12259 to
`
`Nathan et al. and its Certified Translation (“Nathan 259”), International Patent
`
`Application Publication No. WO/1996/12255 to Nathan et al. and its Certified
`
`Translation (“Nathan 255”), Sound Blaster 16 User Reference Manual, 1st Ed.
`
`March 1994 (“Sound Blaster”), European Patent Application Publication No.
`
`- 2 -
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`0598547 A2 (“Lucente”), and U.S. Pat No. 5,870,710 to Kazunori Ozawa et al.
`
`(“Ozawa”) listed as Exhibits as part of the HTC IPR Petition. I have also relied on
`
`my own experience and expertise in the relevant technologies and systems that
`
`were already in use prior to, and within the timeframe of the earliest claimed
`
`priority date of the 888 Patent—July 9, 1997.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`7.
`
`The Challenged Claims 1-15 of the 888 Patent cover a recording
`
`device, referred to as a "music jukebox," having various hardware and software
`
`features associated with recording sound files. None of the features described in
`
`the Challenged Claims of the 888 Patent was novel as of July, 1997, nor does the
`
`403 Patent teach a novel and non-obvious way of combining these known features.
`
`8.
`
`It is my opinion that each of the Challenged Claims is invalid under
`
`the patentability standards of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 as I understand them
`
`and as explained to me by HTC’s counsel.
`
`9.
`
`For purpose of my analysis in this declaration only, I provide my
`
`proposed construction of certain terms in the Challenged Claims in detail in a later
`
`part of this declaration.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`10. The subsequent sections of this declaration will first provide my
`
`qualifications and experience and then describe details of my analysis and
`
`observations.
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`A. Education and Work Experience
`11.
`I received a Master of Science degree in 1980 and a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology in 1978.
`
`12.
`
`I have more than thirty four years of experience in the field of Media
`
`Technology that synthesizes and integrates different technological disciplines such
`
`as digital audio recording and user interface design with digital computing
`
`technology . I have published over 90 technical papers that have been cited by
`
`scientists and engineers in their publications more than 3,000 times.
`
`13.
`
`I have worked at the MIT Media Lab and its predecessor, the
`
`Architecture Machine Group, since 1980. I helped found the MIT Media Lab. I
`
`have been a Principal Research Scientist and Director of the Speech + Mobility
`
`(formerly Speech Interfaces) Group there. I have served on the Laboratory
`
`Committee on Intellectual Property at MIT since 2001 and was of chair of that
`
`committee between 2003 and 2007.
`
`- 4 -
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`14. During my career I have taught and supervised theses and students on
`
`many aspects of Media Technology. I have led research on speech and auditory
`
`computer user interfaces, mobile and networked applications of digital audio, and
`
`location-based delivery of personalized media content. I was elected to the
`
`Association of Computing Machinery’s CHI (Computer Human Interaction)
`
`Academy for my pioneering work in speech and auditory user interface design.
`
`15. My curriculum vitae, which provides a detailed summary of my
`
`education, work experience, publication history, and teaching history, is attached
`
`to this declaration as Appendix A.
`
`B. Compensation
`16.
`I am being compensated at the rate of $400 per hour for the services I
`
`am providing in this case. The compensation is not contingent upon my
`
`performance, the outcome of this inter partes review or any other proceeding, or
`
`any issues involved in or related to this inter partes review.
`
`C. Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon
`17. The documents on which I rely for the opinions expressed in this
`
`declaration are documents and materials identified in this declaration, including the
`
`888 Patent, patents related to the 888 Patent, the prosecution history for the 888
`
`Patent and patents related to the 888 Patent, the prior art references and
`
`information discussed in this declaration, and any other references specifically
`
`- 5 -
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`identified in this declaration, in their entirety, even if only portions of these
`
`documents are discussed here in an exemplary fashion.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`18. HTC’s counsel has advised that, when construing claim terms of an
`
`unexpired patent, a claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” HTC’s counsel has further informed me that the broadest reasonable
`
`construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim language,
`
`and that any term that lacks a definition in the specification is also given a broad
`
`interpretation.
`
`B. Anticipation
`19. HTC’s counsel has advised that in order for a patent claim to be valid,
`
`the claimed invention must be novel. HTC’s counsel has further advised that if
`
`each and every element of a claim is disclosed in a single prior art reference, then
`
`the claimed invention is anticipated, and the invention is not patentable according
`
`to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 effective before March 16, 2013. In order for the
`
`invention to be anticipated, all of the elements and limitations of the claim must be
`
`shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in the claim. A claim is anticipated
`
`only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
`
`- 6 -
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`inherently described, in a single prior art reference. In order for a reference to
`
`inherently disclose a claim limitation, that claim limitation must necessarily be
`
`present in the reference.
`
`C. Obviousness
`20. HTC’s counsel has also advised me that obviousness under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 effective before March 16, 2013 is a basis for invalidity. I
`
`understand that where a prior art reference does not disclose all of the limitations
`
`of a given patent claim, that patent claim is invalid if the differences between the
`
`claimed subject matter and the prior art reference are such that the claimed subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the relevant art. Obviousness can be based on a
`
`single prior art reference or a combination of references that either expressly or
`
`inherently disclose all limitations of the claimed invention. In an obviousness
`
`analysis, it is not necessary to find precise teachings in the prior art directed to the
`
`specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`21.
`I understand from HTC’s counsel that the claims and specification of
`
`a patent must be read and construed through the eyes of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the priority date of the claims. I have also been advised
`
`- 7 -
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`that to determine the appropriate level of a person having ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the following factors may be considered: (a) the types of problems encountered by
`
`those working in the field and prior art solutions thereto; (b) the sophistication of
`
`the technology in question, and the rapidity with which innovations occur in the
`
`field; (c) the educational level of active workers in the field; and (d) the
`
`educational level of the inventor.
`
`22. The relevant technologies to the 888 Patent are audio recording and
`
`playback devices. The 888 Patent describes an audio recording device which is
`
`designed to allow a user to rearrange and preview (or "audition") an arrangement
`
`of individual sound recordings before recording those sounds onto CD.
`
`23. The "Background of the Invention" section of the 888 Patent
`
`recognized the desire to have a device that could record CDs with the sound
`
`quality provided by digital audio and that would be easy to use and flexible..
`
`24. The solutions proposed by the 888 Patent largely consist of Software
`
`and user interface elements to control a CD recorder. Therefore, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would need some experience in Computer programming.
`
`Because the claims of the 888 Patent also relate to the way that a computer-
`
`controlled system is used to manage, play back and record audio, a person of
`
`- 8 -
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art would require some knowledge and experience with digital
`
`audio technology.
`
`25. Based on the above considerations and factors, it is my opinion that a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, and 1-3 years of experience
`
`in designing and programming consumer electronic devices. This person would
`
`also be acquainted with basic concepts of digital audio recording. This description
`
`is approximate and additional educational experience could make up for less work
`
`experience and vice versa.
`
`VI. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND OF CLAIMED SUBJECT
`MATTER OF THE 888 PATENT
`A. Digital Audio Recording
`26. The 888 Patent discloses a compact disc (“CD”) recorder 30 for
`
`recording digital audio files onto CDs as shown in its Figs. 1 through 4. Whether
`
`calling the disclosed CD recorder 30 a “Compact Disc Recorder,” “Optical Storage
`
`Device,” “Music Jukebox,” or “Personal Digital Stereo Player” as the Patent
`
`Owner did in using different titles for the 888 Patent and other four parent patents
`
`asserted against HTC as continuation filings from the same U.S. patent application
`
`- 9 -
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`Ser. No. 09/111,989 entitled “Optical Storage Device” and filed Jul. 8, 1998,1 the
`
`technology of the 888 Patent and its four child patents is mostly the same (with one
`
`significant exception in the claims) as disclosed in the Jul. 8, 1998 filing: the CD
`
`recorder 30 stores digital sound tracks into internal memory so that a user can play
`
`back and edit the order of the sound tracks prior to recording the sound tracks onto
`
`a CD (4:33-53). The engine of the CD recorder 30 is the central processing unit 94
`
`
`1 The beginning paragraph “RELATED APPLICATION” of the 888 Patent states
`"Continuation of application No. 12/855,510, filed on Aug. 12, 2010, now Pat. No.
`7,933,171, which is a continuation of application No. 11/557,317, filed on Nov. 7,
`2006, now Pat. No. 7,817,502, which is a continuation of application No.
`10/610,178, filed on Jun. 30, 2003, now Pat. No. 7,289,393, which is a
`continuation of application No. 09/641,069, filed on Aug. 17, 2000, now Pat. No.
`6,587,403, which is a continuation of application No. 09/111,989, filed on Jul. 8,
`199, now Pat. No. 6,172,948. Provisional application No. 60/051,999, filed on Jul.
`9, 1997." The title of the U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/051,999 is
`“Compact Disc Recorder” and the title of the U.S. patent application Ser. No.
`09/111,989 is “Optical storage device.” In subsequent patent filings based on the
`same technical disclosure, Patent Owner named different titles to the 888 Patent
`and its four parent patents asserted against HTC: “Music Jukebox” for Patent No.
`6,587,403, “Music Jukebox” for Patent No. 7,289,393 B2, “Method of Using A
`Personal Digital Stereo Player” for Patent No. 7,817,502 B2, “Personal Digital
`Stereo Player” for Patent No. 7,933,171 B2, and “Personal Digital Stereo Player
`Having Controllable Touch Screen” for the 888 Patent.
`
`- 10 -
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`shown in Fig. 4, such as a as a microprocessor having software embedded therein,
`
`is incorporated on a circuit board along with a sound card (CODEC) structure (8:1-
`
`14). Therefore, the 888 Patent and its four parent patents are for digital audio
`
`recording based on microprocessors or computer processors. As explained below,
`
`the digital audio recording features disclosed in the 888 Patent were well
`
`developed before the filing of the 888 Patent.
`
`27. By the early 1980s, computers and microprocessors were being used
`
`to store and manipulate digital audio. Once audio is digital and stored in random
`
`access memory, the stored audio data can be processed and copied without loss of
`
`quality, and segments of sound can be played in any order. One of the earliest (ca.
`
`1982) application domains was digital editing of recorded speech. During editing,
`
`portions of sound are cut, copied, pasted, and re-recorded. Because sound files
`
`were relatively large in those days, these editing operations were often performed
`
`by building a list of sound segments (file name, start time, stop time) to be played
`
`in order, instead of rewriting files to disk with each edit operation. This is an early
`
`example of a playlist.
`
`28.
`
` Within a few years, these same techniques were being applied to
`
`higher quality audio, including music, with more sophisticated editing and signal
`
`processing, in high end- sound editors for the movie industry. An essential
`
`- 11 -
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`component of such systems is the digital audio recorder, with which sound input is
`
`captured, digitized, and stored on magnetic disk; only then can it be edited. This
`
`capability was embraced by professional musicians and studios, including digital
`
`music sequencing (the ability to play portions of music repeatedly in various
`
`sequences) and integration with other instruments through MIDI, another digital
`
`means of representing music.
`
`29. For example, Lucasfilm, the production company best known for the
`
`"Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" movies, used a playlist-based editing system
`
`called SoundDroid to digitally edit the sound track for a film. I observed the
`
`SoundDroid in use in the early 1980s. The SoundDroid stored a wide range of
`
`sounds- everything from sound effects to dialog to the musical score- as digital
`
`sound files in a large database that could be accessed by the sound editors from a
`
`workstation using a number of traditional controls and input devices as well as a
`
`touch screen. The sound editor could build the sound track for the movie by
`
`creating an electronic cue sheet, which is simply a list of what sounds are to be
`
`played when and on what channels. When you watch "The Empire Strikes Back"
`
`or "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," the sound you hear throughout the
`
`movie was originally put together as a playlist of digital sound files stored in
`
`random access memory in the system. Attached to this declaration as Appendices
`
`- 12 -
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`B and C respectively are two papers by Alan Marr et al (1984) and James Moorer
`
`et al (1986) describing the digital sound editing systems used by Lucasfilm.
`
`30. The playlist concept was also frequently applied to digital sound
`
`editing consoles for music production. Examples of such products were made by
`
`the CompuSonics Corporation in the mid-1980s for professional use, as well as a
`
`scaled-down version for home use. The CompuSonics system included a music
`
`filing system that allowed the user to append notes (such as artist names, session
`
`titles, date/time, etc.) to any sound track and recall tracks from random access
`
`memory in the order specified by a "re-programmable album order," which is a
`
`playlist. Attached to this declaration as Appendices D and E respectively are two
`
`articles by David M. Schwartz (1984) and John P. Stautner (1984) describing the
`
`CompuSonics system and the list editing functions it included.
`
`31. With the emergence of the mp3 (short for MPEG, layer 3) audio
`
`compression standard developed by the Fraunhofer Institute in 1993, consumer-
`
`grade recording and storage became commonplace, and users with large collections
`
`of CDs would “rip” them (store the digital data on the computer disk) to
`
`manipulate as playlists and transfer to various portable devices.
`
`B.
`Playlists/Song Lists
`32. The 888 Patent discloses song lists in, e.g., Figs. 7, 8 and 12. Listing,
`
`organizing and showing available songs in song lists were well developed before
`
`- 13 -
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`the filing of the 888 Patent. For example, various digital audio recording and
`
`playback devices used song lists or playlists long before the earliest claimed
`
`priority date of the 888 Patent.
`
`33. During the second half of the 1980s, the Compact Audio Disc (CD)
`
`became a readily available consumer product. Unlike the earlier videodisc, CDs
`
`stored high quality audio (speech or music) digitally, and on a random access
`
`medium. Because the individual songs could be accessed randomly instead of only
`
`sequentially or serially (as with analog or digital audio tape), the CD player could
`
`quickly skip to the next track, repeat the current track, or play tracks in random
`
`order (“shuffle play”). CD players capable of loading multiple CDs could be
`
`programmed to play a large number of songs in whatever sequence the listener
`
`desired. For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,147,940, attached to this declaration as
`
`Appendix F, teaches a CD changer system which uses a central database
`
`containing information about all of the discs in the system and the tracks on each
`
`disc, and allows the user to create playlists for playing back tracks from multiple
`
`discs in a selected order.
`
`34. Simplified playlist controls for use on a personal computer were well
`
`known several years before the earliest claimed priority date of the 888 Patent. For
`
`example, the 1992 "MacWorld Music & Sound Bible" by Christopher Yavelow
`
`- 14 -
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`describes a program called SoundAccess, available for hypercard stacks on Apple
`
`Macintosh PCs, that included the capability to put together "cue lists," or "lists of
`
`soundfiles to be played back in the order you specify." The same program
`
`included playback controls that allowed the user to play or stop a list and jump
`
`forward or backward through the list:
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`35. Attached as Appendix G is an excerpt from Yavelow's book.
`
`36. After Fraunhofer released the MP3 compression standard, Fraunhofer
`
`released several versions of a player program for Windows operating systems,
`
`called WinPlay3, which was specifically designed to play back MP3s. Archived
`
`versions of this software are available on the internet. See
`
`http://web.archive.org/web/20040818092820/www.rjamorim.com/rrw/winplay3.ht
`
`ml. Version 1.4 of the WinPlay3 software, which was released no later than March
`
`of 1996, includes the ability to play back playlist files, which ended in a .m3u file
`
`extension. M3U files were simple text files containing a list of paths to MP3 files,
`
`and a user could create a playlist by adding, rearranging, or deleting files in a
`
`simple text editor:
`
`- 16 -
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`
`C. User Interfaces for Audio Recording and Playback Devices
`37. The 888 Patent discloses buttons on the front panel of the CD recorder
`
`in Figs. 1-2 to receive user operation or control inputs and a digital graphic display
`
`46, also shown in Figs. 1-2, to display information to a user for auditioning,
`
`viewing, organizing or other operations on the stored songs, as shown in the
`
`- 17 -
`
`HTC Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMANDT
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,400,888 B2
`
`
`
`operation screen displays in Figs. 7-23. Such user interface features were well
`
`developed before the filing of the 888 Patent.
`
`38. Before the digital audio revolution allowed CDs or other digital
`
`storage allowed random access to replace conventional sequential access,
`
`consumers and audio professionals were used to operating tape decks, and these
`
`had rapidly settled on well-known button labels to represent the transport functions
`
`such as play, record, fast forward, and rewind. With multiple vendors using the
`
`same symbols, it was easier for consumers to learn to use the equipment.
`
`Therefore it was not surprising that when computer applications for digital audio
`
`appeared, they tended to use the same symbols, now as "icons” on “buttons” on
`
`screen-based user interfaces. For example, the operation symbol “>>” for “fast
`
`forward” in tape operation for fast rotating the tape to reach a desired data or music
`
`segment or file stored in the tape has been retained in digi