`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`PATENT: 8,086,678
`
`INVENTOR: HEREDIA ET AL.
`
`TITLE: DEVICE CENTRIC CONTROLS FOR A DEVICE CONTROLLED
`THROUGH A WEB PORTAL
`
`TRIAL NO: IPR2014-01508
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ALON KONCHITSKY IN RESPONSE TO
`BLACKBERRY’S PETITION FOR AN IPR OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,086,678
`AND THE BRODY DECLARATION (EX. 1003)
`
`
`
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 1
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 1
`II.
`A. Educational Background .......................................................................... 1
`
`B. Career and Experience ............................................................................. 3
`
`C. Other Relevant Qualifications ................................................................. 8
`
`III. PRIOR EXPERT TESTIMONY AND COMPENSATION ........................... 9
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW .............................................................. 9
`
`A. A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art ............................................ 9
`
`B. Claim Construction ................................................................................ 10
`
`C. Anticipation ............................................................................................ 11
`
`D. Non-Obviousness/Obviousness ............................................................. 11
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ...................................................................... 13
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ........................................................................ 13
`
`A. The ‘678 Patent ...................................................................................... 13
`
`B. “Device Database” and “Control Database” .......................................... 19
`VII. THE CLAIMS OF THE ‘678 PATENT ARE NOT
`
`ANTICIPATED BY ADAMS ....................................................................... 25
`
`A.
`Independent Claim 1 .............................................................................. 25
`
`B. Adams .................................................................................................. 26
`
`C. Adams Does Not Disclose The “Unique Device
`
`
`Identifier” Of Elements 1[a], 1[d], And 1[g]-[h] .................................. 34
`
`1. The Owner Information” Of Adams Is
`
`
`Not The Unique Device Identifier” ................................................ 35
` 2. Adams’s “Identifier” Used To Update An “Owner
`
`
`
`Control Information” Stored On The Mobile Device
`
`
`
`Is Not The “Unique Device Identifier” .......................................... 37
`
`
`
`i
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 2
`
`

`

`D. Adams Does Not Disclose The “Monitor Messages”
`
`
`Of Elements 1[d] And 1[g]-[f] .............................................................. 39
`
` 1. The Only Disclosed Embodiment For Entering “Owner
`
`
`
`Control Information” In Adams Does Not Teach A
`
`
`
`“Unique Device Identifier” ............................................................ 40
` 2. The Cited Portions Of Adams Do Not Disclose That
`
`
`
`A Monitor Message Must Contain A “Unique Device
`
`
`
`Identifier” ....................................................................................... 42
`
`E. Adams Does Not Disclose The “Device Database” And
`
`
`“Control Database” Of Elements 1[f]-[i] .............................................. 45
` 1. Dr. Brody Applies The Term “Database” Contrary To
`
`
`
`A PHOSITA’s Understanding Of That Term ................................ 45
`
`a. The “Device Database” Is A “Database”
`
` Which Requires Structure ...................................................... 46
`
`b. The Other Art Confirms The PHOSITA’s
`
`
`Understanding Of A “Database” ............................................ 47
`
`c. Fields In A “Database” Are Not A Separate “Database” ....... 48
` 2. The “Owner Information Stores” Are Not
`
`
`
`The “Device Database” .................................................................. 50
` 3. The “Owner Control Information Database” Is Not
`
`
`
`Both The “Device Database” And The “Control
`
`
`
`Database” Of Elements 1[f]-[i] ...................................................... 54
`
`a. Claim 1 Requires Two Separate And
`
`
`Distinct Databases .................................................................. 54
`
`b. Adams Does Not Disclose A Remote Server
`
`
`Verifies The “Unique Device Identifier” Is
`
`
`“Also Stored In” The “Device Database” .............................. 55
`
`c. The “Listing Of Devices” In The “Owner Control
`
`
`Information” Database Is Not The “Device
`
`
`Database” ................................................................................ 56
`
`d. The “Owner Control Information” Database Does
`
`
`Does Not Perform Both Comparisons
`
`
`Of Element 1[g]-[h] ................................................................ 57
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 3
`
`

`

`F. Adams Does Not Disclose Establishing An
`
`
`Administrative Account “In Response To”
`
`
`The Unique Device Identifier Of Element 1[i] ..................................... 61
`
`G. Adams Does Not Disclose A Communication Module Of The
`
`
`Network Communication Device That Generates A Data
`
` Message For Use With a Service Provided By An ISP
`
`
`Of Element 1[c] ..................................................................................... 65
`
`H. All Claims Depending From Independent Claim 1 ............................... 67
`
` 1. Dependent Claim 2 ......................................................................... 67
` 2. Dependent Claim 5 ......................................................................... 68
`VIII. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS .................................................................. 68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 4
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I, Alon Konchitsky, Ph.D., hereby declare, affirm, and state that I make this
`
`Declaration in response to Petitioner’s Petition to IPR U.S. Patent No. 8,086,678
`
`and the accompanying “Declaration Of Dr. Arthur T. Brody” (Exhibit 1003), and
`
`also in support of Patent Owner Zipit Wireless Inc.’s (“Zipit”), opposition to the
`
`Petition.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of my curriculum vitae,
`
`detailing my education, experience, and publications
`
`in
`
`the
`
`field of
`
`telecommunications. Additionally, I provide the following overview of my
`
`background as it pertains to my qualifications for providing expert testimony in
`
`this matter.
`
`A. Educational Background
`
`2.
`
`In 1992, I joined the Israeli Air Force. I was assigned to a technology
`
`and intelligence unit that was very well known within the Air Force for
`
`successfully developing advanced technologies and excellent training. There, I
`
`worked on developing systems and products for high-speed, real-time software
`
`applications such as networking, moving maps, high definition video, video
`
`processors and multimedia messaging communications.
`
`
`
`1
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 5
`
`

`

`3.
`
`I received a P.Eng in Electrical Engineering from the Tel Aviv
`
`Institute of Technology in 1992 and a B.A. in Computer Science from the
`
`Academic College of Tel Aviv University in 1997. My coursework and research
`
`work for these two programs involved, among many subjects, software
`
`development for real-time protocols and implementing multimedia communication
`
`functions such as messaging, voice and video.
`
`4.
`
`In 1998, I received an M.A. in Management with a focus in Business
`
`from Bournemouth University. Based on my research for my M.A. dissertation, I
`
`was able to forecast a global shift in computing systems from mainframe
`
`architectures to personal computers. I described my research results and forecast
`
`in my dissertation.
`
`5.
`
`In 2002, I received a Ph.D. in Engineering from Bournemouth
`
`University. My Ph.D. research focused on a RF semiconductor transmitter, and
`
`required a strong understanding of semiconductor physics, wireless circuit design,
`
`and wireless systems analysis. I subsequently had the opportunity to continue
`
`working on this multi-mode, multi-band transmitter in a Post Graduate program in
`
`CDMA Engineering at the University of California San Diego. My Ph.D. thesis
`
`research ultimately lead to a transmitter design that is now affiliated with Stanford
`
`University and a corresponding letter of recognition from Professor Bruce
`
`
`
`2
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 6
`
`

`

`Lusignan, who was the Director of Wireless Design at the Department of Electrical
`
`Engineering.
`
`B. Career and Experience
`
`6.
`
`Over the past 20+ years, I have personally developed, modified, or
`
`analyzed software/firmware for many different applications, and I have supervised
`
`engineers performing such tasks. I have implemented or supervised the
`
`implementation of software code or hardware description language (HDL) for
`
`many different communications protocols across protocol layers. I have also
`
`developed or supervised the development of integrated circuits for wireless
`
`baseband communications and embedded processors. I am very comfortable with
`
`several programming languages, including C, C++, Assembler, Basic, Pascal,
`
`Matlab, many of which I have taught to others. I have developed products with
`
`HDL code including VHDL and Verilog. I also have firsthand experience with
`
`assembly language programming. I personally designed a wide variety of analog,
`
`RF, and digital circuit elements at both the IC and board level using various netlist-
`
`driven, schematic capture and manual or automated layout CAE/CAD tools.
`
`7.
`
`Over my many years of developing products that provide voice and
`
`data communications, I have acquired a deep understanding of cellular mobile
`
`systems and their protocols. Networking and telephony protocols that I am
`
`familiar with include UMTS, HSDPA, WCDMA, GSM, EDGE, GPRS, TCP, IP,
`
`
`
`3
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 7
`
`

`

`LTE, GPS, IS-95, CDMA2000, 1xRTT, 1xEvDo, 1xEvDv, 802.16, and 802.12,
`
`among others. I have also been involved with voice band communications for both
`
`wireless and wired networks on multiple occasions and I am familiar with many
`
`voice band communications codecs including AMR, EVRC, and SIP.
`
`8.
`
`In 1997, I took the position of Senior DSP Engineer at DSP
`
`Communications, Inc. (“DSPC”) headquartered in Cupertino, CA. I was hired to
`
`develop products for wireless cellular networking applications. Some of the
`
`components I developed early in my career at DSPC were used for 2G and 3G
`
`wireless products, voice band modem equipment, cellular handsets, and base
`
`stations.
`
`9.
`
`During my time at DSPC, I participated in the Third Generation
`
`Partnership Project (3GPP).
`
` 3GPP is an organization consisting of six
`
`telecommunications standard development groups (ARIB, ATIS, CCSA, ETSI,
`
`TTA, TTC, also known as “Organizational Partners”). Members of 3GPP develop
`
`complete network system specifications by exchanging information regarding
`
`cellular telecommunications network technologies, including radio access, non-
`
`radio access,
`
`the core
`
`transport network, Wi-Fi integration, and service
`
`capabilities—such as codecs, security, quality of service. 3GPP’s specifications
`
`and studies are thus contribution-driven by member companies. The 3GPP
`
`technologies from these groups are constantly evolving through Generations of
`
`
`
`4
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 8
`
`

`

`commercial cellular/mobile systems (such as UMTS WCDMA). Since the
`
`completion of the first LTE and the Evolved Packet Core specifications, 3GPP has
`
`become the focal point for mobile systems beyond 3G.
`
`10. When Intel acquired DSPC in 1999, I worked for Intel in various roles
`
`such as IC Designer, Mobile Chipset Development, and System Architect. In
`
`2000, Intel assigned me to work on the 3G project, which was a major multi-
`
`division effort to build 3G products for mobile communications. That project
`
`continues today, and has been extended to 4G LTE.
`
`11. While I was at Intel, I also developed and later led the development of
`
`multiple chipsets for cellular systems based on UMTS WCDMA and CDMA
`
`1xRTT2000 standards. A number of these chipsets were directed solely to cellular
`
`mobile stations and were specifically created for major customers.
`
`12. For my last role at Intel, I was responsible for the base band mobile
`
`platform sold in Asia. I managed all aspects of the software protocol stack,
`
`hardware and mechanics integration (such as systems controlled by mobile phones,
`
`battery savings algorithms), and multimedia (such as text, graphics, voice, GPS,
`
`interface, music, MP3, WMA, displays, and GUIs).
`
`13.
`
`I left Intel to join Nokia Mobile Phone in 2001. At the time, Nokia
`
`lead the mobile phone development industry with a worldwide market share of
`
`over 60 percent. I began my career at Nokia as a system design and integration
`
`
`
`5
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 9
`
`

`

`engineer. In that capacity, I successfully managed product programs that were
`
`developing machine-to-machine terminal platforms and related software. I also
`
`supervised the development of Nokia’s mobile platforms, which involved writing
`
`“C” code for the project, designing electrical circuitry, writing technical
`
`specifications, and writing protocol specifications for the mobile protocol stack
`
`layers.
`
`14. My responsibilities at Nokia also involved supporting Nokia’s
`
`Business Unit. To that end, I conducted an extensive, global study of the mobile
`
`platform market and the M2M market, interviewing over 100 systems engineers in
`
`the process. I also translated market requirements to product requirements and
`
`wrote product specifications to facilitate Nokia’s entry into new high-speed data
`
`markets.
`
`15.
`
`I also supported Nokia’s largest production facility in the USA, which
`
`was located in Dallas, Texas. I developed different test channels and collaboration
`
`networks for the facility with various companies working in the mobile business,
`
`including GSM carriers, system integrators, hardware and software vendors,
`
`distributors, consultants, and installation companies.
`
`16. My last role at Nokia was a Radio System Architect. In that capacity,
`
`I prepared system design specifications for critical radio chips in mobile phones.
`
`This work was a collaborative effort with Stanford University.
`
`
`
`6
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 10
`
`

`

`17.
`
`In 2003, I started providing consulting services to a large number of
`
`companies, hedge funds, venture capitals, law firms, and investment bankers on
`
`intellectual property matters relating to telecommunication technologies. As
`
`shown by my involvement in this case, I continue to offer consulting services
`
`today.
`
`18.
`
`In 2004, I joined IP Valuations Inc., where my role focused on
`
`licensing and valuation of patents relating to telecommunications. Specifically, I
`
`focused on patents relating to wireless technologies and evaluated infringement
`
`claims concerning mobile standards and products.
`
`19.
`
`In 2006, I founded Noise Free Wireless, Inc., a company that
`
`developed
`
`integrated circuits and embedded firmware for several voice
`
`communications systems. I served as Noise Free’s Chairman of the board and
`
`Chief Executive Officer for several years, and today, I continue to serve as a
`
`regular board member and Chief Technology Officer for the company. At Noise
`
`Free, I crafted solutions mainly for cellular and VoIP voice communications such
`
`as LTE, WCDMA, GSM. Fortune 50 companies are currently using my Noise
`
`Cancellation, Acoustic Echo Canceller, Voice Activity Detector, Voice
`
`Recognition, IVR and proprietary Voice band coders algorithms.
`
`20.
`
`In the end of 2011, I founded Patent Hive and have since been serving
`
`as the company’s Chairman and Chief Technology Officer. At Patent Hive, I
`
`
`
`7
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 11
`
`

`

`devised patent analytics and patent intelligence solutions based on huge, multi-
`
`dimensional “big data”-bases.
`
`21. Also at Patent Hive, I designed a platform to support “cloud” software
`
`as a service tool and designed a number of “artificial intelligence”-based
`
`algorithms to analyze intellectual property by using large scale databases of
`
`information, including patents and related financial information.
`
`C. Other Relevant Qualifications
`
`22.
`
`I am a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (IEEE) and an active member of the Circuits and Systems Society, the
`
`Communications Society, the Signal Processing Society (voice communications),
`
`and the Solid-State Circuits Society.
`
`23.
`
`I was formerly a Member of the Components, Packaging, and
`
`Manufacturing Technology Society, the Consumer Electronics Society, the
`
`Microwave Theory and Techniques Society, and the Robotics and Automation
`
`Society.
`
`24.
`
`I have published a number of papers and I am listed as an inventor on
`
`more than 30 patents that have issued in areas such as voice and wireless
`
`communications.
`
`
`
`8
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 12
`
`

`

`III. PRIOR EXPERT TESTIMONY AND COMPENSATION
`
`25.
`
`Included in Exhibit A is a listing of all other cases in which, during
`
`the previous 4 years, I have testified as an expert at trial or by deposition.
`
`26.
`
`I am compensated for my time in this case at my hourly rate of
`
`$400.00. My compensation is not dependent on or related in any manner to the
`
`outcome of the current litigation. I have no financial interest whatsoever in the
`
`outcome of this litigation.
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`27. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been informed about
`
`certain aspects of patent law that are relevant to my analysis and opinions, as set
`
`forth in this section of my declaration.
`
`
`
`A. A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the disclosure of patents is to be viewed from the
`
`perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) as of the
`
`filing dates of the applications leading to U.S. Patent No. 8,086,678 (“the ‘678
`
`patent”).
`
`29.
`
`The ‘678 patent relates to systems and methods for monitoring and
`
`controlling communications from network communications devices, including
`
`mobile devices, with a device regulation site.
`
`
`
`9
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 13
`
`

`

`30.
`
`In determining whom a PHOSITA would be, I considered the ‘678
`
`patent, the types of problems encountered in monitoring and controlling network
`
`communications devices, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapid pace
`
`of innovation in the field monitoring and controlling network communications
`
`devices, the sophistication of systems for performing such monitoring and
`
`controlling of network communications devices, and the educational level of
`
`workers active in the field.
`
`31.
`
`Based on these factors, I have concluded that a PHOSITA would have
`
`an accredited bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a
`
`related discipline that included coverage of wireless communications, and also at
`
`least two years of industry experience. In lieu of specific academic training, a
`
`PHOSITA may draw upon appropriate industry experience to meet the foregoing
`
`requirements. Given my education and extensive industry experience, I exceed the
`
`requirements needed to be a PHOSITA. In addition, as of approximately the time
`
`of the invention, I was at least a PHOSITA under this definition.
`
`B.
`
`32.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`I understand that “claim construction” is the process of determining a
`
`patent claim’s meaning. I also have been informed and understand that the proper
`
`construction of a claim term is the meaning that a PHOSITA would have given to
`
`that term.
`
`
`
`10
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 14
`
`

`

`33.
`
`I understand that claims in inter partes review proceedings are to be
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, which is
`
`what I have done when performing my analysis in this declaration.
`
`C.
`
`34.
`
`Anticipation
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as anticipated if a
`
`PHOSITA would have understood a single prior art reference to teach every
`
`limitation of the claim, as those limitations are combined within the claim. The
`
`disclosure in a reference does not have to be in the same words as the claim, but all
`
`of the requirements of the claim must be described, or necessarily implied by or
`
`inherent in the reference, in the same arrangement as the limitations appear in the
`
`claim. I understand that when performing the anticipation analysis, the claims may
`
`not be viewed as lists of separate elements without consideration of the
`
`relationships between the elements stated in the claims.
`
`D.
`
`35.
`
`Non-Obviousness/Obviousness
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as obvious if the
`
`subject matter of the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a PHOSITA as
`
`of the time of the invention at issue. I understand that the following factors must
`
`be evaluated to determine whether the claimed subject matter is obvious: (1) the
`
`scope and content of the prior art; (2) the difference or differences, if any, between
`
`
`
`11
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 15
`
`

`

`the scope of the claim of the patent under consideration and the scope of the prior
`
`art; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that prior art references can be combined to reject a claim
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103 when there was an apparent reason for one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, at the time of the invention, to combine the references, which includes,
`
`but is not limited to: (A) identifying a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
`
`combine prior art references; (B) combining prior art methods according to known
`
`methods to yield predictable results; (C) substituting one known element for
`
`another to obtain predictable results; (D)using a known technique to improve a
`
`similar device in the same way; (E) applying a known technique to a known device
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (F) trying a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable potential solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`or (G) identifying that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations
`
`of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or
`
`other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`
`
`37. I have also been informed and I understand that so-called objective
`
`indicia of non-obviousness (also known as “secondary considerations” and or the
`
`real world factors) like the following are also to be considered when assessing
`
`obviousness: (1) widespread acclaim; (2) commercial success; (3) long-felt but
`
`
`
`12
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 16
`
`

`

`unresolved needs; (4) copying of the invention by others in the field; (5) initial
`
`expressions of disbelief by experts in the field; (6) failure of others to solve the
`
`problem that the inventor solved; and (7) unexpected results, among others. I also
`
`understand that evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness must be
`
`commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter.
`
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`38.
`
`I have reviewed Petitioner’s Petition, including all exhibits to the
`
`Petition, and the PTAB’s Decision to institute this IPR (Paper No. 6). I have also
`
`reviewed Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, CMP Books, 19th Ed., March 2003
`
`(Exhibit 2005).
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`A.
`
`The ‘678 Patent
`
`39. The ‘678 patent “relates to controls for networking communication
`
`devices and, more particularly, to parental controls for mobile instant messaging
`
`terminals.” Exhibit 1001, ‘678 patent at Col. 1:7-9. The ‘678 patent performs this
`
`control through a “device regulation/support site 20” including “a device database
`
`58, a profile server 60, and a regulation database 64.” Id. at Col. 4:60-64, Fig. 1
`
`(copied below). This “device regulation/support site 20 is not part of the instant
`
`messaging service, texting service, or other device communicating service.” Id. at
`
`Col. 4:63-65. More specifically:
`
`
`
`13
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 17
`
`

`

`In order to provide these services, the regulation site 20 includes
`identification data for the devices supported by the site. These
`identification data are supplied to the site by the manufacturers of the
`mobile computer network communications devices and are stored in the
`device database 58. These identification data are unique for each
`device.
`
`Id. at Col. 5:1-6.
`
`40. The ‘678 patent discloses a separate “regulation database 64 stores
`
`the controls and rules selected or generated by an administrative user for a device
`
`registered with the regulation/support site 20.” Id. at Col. 5:12-15. The rules
`
`stored in the separate “regulation database 64” are “rules and controls applied to
`
`communications made with a particular mobile device registered with the site 20.”
`
`Id. at Col. 5:15-17. The ‘678 patent discloses that an administrative user may set
`
`up mobile devices to operate with the regulation/support site 20. Id. at Col. 6:52-
`
`57, Col. 7:12-20, Fig. 4 (copied below).
`
`
`
`14
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 18
`
`

`

`
`
`41. This administrative account for the device may only be set up “after
`
`the unique identifier” has been “installed in the device and the device database,”
`
`and after the mobile device is registered with the support site 20. Id. at Fig. 4, Col.
`
`6:51-57, Col. 7:12-17. The mobile device is registered when a communication
`
`module of the mobile device sends a message with the unique identifier for the
`
`mobile device “to the regulation/support site 20 for verification that the device is
`
`enabled….” Id. at Col. 7:6-8, 7:60-65. The regulation/support site “gateway 54
`
`accesses the device database 58” at the support site “to verify that the unique
`
`identifier sent by the device is in the database. Id. at Col. 7:65-67, Fig. 5.
`
`
`
`15
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 19
`
`

`

`42. Once the mobile device is registered with the regulation/support site,
`
`an administrative account may be established by entering an administrator name
`
`and password, and then selecting “control parameters” for the mobile device. Id. at
`
`Col. 8:4-11, Fig. 5. These “control parameters” include setting the “rules and
`
`controls for the device” that are “stored in the parental control database in
`
`association with the unique identifier.” Id. at Col. 7:18-28. Registration of the
`
`mobile device with the control/support site 20 after the unique identifier has been
`
`placed in both the mobile device and in the device database is the only way
`
`disclosed by the ‘678 patent for establishing or setting up an administrative
`
`account for a mobile device. This requirement of establishing an administrative
`
`account based on the unique identifier being previously stored in both the mobile
`
`device and the device database at the control site is recited in element 1[i]1 of claim
`
`1.
`
`43. This portion of claim 1 states that the sever at the control site is
`
`configured “to establish an administrative account for a device in response to the
`
`unique device identifier corresponding to a device identifier stored in the device
`
`database.” Id. at claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “in
`
`1 Dr. Brody identifies the portions of claim 1 with the labels and 1[a]-[i]. Exhibit
`
`1003, Brody Declaration at ¶35. My declaration refers to the portions of claim 1
`
`with the same labels used by Dr. Brody.
`
`
`
`16
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 20
`
`

`

`response to” in element 1[i] requires that the administrative account for the device
`
`is established “after” the unique device identifier has been placed in both the
`
`mobile device and device database.
`
`44. Once the device has been registered with the control site and the
`
`administrative account has been set up for the mobile device, the control site may
`
`be used to control the mobile device. According to the ‘678 patent claims, when a
`
`user operates the mobile device, the device monitors the usage and sends monitor
`
`messages to the remote control site. Exhibit 1001, ’678 patent at claim 1, Col. 9:7-
`
`11. “The monitor message includes the unique device identifier” identifying the
`
`mobile device as well as “data” about what the user of the device is doing/trying to
`
`do with the device. Id. at Col. 9:8-17, claim 1.
`
`45. During operation of the mobile device, the remote control site
`
`“receives the monitor message and determines whether it is from a device having a
`
`unique identifier in the device database 58 (block 704) and whether the device has
`
`been registered (block 708).” Id. at Col. 9:42-46, claim 1. In other words, when
`
`the control site receives a monitor message from the device, the control site first
`
`checks whether the device has been registered by accessing information in the
`
`device database. Id.
`
`46. Dr. Brody’s Declaration agrees with this operation of the ‘678 patent.
`
`Dr. Brody says that the control site “first determine[s] whether the device has a
`
`
`
`17
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 21
`
`

`

`parental control account set-up for the communication device” by “comparing
`
`some unique device ID to a list of unique device ID’s stored at the control site in a
`
`‘device database.’” Exhibit 1003, Brody Declaration at ¶22.
`
`47. Claim 1 of the ‘678 patent recites first verifying the monitor message
`
`monitor message received at the control site by comparing the unique device
`
`identifier in the monitor message to information “also stored in the device
`
`database” located at the control site in elements 1[g]-[h]:
`
`[g] the server being configured to compare data in the monitor message
`received from the communication module in the computer network
`communications device to control data stored in the control database [h]
`in response to the monitor message received from…the computer
`network communications device having the unique device identifier that
`is also stored in the device database…
`
`Exhibit 1001, ‘678 patent at claim 1.
`
`
`
`48.
`
`“[I]n response to” the control site server first authenticating with the
`
`device database that the monitor message comes from a device registered at the
`
`control site, the server then compares data in the received monitor message “to
`
`rules and controls in the control database 64.” Id. at Col. 10:16-17, claim 1]. Dr.
`
`Brody’s declaration also generally agrees with this requirement of the ‘678 patent
`
`as well. Dr. Brody states:
`
`After the control site verifies that the device is registered, the control site
`determines whether or not to allow the communication device’s
`18
`
`
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 22
`
`

`

`action….The control site makes this determination by comparing
`information in the ‘monitor message’…to a set of rules or policies….
`
`Exhibit 1003, Brody Declaration at ¶22.
`
`B.
`
`“Device Database” And “Control Database”
`
`49. Although Dr. Brody defines the term “database” in his opinion, it is
`
`unclear what definition he gives to the claim terms “device database” and “control
`
`database.” It is my opinion that the terms “device database” and “control
`
`database” did not have a standard or ordinary definition to a PHOSITA at the time
`
`of the claimed invention. Thus, a PHOSITA would have reviewed the intrinsic
`
`evidence of the language of the claims, the ‘678 patent specification, and ‘678 file
`
`history to understand how these terms were used.
`
`50.
`
` A PHOSITA would have started with the understanding that the term
`
`“database” is generally understood to be a collection of information or data, an in
`
`particular a collection of information or data that is structured or organized to
`
`allow quick access and retrieval of the information by a computer. See Exhibit
`
`2005, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, CMP Books, 19th Ed., March 2003, p. 225.
`
`51. A PHOSITA would have understood that this structure of a
`
`“database” generally includes data organized in “records” (an entry in the
`
`database). A PHOSITA would have also understood that this structure also
`
`included each record including one or more “fields” (portions of the record or entry
`
`
`
`19
`
`ZIPIT EX. 2004, pg. 23
`
`