`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`In re U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed:
`
`November 13, 2009
`
`Issued:
`
`January 10, 2012
`
`Inventors: Michael Ellis; Caron Ellis
`
`Title:
`
`Systems and Methods for a Portable Electronic Journal
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD, PTAB
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S.P.T.O.
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOSEPH A. PARADISO
`
`
`
`I, Joseph A. Paradiso, make this declaration in connection with Petitioner’s
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Response submitted by Petitioner for the inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345 (“the 345 Patent”), IPR2015-000698. All
`
`statements herein made of my own knowledge are true, and all statements herein
`
`made based on information and belief are believed to be true. I am over age 21
`
`and otherwise competent to make this declaration. Although I am being
`
`compensated for my time in preparing this declaration, the positions articulated
`
`
`
`UA-1011.001
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`herein are my own, and I have no stake in the outcome of this proceeding or any
`
`related litigation or administrative proceedings.
`
`I.
`
`Incorporation by Reference
`175.
`
`Unless otherwise provided below, I hereby incorporate by reference
`
`my declaration made in connection with the Petition to institute an inter partes
`
`review on the 345 Patent (“February 5, 2015 Declaration”). UA-1003.
`
`II. Claim Interpretation
`176.
`In my February 5, 2015 Declaration, I offered an opinion that the term
`
`“common file format” would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art
`
`to mean “any well-known or standardized format that permits easy viewing or
`
`printing with a computer, such as a personal computer.” UA-1003 at ¶ 17. I
`
`understand that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) disagreed and
`
`preliminarily found that the term “common file format” should be given its plain
`
`and ordinary meaning. Paper 10 at 5-6. The analysis and conclusions contained
`
`herein and in my February 5, 2015 Declaration remain the same under either
`
`interpretation of the term “common file format.”
`
`III. Unpatentability in View of Patent Owner’s Response and the
`Accompanying Exhibits
`177.
`
`I have reviewed Patent Owners adidas AG’s Response to Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review and Exhibits 2001 – 2024. My analysis and conclusions
`
`below are in response to these materials.
`
`
`
`2
`
`UA-1011.002
`
`
`
`
`
`A. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have Been
`Motivated to Combine the Teachings of Mault and DeLorme to
`Render Obvious Claims 1-3, 6-11, 15-7, and 20 of the 345 Patent
`
`178.
`
`In my February 5, 2015 Declaration, I opined how the combination of
`
`Mault and DeLorme would render obvious at least claims 1-3, 6-11, 15-18, and 20
`
`of the 345 Patent. Patent Owner disagrees with this analysis by asserting that: (1)
`
`the Petitioner mischaracterizes Mault’s disclosure of a “PDA that includes or
`
`communicates with a body activity monitor” (UA-1004 at 18:8-10) (Paper 20 at 7-
`
`9); (2) Mault and DeLorme are directed to different needs of a user and that
`
`DeLorme teaches away from a combination with Mault (Paper 20 at 9-14); (3) I
`
`was a not a person of ordinary skill in the art during the relevant time period
`
`because I never worked on a device that incorporated a GPS receiver in my
`
`professional capacity (Paper 20 at 11-12); and (4) Mault’s disclosed system did not
`
`need any improvement. I address each of these arguments, below.
`
`1. Mault Teaches That a PDA Can Be Used to Record a User’s
`Location Over Time
`
`179.
`
`In describing the reasons to combine Mault and DeLorme, I noted the
`
`similarities shared by these two references, including that they “both … disclose
`
`portable electronic devices for monitoring and logging information about a user.”
`
`UA-1003 at ¶ 36. Patent Owner does not specifically contest this statement and
`
`instead focuses only on Mault’s disclosure that the portable monitoring device can
`
`be, among other things, a PDA. See UA-1004 at 18:7-10 (“The monitoring device
`
`
`
`3
`
`UA-1011.003
`
`
`
`
`
`according to the present invention may take other forms. For example, the
`
`monitoring device may be a PDA that includes or communicates with a body
`
`activity monitor.”). Specifically, Patent Owner argues that although Mault’s PDA
`
`can include or communicate with a body activity monitor, such a body activity
`
`monitor cannot be a GPS receiver; rather, Patent Owner asserts that the PDA’s
`
`body activity monitor can only be an accelerometer. Paper 20 at 7-9, 15. It is my
`
`opinion that this argument contradicts the plain teachings of Mault.
`
`180.
`
`Patent Owner and Dr. Michalson’s argument effectively attempts to
`
`rewrite Mault’s disclosure. Whereas Mault states that “the monitoring device may
`
`be a PDA that includes or communicates with a body activity monitor” (UA-1004
`
`at 18:8-10), Patent Owner and Dr. Michalson interpret this statement as “the
`
`monitoring device may be a PDA that includes or communicates with an
`
`accelerometer only.” Patent Owner and Dr. Michalson also interpret “[t]he PDA
`
`may have an accelerometer built in or interconnected therewith” (UA-1004 at
`
`18:10-11) as “[t]he PDA only has an accelerometer built in or interconnected
`
`therewith.” Both Patent Owner and Dr. Michalson fail to explain why a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would read Mault’s otherwise clear disclosure in such a
`
`limited fashion.
`
`181.
`
`Patent Owner also asserts that Mault discloses a GPS-only
`
`embodiment and a separate PDA embodiment that are somehow completely
`
`
`
`4
`
`UA-1011.004
`
`
`
`
`
`divorced from each other and the remainder of the specification. Specifically,
`
`Patent Owner examines a portion of the specification from column 8, line 42, to
`
`column 12, line 11, which discusses capabilities of using GPS in its invention, and
`
`Patent Owner concludes that “Mault does not teach that this embodiment takes the
`
`form of a PDA.” See Paper 20 at 7. In my opinion, Mault’s disclosure is not so
`
`limited.
`
`182.
`
`Instead, Mault describes throughout the specification that the
`
`monitoring device, with or without using GPS, can take various forms, including as
`
`a PDA. For example, looking at the figure illustrating the “GPS Version of
`
`Monitor” focused on by Patent Owner, shown below, this schematic does not
`
`disclose the particular form of the monitoring device (e.g., whether it is a phone,
`
`belt-mounted, wrist-worn, etc.); it only shows a representation of the monitoring
`
`device. See UA-1004 at 8:45-61 (describing the representative monitoring device
`
`84 with several components, including different types of body activity monitors
`
`(e.g., 80, 105, 109, 114), manual input 110, and communication transceiver 98).
`
`See also UA-1004 at Fig. 6 (illustrating a representative monitoring device 84 that
`
`includes GPS and other body activity monitors), 9:21-24.
`
`
`
`5
`
`UA-1011.005
`
`
`
`
`
`UA-1004, Figure 4
`
`
`
`183.
`
`In my opinion, to understand what form the monitoring device of
`
`Figure 4 (and indeed other embodiments) can take, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would, upon reading Mault find that it broadly describes particular forms
`
`throughout the specification and does not state that it is limiting the form to any
`
`particular embodiment. See, e.g., UA-1004 at 8:47-51 (“… the subject wearing or
`
`carrying the monitoring device 84 ….”), 9:1-2 (“Some or all of the CPU
`
`functionality may be in the monitoring device 84 ….”), 10:46-48 (“… in some
`
`
`
`6
`
`UA-1011.006
`
`
`
`
`
`embodiments of the present invention, the monitoring device includes more than
`
`one activity-related monitor.”), 11:13-14 (“As another alternative, many pieces of
`
`exercise equipment include their own monitoring device.”), 12:12-14 (“… an
`
`additional embodiment of a monitoring device according to the present invention is
`
`generally shown at 120.”), 15:44-59 (describing audio/video input 95 in Figure 4),
`
`16:11-13 (“In one embodiment of the present invention, the monitoring device 84
`
`includes wireless communication, such as a cellular communication, or as a part of
`
`a cellular telephone.”), 16:26-33 (“[digital still and motion camera] capability may
`
`be incorporated into the monitoring device according to the present invention
`
`….”), 17:55-57 (“… a belt-mounted embodiment of a monitoring device according
`
`to the present invention is generally shown at 160.”). Therefore, when reading that
`
`“[t]he monitoring device according to the present invention may take other
`
`forms,” it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`that Mault’s disclosure that “the monitoring device may be a PDA” applies to any
`
`of the monitoring devices described throughout the specification, including the
`
`“GPS Version of the Monitor.” UA-1004 at 18:7-10 (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, it is my opinion that to a person of ordinary skill in the art Mault
`
`discloses that the monitoring device which has GPS capabilities can take the form
`
`of a PDA.
`
`
`
`7
`
`UA-1011.007
`
`
`
`
`
`184.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that Mault discloses three “separate”
`
`embodiments of the body activity monitor (i.e., a heart rate monitor, an
`
`accelerometer, and a GPS receiver), and that therefore “the PDA embodiment …
`
`necessarily is the accelerometer embodiment of Mault, and not the GPS
`
`embodiment.” Paper 20 at 8. I disagree. Mault describes numerous embodiments,
`
`including monitoring devices with both a motion sensor and a GPS: “if the
`
`monitoring device according to the present invention includes more than one body
`
`activity monitor, such as heart rate sensor or motion sensor in addition to the
`
`GPS ….” UA-1004 at 13:31-37 (emphasis added); see also UA-1004 at 10:43-66
`
`(describing a GPS and heart rate monitor combination), 13:37-40, Fig. 4 (showing
`
`a monitoring device with a GPS antenna 82, respiration sensor 105, heart rate
`
`sensor 109, and motion sensor 114), Fig. 6. Accordingly, it is my opinion that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art reading Mault would understand that it discloses
`
`a PDA working with one or more types of body activity monitors described in the
`
`specification, including a GPS receiver.
`
`2.
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have Been
`Motivated to Combine Mault and DeLorme
`
`185.
`
`As stated in my February 5, 2015 Declaration, it is my opinion that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Mault and DeLorme
`
`because, inter alia, “Mault discloses the use of a well-known device (a GPS
`
`receiver) and DeLorme provides additional detail as to the specific capabilities and
`
`
`
`8
`
`UA-1011.008
`
`
`
`
`
`uses of that well-known device.” UA-1003 at ¶ 35. Patent Owner disagrees with
`
`this position, arguing that a person of ordinary skill would not have combined
`
`these references because Mault and DeLorme are allegedly directed to different
`
`needs of a user, and because DeLorme teaches away from a combination with
`
`Mault. Paper 20 at 9-14. I disagree with Patent Owner’s analysis.
`
`186.
`
`The Mault and DeLorme disclosures share common goals. Mault is
`
`not merely directed to “a user that is simply using a GPS receiver to receive
`
`position points for evaluating athletic performance,” as Patent Owner claims.
`
`Paper 20 at 10. It is more broadly directed to tracking a user’s activities related to
`
`caloric balance (see, e.g., UA-1004 at 1:23-25), such that it can, among other
`
`things, track a user’s location over time (see, e.g., UA-1004 at 6:3-8, 8:51-53,
`
`9:35-37, 10:25-28, Figs. 5, 7, 8), plot that location on a map (see, e.g., UA-1004 at
`
`10:49-52, Fig. 7), provide the user’s speed and location (see, e.g., UA-1004 at
`
`9:59-61), and note or mark where the user engaged in certain activities such as
`
`eating or exercising (see, e.g., UA-1004 at 13:59-14:2, 14:35-39, 15:16-18, 16:28-
`
`35). Similarly, DeLorme’s system is not just directed to “a user that is using a
`
`GPS receiver in combination with desktop mapping application to provide route
`
`guidance for travel purposes ….” Paper 20 at 10. Like Mault, DeLorme is also
`
`directed to a user who wants to track their location over time (see, e.g., UA-1005 at
`
`13:22-31, 13:39-45), plot that location on a map (see, e.g., UA-1005 at 13:22-31,
`
`
`
`9
`
`UA-1011.009
`
`
`
`
`
`13:39-45), know their speed (see, e.g., UA-1005 at 13:22-31, 13:139-45), and note
`
`or mark certain locations (see, e.g., UA-1005 at 12:40-44, 14:9-16, 25:50-56,
`
`64:34-38). Therefore, it is my opinion that Mault and DeLorme indeed are
`
`directed to common and compatible subject matter.
`
`187.
`
`DeLorme also does not teach away from combining its disclosures
`
`with those of Mault. Patent Owner points to a portion of DeLorme’s specification
`
`reciting a product warning that the “Solus Pro should not be used in automatic
`
`navigation or guidance systems or for any purpose requiring precision
`
`measurement of distance or direction.” Paper 20 at 12 (citing UA-1005 at Fig.
`
`1A6-5). But given that the remainder of DeLorme’s specification teaches, among
`
`other things, using GPS for measuring distance and direction of a travelling person,
`
`it is my opinion that this product warning alone would not be sufficient to persuade
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art to disregard those teachings.
`
`188.
`
`Further, it is my opinion that persons of ordinary skill in the art
`
`implementing the GPS-related aspects of Mault’s or DeLorme’s disclosures would
`
`have known about selective availability, and Patent Owner’s focus on this product
`
`warning overlooks that fact. As Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Michalson explained
`
`under oath in a related proceeding: “… selective availability … was a mechanism
`
`for reducing the achievable accuracy of the GPS receiver. There was a period of
`
`time that the military was concerned that the GPS system could be used against us,
`
`
`
`10
`
`UA-1011.010
`
`
`
`
`
`and therefore they implemented selective availability to reduce the accuracy of a
`
`civilian receiver.” UA-1012 at 15:21-16:3. He continued: “[w]ith selective
`
`availability on, [a receiver’s accuracy] would be … around a hundred meter
`
`extremes, but the average accuracy would be very high” (id. at 16:25-17:3),
`
`whereas with selective availability off “your receiver would be three to five meter
`
`accuracy, typically” (id. at 16:21-24). Finally, he attested that selective availability
`
`was turned off by the U.S. government in the year 2000. Accordingly, selective
`
`ability limited the accuracy and reliability of a GPS receiver when the application
`
`for DeLorme (including the product warning) was filed (i.e., August 31, 1998).
`
`But it is my opinion that at the time of the earliest possible priority date of the 345
`
`Patent (i.e., February 20, 2001), persons of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that the precision of DeLorme’s system would not be hampered by
`
`selective availability. See UA-1012 at 18:9-23 (testifying about his belief that
`
`switching off selective availability promoted the commercial growth of GPS
`
`devices and systems).
`
`189.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not be motivated to combine Mault and DeLorme because “the GPS
`
`receiver recited by DeLorme’s system would not be useable to modify Mault’s
`
`system and to achieve the invention claimed by the ‘345 patent.” Paper 20 at 14. I
`
`disagree for the reasons discussed immediately above. Aside from the issue of
`
`
`
`11
`
`UA-1011.011
`
`
`
`
`
`selective availability, Patent Owner also argues that a user on a run “will not want
`
`to have to continually use scroll buttons to zoom in and out of the map display”
`
`(Paper 20 at 13), but DeLorme discloses that “the addition of GPS provides
`
`enhanced capabilities …., as well as user-friendly automated adjustments of
`
`display variables on the PDA or handheld—including variables such as map
`
`scale, level of detail, … and so forth.” UA-1005 at 13:22-31. Patent Owner also
`
`suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Mault and
`
`DeLorme because Mault is “fully operable for its intended function” (Paper 20 at
`
`14); but, as I explained in my February 5, 2015 Declaration, Mault describes a
`
`generic GPS receiver and DeLorme provides a specific example for use. UA-1003
`
`at ¶35.
`
`190.
`
`As I explained in my February 5, 2015 Declaration, it is my opinion
`
`that the limitations of the 345 Patent were known to persons of ordinary skill in the
`
`art and their combination would have been obvious.
`
`3.
`
`I Was At Least a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art as of the
`Earliest Possible Priority Date of the 345 Patent
`
`191.
`
`Patent Owner argues that I was not a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the relevant time. Paper 20 at 11. In support, Patent Owner relies on my
`
`statement that I had not worked during my career on a device that directly
`
`implemented a GPS receiver. See Ex. 2004 at 15:12-14. I disagree with Patent
`
`Owner’s assessment. The 345 Patent claims do not even recite “GPS,” and while
`
`
`
`12
`
`UA-1011.012
`
`
`
`
`
`claim 3 does cover a “location monitor,” this limitation has nothing to do with the
`
`structure or operation of a GPS receiver in my opinion. Instead, one only needs to
`
`know to tag journal entries with data provided by a conventional GPS receiver
`
`(e.g., latitude and longitude). Moreover, I testified that I understood the
`
`capabilities and use of GPS before the earliest possible priority date of the 345
`
`Patent. Ex. 2004 at 11:8-12:1.
`
`192.
`
`Further, Patent Owner ignores how I, and even Dr. Michalson, define
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art. Neither definition (UA-1003 at ¶ 11, Ex. 2002
`
`¶ 20) requires designing or working on devices that incorporate a GPS receiver,
`
`and Patent Owner does not contest that I otherwise lack the required skillset
`
`pursuant to those definitions. In fact, I was at least a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art during the relevant time.
`
`B.
`
`Software to Create a New Journal, to the Extent Not Disclosed by
`Mault, Would Have Been Obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill
`in the Art
`
`193.
`
`Patent Owner has not rebutted my opinion that the claim limitations
`
`“software with which a user interacts and creates a new journal” and “creating a
`
`new journal using an interface with which the user interacts” are rendered obvious
`
`in view of Mault. Instead, Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner and Dr. Paradiso
`
`have not articulated any explanation as to why a skilled person would make the
`
`proposed modification to Mault’s system to require a user to ‘install, set up, or
`
`
`
`13
`
`UA-1011.013
`
`
`
`
`
`configure that journal software for use.’” Paper 20 at 17. But my February 5,
`
`2015 Declaration does in fact articulate a reason: “It was common and well known
`
`before the application of the ‘345 Patent that portable electronic devices required
`
`software installation and/or setup before use.” UA-1003 at ¶ 46. Patent Owner
`
`does not dispute this fact. Further, my February 5, 2015 Declaration quotes
`
`another reason from Mault II: “… the ability to set up a variety of fitness plans and
`
`to track adherence to the plans.” UA-1007 at 6:52-7:12. Indeed, for a
`
`consumption and activity tracking journal such as Mault’s, it is my opinion that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enter the user’s weight,
`
`height, and other vitals, thereby setting up or creating the journal for use. See, e.g.,
`
`UA-1004 at 8:60-65 (explaining that body activity data “may be correlated with
`
`caloric expenditure and storage of correlated time and position date in memory, for
`
`use in determining whether the subject is gaining or losing weight.”).
`
`194.
`
`Accordingly, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have readily understood that Mault could have been modified to include the
`
`journal software with which the user interacts.
`
`
`
`14
`
`UA-1011.014
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Formatting Journal Entries to a Common File Format Is
`Disclosed In Mault, Or Would Have Otherwise Been Obvious In
`View Of Mault
`
`195.
`
`Patent Owner contends that formatting journal entries to a common
`
`file format would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. I
`
`disagree.
`
`196.
`
`In support of its argument, Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner and
`
`Dr. Paradiso simply assume that just because a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that some data would be stored in a common file format, a
`
`person of ordinary skill would be motivated to store all data in a common file
`
`format.” Paper 20 at 21 (emphasis added). But, I did not make any such
`
`statement. Further, Patent Owner states that “Petitioner has identified nothing in
`
`the disclosures of Mault that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`conclude that its system would benefit from use of a common file format.” I
`
`disagree. Having reviewed the Petition, Petitioner explicitly identified such a
`
`motivation in Mault (see Paper 1 at 19), with which I concurred in my February 5,
`
`2015 Declaration (see UA-1003 at ¶58).
`
`197.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner misstates Mault’s disclosure
`
`that the monitoring device (i.e., the portable journal) can communicate with a “web
`
`page running on a remote server via the Internet.” UA-1004 at 6:55-57. But in my
`
`opinion, Patent Owner confuses what a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`
`
`15
`
`UA-1011.015
`
`
`
`
`
`understand from a disclosure of communicating data to a web page as opposed to
`
`merely communicating with a server. Paper 20 at 19-20. A webpage is an
`
`interface accessible to a user through a browser, whereas a remote server could be
`
`simply a data store for downloads or uploads. Accordingly, in my opinion Mault’s
`
`disclosure of interconnecting and communicating with a webpage (UA-1004 at
`
`6:54-57) implies transmitting data to that browser-based user interface, and it is
`
`further my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`the purpose of such transmission would be to view or otherwise interact with the
`
`monitoring device’s data (i.e., journal entries). I believe that Patent Owner also
`
`ignores the context of Mault’s disclosure concerning communicating with the
`
`webpage. As is apparent from the entire paragraph, Mault is describing
`
`alternatives and modifications to the role of local computer 22 and PDA 24 “[f]or
`
`purposes of [its] disclosure ….” See UA-1004 at 6:46-65. Therefore, it is my
`
`opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading that the user of Mault’s
`
`system can, for example, “transfer[] data from the monitoring device 84 to a local
`
`or remote computing device” for purposes of “analysis and processing” (UA-
`
`1004 at 9:21-29 (emphasis added)) would understand that this includes a web site
`
`running on a remote server. And as stated in my February 5, 2015 Declaration, to
`
`the extent this disclosure does not teach this limitation, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`
`
`16
`
`UA-1011.016
`
`
`
`
`
`the art would have found it obvious, and indeed beneficial, to format such data in a
`
`common file format, such as HTML.
`
`198.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that Mault’s data can be saved on a
`
`personal computer in a proprietary format, but in my opinion this assertion does
`
`not diminish the fact that formatting data in a common file format would have been
`
`obvious. It is undisputed that formatting data in either common or proprietary
`
`formats by 2001 was readily known, identifiable, and predictable solution. See
`
`UA-1003 at ¶¶ 57-58. Even for embedded systems, it was also standard practice as
`
`of the priority date of the 345 Patent to save data in a common file format. In my
`
`opinion, choosing one format over another is simply a matter of common sense.
`
`Accordingly, that one could adapt Mault to format data in a proprietary format
`
`does not rebut my opinion that it would have been readily obvious to adapt Mault
`
`to do so in a common file format. This is particularly so since there were no
`
`technical barriers that would have prevented or dissuaded a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art from formatting data in a common file format. To the contrary, it is my
`
`opinion that doing so would have been readily within the expertise of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`17
`
`UA-1011.017
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`199.
`
`Patent Owner Has Not Overcome the Evidence Showing That the
`Limitations of Claim 6-8 Would Have Been Obvious
`I disagree with Patent Owner’s positions regarding claims 6-8.1
`
`Accordingly, it is my opinion that claims 6-8 of the 345 Patent would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`200.
`
`Patent Owner states that “Petitioner has relied exclusively on the
`
`combination of Mault and DeLorme as the basis for its obviousness argument with
`
`respect to these database limitations.” Paper 20 at 23. Having reviewed the
`
`Petition, I disagree. Both the Petition and my February 5, 2015 Declaration
`
`contain analysis showing that the limitation of claim 6 would have been obvious
`
`over Mault, and also over Mault in view of DeLorme. For example, as I stated in
`
`my February 5, 2015 Declaration, which the Petition cites, it is my opinion that “it
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Mault could be
`
`adapted to include a database of entries with which a journal may be tagged.” UA-
`
`1003 at ¶ 66; see also Paper 1 at 21. Separately, I opined, as cited by the Petition,
`
`that “incorporating a database of entries with which a journal entry may be tagged
`
`into a portable electronic journal would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`
`1 I note that Patent Owner asserts that claims 6, 7, and 8 describe the claimed
`
`journal as comprising “various databases.” Paper 20 at 23. But, these claims only
`
`require a journal comprising a single database. See UA-1001 at claims 6-7.
`
`
`
`18
`
`UA-1011.018
`
`
`
`
`
`in the art over Mault in view of DeLorme.” UA-1003 at ¶ 67; see also Paper 1 at
`
`22. Accordingly, Patent Owner has not rebutted my opinion that the limitation of
`
`claim 6 would have been obvious over Mault to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`201.
`
`Patent Owner also disagrees that DeLorme teaches that a portable
`
`electronic journal can include a database. I disagree. As cited in my February 5,
`
`2015 Declaration, DeLorme discloses that “data coordination or integration
`
`between IRMIS homebase and IRMIS portable(s) comprises optional, controllable
`
`one-way or two-way synchronization of selected component databases, e.g.
`
`maps, text directions, address books, route depictions, POI or point information,
`
`digital photo data, and so forth.” UA-1005 at 72:26-38 (emphasis added). See
`
`UA-1003 at ¶ 66. In my opinion, two-way synchronization means that files are
`
`copied from the IRMIS homebase to the IRMIS portable device and vice versa
`
`such that data in each location is the same. It is therefore my opinion that
`
`DeLorme teaches that component databases, including for points of interest, digital
`
`photos, etc., can be on both the IRMIS homebase and the IRMIS portable device
`
`(e.g., the portable electronic journal).
`
`202.
`
`Even if DeLorme does not disclose a database on a portable electronic
`
`journal, the limitation of claim 6 would still have been obvious in my opinion. As
`
`I have previously explained, Mault discloses, for example, storing flags, modes,
`
`
`
`19
`
`UA-1011.019
`
`
`
`
`
`and prior meals on the portable device with journal entries. See UA-1003 at ¶¶ 63-
`
`65. Assuming for the sake of argument that a limitation of claim 6 is missing, it is
`
`my opinion that only the limitation concerning the structure of the data stored on
`
`the portable device—i.e., a database—is missing. DeLorme’s disclosure of a
`
`database, regardless of where that database is located, teaches that structure and
`
`therefore in my opinion renders the limitation obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`203.
`
`Further, Patent Owner argues that Mault’s disclosure of a database on
`
`a “computing device” cannot be the database of the portable electronic journal,
`
`because the claims of the 345 Patent also require a separate personal computer.
`
`See Paper 20 at 24-25. I believe that Patent Owner again overlooks details of
`
`Mault’s disclosure. In my opinion, Mault clearly states that the computing device
`
`can be portable or stationary, and it also clearly states that a portable computing
`
`device, a monitoring device, and a personal computer can all be used. See UA-
`
`1004 at 6:46-54 (“Communication may be provided between the monitoring device
`
`10 and the PDA 24, with the PDA 24 later communicating with the local computer
`
`22 ….”); see also UA-1003 at ¶ 65. Therefore, it is my opinion that Mault’s
`
`database may exist on a portable computing device that is part of the electronic
`
`journal (i.e., the PDA 24), and it can upload journal entries to a separate personal
`
`
`
`20
`
`UA-1011.020
`
`
`
`
`
`computer (i.e., local computer 22). See also UA-1004 at 18:7-10 (“… the
`
`monitoring device may be a PDA ….”).
`
`204.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that my February 5, 2015 Declaration
`
`fails to explain why the limitation of claim 6 would have been obvious over Mault
`
`in view of DeLorme, noting only that it cannot be shown that incorporating a
`
`database into a portable device disclosed by Mault would have been nothing more
`
`than a “non-consequential design choice.”2 Paper 20 at 25-26. In support, both
`
`Patent Owner and Dr. Michalson point only to a passage of Mault saying that
`
`different components of the monitoring device “may” reside in the computing
`
`device such that the monitoring device has little or no processing power. Paper 20
`
`at 25 (citing UA-1004 at 7:53-58). But this is just an embodiment of Mault—it
`
`does not say that Mault’s monitoring device always has little or no processing
`
`power. Indeed, Mault teaches that the monitoring device can be a PDA. See UA-
`
`1004 at 18:7-10. Furthermore, storing data in a database so that it can be indexed
`
`
`2 My February 5, 2015 Declaration also explains the limitation of claim 6 would
`
`have been obvious because“[u]sing a database would not impact the form or
`
`functioning of the monitoring device” and that “a database would have been the
`
`preferred method of storing” Mault’s data. UA-1003 at ¶ 67. Notably, neither
`
`Patent Owner nor Dr. Michalson attempt to rebut my reasoning.
`
`
`
`21
`
`UA-1011.021
`
`
`
`
`
`could be accomplished on portable devices. See UA-1003 at ¶ 66 (citing UA-
`
`1005).
`
`205.
`
`Accordingly, it remains my opinion that claim 6 would have been
`
`obvious over Mault in view of DeLorme.
`
`IV. Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Purported Commercial Success
`and Industry Praise Should be Given No Weight
`206.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments regarding purported commercial success
`
`and industry praise are incorrect. In my opinion, Patent Owner has not established
`
`a nexus to tie the claims of the 345 Patent to the purported evidence of secondary
`
`indicia. Even if Patent Owner has shown a nexus, Patent Owner has not provided
`
`evidence to demonstrate commercial success or industry praise in my opinion.
`
`207.
`
`Obviousness, as I understand, is based on the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claim, the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, and secondary indicia of non-obviousness to the extent such indicia
`
`exist. I have been informed that such secondary indicia of non-obviousness may
`
`include, for example: a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied
`
`by the invention of the patent; commercial success or lack of commercial success
`
`of processes covered by the patent; unexpected results achieved by the invention;
`
`praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; taking of licenses under the
`
`patent by others; and deliberate copying of the invention. I also understand that
`
`there must be a relationship—or nexus—between any such secondary indicia and
`
`
`
`22
`
`UA-1011.022
`
`
`
`
`
`the invention. Accordingly, where the offered secondary consideration actually
`
`results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim,
`
`there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention. I further understand that
`
`contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary consideration
`
`supporting an obviousness determinati