Paper No. ___
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Services, Inc.
`
`By: Christopher W. Kennerly (chriskennerly@paulhastings.com)
` Naveen Modi (naveenmodi@paulhastings.com)
` Timothy P. Cremen (timothycremen@paulhastings.com)
` Paul Hastings LLP
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC and AT&T SERVICES, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NOVO TRANSFORMA TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,826,034
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF RANDALL A. SNYDER
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 56
`
`AT&T EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 2
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS AND LEGAL BASES THEREFORE ............. 4
`A.
`Legal Basis for Anticipation ................................................................. 4
`B.
`Legal Basis for Obviousness ................................................................. 6
`C. My Opinion – A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................ 7
`D. My Opinion – Claims 23, 24, 31, 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the ’034 Patent
`Are Not Patentable Over The Prior Art ................................................. 9
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’034 PATENT ............................................................ 9
`A.
`Field of Invention .................................................................................. 9
`B.
`Background of the Art ......................................................................... 10
`Summary of the Purported Invention .................................................. 11
`C.
`D. Description of Embodiments ............................................................... 12
`V.
`PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’034 PATENT .................................. 14
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 18
`A.
`“At Different Locations” ..................................................................... 19
`VII. CLAIMS 23, 24, 31, 34, 35, 36 AND 37 OF THE ’034 PATENT ARE NOT
`PATENTABLE OVER THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 25
`A.
`International Telecommunications Standards ..................................... 25
`B. X.400 and F.400 Recommendations ................................................... 27
`Basic Functional Components ............................................................. 30
`C.
`D. Message Generation, Delivery, Conversion and Notification ............ 31
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 56
`
`

`

`Physical Delivery Service ................................................................... 34
`E.
`X.400 (1988) Discloses Or Suggests All Of The Claimed Features ... 35
`F.
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 52
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 56
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`I, Randall A. Snyder, declare as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained by AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Services,
`
`Inc. (“Petitioners”) as an independent expert consultant to provide expert testimony
`
`in support of Petitioner’s Petition for Inter Partes Review (the “Petition”) of
`
`Claims 23, 24, 31, 34, 35, 36, and 37 of U.S. Patent No. 5,826,034 (“the ’034
`
`Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ’034 Patent and its file
`
`history, which have been provided to me as Exhibits 1001 and 1006. I understand
`
`these to be exhibits to the Petition.
`
`3.
`
`I have also been provided, reviewed, and am familiar with Exhibits
`
`1002-1005 and 1007-1021, which I understand to be the remaining Exhibits to the
`
`Petition.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to consider, among other things, whether certain
`
`references anticipate or make obvious Claims 23, 24, 31, 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the
`
`’034 Patent. My opinions as to these issues are set forth below.
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate for the time I
`
`spend on this matter. No part of my compensation is dependent on the outcome of
`
`this proceeding or any other proceeding involving the ’034 Patent. I have no other
`
`interest in this proceeding.
`
`1
`
`Page 4 of 56
`
`

`

`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`6.
`I have over 30 years of experience in mobile telecommunications
`
`network and system architecture, engineering, design and technology.
`
`7.
`
`I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Mathematics from Franklin and
`
`Marshall College.
`
`8.
`
`I have taught many classes and seminars on both telecommunication
`
`network technologies and have been a panelist and speaker at numerous
`
`conferences at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the
`
`Personal Communication Society (PCS), and the Cellular Telecommunications and
`
`Internet Association (CTIA) as an expert in telecommunication networks.
`
`9.
`
`I spent seven years developing standards within the American
`
`National Standards Institute’s subsidiary organization, the Telecommunications
`
`Industry Association (TIA), providing technical contributions and authoring and
`
`editing telecommunications proposed standards documents.
`
`10.
`
`I am the co-author of the McGraw-Hill books “Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Networking with IS-41,” and “Wireless Telecommunications
`
`Networking with ANSI-41, 2nd edition” published in 1997 and 2001, respectively.
`
`These books have sold several thousand copies and were required reading for
`
`mobile engineers at AT&T Wireless and Motorola for several years.
`
`2
`
`Page 5 of 56
`
`

`

`11.
`
`I am a named inventor on 25 issued patents, and five additional
`
`published pending applications relating to telecommunications networking
`
`technology, including 10 issued patents related to SMS technology.
`
`12.
`
`I have authored several articles on telecommunications technology
`
`and have been quoted numerous times in industry trade publications.
`
`13.
`
`I have been hired as a consultant by the CTIA, as well as by many
`
`wireline and wireless telecommunications companies, including IBM, Bell
`
`Laboratories, McCaw Cellular, AirTouch, AirTouch International, AT&T
`
`Wireless, AT&T Mobility, Lucent, Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola, Samsung, Siemens,
`
`Nextwave, MCI, Daewoo, Globalstar, T-Mobile, Sprint, U.S. Cellular, Teleglobe
`
`Canada, Teledesic and other telecommunications technology vendors and service
`
`providers.
`
`14. From March 2000 to April 2001, I was Executive Director of
`
`Emerging Technologies at Openwave Systems (via acquisition of Software.com
`
`and @Mobile), where I designed a unified messaging system incorporating short
`
`message service (“SMS”) and multimedia message service (“MMS”).
`
`15. From April 2001 to February 2002, I was Vice President of Product
`
`Management at Bitfone Corporation, where I designed a platform to enhance MMS
`
`for the cellular network operators.
`
`3
`
`Page 6 of 56
`
`

`

`16. From February 2002 to November 2003, I was co-founder of m-Qube,
`
`Inc., one of the first text message based mobile marketing companies in North
`
`America. m-Qube founded and established the Mobile Marketing Association
`
`(http://www.mmaglobal.com), the global trade organization which subsequently
`
`established authoritative best practices, guidelines, requirements and codes of
`
`conduct for organizations using mobile text messaging technology to communicate
`
`with consumers.
`
`17. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1004.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS AND LEGAL BASES THEREFORE
`18. My opinions expressed herein are based on: (i) my education,
`
`experience, and background in the fields discussed above, along with my
`
`professional judgment; (ii) the contents of the documents I cite and discuss herein,
`
`including Exhibits 1001-1021, each of which I have reviewed and am familiar
`
`with; and (iii) my understanding of the legal bases for finding a patent claim
`
`anticipated and obvious, which I explain below.
`
`A. Legal Basis for Anticipation
`19.
`It is my understanding that under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a claim may be
`
`found to be “anticipated,” and therefore invalid, when a single prior art reference
`
`discloses each and every limitation of the claim.
`
`4
`
`Page 7 of 56
`
`

`

`20.
`
`It is my understanding that determining whether a prior art reference
`
`discloses each and every limitation of a claim is a two-step analysis comprising:
`
`(i) determining the meaning of the claim limitations; and (ii) comparing those
`
`limitations (according to their determined meaning) with the prior art.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the disclosure of a limitation in a prior art reference
`
`may be explicit or inherent. Explicit means that the limitation or feature is
`
`expressly described in the reference. Inherent means that the limitation or feature
`
`is necessarily present in the disclosure (i.e., the feature is a deliberate or necessary
`
`consequence of the reference’s disclosure) even if the reference does not expressly
`
`describe the feature. One of ordinary skill in the art must recognize that the feature
`
`is inherent to the disclosure, but inherency does not require that the person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have necessarily recognized the inherent disclosure
`
`at the time of the reference. Thus, a prior use of an invention that was accidental,
`
`unrecognized, or unappreciated can still be an invalidating anticipation.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that to anticipate, the reference must also enable one of
`
`skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention. In other words, it must
`
`sufficiently describe the claimed invention to have placed the public in possession
`
`of it.
`
`5
`
`Page 8 of 56
`
`

`

`B.
`23.
`
`Legal Basis for Obviousness
`
`It has been explained to me that under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claim may
`
`be found to be obvious, and therefore invalid, when the differences between the
`
`claim and the prior art reference or references would have been obvious at the time
`
`the invention was filed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the
`
`patent pertains.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that obviousness is determined based on an analysis of
`
`four factors: (i) the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) the differences between
`
`the prior art and the claims at issue; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`
`art; and (iv) secondary considerations of nonobviousness.
`
`25. With respect to the first factor, determining the differences between
`
`the prior art and claims (as discussed above with regard to anticipation) is a two–
`
`step analysis comprising: (i) determining the meaning of the claim elements; and
`
`(ii) comparing those terms with the prior art.
`
`26.
`
`It has been explained to me that the level of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`determined by analyzing such things as: (i) the prior art; (ii) the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art; (iii) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (iv) the
`
`sophistication of the technology involved; and (v) the educational background of
`
`those actively working in the field, as well as the inventors.
`
`6
`
`Page 9 of 56
`
`

`

`27.
`
`I am also aware for one of ordinary skill in the art to find it obvious to
`
`combine references, there must be some motivation in the prior art for a skilled
`
`person to make the combination covered by the patent claims. I am told that
`
`motivation can be implicit.
`
`28.
`
`It is also my understanding that to determine whether it would have
`
`been obvious to combine known elements in a manner claimed in a patent, one
`
`may consider such things as: (i) the combination being a predictable variation; (ii)
`
`the combination having been used to improve similar devices; (iii) the combination
`
`being obvious to try; (iv) if the combination merely applying a known technique to
`
`a known device to yield predictable results; (v) a teaching or suggestion in the
`
`references themselves that the combination was possible; (vi) common sense; (vii)
`
`the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the
`
`marketplace; and (viii) the background knowledge of one with ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`C. My Opinion – A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`29.
`In view of the legal bases above, I have been asked to provide an
`
`opinion as to the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`purported invention of the ’034 Patent, which I have been asked to initially assume
`
`is August 9, 1996, the filing date of the ’034 Patent.
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 56
`
`

`

`30. Also in view of the above, my opinions below have been guided by
`
`my appreciation of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`the disclosure and claims of the ’034 Patent at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`31.
`
` Based upon the considerations described above, it is my opinion that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the technology of the ’034 Patent at its
`
`filing date of August 9, 1996, is someone who has a computer science, computer
`
`engineering, electrical engineering, mathematics or other related technical degree
`
`at the undergraduate level, and on the order of three to five years of experience
`
`working with telecommunications networks and protocols and/or e-mail and
`
`internet-based messaging networks and protocols. Superior experience in one of
`
`these areas (education or experience in telecommunications networks, e-mail
`
`systems or internet-based messaging systems) would compensate for lesser
`
`experience in the other.
`
`32.
`
`I base this opinion on my direct experience developing technical
`
`standards for end-to-end messaging technology, developing the design and
`
`architecture for networks employing end-to-end messaging technology, designing
`
`e-mail, SMS and MMS technology products, as well as my knowledge and
`
`understanding of the skill levels of others working in the field.
`
`33. My opinion in this regard is based on my extensive personal
`
`experience working in the field of the purported invention, my knowledge of
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 56
`
`

`

`colleagues and others working in that same field as of and for several years prior to
`
`the filing date of the ’034 Patent, my study of the ’034 Patent and its file history,
`
`and my study of the prior art references and exhibits discussed herein.
`
`34. My opinion is further based on my knowledge of the level of
`
`education and experience of persons actively working in the field in the mid–
`
`1990s, the types of problems encountered in the art at that time, and the prior art
`
`solutions to those problems, including such solutions as the payload conversion
`
`and notification of delivery functions recited in the claims of the ’034 Patent.
`
`35. My opinion as to the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`change in a manner that would impact my ultimate conclusions herein even if the
`
`date of the purported invention of the ’034 Patent was determined to be earlier in
`
`1996 or 1995.
`
`D. My Opinion – Claims 23, 24, 31, 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the ’034
`Patent Are Not Patentable Over The Prior Art
`36. Based on the considerations identified above, it is my opinion that
`
`X.400 (1988) anticipates Claims 23, 24, 31, 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the ’034 Patent.
`
`The bases for my opinion are set forth in Section VII, below.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’034 PATENT
`A.
`Field of Invention
`37. The ’034 Patent is purportedly directed to the field of “payload
`
`delivery and, more particularly, to an end-to-end payload delivery system and
`
`9
`
`Page 12 of 56
`
`

`

`method that effectuates delivery in a media independent manner following the
`
`parameters of the delivery that are defined by the sender.” (Ex. 1001 at Col. 1:7-
`
`12.)
`
`38. The specification describes the “invention” as:
`
`essentially the electronic equivalent to registered mail with the
`advantages of speed, configurability, convenience, resource
`conservation, timeliness, but without the drawbacks of the manual
`system used with registered mail, e.g., paperwork, delay, time
`utilization, and geographic limitation of applicability.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Col. 2:10-11.) (emphasis added.)
`
`B.
`Background of the Art
`39. The ’034 Patent first observes that “numerous media for transferring
`
`information” were known, including “telephone (voice-mail), e-mail, fax, etc.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Col. 1:18-24) and identifies as a first “problem” the “inability to
`
`communicate between the different media” (Ex. 1001 at Col. 1:37-40).
`
`40. The ’034 Patent concedes a solution to this problem is found in U.S.
`
`Patent No. 4,837,798 to Cohen et al. (“Cohen;” Ex. 1013), which describes a
`
`system that: (i) has “a single electronic mailbox for receiving messages in different
`
`media;” and (ii) “converts all the received messages in the … mailbox into a single
`
`native media.” (Ex. 1001 at Col. 1:41-54.)
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 56
`
`

`

`41. However, the ’034 Patent criticizes Cohen as providing only “post-
`
`delivery” media conversion and for failing to send an “acknowledgment or
`
`notification to the sender of the success or failure of the message conversion.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at Col. 1:54-60.)
`
`42.
`
`I do not see any requirement in the challenged claims that the media
`
`conversion is performed at any particular time.
`
`C.
`Summary of the Purported Invention
`43. The ’034 Patent describes its inventive method as “providing media
`
`independent, guaranteed delivery of a payload in
`
`accordance with delivery parameters defined by the
`
`sender.” (Ex. 1001 at Col. 4:25-28.)
`
`44. As illustrated in FIG. 10 (added during
`
`prosecution): (i) “the sender generates a payload for
`
`delivery in a first media, for instance, an e-mail or
`
`fax;” (ii) “the sender establishes the parameters of
`
`the delivery, including the number of attempts
`
`within a given period of time, the allowable cost of
`
`transmission, the types and/or frequency of
`
`notification, etc.;” (iii) “[t]he payload is then passed on to the payload delivery
`
`system for delivery to the recipient,” which can be located at various locations in
`
`11
`
`Page 14 of 56
`
`

`

`the network and which “performs the function of converting the entire payload (or,
`
`a portion thereof), if necessary, from the first media to an alternate media in order
`
`to complete delivery of the payload to the recipient.” (Ex. 1001 at Col. 4:28-43.)
`
`45. Finally, the ’034 Patent states that notifications can be sent to the
`
`sender “so that the sender is guaranteed that the payload has been received by the
`
`recipient.” (Ex. 1001 at Col. 4:55-64.)
`
`D. Description of Embodiments
`46.
`In its “preferred embodiment,” the ’034 Patent states that its “payload
`
`delivery system” can be located anywhere in the network of FIG. 1 (Ex. 1001 at
`
`Col. 6:33-42) and can be implemented on the “typical” computer architecture of
`
`FIG. 2 that is “well known in the art” (Ex. 1001 at Col. 6:58-60). FIG. 3 shows
`
`“payload delivery system 62” as a number of boxes. (Ex. 1001 at Col. 7:21-8:26.)
`
`47.
`
`I do not see anything in the ’034 Patent that indicates there is anything
`
`novel about FIG. 1’s network or FIG. 2’s computer; nor do FIGS. 1 and 2 and their
`
`related disclosures show anything that would not have been known to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in 1995-6.
`
`48.
`
`I also see no description in the ‘034 Patent of any particular hardware
`
`or software for implementing the boxes of FIG. 3, or any further detail on their
`
`operation.
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 56
`
`

`

`49. The ’034 Patent
`
`explains that a user may select
`
`“delivery parameters” as shown in
`
`FIG. 4. (Ex. 1001 at Col. 8:28-52.).
`
`“In addition to the recipient specific
`
`information provided by the entry
`
`102, payload delivery specific information is also provided.” (Ex.1001 at Col.
`
`8:53-55.) This includes information such as what media types the payload should
`
`be, alternate media types if the first cannot be sent, the number of retries, etc. (Ex.
`
`1001 at Col. 8:55-9:7.)
`
`50. The ’034 Patent specifies that the “capability of having the sender set
`
`the delivery parameters” is important because some media may not be suitable for
`
`conversion into other media types (e.g., a spreadsheet into voice data). (Ex. 1001 at
`
`Col. 9:8-28.)
`
`51. Again, I see no description in the ’034 Patent of any particular
`
`hardware or software for implementing FIG. 4.
`
`52. Finally, the ’034 Patent provides examples of acknowledgment
`
`methods in FIGS. 5-9. Again, I see no description of hardware or software for
`
`implementing such methods.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 56
`
`

`

`V.
`
`PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’034 PATENT
`53. The Application that resulted in the ’034 Patent (the ’033 Application)
`
`was filed on August 9, 1996. Originally filed Claims 1-35 of the ’033 Application
`
`correspond to issued Claims 1-35 in the ’034 Patent, although independent Claims
`
`1 and 23 were changed twice by the two Amendments during prosecution, as
`
`explained below. Independent Claim 36 and its dependent Claim 37 were added
`
`by the first Amendment and Claim 36 was changed by the second.
`
`54. Originally-filed Claim 23 read as follows:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 50.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 17 of 56
`
`

`

`55. On August 26, 1997, the
`
`Examiner rejected Claim 23 as being
`
`anticipated by U.S. 5,381,527 to Inniss et al.
`
`(“Inniss;” Ex. 1014), taking the position that it
`
`discloses that “a user[] who wishes an e-mail
`
`message to be sent … can specify one or more
`
`alternative media such as a fax in the event
`
`the e-mail was unable to be delivered,” citing
`
`FIGS. 1 and 2 (shown here) and Cols. 1 and 3.
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 81.)
`
`56.
`
`In my opinion, Inniss’s disclosure is very similar to that of the ’034
`
`Patent. It relates to “automatically selecting an alternate distribution media upon
`
`the failure of an attempted transmission via a particular distribution channel.” (Col.
`
`1:15-20.) Inniss’s FIG. 1 shows a networked system where media can be changed
`
`for delivery to a recipient (Cols. 2:45-3:32), and its FIG. 2 shows a screen where
`
`the sender can choose and prioritize delivery and conversion methods. (Cols. 3:33-
`
`4:21.)
`
`57. Applicant did not even attempt to overcome the Examiner’s rejection
`
`based on the original language of Claim 23.
`
`58. Rather, on October 27, 1997, Applicant amended Claim 23:
`
`15
`
`Page 18 of 56
`
`

`

`
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 90.) Applicant also added Claims 36 and 37.
`
`59. While Applicant argued that Inniss fails to teach or suggest this added
`
`feature, he conceded that (similar to Cohen), Inniss “teaches the conversion of a
`
`payload into different medias.” (Ex. 1006 at 93.)
`
`60. On March 12, 1998, the Examiner again rejected the claims as being
`
`anticipated by Inniss. In response to Applicant’s amendment, the Examiner stated
`
`that Inniss does disclose conversion “at different locations,” citing elements 14, 20,
`
`22, and 26 of FIG. 1. (Ex. 1006 at 120.) In other words, the Examiner took the
`
`position that Inniss’s disclosure of conversion at any one of a plurality of network
`
`locations met the limitation added by Applicants.
`
`61. Again, Applicant did not attempt to overcome the Examiner’s
`
`rejection by argument alone and, on June 15, 1998, amended Claim 23 as follows
`
`(Claim 36 was similarly amended):
`
`16
`
`Page 19 of 56
`
`

`

`
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 125.)
`
`62.
`
`In conjunction with this change, Applicant argued that the only
`
`notification in Inniss “is an error report if the maximum number of transmission
`
`attempts have occurred,” citing element 78 of FIG. 3. (Ex. 1006 at 127.) On June
`
`23, 1998, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance, without comment. (Ex.
`
`1006 at 130.)
`
`63. Thus, in my opinion, the sole basis for patentability of Claims 23 and
`
`36 in view of Inniss (Ex. 1014) and Cohen (Ex. 1013) relates to Applicant’s
`
`argument that the prior art does not teach or suggest automatically notifying the
`
`sender of a successful message delivery to the recipient.
`
`64. But, such notification was well known by 1995 in the related art. For
`
`example, such notification was described in messaging standards, such as those
`
`described in this Declaration.
`
`17
`
`Page 20 of 56
`
`

`

`65.
`
`Indeed, the underlying concept of notification was also recognized as
`
`prior art by the ’034 Patent’s discussion of registered mail – which it identifies as
`
`the “equivalent” of its purported invention.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`66. As discussed above, I understand that the first step of comparing a
`
`claim to a prior art reference is to determine the meaning of the claim elements.
`
`67.
`
`I understand that in these types of proceedings before the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office, a claim receives the “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation,” or “BRI,” in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.
`
`68.
`
`I also understand that such a “broadest reasonable interpretation” is
`
`different from, and broader than, that applied in district court litigations.
`
`69.
`
`I also understand that the meaning of claims terms is viewed through
`
`the lens of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and that
`
`specific terms of the claims are generally given the ordinary and accustomed
`
`meaning the one of skill would ascribe to them.
`
`70.
`
`I have followed these principles in my analysis below and address the
`
`scope of particular claim terms as necessary when they arise. To the extent I do
`
`not address a particular term or phrase, I have used what I consider the plain
`
`meaning of that term.
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of 56
`
`

`

`71. As part of my analysis of the scope of the claims and their constituent
`
`terms, I have also reviewed claim construction proposals from Patent Owner and
`
`Petitioners in their current dispute (Exs. 1008 and 1011), other briefings from their
`
`current dispute (Ex. 1009), and claim construction briefings from an earlier dispute
`
`involving the ’034 Patent (Ex. 1012).
`
`72. As a general matter, I have read each claim term to have at least the
`
`scope which the Patent Owner has asserted in its Infringement Contentions against
`
`Petitioner’s products (Ex. 1013).
`
`73.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to the scope of one phrase
`
`in Claim 23 of the ’034 Patent – “at different locations.”
`
`A.
`74.
`
`“At Different Locations”
`
`Independent Claim 23 of the ’034 Patent recites “converting said
`
`payload to an alternative media at different locations as necessary for completion
`
`of delivery of said payload”
`
`75.
`
`I understand that the Petitioner has offered that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the term “at different locations” is “at one of a plurality
`
`of network locations.”
`
`76.
`
`I agree that “at one of a plurality of network locations” is the proper
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “at different locations” for at least the
`
`following reasons, and have used this construction in my analysis below.
`
`19
`
`Page 22 of 56
`
`

`

`77. First, the ’034 Patent’s Summary of the Invention states: (i) “media
`
`conversions and payload copying can be performed at one or more locations where
`
`the system resides in order to take advantage of tariffs, special offerings, etc., and
`
`to provide guaranteed delivery in a media independent environment” (Ex. 1001 at
`
`Col. 2:25-28); and (ii) “conversion is performed by the payload delivery system,
`
`and therefore, can take place more than once and at one or more different locations
`
`where the payload system resides” (Ex. 1001 at Col. 2:54-58).
`
`78. Second, the
`
`’034 Patent’s description
`
`of its preferred
`
`embodiments indicates
`
`that the payload delivery
`
`system: (i) “is a platform independent application with a versatility of being able to
`
`be located in one or more locations within the communication network 12” (Ex.
`
`1001 at Col. 5:54-58); (ii) “[i]n accordance with an important feature in the present
`
`invention, … does not have to be located at any one particular location in the
`
`communication network 12” of FIG. 1 (Ex. 1001 at Col. 6:33-38); and (iii) can
`
`“reside in a variety of different locations including at least any one or more of the
`
`following: the workstation 46, the computer workstations 30, 36, the LAN server
`
`42, the local server 31 associated with the LAN 38, the local servers 28 associated
`
`20
`
`Page 23 of 56
`
`

`

`with local switches 24, 26, or the long distance servers 22 associated with long
`
`distances switches 16, 18” (Ex. 1001 at Col. 6:36-43). See also FIG. 8, illustrating
`
`a conversion at far-end server 28. (Ex. 1001 at Col. 10:41-51.)
`
`79. Third, in the October 27, 1997 Amendment, Applicant discussed the
`
`support for “at different locations” as follows:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 93.) The portions of the specification cited by Applicant overlap with
`
`those identified above that explain the ’034 Patent’s instruction that conversion
`
`takes place at one of a plurality of network locations.
`
`80.
`
`In addition to these reasons, such an interpretation is also consistent
`
`with Novo’s interpretation of “at different locations” in its infringement
`
`contentions against Petitioners. (Ex. 1013 at 14-15), which asserts that
`
`“converting” reads on MMS “content adaptation” and that such “content
`
`21
`
`Page 24 of 56
`
`

`

`adaptation takes place at the sender’s device, the recipient’s device, or at MMSCs
`
`located at different locations depending on the location of the sender and recipient
`
`and network conditions.”
`
`81. However, I understand that Novo has asserted “at different locations”
`
`has a far different meaning in its proposed claim constructions in its district court
`
`dispute with Petitioners. (Exs. 1008 at 10; 1011 at 2.)
`
`82. Specifically, Novo has asserted that “at different locations” means
`
`“controlling the location of conversion.” (Exs. 1008 at 10; 1011 at 2.) To the
`
`extent Novo asserts that such a construction of “at different locations” is also the
`
`proper broadest reasonable interpretation, it is incorrect for at least three reasons.
`
`83. First, the language “at different locations” is a simple statement
`
`specifying where the claimed “converting …” limitation may occur. Novo’s
`
`construction seems to add an entirely new active step – “controlling” – to the
`
`phrase. I do not see any support for requiring this new active step in the claim
`
`language.
`
`84. Second, the intrinsic record does not mention that some specific
`
`“control” of the conversion location is at all important. Rather, as discussed above,
`
`the emphasis of the ’034 Patent (to the extent there is any emphasis at all as to this
`
`element) is simply performing the conversion anywhere in the network based on
`
`where the payload delivery system is provided. Any “control” of the location of
`
`22
`
`Page 25 of 56
`
`

`

`such conversion contemplated by the ’034 Patent is simply a byproduct of
`
`wherever the “payload delivery system 62” is provided. No other “control” is
`
`discussed.
`
`85. Third, such a construction is inconsistent with Novo’s infringement
`
`contentions, which do not identify or explain this alleged “control” of the
`
`conversion process. (Ex. 1013 at 14-15.)
`
`86. The only possible source of Novo’s “controlling the location of
`
`conversion” proposal that I can find is the October 27, 1997 Amendment which, in
`
`addition to the explanation cited above, indicated the following:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1006 at 93.)
`
`87.
`
`It appears that Novo will take the position, at least in the related
`
`actions, that this passage was definitional as to the meaning of “at different
`
`locations.” In my opinion, such an argument would make this language into
`
`something more than it actually is, as the passage does not provide any particular
`
`definition for “at different locations,” let alone a definition sufficient to overcome
`
`23
`
`Page 26 of 56
`
`

`

`the clear and repeated instruction in the ’034 Patent and its prosecution history that
`
`this phrase simply means “at one of a plurality of network locations.”
`
`88.
`
`I do not read this language as requiring a new active step. The
`
`argument set forth by Applicant relates to the alleged lack of disclosure of Inniss in
`
`a broad sense – that it did not disclose controlling the location of the conversion
`
`and, therefore, would not teach or suggest conversion at different locations. I see
`
`no equating of the claimed “at different locations” to an active step of
`
`“control[ling] the location of conversion.”
`
`89. The Examiner was unpersuaded by Applicant’s argument, and pointed
`
`out in the March 12, 1998 Office Action that:
`
`
`
`24
`
`Page 27 of 56
`
`

`

`(Ex. 1006 at 120.) Thus, the Examiner also interpreted “at different locations” as
`
`“one of a plurality of network locations.” Applicant did not disagree at t