`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`FedEx Corp.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,633,900
`_____________________________
`
`Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D.,
`in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,633,900
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` of 58
`
`FedEx Exhibit 1004
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`Summary of My Opinions ............................................................................... 5
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. Qualifications and Background ....................................................................... 8
`
`IV. Materials Considered .....................................................................................12
`
`V.
`
`Legal Standards .............................................................................................13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction..............................................................................14
`
`Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. §103 ....................................................14
`
`VI. Overview of the ’900 Patent ..........................................................................16
`
`VII. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................21
`
`VIII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................23
`
`IX.
`
`Storch in View of Butler Renders Obvious Claim 1 .....................................24
`
`A. Overview of Storch .............................................................................24
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Overview of Butler ..............................................................................27
`
`Rationale and Motivation to Combine Storch and Butler ...................29
`
`The Combination of Storch and Butler Teaches Each and Every
`Element of Claim 1..............................................................................31
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“A method for distributing work order assignment data to
`a field crew” ..............................................................................31
`
`“using a system having an enterprise computing system
`and at least one mobile field unit, comprising the
`following steps” ........................................................................33
`
`“(A) updating a database on the enterprise computing
`system to indicate an assignment has been assigned to the
`field crew” .................................................................................38
`
`- 2 -
`
` 2
`
` of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`“(B) notifying the field crew of the assignment” ......................42
`
`“(C) in response to the input of field crew login data,
`verifying field crew identity” ....................................................44
`
`“(D) notifying the field crew of successful login” ....................45
`
`“(E) retrieving and presenting a list of assignments to the
`field crew” .................................................................................48
`
`“(F) in response to field crew input selecting an
`assignment from the list of assignments, retrieving
`detailed assignment data for the selected assignment” .............51
`
`“(G) displaying the detailed assignment data to the field
`crew, and” .................................................................................53
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`“(H) in response to field crew input identifying an action
`was taken with regard to the assignment, updating the
`detailed assignment data” .........................................................55
`
`E.
`
`Summary: Claim 1 Is Obvious in View of Storch and Butler ............56
`
`X.
`
`Conclusion .....................................................................................................58
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
` 3
`
` of 58
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`1.
`
`I, Tal Lavian, submit this declaration to state my opinions on the
`
`matters described below.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Petitioners as an independent expert in this
`
`proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 6,633,900
`
`(“the ’900 patent”), and I have been asked to provide my opinions as to the
`
`patentability of claim 1 of the ’900 patent. A copy of the ’900 patent is provided as
`
`Exhibit 1001.
`
`4.
`
`This declaration sets forth my opinions that I have formed in this
`
`proceeding based on my study of the evidence, my understanding as an expert in
`
`the field, and my education, training, research, knowledge, and personal and
`
`professional experience.
`
`5.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion on whether claim 1 of the
`
`’900 patent would have been obvious based on certain prior art references. Based
`
`on the combination of prior art references discussed in this declaration, it is my
`
`opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would find claim 1 of the ’900 patent to
`
`have been obvious.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
` 4
`
` of 58
`
`

`

`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`6.
`
`In my opinion, and as a shown in the analysis that follows, claim 1 of
`
`the ’900 patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’900 patent recites a method for distributing work order
`
`assignment data to a field crew. (Ex. 1001 at 15:7-8.) It includes eight steps (A-H),
`
`but each one was well known long before the ’900 patent. Steps A-B and E-H, for
`
`example, recite well-known tasks performed in prior art dispatching process:
`
`(A) updating a database with a new work assignment;
`
`(B) notifying a field crew of the assignment;
`
`(E) presenting a list of assignments;
`
`(F, G) retrieving and displaying detailed data regarding an assignment; and
`
`(H) updating the detailed data based on field crew input.
`
`8.
`
`The ’900 patent admits that these type of dispatching steps were
`
`performed in prior art systems. (Ex. 1001 at 1:18-51.)
`
`9.
`
`The remaining steps, C and D, add common login functionality that
`
`merely verifies field crew identity and notifies the field crew of a successful login.
`
`This kind of generic login functionality was well known and often used in
`
`connection with accessing computer systems and networks long before the priority
`
`date of the ’900 patent. Steps C and D are untethered to the remaining claim
`
`- 5 -
`
` 5
`
` of 58
`
`

`

`elements and recite only basic functions of system access that were well known
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`long before the ’900 patent.
`
`10. The ’900 patent purports to have improved the prior art dispatching
`
`systems—which allegedly used voice, fax, or proprietary technology for
`
`communication—by using TCP/IP. (Ex. 1001 at 1:52-2:38.) Of course, the ’900
`
`patent inventors did not invent TCP/IP, and using these ubiquitous protocols to
`
`perform well-known dispatching functions in a new environment is not innovative.
`
`11. Worse yet, claim 1 is not even limited to TCP/IP. It is silent regarding
`
`any communication protocol whatsoever, and the only components it recites are an
`
`“enterprise computing system,” a “mobile field unit,” and a “database.” (Ex. 1001
`
`at 15:7-11.)
`
`12. As my declaration shows, claim 1 of the ’900 patent is rendered
`
`obvious in view of a combination of two prior art references, Storch and Butler.
`
`These references demonstrate that technicians in the telecommunications industry
`
`used mobile technician access units to exchange information with enterprise-side
`
`dispatching systems in order to perform each step of claim 1.
`
`13. Thus, as I explain below, each of the elements in claim 1 of the ’900
`
`patent existed and was well-known in the prior art. Moreover, the combination of
`
`Storch and Butler shows that claim 1 of the ’900 patent is nothing more than the
`
`combination of familiar elements using well-known methods. These combinations,
`
`- 6 -
`
` 6
`
` of 58
`
`

`

`derived from a finite number of predictable solutions, are the product of ordinary
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`skill and common sense, not of any sort of innovation.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
` 7
`
` of 58
`
`

`

`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`I possess the knowledge, skills, experience, training and the education
`14.
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`to form an expert opinion and provide testimony in this case. A detailed record of
`
`my professional qualifications, including a list of patents and academic and
`
`professional publications, is set forth in my curriculum vitae attached to this
`
`declaration as Appendix A.
`
`15.
`
`I expect to further testify, if asked, regarding the subject matter set
`
`forth in this declaration.
`
`16.
`
`I have more than 25 years of experience in the networking,
`
`telecommunications, Internet, and software fields. In 1987, I obtained a Bachelor
`
`of Science (“B.Sc.”) in Mathematics and Computer Science from Tel Aviv
`
`University, Israel. In 1996, I obtained a Master’s of Science (“M.Sc.”) degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering, also from Tel Aviv University. I received a Ph.D. in
`
`Computer Science from the University of California at Berkeley in 2006.
`
`17.
`
`I am currently employed by the University of California at Berkeley
`
`and was appointed as a lecturer and Industry Fellow in the Center of
`
`Entrepreneurship and Technology (“CET”) as part of UC Berkeley College of
`
`Engineering. I have been with the University of California at Berkeley since 2000
`
`where I served as Berkeley Industry Fellow, Lecturer, Visiting Scientist, Ph.D.
`
`- 8 -
`
` 8
`
` of 58
`
`

`

`Candidate, and Nortel’s Scientist Liaison, where some positions and projects were
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`done concurrently, others sequentially.
`
`18.
`
`I have more than 25 years of experience as a scientist, educator and
`
`technologist, and much of my experience relates to computer networking
`
`technologies. For eleven years from 1996 to 2007, I worked for Bay Networks and
`
`Nortel Networks. Bay Networks was in the business of making and selling
`
`computer network hardware and software. Nortel Networks acquired Bay
`
`Networks in 1998, and I continued to work at Nortel after the acquisition.
`
`Throughout my tenure at Bay and Nortel, I held positions including Principal
`
`Scientist, Principal Architect, Principal Engineer, Senior Software Engineer, and
`
`led the development and research involving a number of networking technologies.
`
`I led the efforts of Java technologies at Bay network and Nortel Networks. In
`
`addition, during 1999-2001, I served as the President of the Silicon Valley Java
`
`User Group with over 800 active members from many companies in the Silicon
`
`Valley.
`
`19. Prior to that, from 1994 to 1995, I worked as a software engineer and
`
`team leader for Aptel Communications, designing and developing mobile wireless
`
`devices and network software products. I developed a Personal Communication
`
`System (PCS) including a two-ways mobile wireless messaging architecture. Part
`
`of the solution was the development of a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) on the
`
`- 9 -
`
` 9
`
` of 58
`
`

`

`mobile side, and a central data handling service at the server side. The two-way
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`messaging system had similar characteristics to today’s short message service
`
`(SMS) on smartphones.
`
`20. As part of our testing tools, I developed a geographic communication
`
`system that collected and transmitted the geographic physical location, and the
`
`wireless signal received to determine the quality of the signal received in different
`
`urban and metropolitan areas. The system was based on wireless mobile
`
`transmitters/receivers and Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers installed on
`
`vehicles. The information was transmitted to multiple urban base stations that
`
`received the location and the quality of the wireless signal transmission.
`
`21.
`
` I also worked on development of two-way wireless OFDM
`
`technology, in the 915 MHz band, under the FCC part 15. The technology was a
`
`continuation of military research for low power, wideband OFDM to reduce
`
`wireless transmission detectability.
`
`22. From 1990 to 1993, I worked as a software engineer and team leader
`
`at Scitex Ltd., where I developed system and network communications tools
`
`(mostly in C and C++).
`
`23.
`
`I have extensive experience in the area of network communications
`
`and Internet technologies including design and implementation of computer-based
`
`systems for managing communications networks. While with Nortel Networks and
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`10 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`Bay Networks (mentioned above) my work involved the research and development
`
`of these technologies. For example, I wrote software for Bay Networks and Nortel
`
`Networks Web based network management for Bay Networks switches. I
`
`developed Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) software for Bay
`
`Network switches and software interfaces for Bay Networks’ Optivity Network
`
`Management System. I wrote software for Java based device management
`
`including software interface to the device management and network management
`
`for the Accelar routing switch family network management system.
`
`24.
`
`I am named as a co-inventor on more than 100 issued patents and I
`
`coauthored more than 25 scientific publications, journal articles, and peer-reviewed
`
`papers. Furthermore, I am a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”).
`
`25.
`
`I currently serve as a Principal Scientist at my company Telecomm
`
`Net Consulting Inc., where I develop network communication technologies and
`
`provide research and consulting in advanced technologies, mainly in computer
`
`networking and Internet technologies. In addition, I serve as a Co-Founder and
`
`Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of VisuMenu, Inc., where I design and develop
`
`architecture of visual IVR technologies for smartphones and wireless mobile
`
`devices in the area of network communications. The system is based on cloud
`
`networking and cloud computing utilizing Amazon Web Services.
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`11 of 58
`
`

`

`26. Additional details of my background are set forth in my curriculum
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`vitae, attached as Appendix A to this Declaration, which provides a more complete
`
`description of my educational background and work experience.
`
`27.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at the rate of $400 per hour for
`
`my work. This compensation is in no way contingent upon the nature of my
`
`findings, the presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`28. The analysis below presents the technical subject matter described in
`
`the ’900 patent, as well as some background known in the art at the priority date of
`
`the ’900 patent. It also presents my opinions regarding the scope and patentability
`
`of the ’900 patent based on certain references that I considered.
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`29. The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my
`
`education and experience in the telecommunications and information technology
`
`industries, as well as the documents I have considered, including the ’900 patent,
`
`which states on its face that it issued from a PCT application filed on January
`
`8,1999. I understand that the PCT application claims benefit to a U.S. Provisional
`
`patent application with a filing date of January 9, 1998. For purposes of this
`
`Declaration, I have assumed January 9,1998 as the effective filing date for the ’900
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`12 of 58
`
`

`

`patent. I have reviewed, considered, and cited to the following documents in my
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`analysis below:
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1006
`
`Title of Document
`U.S. Patent No. 6,633,900 to Khalessi et al. (“the ’900 patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,920,846 to Storch (“Storch”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,922,516 to Butler (“Butler”)
`Exhibit A to Plaintiff Intellectual Venture II LLC’s Infringement
`
`Contentions, Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp., 2:16-cv-
`
`00980 (E.D. Tex., Jan. 17, 2017)
`
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS
`In forming my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`30.
`
`’900 patent and its claims in light of the prior art, I am relying on certain legal
`
`principles that counsel in this case explained to me. My understanding of these
`
`concepts is summarized below.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the claims define the invention. I also understand
`
`that an unpatentability analysis is a two-step process. First, the claims of the patent
`
`are construed to determine their meaning and scope. Second, after the claims are
`
`construed, the content of the prior art is compared to the construed claims.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is only patentable when it is
`
`new, useful, and non-obvious in light of the “prior art.” That is, the invention, as
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`13 of 58
`
`

`

`defined by the claims of the patent, must not be anticipated by or rendered obvious
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`by the prior art.
`
`33. For purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to opine only on
`
`certain issues regarding the technology at issue, the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, the scope of the ’900 patent claims, and obviousness. I have been informed of
`
`the following legal standards, which I have applied in forming my opinions.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`I understand that the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`34.
`
`interprets claim terms of an unexpired patent based on the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the patent’s specification. Thus, I have been informed that
`
`for each claim term construed in this proceeding, I should use the “broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation” that would have been understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art when reading the specification and prosecution history of the
`
`’900 patent at the time of the alleged invention of the ’900 patent.
`
`B. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. §103
`I have been advised that a patent claim may be unpatentable as
`35.
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the subject matter
`
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
`
`made. I have also been advised that several factual inquiries underlie a
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`14 of 58
`
`

`

`determination of obviousness. These inquiries include (1) the scope and content of
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the field of the invention; (3) the
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) any objective
`
`evidence of non-obviousness.
`
`36.
`
`I also have been advised that combining familiar elements according
`
`to known methods and in a predictable way is likely to suggest obviousness when
`
`such a combination would yield predictable results.
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`15 of 58
`
`

`

`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’900 PATENT
`37. The ’900 patent describes a system and method for assigning and
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`communicating work orders to field crew personnel. (Ex. 1001 at 2:20-24.) The
`
`systems and methods disclosed in the ’900 patent may be used by businesses such
`
`as “utility companies,” which “deploy numerous employees over a wide
`
`geographic area to service a dispersed infrastructure or client base.” (Id. at 1:18-
`
`23.)
`
`38. The disclosed system and method use both an enterprise computing
`
`system and at least one mobile field unit. (Id. at 2:24-25.) The enterprise
`
`computing system is a dispatch system, assigning and communicating work order
`
`assignments to field crew personnel “with minimum dispatcher/operator
`
`interference.” (Id. at 3:38-49.) The field crews use the mobile field unit—a
`
`computing device such as a portable computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA),
`
`or similar device—to receive the work order assignments, gather information about
`
`the work order, and update the enterprise computing system regarding the status of
`
`the work order. (Id. at 3:42-46, 4:13-16, 41-44.)
`
`39. To communicate data between the field crews and the enterprise
`
`computing system, the ’900 patent describes using standard networking
`
`components and techniques that were widely available and well-known at the time
`
`of the ’900 patent. For example, the ’900 patent discloses using a wireless
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`16 of 58
`
`

`

`communication network that supports terminal control protocol/internet protocol
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`(TCP/IP). (Id. at 2:24-27, 3:55-4:4, 4:23-30.) As shown in Fig. 1 (below), the
`
`enterprise computing system 50 of the ’900 patent includes one or more servers 56,
`
`60, 62, 64 or workstations 66 connected over a LAN 68 to a database 58 and a
`
`TCP/IP gateway 70. (Id. at 3:55-4:4.) The mobile field unit 72 includes a wireless
`
`radio modem 74 and communicates with the enterprise computing system 50 over
`
`the wireless communication network 54.
`
`40. The ’900 patent discloses using this system to perform a method for
`
`distributing work order assignments to field crews as shown in Fig. 5 (below). (Id.
`
`
`
`at 8:66-9:19.)
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`17 of 58
`
`

`

`• The method includes updating a database on the enterprise computing
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`system to indicate an assignment has been assigned to a field crew,
`
`after which the field crew is notified. (Id. at Fig. 5, steps 300, 302.)
`
`• In response to the field crew inputting login data, the method includes
`
`verifying the field crew identity and notifies the field crew of a
`
`successful login. (Id., steps 304-308).
`
`• The method also includes presenting a list of assignments to the field
`
`crew and retrieving detailed assignment data in response to input by
`
`the field crew. (Id., steps 308-312.)
`
`• Finally, in response to the field crew identifying that an action was
`
`taken with regard to the assignment, the database is updated. (Id., step
`
`314.)
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`18 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`
`
`41.
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’900 patent captures this method of
`
`distributing work order assignment data to a field crew. While the ’900 patent
`
`describes embodiments where the enterprise computing system and mobile field
`
`unit communicate using a computer network and TCP/IP, claim 1 is not so limited.
`
`In fact, claim 1 does not at all specify or limit the communications medium
`
`through which the claimed steps are performed. Claim 1 recites:
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`19 of 58
`
`

`

`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`1. A method for distributing work order assignment data to a
`field crew using a system having an enterprise computing system
`and at least one mobile field unit, comprising the following steps:
`(A) updating a database on the enterprise computing system to
`indicate an assignment has been assigned to the field crew;
`(B) notifying the field crew of the assignment;
`(C) in response to the input of field crew login data, verifying
`field crew identity;
`(D) notifying the field crew of successful login;
`(E) retrieving and presenting a list of assignments to the field
`
`crew;
`
`(F) in response to field crew input selecting an assignment
`from the list of assignments, retrieving detailed assignment data for
`the selected assignment;
`(G) displaying the detailed assignment data to the field crew;
`
`and
`
`(H) in response to field crew input identifying an action was
`taken with regard
`to the assignment, updating the detailed
`assignment data.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`20 of 58
`
`

`

`VII. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I am informed that patentability must be analyzed from the
`42.
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`perspective of “one of ordinary skill in the art” in the same field as the patents-in-
`
`suit at the time of the invention. I am also informed that several factors are
`
`considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, including (1) the types
`
`of problems encountered in the art; (2) the prior art solutions to those problems;
`
`(3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication of the
`
`technology; and (5) the educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`43. Based on my experience teaching, researching, designing, developing,
`
`and consulting, and considering the factors identified above, it is my opinion that a
`
`person of ordinary skill at the time of the alleged invention of the ’900 patent
`
`would have held a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, computer science, or the equivalent.
`
`44.
`
`It is also my opinion that one at this skill level would have had at least
`
`two years of industry experience in the field of computer networking generally,
`
`and wireless networking or mobile communications specifically, or the academic
`
`equivalent thereof. Further, it is my opinion that one skilled in the art would have
`
`been familiar with the components, methods, and protocols used at the time of the
`
`alleged invention of the ’900 patent to communicate between a mobile field unit
`
`and an enterprise computing system.
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`21 of 58
`
`

`

`45. The disclosure of the ’900 patent supports my opinion. For example,
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`in describing the embodiments, the ’900 patent explains that the enterprise
`
`computing system 50 and the mobile field unit 52 communicate using well-known
`
`protocols such as hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) over TCP/IP. (Ex. 1001 at,
`
`3:55-4:34, Figs. 1, 2).)
`
`46. Moreover, the ’900 patent explains that the servers in the enterprise
`
`computing system can be connected using well-known local area network (LAN)
`
`technologies, and that the mobile field unit can be connected to the enterprise
`
`computing system via wireless networks, which were also well known. (Id. at 3:67-
`
`4:4, 4:47-5:10, Figs. 1, 2).).
`
`47.
`
`In some embodiments, the ’900 patent explains that the enterprise
`
`computing system may return data to the mobile field unit in the form of a
`
`hypertext markup language (HTML) file. (Id. at Fig. 2 (“Downloaded HTML File”
`
`92), Fig. 4 (same), 8:54-65.)
`
`48. One skilled in the art would have been familiar with these well-known
`
`communication mechanisms and protocols discussed in connection with the
`
`embodiments of the ’900 patent.
`
`49. As of the priority date of the application for the ’900 patent, which as
`
`discussed above, I have assumed is January 9, 1998, I was at least a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. I am also familiar with the knowledge of the person of
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`22 of 58
`
`

`

`ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of the ’900 patent. I am able to opine
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`on how the person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the disclosure
`
`and claims of the ’900 patent, the disclosures of the prior art, the motivation to
`
`combine the prior art, and what combinations would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In preparing this declaration, I interpreted the claim terms of the ’900
`50.
`
`patent under the “broadest reasonable interpretation” claim construction principles
`
`that I discussed above in the Legal Standards section.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 23 -
`
`
`
`23 of 58
`
`

`

`IX. STORCH IN VIEW OF BUTLER RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIM 1
`It is my opinion that claim 1 of the ’900 patent is unpatentable based
`51.
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`on U.S. Patent No. 5,920,846 to Storch (“Storch”), which I understand has been
`
`submitted as Exhibit 1002 in this proceeding, in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,922,516
`
`to Butler (“Butler”), which I understand has been submitted as Exhibit 1003 in this
`
`proceeding. My specific opinions as to unpatentability are set forth below.
`
`A. Overview of Storch
`Storch discloses a system that processes service requests and
`52.
`
`dispatches technicians for installing, maintaining, and repairing telecommunication
`
`networks. (Ex. 1002, Abstract.) Storch interchangeably refers to “service requests”
`
`as “service orders” or “work requests.” (See, e.g., Ex. 1002 at 45:48-54.)
`
`53.
`
`In Storch’s system, a dispatching system, or “Work Force
`
`Administration Control/Dispatch Out (WFA/DO) system” dispatches technicians
`
`to customer premises based on availability and sends service order assignments to
`
`those technicians over a “technician access system (TAS).” (Id. at 68:33-47, 71:28-
`
`37.) The technician communicates with the WFA/DO dispatching system over the
`
`technician access system using a “technician access unit (TAU),” which is a
`
`“portable hand-held unit or handset . . . or a microcomputer or laptop
`
`computer . . . .” (Id. at 72:15-21, 74:27-37.)
`
`- 24 -
`
`
`
`24 of 58
`
`

`

`54. Figure 15 of Storch, shown annotated below, shows the relationship
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`between the WFA/DO dispatching system, the TAS network, the TAU device, and
`
`the outside technician:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1002, Fig. 15 (annotated); see also id., Fig. 9.)
`
`55.
`
`Storch’s TAU device can communicate with the technician access
`
`system TAS using dual tone multifrequency signaling (DTMF). (Id. at 72:14-23.)
`
`DTMF was a well-known signaling system that used the voice frequency band of
`
`telephone lines to send data. Thus, based on Storch’s disclosure of using DTMF to
`
`communicate, one skilled in the art would have understood that the TAU device
`
`could communicate with the technician access system TAS and the WFA/DO
`
`- 25 -
`
`
`
`25 of 58
`
`

`

`dispatching system by physically connecting the TAU device to the telephone line
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`while in the field. Before the rise of cellular and other wireless networks, this
`
`landline-based system of Storch provided for efficient dispatching of available
`
`technicians “to the customer premise at or before the assigned appointment time to
`
`install or repair outside facilities.” (Id. at Abstract.)
`
`56.
`
`Storch includes several examples describing how the TAU device and
`
`WFA/DO dispatching system communicate with each other to distribute service
`
`orders to the technician, provide the technician with additional information related
`
`to the service orders, and enable the technician to send data to update the service
`
`orders based on tasks performed at the customer site.
`
`57.
`
`In one of these examples, Storch explains that when the WFA/DO
`
`dispatching system is updated to include a new service order, the WFA/DO
`
`dispatching system determines which technician will work on the service order.
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 70:40-58, 71:28-43.) The WFA/DO dispatching system then transmits
`
`a copy of the service order to the technician’s TAU to notify the technician of the
`
`assignment, and updates its own database to indicate that the job has been
`
`dispatched. (Ex. 1002 at 71:44-49.)
`
`58. The technician can log in to the TAU and use the TAU to exchange
`
`data with the dispatching system. (Ex. 1002 at 71:31-35, 72:24-30.) For example,
`
`the technician can use the TAU to request a service order, and obtain information
`
`- 26 -
`
`
`
`26 of 58
`
`

`

`about a particular service order to facilitate performing the tasks associated with
`
`Patent No. 6,633,900
`Declaration of Dr. Tal Lavian
`
`
`the service order while at the customer location. (Ex. 1002 at 71:50-60, 72:24-32.)
`
`59. When the technician completes the required tasks, he can again log
`
`into the TAU device and send data to the WFA/DO dispatching system to indicate
`
`what was performed at the customer location and whether additional work needs to
`
`be performed. (Ex. 1002 at 74:9-23.) The WFA/DO dispatching system then
`
`processes this received data and updates the electronic database including the
`
`service order to indicate that the service order was completed. (Ex. 1002 at 74:23-
`
`26.)
`
`B. Overview of Butler
`60. Butler discloses a portable, hand-held craft technician’s field terminal
`
`