UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`International Business Machines Corporation
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EnvisionIT, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,438,221
`
`Title: BROADCAST ALERTING MESSAGE AGGREGATOR/GATEWAY
`SYSTEM AND METHOD
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-01247
`
`DECLARATION OF ART BOTTERELL IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,438,221
`
`1 of 47
`
`IBM EX. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`International Business Machines Corporation
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EnvisionIT, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,438,221
`
`Title: BROADCAST ALERTING MESSAGE AGGREGATOR/GATEWAY
`SYSTEM AND METHOD
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-01247
`
`DECLARATION OF ART BOTTERELL IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,438,221
`
`1 of 47
`
`IBM EX. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 1
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 3
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 3
`
`V.
`
`PRIOR ART..................................................................................................... 4
`
`A. Anticipation ........................................................................................... 4
`
`B. Obviousness ........................................................................................... 4
`
`VI. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,438,221 ......................................................................... 6
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 8
`
`VIII. EMERGENCY WARNING ............................................................................ 9
`
`A.
`
`The Emergency Alert System ............................................................... 9
`
`B. Use of the Internet as a Network for Emergency Alerting ................. 26
`
`IX. CLAIM 19 IS OBVIOUS OVER THE LITERATURE DESCRIBING
`EMERGENCY MESSAGING SYSTEMS ................................................... 30
`
`X.
`
`CLAIM 19 IS ANTICIPATED BY REIGER OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
`OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF REIGER AND NSTC ........ 40
`
`i
`
`2 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`1. I, Art Botterell, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by International Business Machines Corporation
`
`(“IBM”) in connection with its petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,438,221 (“the ’221 patent”). The statements set forth in this declaration are
`
`based on my own personal knowledge. I am being compensated at my usual rate
`
`for the time spent preparing this declaration, and my compensation is not
`
`contingent on the outcome of any matter or on any of the opinions provided below.
`
`I have no financial interest in this matter.
`
`3.
`
`The opinions set forth in this declaration are my own. My opinions
`
`are based on many years of experience in the field of emergency management and
`
`warning and on the materials cited herein.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`I have spent most of my professional life working on emergency
`
`warnings and preparedness. Since 1995, I have been an Emergency Information
`
`Systems Consultant, specializing in public alert and warning as of 2001. In this
`
`role I provide emergency information system planning and training to national and
`
`international government agencies. As part of this role, I designed the Common
`
`Alerting Protocol and led its standardization and adoption efforts.
`
`1
`
`3 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`My other emergency warning experience includes my current
`
`position as a Senior Emergency Services Coordinator in the California Governor’s
`
`Office of Emergency Services, my 2013-2014 position as Technical Director of
`
`Disaster Management Systems for Raydant International, Ltd., my position as a
`
`Disaster Management Consultant for Carnegie Mellon University in Silicon Valley
`
`from 2010-2013, my position as Special Technical Expert for the Joint
`
`Interoperability Test Command from 2009-2010, my position as the Community
`
`Warning System Manager in the Office of the Sheriff in Contra Costa County,
`
`California from 2006-2009, my position as an Emergency Information Systems
`
`Project Manager in the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services in California
`
`from 1999-2000, my position as a Public Affairs Specialist for the Federal
`
`Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from 1995-1997, and my position as
`
`Assistant Chief in the Telecommunications Division of the Governor’s Office of
`
`Emergency Services in California from 1988-1995.
`
`6.
`
`For all of these positions, I used both my skills in emergency warning
`
`theory and implementation and my software-writing skills. For example, as part of
`
`my position as Assistant Chief in the Telecommunications Division in California, I
`
`developed that office’s first website.
`
`7.
`
`I have significant experience in developing and maintaining software
`
`systems. I am proficient in Java, C, Python, JavaScript, HTMS5, XML, and other
`
`
`
`2
`
`4 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`languages. I was instrumental in the Federal Government’s testing and
`
`implementation of IPAWS, the Integrated Public Alert & Warning System run by
`
`the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
`
`8.
`
`I sit on the Board of Humanity Road, an international Non-
`
`Government Organization dedicated to investigating the use of social media in
`
`disasters. I was an instructor in the University of California at Berkeley Extension
`
`Emergency Management Program from 1996-1998.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`9.
`
`I am not an attorney. For purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my analysis and
`
`opinions, as set forth below.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`10.
`
`I understand that in a proceeding such as this, the claims of an
`
`unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable interpretation as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art, described below, and consistent with what the
`
`patentee says in the specification.
`
`11.
`
`I also understand that under a broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`words of a claim must be given their plain meaning—i.e., the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning given to the word by those of ordinary skill at the time of the
`
`invention—unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.
`
`
`
`3
`
`5 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`I understand that some claims are independent, and that these claims
`
`are complete by themselves. Other claims refer to these independent claims and
`
`are “dependent” on those independent claims. The dependent claims include all of
`
`the limitations of the claims on which they depend.
`
`V.
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`13.
`
`I have been instructed to assume for purposes of my analysis that
`
`February 13, 2004, is the relevant date for determining what is “prior art.” In other
`
`words, I should consider as “prior art” anything publicly available prior to
`
`February 13, 2004. I further understand that, for purposes of this proceeding in the
`
`United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board, only patents and documents that have
`
`the legal status of a “printed publication” may be relied on as prior art.
`
`A.
`
`Anticipation
`
`14.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is anticipated if a single prior art
`
`document describes every element of the invention, either expressly or inherently.
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness
`
`15.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious if the differences between
`
`what is set forth in the claims and what is disclosed in the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at
`
`the time that the patent application was filed, in this case, February 13, 2004.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to
`
`have knowledge of all of the relevant prior art.
`
`
`
`4
`
`6 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`17.
`
`I understand that as part of my analysis of whether a given patent
`
`claim is obvious, I should consider: (i) the scope and content of the prior art; (ii)
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art; (iii) the differences between what is claimed
`
`and the prior art; and (iv) any secondary considerations that may indicate that the
`
`claims are not obvious.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill in the art depends on the
`
`type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to these problems, the
`
`rapidity with which innovations are made in the art, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that secondary considerations which bear on the
`
`obviousness of a patent claim include: (i) commercial success of a product due to
`
`the merits of what is provided in the patent claim; (ii) a long-felt but unsolved need
`
`for the solution provided by the patent claim; (iii) unsuccessful attempts by others
`
`to find the solution provided by the patent claim; (iv) copying by others of what is
`
`claimed in the patent; (v) unexpected results that arise from what is provided in the
`
`patent claim; (vi) industry skepticism regarding what is provided in the patent
`
`claim; (vii) praise from others in the field; and (viii) simultaneous invention by
`
`others.
`
`
`
`5
`
`7 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,438,221
`The petition for inter partes review challenges claim 19 of the ’221
`
`20.
`
`patent. I have reproduced claim 19 below:
`
`A method of public service broadcast messaging to a broadcast target area,
`
`the method comprising:
`
`receiving over an input interface a broadcast request including a broadcast
`
`agent identification, a geographically defined broadcast target area, and a
`
`broadcast message from one of a plurality of coupled broadcast agent
`
`message origination systems;
`
`storing a geographically defined broadcast message jurisdiction for a
`
`broadcast agent;
`
`verifying an authority of the broadcast agent identification including an
`
`authority of the originating broadcast agent to send the broadcast message
`
`to the broadcast target area by comparing the stored geographically defined
`
`broadcast message jurisdiction for the originating broadcast agent with the
`
`broadcast target area associated with the broadcast message in the
`
`broadcast request; and
`
`transmitting the broadcast message over an output interface to one or more
`
`coupled broadcast message networks providing broadcast message alerting
`
`service to at least a portion of the broadcast target area.
`
`
`
`6
`
`8 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the text of the claim is to be given its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
`
`specification. I have been asked by counsel to assume for purposes of this
`
`proceeding that the term “broadcast” means “pertaining to transmission to all
`
`recipients in a target area and not to an identified recipient” and that the term
`
`“broadcast message” means “a message that is intended for transmission to all
`
`recipients in a target area and not an identified recipient.” In my opinion, the
`
`remaining terms of the claim each have a plain and ordinary meaning that is
`
`apparent by the language used in the claim.
`
`22.
`
`The ’221 patent specification describes a standard emergency
`
`broadcast messaging system. According to the patent, this system, called the
`
`“PLBS,” is “unlike other emergency messaging services that require the recipient’s
`
`identity, a predetermined fixed delivery location, and usually the payment of a
`
`service fee.” (col. 6, ll. 17-19.)
`
`23.
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, I highlight some of the pertinent
`
`features of the system described in the ’221 patent:
`
`(cid:120) The messages are transmitted in the patent’s system using cell-
`
`broadcast. (col. 6, ll. 23-24.) Cell broadcast is a system in which a
`
`message is sent to all of the active cell phones that are serviced by a
`
`
`
`7
`
`9 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`given “cell.” Dr. Surati, in his expert report on this matter, describes
`
`the cell broadcast system in more detail.
`
`(cid:120) The system described in the patent uses an internet-based interface
`
`for the input and processing of messages, which is convenient
`
`because “Almost any computer can use PLBS-SB without any
`
`modification at all.” (col. 18, ll. 34-37.)
`
`(cid:120) Processing of the message may include the comparison of an inputted
`
`broadcast message agent and the area to which the message is
`
`intended to target, on the one hand, to pairs of agents and areas that
`
`are pre-defined in a “Footprint Library” on the other, so that, for
`
`example, messages may be sent quickly without the need to define
`
`allowed areas for given agents at the time of message transmission.
`
`(col. 8, ll. 55-64.)
`
`(cid:120) The system “stores past messages and is capable of retrieving them
`
`for re-transmission.” (col. 9, ll. 60-62.)
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`24.
`
`I have read the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`proposed by Dr. Surati in this proceeding and agree with his definition, which I
`
`reprint here for convenience. Based on this definition, I am a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at least due to my extensive experience designing and maintaining
`
`
`
`8
`
`10 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`emergency alerting systems. I was also a person of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`2003-2003 timeframe relevant to this proceeding.
`
`25.
`
`The ’221 patent is directed to a system of and method for location-
`
`based broadcasting. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art to whom the
`
`’221 patent is directed would have the following qualifications: Either a
`
`bachelor’s degree in computer science, engineering, or a related field with some
`
`practical experience designing, developing, or maintaining broadcast messaging
`
`systems such as emergency alerting systems; or significant practical experience
`
`designing, developing, or maintaining broadcast messaging systems, such as
`
`emergency alerting systems. This person would have access to and/or collaborate,
`
`as needed, with individuals in other areas, such as computer or software
`
`programming, cellular network technology, and public alert or warning systems.
`
`VIII. EMERGENCY WARNING
`
`26. As I explained above, I have devoted much of my professional life to
`
`emergency preparedness and warning. As such, I have observed first-hand the
`
`development of warning systems in the United States, and have had an active role
`
`in helping to develop those systems.
`
`A.
`
`The Emergency Alert System
`
`27.
`
`The Emergency Alert System (“EAS”) was introduced in 1994 by the
`
`FCC. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of the literature
`
`
`
`9
`
`11 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`regarding the EAS and other emergency alerting documents discussed in this
`
`section and would have looked to these documents for guidance in developing new
`
`broadcast systems. The document at Exhibit 1010, “FCC 1994,” describes the
`
`rules that were in place when the EAS was first mandated in this country. In 1994,
`
`the EAS was an emergency messaging system designed primarily for
`
`dissemination of emergency messages by the President, but that was also designed
`
`to facilitate dissemination of state and local emergency messages. (FCC 1994 at ¶¶
`
`28, 29.) The FCC rules in 1994 required the dissemination of federally-initiated
`
`messages by EAS “participants.” (Id. at ¶¶ 40-65.) The required participants were
`
`radio stations, TV stations, and cable networks. (Id.) The participation of other
`
`transmission networks, including satellite communications systems, personal
`
`pagers, telephone and cellular carriers was voluntary. (Id. at ¶¶ 66-76.) In other
`
`words, the participants were chosen to reach as many people as technically feasible
`
`in 1994.
`
`28.
`
`The FCC 1994 document reflects an understanding of some basic
`
`principles of emergency warning:
`
`(1) Having an effective emergency warning systems is essential: “effective
`
`emergency warning systems can reduce life and property loss and []
`
`effectiveness and timeliness are clearly linked.” (FCC 1994 at ¶ 28.)
`
`
`
`10
`
`12 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Effective warnings systems should incorporate many forms of
`
`broadcasting: “No one transmission system could, in isolation, sufficiently
`
`achieve our goals for EAS.” (Id. at ¶ 34.)
`
`(3) Effective warning systems should include a single aggregator of
`
`messages that may be disseminated by the various transmission systems:
`
`“The extraordinary diversity of technologies available to be used in an
`
`alerting system suggests a need for an architecture that can accommodate
`
`all the proposed media distribution schemes.” (Id. at ¶ 35)
`
`(4) Effective warning systems should evolve and take advantage of new
`
`technologies: “We encourage the development of these consumer products
`
`which enhance the access of Americans to instantaneous public safety
`
`messages. We will work to provide industry incentives by reducing
`
`unnecessary regulatory burdens.” (Id. at ¶ 76.)
`
`(5) Emergency warnings are most effective when they target only relevant
`
`audiences: “The new digital EAS codes will allow system participants to
`
`relay EAS alerts to narrowly targeted audiences.” (Id. at ¶ 94.)
`
`29.
`
`In broad strokes, the EAS worked as follows: an emergency message
`
`would be sent over a digital encoder/decoder device from an emergency
`
`broadcaster. (Id. at ¶¶ 77- 114.) The EAS provides for five different types of
`
`emergency broadcast originators, such as “EAN,” which indicates that it is a
`
`
`
`11
`
`13 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`federal message, or “NWS,” which means that it is National Weather Service
`
`message. Each message includes four parts: (1) a preamble and header codes; (2)
`
`an audio attention signal; (3) the message; and (4) an End of Message code. The
`
`header codes included the following information: the “originator,” which identifies
`
`the type of emergency broadcast originator that transmitted the message, the “event
`
`code” which identifies the type of event which the warning concerns, the “location
`
`code,” which indicates the geographic area affected by the event and which should
`
`be warned about the event, and the call sign or other identification of the broadcast
`
`station or other entity that broadcasted the message. (Id. at ¶ 79, 85 of 119.)
`
`30.
`
`Important to this proceeding, the EAS mandated that the
`
`encoder/decoder machine that received, processed, and transmitted messages store
`
`at least ten “preselected codes.” (FCC 1994 at ¶ 91.) These preselected codes
`
`were examples of the header codes discussed above that were pre-approved for
`
`transmission. For example, one stored header code would be a transmission from
`
`the federal government (the EAN originator), that identified a federal emergency
`
`(i.e., a terrorist threat), a location code targeting the entire country, and an
`
`identification of the federal office that issued the warning. When the
`
`encoder/decoder of an EAS participant received a message with this pre-selected
`
`and stored header code, it would transmit the message immediately because the
`
`header code “matched” one of the preselected header codes. (Id. at ¶ 93.) The
`
`
`
`12
`
`14 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`preselected codes therefore provided a means by which the encoder/decoder
`
`verified the authority of the broadcast agent to send a particular type of message to
`
`a specific target location.
`
`31. Also important to this proceeding is the way that the location codes
`
`were defined. The location codes were also known as “Federal Information
`
`Processing System” or “FIPS” numbers, defined by the U.S. Department of
`
`Commerce in the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the
`
`“Specific Area Message Encoder” or “SAME” coding scheme . (Id. at ¶¶ 70, 80;
`
`89 of 119.) Using the FIPS codes and SAME coding scheme, it was possible to
`
`specify an area as small as 1/9th of a county within a state. (Id. at ¶ 80.) FIPS
`
`codes also allowed for unique codes for alerting specific locations such as schools
`
`or hospitals, or an area as small as a block or a single household. (Id.)
`
`32. One further point is that the encoder/decoder used in the EAS had to
`
`be capable of storing messages that were sent and received. (Id. at ¶ 91.) FCC
`
`1994 specified that the encoder/decoder had to have the capacity to store two
`
`minutes of recorded messages. (Id.) However, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have known that one goal of the emergency alert system was to collect data
`
`on emergency alerts, and therefore, it was desirable to store all messages for later
`
`retrieval.
`
`
`
`13
`
`15 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`33. U.S. Patent No. 5,995,553 to Crandall discloses an encoder/decoder
`
`that was designed to be used as part of the EAS. (Crandall at col. 4, ll. 37-38.)
`
`Crandall is found at Exhibit 1012. Crandall provides evidence of how a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood some of the features of the EAS.
`
`For example, Crandall explains that the FIPS code used to identify the location of
`
`an event also corresponds to the location that receives a broadcast message. (Id. at
`
`¶¶ 36-38.) Crandall also explains that the encoder/decoder “stores voice messages
`
`for playback or for re-broadcast,” which means that the stored messages are stored
`
`for long term use. (Id. at 4:37-38.)
`
`34.
`
`The EAS underwent several rounds of modernization following its
`
`inception in 1994. For example, in 2000, the FCC mandated that EAS equipment
`
`be capable of processing messages automatically, without human intervention.
`
`(See Ex. 1011, 65 FR 21657.)
`
`35.
`
`In November 2000, the Working Group on Natural Disaster
`
`Information Systems Subcommittee on Natural Disaster Reduction issued a report
`
`titled “Effective Disaster Warnings” (“NSTC”). That document is found at Exhibit
`
`1013. I know many of the people that are listed as part of the working group (page
`
`5) and as people who helped with the preparation of the NSTC document (page
`
`56). Based on their professional experience, it is my opinion that many of these
`
`people were persons of ordinary skill in the art as of the publication of this
`
`
`
`14
`
`16 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`document. The NSTC document provides recommendations on how the
`
`emergency alerting system should be improved. NSTC does not suggest
`
`replacement of EAS, and instead suggests that new systems be used together with
`
`EAS. (NSTC at 28.) Its four general recommendations are:
`
`First: “A public/private partnership is needed that can leverage
`
`government and industry needs, capabilities, and resources in order to
`
`deliver effective disaster warnings…”
`
`Second: “One or more working groups, with representatives from
`
`providers of different types of warnings in many different agencies…should
`
`develop and review on an ongoing basis:
`
`(cid:120) A single, consistent, easily-understood terminology that can be
`
`used as a standard across all hazards and situations…
`
`(cid:120) A single, consistent suite of variables to be included in a
`
`general digital message…
`
`(cid:120) The mutual needs for precise area-specific locating systems for
`
`Intelligent Transportation Systems and Emergency Alert
`
`Systems to determine where resources can be leveraged to
`
`mutual benefit.
`
`
`
`15
`
`17 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`(cid:120) The potential for widespread use of the Radio Broadcast Data
`
`System and other technologies that do not interrupt
`
`commercial programs for transmitting emergency alerts.
`
`(cid:120) Cost effective ways to augment existing broadcast and
`
`communication systems to monitor warning information
`
`continuously and to report appropriate warnings to the people
`
`near the receiver.”
`
`Third: “A standard method should be developed to collect and relay
`
`instantaneously and automatically all types of hazard warnings and reports
`
`locally, regionally, and nationally for input into a wide variety of
`
`dissemination systems…”
`
`Fourth: “Warnings should be delivered through as many
`
`communication channels as practicable so that those users who are at risk
`
`can receive them whether inside or outside, in transportation systems, or at
`
`home, work, school, or shopping, and such…”
`
`(Id. at 7.)
`
`36.
`
`The NSTC document was disseminated to the emergency warning
`
`community by email. It was also posted in various locations online, including on
`
`the web page of the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction of the White House’s
`
`National Science and Technology Council. The online version of this document
`
`
`
`16
`
`18 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`had a red cover, and therefore, the document became known in emergency
`
`management circles as “The Red Book.”
`
`37.
`
`I do not recall how I first received a copy of the NSTC document,
`
`however I recall that I received it multiple times by email from various people
`
`shortly after it was first published. The NSTC document was considered an
`
`important document in the emergency preparedness community. For example, it
`
`was discussed prominently in the periodical “Natural Hazards Observer” in July
`
`2001, in an article written by Peter L. Ward, the then-chair of the Working Group
`
`on Natural Disaster Information Systems. This article is found at Exhibit 1014.
`
`The article stated that the NSTC document was available online at
`
`www.nnic.noaa.gov/CENRINDIS_rev_Oct27.pdf. It appears, however, that this
`
`link no longer works. The Observer is, and as of 2001 was, a periodical that is
`
`released periodically and is read by persons interested in emergency alerting.
`
`38.
`
`The NSTC document mirrors FCC 1994 in its highlighting of the
`
`important principles of emergency warnings.
`
`(1) Having an effective emergency warning systems is essential:
`
`“People at risk from disasters, whether natural or human in origin, can
`
`take actions that save lives, reduce losses, speed response, and reduce
`
`human suffering when they receive accurate warnings in a timely
`
`manner.” (NSTC at 6. )
`
`
`
`17
`
`19 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Effective warnings systems should incorporate many forms of
`
`broadcasting: “Warnings should be delivered through as many
`
`communication channels as practicable so that those users who are at
`
`risk can receive them whether inside or outside, in transportation
`
`systems, or at home, work, school, or shopping, and such.” (Id. at 7.)
`
`(3) Effective warning systems should include a single aggregator of
`
`messages that may be disseminated by the various transmission
`
`systems: “A standard method should be developed to collect and relay
`
`instantaneously and automatically all types of hazard warnings and
`
`reports locally, regionally, and nationally for input into a wide variety
`
`of dissemination systems.” (Id.)
`
`(4) Effective warning systems should evolve and take advantage of new
`
`technologies: “Research in support of mobile users using geolocation
`
`systems such as GPS coupled with wireless systems, should seek to
`
`develop warning and information capabilities similar to that becoming
`
`available to stationary Internet users.” (Id. at 33.)
`
`(5) Emergency warnings are most effective when they target only
`
`relevant audiences: “Warnings will be most effective when they can be
`
`targeted directly to the people at risk.” (Id. at 26.)
`
`
`
`18
`
`20 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`39.
`
`Importantly for this proceeding, NSTC suggests the use of the
`
`internet to collect and issue warnings. (NSTC at 24.) NSTC also lists many ways
`
`that specific areas may be defined as a target for a broadcast message, including:
`
`FIPS codes from EAS, zip codes, area codes, the transmitter range of TV or radio,
`
`targeting all wireless telephones that are within a cell (i.e., via cell broadcast), and
`
`using pairs of latitude and longitude to define a polygon. (Id. at 26.)
`
`40. Also important for this proceeding, NSTC suggests the use of cell
`
`broadcast to send messages “to all telephones within a cell or specific location
`
`without knowing which specific telephones are currently there.” (Id. at 34.)
`
`41.
`
`Following issuance of the NSTC report, the Partnership for Public
`
`Warning (“PPW”) arose as a not for profit group of emergency managers,
`
`technology providers and academics concerned with the state of public warning
`
`systems in the U.S., and determined to implement the recommendations in the
`
`NSTC document. The PPW formed in hopes of becoming a Federal Advisory
`
`Committee, with initial underwriting and staff support from the MITRE
`
`Corporation. The PPW’s mission was to “Bring together representatives of all the
`
`many and diverse stakeholders to work toward a resolution of national standards,
`
`protocols and priorities that will assure the right information is delivered in a
`
`timely manner to people at risk from disaster, be it natural or people induced, so
`
`that they are enabled to act knowledgeably to save lives, reduce losses and speed
`
`
`
`19
`
`21 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`recovery.” I was one of seventeen founding Trustees of the PPW. Other members
`
`of the PPW board represented FEMA, NOAA, NASA, the FCC, the US Geological
`
`Survey, NTIA, and the State of Alaska, as well as technology providers and social
`
`scientists.
`
`42.
`
`PPW published a report titled “Developing A Unified All-Hazard
`
`Public Warning System” in November 25, 2002 (“PPW report”). That document is
`
`at Exhibit 1008. The PPW report was published online and submitted to FEMA,
`
`the National Weather Service and other government agencies.
`
`43.
`
`Just like NSTC, the PPW report suggests improvements to the EAS.
`
`And, also just like NSTC, the PPW report suggests that updated be made to the
`
`existing EAS, and does not suggest replacement of EAS. (PPW report at 33 of 47.)
`
`The PPW report also mirrors FCC 1994 in its highlighting of the important
`
`principles of emergency warnings.
`
`(1) Having an effective emergency warning systems is essential:
`
`“Improved warning systems and procedures will clearly save significant
`
`numbers of lives every year, will reduce losses from natural and man-
`
`made disasters, and will speed recovery.” (PPW report at 3 of 47.)
`
`(2) Effective warnings systems should incorporate many forms of
`
`broadcasting: An “Important Element of the Warning Process:
`
`Transmission to a wide variety of warning distribution systems:
`
`
`
`20
`
`22 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`Redundant and robust transmission along local and national backbones
`
`for input to a wide variety of distribution systems.” (Id. at 14 of 47.)
`
`(3) Effective warning systems should include a single aggregator of
`
`messages that may be disseminated by the various transmission
`
`systems: “We also recommend the implementation of a unified, all-
`
`hazard, public warning message protocol, so that industry can modify
`
`existing hardware and build new hardware to receive warnings.” (Id. at
`
`4 of 47.)
`
`(4) Effective warning systems should evolve and take advantage of new
`
`technologies: A “Lesson About Technology Development: Actively
`
`promote continued evolution of warning system design to accommodate
`
`changes in hazard risk assessment, our understanding of the hazard and
`
`all its risks, communication technologies, and constantly changing
`
`demographic characteristics of populations at risk.” (Id. at 20 of 47.)
`
`(5) Emergency warnings are most effective when they target only
`
`relevant audiences: “Recent developments … make it possible to
`
`identify and then alert only persons in the area affected.” (Id. at 32 of
`
`47.)
`
`44.
`
`In the late 1990s, I had the idea of a Common Alerting Protocol
`
`(“CAP”) to serve as an interoperability layer for public warning systems. This
`
`
`
`21
`
`23 of 47
`
`
`
`
`
`protocol would allow a single inputted message to be processed and disseminated
`
`by many different communications networks, including the networks involved in
`
`EAS. CAP was meant to be implemented in an “aggregator” to collect emergency
`
`messages for dissemination. I discussed this idea in various chat rooms and on
`
`email lists, particularly on the Networks in Emergency Management (“NETS”)
`
`email list which I moderated, and which was initially hosted by Simon Frasier
`
`University in Vancouver, British Columbia. The membership of the NETS group
`
`was a diverse collection of emergency management and public safety professionals
`
`and network-technology enthusiasts from the very early days of broad adoption of
`
`the internet and the world wide web. The membership of the NETS eventually
`
`became the CAP working group.
`
`45.
`
`The CAP working group, with me as its original convener, developed
`
`the CAP, an early version of which is included as Exhibit 1007 (“CAP 0.5”). I
`
`originated CAP and remained involved with its development through its broad
`
`adoption by the emergency warning community. CAP was endorsed by PPW early
`
`on in its development. (PPW report at 34 of 47.)
`
`46.
`
`In or near June 2002 I published CAP 0.5 on www.incident.com, a
`
`website which I owned in the early 2000s and which was visited by a variety of
`
`interested parties from government (natio
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
