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
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF RAJEEV SURATI, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF THE
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,438,221
`
`1 of 50
`
`IBM EX. 1005
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF RAJEEV SURATI, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF THE
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,438,221
`
`1 of 50
`
`IBM EX. 1005
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 1
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 5
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,438,221 ......................................................................... 6
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 8
`
`VI. BACKGROUND ON NETWORKS FOR BROADCASTING MESSAGES 9
`
`VII. BACKGROUND ON EMERGENCY MESSAGING .................................. 14
`
`VIII. BACKGROUND ON INTERNET MESSAGING ....................................... 17
`
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 19
`
`X.
`
`CLAIM 19 IS ANTICIPATED OR OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF THE PRIOR
`ART ............................................................................................................... 19
`
`A. Obviousness over FCC 1994, NSTC, and CAP 0.5 ............................ 19
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art ..................................................... 20
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 20
`
`D. Differences Between the Claims and the Prior Art and Conclusion
`of Obviousness In View of FCC 1994, NSTC, and CAP 0.5 ............. 20
`
`E.
`
`Anticipation by Reiger and Obviousness Over Reiger and NSTC ..... 33
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Reiger Discloses all of the Limitations of Claim 19 and
`Anticipates that Claim ............................................................... 33
`
`Claim 19 is Obvious in Light of Reiger and NSTC .................. 40
`
`i
`
`2 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`1. I, Rajeev Surati, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`2.
`
`I have been retained by International Business Machine Corporation
`
`(IBM) about its petition for inter partes review (IPR) 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 messaging,
`
`telecommunications, and more generally electrical engineering and computer
`
`science for which I hold a Ph.D., and on the materials cited herein.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`
`I have more than twenty (20) years of experience in electrical
`
`engineering, computer science, and electronic messaging.
`
`5.
`
`I attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) from
`
`1988 to 1999, during which time I earned Bachelor of Science (1992), Master of
`
`Science (1995), and Doctor of Philosophy (1999) degrees in electrical engineering
`
`and computer science.
`
`1
`
`3 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`6.
`
`I am the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 5,943,478, entitled “System for
`
`Popup Messaging over the Internet,” which describes a two-way messaging system
`
`like AOL Instant Messenger and MIT’s Zephyr service built at Internet scale.
`
`7.
`
`In 1996, I founded a company called Flash Communications, which
`
`focused on technology related to U.S. Patent No. 5,943,478 and associated
`
`technology that I had developed related to pop-up two-way messaging over the
`
`Internet. Flash Communications was sold to Microsoft Corporation in 1998, and
`
`Flash Communications’ messaging technology was incorporated into Microsoft’s
`
`Messenger service and Microsoft Exchange 2000 Instant Messaging Service.
`
`8. While working at Microsoft between 1999 and 2000, I worked in the
`
`Microsoft Exchange Server group. The group was responsible for all of
`
`Microsoft’s Messaging products including e-mail, instant messaging, and what
`
`later became their unified messaging offering that included telephony etc. I
`
`worked on many systems, including those that involved multicasting, a form of
`
`broadcasting.
`
`9. While at Microsoft I was an inventor of US Patent No. 6,260,148:
`
`Methods and systems for message forwarding and property notifications using
`
`electronic subscriptions; US Patent No. 6,415,318: Inter-enterprise messaging
`
`system using bridgehead servers; and US Patent No. 6,604,133: Inter-enterprise
`
`messaging system using bridgehead servers. Each of these patents is related to
`
`
`
`2
`4 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`messaging, property subscription and notification, architectures for distributing
`
`broadcast messages, etc. All are topics relevant to the field of use of the patent that
`
`is the subject of this IPR.
`
`10. While at Microsoft I worked on an XML parsing engine for the
`
`standard for IMPP, which is now known by the name XMPP, an XML language
`
`for Instant Messaging and Presence.
`
`11. Between 2000 and 2004, I worked as a consultant and investor at
`
`Nexaweb Corporation, where I helped implement several two-way messaging
`
`systems.
`
`12. Also in 2000, I started a company known as photo.net, which was a
`
`large online photography community known as one of the first social networking
`
`and photo sharing web sites. Messaging and broadcasting content were a core part
`
`of the offering of the site and I managed the implementation and hosting aspect of
`
`setting up and running the various SMTP, MTA, WAP, and SMS servers to enable
`
`communication with our user base. I built an application infrastructure to a scale
`
`that allowed me to be experienced with the issues in broadcasting messages to
`
`millions of users.
`
`13.
`
`In 2004, I founded another company, Scalable Display Technologies
`
`(SDT). I have been the Chairman of SDT since its founding and President until
`
`2014. SDT operates in the audio-video domain and has licensed software and
`
`
`
`3
`5 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`firmware to various companies including Sony, Hitachi and NEC. I also
`
`implemented a distributed multimedia content playback system and spent a great
`
`deal of time dealing with multimedia transcoding and rendering systems. At SDT I
`
`was also involved building a network architecture where I had to consider and
`
`design a system that met our needs for discovery and direct communication using
`
`both broadcast and point to point communication mechanisms.
`
`14.
`
`I am on the advisory boards of several technology companies
`
`including: UnifySquare, which is a unified communications /real-time
`
`collaboration consultancy that focuses on telephony and instant messaging systems
`
`that Microsoft sells (Lync, an outgrowth of the company I sold to Microsoft);
`
`Nexaweb, which develops real-time web application frameworks using HTTPS;
`
`Permabit, which develops content addressable storage; and Evoque, which is an
`
`ecommerce enabling platform publisher.
`
`15.
`
`I have received several awards for my contributions as an inventor
`
`and entrepreneur, including the Global Indus Technovator Award 2009 and
`
`Laureate of 2009 Computer World Honors Program.
`
`16.
`
`I have provided a copy of my complete curriculum vitae and a list of
`
`cases in which, during the previous 4 years, I have testified as an expert. These are
`
`provided at Ex. 1006.
`
`
`
`4
`6 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`17.
`
`In forming my opinions and conclusions in this report, I have been
`
`provided with an overview of the prevailing principles of U.S. patent law that
`
`govern the issues of patent claim interpretation and validity that are relevant to this
`
`proceeding.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that claim terms should be
`
`construed by giving them their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
`
`the specification from the perspective of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” as of
`
`the time that the application for patent was filed. A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art is a theoretical person that has access to and knowledge of all of the relevant
`
`prior art, and will normally have either education in the relevant field or experience
`
`in the relevant field, or both.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that an issued patent claim is invalid as anticipated if
`
`each and every limitation contained in the claim is present in a single prior art
`
`reference, arranged as in the claim.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that an issued patent claim is invalid as obvious if it can
`
`be shown that the differences between the patented subject matter and the prior art
`
`are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The four
`
`considerations that make up the obviousness analysis are the level of ordinary skill
`
`
`
`5
`7 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`in the art, the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the prior
`
`art and the asserted claims, and “objective indicia of nonobviousness,” which I
`
`understand are also called “secondary considerations.”
`
`21. Some of the objective indicia of nonobviousness include unexpected
`
`results from the claimed product or process, a long-felt but unmet need for the
`
`claimed product or process, commercial success of the claimed product or process
`
`and evidence that others have copied the claimed product or process.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that an obviousness analysis must
`
`also include a showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`motivated to develop the claimed product or process and that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success that the product
`
`or process would work for its intended purpose.
`
`23. The application that led to the ’221 patent was filed on February 13,
`
`2004, and I understand that I therefore may rely on art dated prior to February 13,
`
`2004. I understand that I should only rely on patents and printed publications as
`
`prior art for purposes of this proceeding.
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,438,221
`24. The ’221 patent describes a messaging system with conventional
`
`messaging system features: “Public service message location broadcasting system
`
`uses broadcast messaging technology to reach an unlimited number of people in
`
`
`
`6
`8 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`real time, with no pre-event subscriber action required. Public service message
`
`location broadcasting system uses cell-broadcasting SMS (C-BSMS) technology to
`
`provide a message or alert to a single cell geographic location, a neighborhood, a
`
`city, or an entire nation with minimal impact to the hosting telecommunication
`
`network.” (’221 patent (Ex. 1001) at col. 6, lines 20-27.)
`
`25. The petition for inter partes review challenges only claim 19 of the
`
`’221 patent, which reads as follows:
`
`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
`
`
`
`7
`9 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`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.
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`26. 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.
`
`As of the 2002–2003 timeframe, I was a person of ordinary skill in the art based on
`
`this definition.
`
`
`
`8
`10 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`VI. BACKGROUND ON NETWORKS FOR BROADCASTING
`MESSAGES
`27. Broadcasting generally is considered the act of sending a message to
`
`many users simultaneously. Broadcasting is therefore a “one-to-many” operation,
`
`in which a single message is sent from one transmitter to many receivers.
`
`Broadcasting is different from “one-to-one” operations, in which a single message
`
`is sent from one transmitter to one receiver. Broadcast messages may take many
`
`forms, including audio, video or text. Regardless of their form, broadcast
`
`messages are normally targeted to particular audiences. Often, broadcast messages
`
`target a population in a specific geographic area.
`
`28. Many reasons exist for broadcasting messages to specific
`
`populations. For example, messages could be sent for commercial purposes, such
`
`as advertising. Messages could also be sent for leisure activities announcements in
`
`a community by community organizers. Other messages may be sent to inform a
`
`population of coming weather conditions, of traffic conditions, or of emergencies,
`
`such as a chemical spill. In these cases, the population that is interested in
`
`receiving the message is confined to a given area, be it a community interested in
`
`local events, a city with heavy traffic, or a geographically defined area to be
`
`affected by weather.
`
`29.
`
`It is worth discussing some of the fundamental underpinnings of
`
`transmitting messages to provide a framework in which to understand the
`
`
`
`9
`11 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`contributions, if any, of the alleged inventions in the ’221 patent. Communications
`
`and Messaging combines Information Theory, the Physics of Electromagnetics
`
`(Maxwell’s Equations, and Conservation of Energy etc.) and Material Science to
`
`allow society to efficiently transmit messages from point to point (one-to-one) or
`
`to broadcast messages to a limited transmission range, regardless of the specific
`
`implementation (e.g. cable, TV, radio transmission, internet, cellular, POTS (plain
`
`old Telephone service) etc.) Electromagnetic phenomenon is minimally
`
`characterized by frequency and power and the speed of light in the medium
`
`(material) in which it is transmitted (in Maxwells Equations). The medium could
`
`include air for wireless transmission, (e.g., radio, cellular, or satellite) or metal or
`
`fiber for “wired” transmission (e.g., cable or POTS).
`
`30.
`
`In the case of over the air (i.e., wireless) transmission, a message may
`
`be sent and received so long as the receiver is within a limited distance of the
`
`message transmitter. (Fundamentals of Telecommunications (Ex. 1024) at 479-
`
`80.) In the case of transmission over wire, a message may be sent and received so
`
`long as the receiver is connected by wire to the transmitter. In this way, broadcast
`
`messages may be directed to geographically targeted areas that are connected to
`
`these various forms of transmission systems.
`
`31. Prior to the digital network explosion, broadcasting (i.e., one-to-
`
`many messaging) was done by traditional TV, radio, and cable networks. In the
`
`
`
`10
`12 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`parlance of these mediums one thinks about “Stations” as information theoretic
`
`“channels.” (Id. at 277-78.) One scheme by which these services work is to
`
`encode information upon and around a carrier frequency, and then a receiver that is
`
`tuned to the carrier frequency can pick up the transmitted information. (Id.) The
`
`ability to receive the content depends upon the receivers’ sensitivity to listen at a
`
`particular frequency, the power of the signal being broadcast at that frequency, and
`
`any other signals that are being broadcast onto that channel.
`
`32. Another mechanism to send messages prior to the digital network
`
`explosion was to call individual phones using the wired telephone infrastructure.
`
`Wired telephones are not used to receive broadcast messages. Instead, if a person,
`
`for example, a local authority, wanted to send a single message to all telephone
`
`users in a region, that person would have to send many individual message, one to
`
`each telephone user. (See, e.g., NSTC (Ex. 1013) at 34: “Telephones can be dialed
`
`by computers to warn people within a specific area (Reverse 911 or Call Warning).
`
`Available commercial systems allow emergency managers to quickly specify the
`
`small region of interest and to have as many as hundreds of computers dialing
`
`simultaneously with a specific message. New systems are under development to
`
`dial from central telephone switches as many as 180,000 telephones per minute to
`
`give a 10-second message.”)
`
`
`
`11
`13 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`33. As technology advanced, broadcast systems took advantage of the
`
`new technologies, some of which allowed for the broadcasting of longer messages
`
`with more detail, quicker transmission, and updated methods to target specific
`
`geographical areas.
`
`34. Cellular service in 2003 was a fast growing segment of
`
`communication, so much so, that today it is the most ubiquitous mechanism of
`
`communication in the world. GSM (Global System for Mobile Communication) at
`
`the time was the standard governing the use cellular service, and quite common.
`
`(Fundamentals of Telecommunications (Ex. 1024) at chapter 1.) It was created in
`
`the late 1980s and deployed in the early 1990s, and remains a standard today.
`
`(GPRS (Ex. 1025) at chapter 1.)
`
`35. The idea of cellular systems, such as GSM, is that to send and receive
`
`digital information across a geography, one geographically distributes a network of
`
`transceivers (“cells”) with good broadcast power to cover an area as big as 10
`
`miles (analog) or 3 miles (digital), depending upon the type of communication and
`
`the limits of the overlap of the regions. (Fundamentals of Telecommunications (Ex.
`
`1024) at 480-84; NSTC (Ex. 1013) at 34.)
`
`36. Each cell can handle a number of cellular devices. (Fundamentals of
`
`Telecommunications (Ex. 1024) at 479-80.) Each device has a SIM (Subscriber
`
`Identity Module) card in it, usually provided by the cellular provider to whom the
`
`
`
`12
`14 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`phone owner subscribes. (Peersman (Ex. 1016) at 16.) When a cellular phone
`
`enters a region (cell), it connects to a cell using its IMSI (International Mobile
`
`Subscriber ID), usually based on the signal strength of the cell. (Fundamentals of
`
`Telecommunications (Ex. 1024) at 482.) The IMSI is provisioned onto the SIM
`
`card provided by the network provider. (Peersman (Ex. 1016) at 16.) The carrier
`
`assigns a phone number to a subscriber and associates that IMSI with the phone
`
`number. Then, the base station publishes the IMSI, phone number, and
`
`information regarding which cell a mobile phone is in over a high bandwidth
`
`connection to an intermediate authority and registry such as the Network Switching
`
`Center (NSS). (GPRS (Ex. 1025) at section 1.1.2.) When the mobile device
`
`moves, it connects to the cell that covers its new local areas. Thus, when a call is
`
`directed to a phone number, the carrier can route the call or message to the
`
`appropriate cellular device.
`
`37. Most carriers offer voice and SMS (Short Messaging Service)
`
`capability to their subscribers. SMS provides a mechanism to send and receive
`
`text messages over cellular devices. (Peersman (Ex. 1016) at 15.) One type of
`
`SMS is “one-to-one” because a single message is sent from one user to another
`
`user. One-to-one SMS limits the size of a message to about 160 characters so that
`
`the limited bandwidth wireless infrastructure within a cell, shared among the many
`
`subscribers being serviced by that cell, can be used efficiently. (Fundamentals of
`
`
`
`13
`15 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`Telecommunications (Ex. 1024) at 282; Peersman (Ex. 1016) at 15.) Because of
`
`the shared nature of the wireless channel in a cell, and despite the limitation of
`
`about 160 characters, if many messages are sent and delivered at once, the cell
`
`becomes overloaded and cannot deliver all the messages. (Fundamentals of
`
`Telecommunications (Ex. 1024) at 282; Peersman (Ex. 1016) at 15.)
`
`38. Another type of SMS capability is with most carrier mobile device
`
`subscriptions is cell broadcast service. Cell broadcast is one-to-many because one
`
`message is sent to every mobile device that is listening to the broadcast channel of
`
`the cell. (Peersman (Ex. 1016) at 15; GPRS (Ex. 1025) at chapter 1.) Cell
`
`broadcast does not overload a cell because the messages are not individualized, and
`
`therefore, many users may receive a common message at the same time.
`
`(Peersman (Ex. 1016) at 15; GPRS (Ex. 1025) at chapter 1.)
`
`VII. BACKGROUND ON EMERGENCY MESSAGING
`39.
`
`I am familiar with the literature regarding the Emergency Alert
`
`System (“EAS”) that is relied upon for Ground 1 in the petition for inter partes
`
`review. I have also read the Declaration of Mr. Art Botterell (Ex. 1003) which
`
`describes the history of the EAS in detail. As explained in FCC 1994, the EAS is a
`
`broadcast system designed by the federal government with the purpose of
`
`delivering emergency messages to the public. (FCC 1994 (Ex. 1010) at 19 of 119.)
`
`When the EAS was introduced in 1994, it implemented a digital system to replace
`
`
`
`14
`16 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`the older analog system that had been in place with the earlier Emergency
`
`Broadcast System. (Id. at 16 of 119.) The digital system was introduced in part so
`
`that more types of broadcast systems could be used to deliver emergency
`
`messages. (Id. at 17-18.)
`
`40. FCC 1994 includes a mandate that the EAS be updated as new
`
`technologies are introduced. (Id. at 30 of 119.) NSTC is a document that
`
`recommends updates to the EAS and other emergency alerting systems. (NSTC
`
`(Ex. 1013) at 28-29.)
`
`41. NSTC discusses the need for emergency messages to target only
`
`individuals that will be affected by a particular emergency. (Id. at 39.) NSTC also
`
`suggests other broadcast networks that could be used to send emergency messages
`
`in conjunction with the existing EAS. (Id. at 32-36.)
`
`42.
`
`I have read the expert declaration of Mr. Art Botterell and understand
`
`that he and others in the emergency alerting and preparedness community wrote
`
`the Common Alerting Protocol in response to suggestions that were made in
`
`NSTC. CAP 0.5 is an XML schema that is to be filled in by a person who wants to
`
`send an emergency message. (See CAP 0.5 (Ex. 1007).)
`
`43. XML stands for “Extensible Markup Language.” (Extensible
`
`Markup Language (Ex. 1023).) XML is a format and standard for encoding data
`
`that is self-describing. (Id. at 11 and 12.) That is, an XML document is formatted
`
`
`
`15
`17 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`in such a way that part of its format includes a way to extensibly specify the format
`
`of the document. (Id.) When one creates an XML document, the user must
`
`include in the document a reference to an XML “Schema” which describes the
`
`additional format information for the XML document. (Id.) With that schema, one
`
`can then understand and parse an XML document and have a sense of what the
`
`data is in the document. Because an XML document includes data and a schema,
`
`XML is known as a “portable” language which many be used in many computing
`
`environments. Older languages such as SGML (Standard Generalized Markup
`
`Language) kept the schema separate, which meant that the data would be received
`
`separately from the schema, which is necessary to parse the data.
`
`44. With the large amount of information being shared and sent over the
`
`internet, it is easy to see how a data document could be separated from its schema,
`
`if the two are sent separately. With XML, the data and the schema are sent
`
`together, so the information is never lost. Therefore, XML is particularly suited
`
`for internet use. (Id.)
`
`45. The W3C (world wide web consortium), the Internet Standard Body,
`
`adopted the XML standard to be the lingua franca of the internet:
`
`“The design goals for XML are:
`
`1. XML shall be straightforwardly usable over the Internet.
`
`
`
`16
`18 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`2. XML shall support a wide variety of applications.
`
`3. XML shall be compatible with SGML.
`
`4. It shall be easy to write programs which process XML documents.
`
`5. The number of optional features in XML is to be kept to the absolute
`
`minimum, ideally zero.
`
`6. XML documents should be human-legible and reasonably clear.
`
`7. The XML design should be prepared quickly.
`
`8. The design of XML shall be formal and concise.”
`
`9. XML documents shall be easy to create.
`
`10. Terseness is of minimal importance.”
`
`(Id. at 3.)
`
`VIII. BACKGROUND ON INTERNET MESSAGING
`46.
`
`In the early 2000s, the internet was quickly becoming a very
`
`important communications network. People began exploiting the internet to send
`
`messages. Messages could be sent as a one-to-one operation, such as an email or
`
`instant message. Messages could also be sent as a one-to-many operation, such as
`
`a posting to message board or chat room. In the case of message boards, the
`
`population of people who receive a posted message is determined by who
`
`subscribed to the particular message board.
`
`
`
`17
`19 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`47. The internet was also being exploited by its ability to post messages
`
`to people in a specific location. Locations of receivers would be determined by
`
`GPS (Global Positioning System), and messages could be sent via the internet to
`
`people within a geographical area. See, e.g., Imielinski, GPS-Based Geographic
`
`Addressing, Routing, and Resource Discovery, Communications of the ACM,
`
`April 1999, Vol. 24, No. 4. (Ex. 1019).
`
`48. Reiger, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0103892, is a
`
`patent document that describes a broadcast system in which messages are sent and
`
`received both by subscription and by geography, and therefore, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Reiger for guidance on internet-based
`
`messaging systems.
`
`49. Reiger describes an internet interface in which messages are collected
`
`and processed. (Reiger (Ex. 1009) at ¶ 66.) Users can then receive these messages
`
`in three ways. First, a user could be registered to received specific categories of
`
`messages, which could be sent, for example, over email. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Second, a
`
`user could log in to the system and view any messages of interest, which is similar
`
`to a message posting board. (Id.) Third, unregistered users could receive
`
`messages based on their locations, which is tracked by GPS (global positioning
`
`technology) included with their internet-connected device. (Id. at ¶ 89.) This third
`
`category of users could receive those messages only if their internet-connected
`
`
`
`18
`20 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`device includes software which enables the device to receive these messages,
`
`similar to how a cellular phone only receives SMS texts or cell broadcast if the
`
`phone includes software enabling the device to receive those messages.
`
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`50.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the challenged claims should be
`
`given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent. I have further been informed by counsel that, for purposes of this
`
`proceeding, I am to assume that the term “broadcast” in the context of the ’221
`
`patent refers to transmission to all recipients in a target area and not to an identified
`
`recipient. I am further to assume 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.
`
`X.
`
`CLAIM 19 IS ANTICIPATED OR OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF THE
`PRIOR ART
`51.
`
` It is my opinion that claim 19 of the ’221 patent is obvious in view
`
`of the combination of FCC 1994, NSTC, and CAP 0.5. It is also my opinion that
`
`claim 19 of the ’221 patent is anticipated by Reiger. It is further my opinion that
`
`claim 19 of the ’221 patent is obvious in view of Reiger and NSTC.
`
`A.
`52.
`
`Obviousness over FCC 1994, NSTC, and CAP 0.5
`
`I understand that there are four factual inquiries that go into an
`
`obviousness analysis, as I recited above.
`
`
`
`19
`21 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`B.
`53. The scope and content of the prior art is described above in the
`
`Background section. The discussion below regarding the analysis of obviousness
`
`and anticipation also describes the scope and content of the prior art.
`
`C.
`54.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I described the level of ordinary skill in the art above.
`
`D.
`
`Differences Between the Claims and the Prior Art and Conclusion
`of Obviousness In View of FCC 1994, NSTC, and CAP 0.5
`55. FCC 1994, NSTC, and CAP 0.5 were all written to set standards for
`
`sending emergency messages, and would therefore all be considered together by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. FCC 1994 discusses the creation of the
`
`Emergency Alert System (“EAS”), and defines the rules and protocols that must be
`
`followed by broadcasters, such as TV, radio, and cable broadcasters to transmit
`
`emergency messages to the public. (FCC 1994 (Ex. 1010).)
`
`56. FCC 1994 includes all of the elements that are required to send a
`
`broadcast message according to claim 19 of the ’221 patent. FCC 1994 requires
`
`that a broadcast agent send a message that is then received by an interface, and that
`
`the message include information including the person who sent the message, the
`
`text of the message, and the area to which the message should be disseminated.
`
`(See chart at ¶ 64.) FCC 1994 also provides that the system store information
`
`regarding which broadcast agents are authorized to send messages to which areas
`
`
`
`20
`22 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIILEGED. DRAFT
`
`and that all incoming messages are compared to this stored information before
`
`messages are sent out. (FCC 1994 (Ex. 1010) at 34-35 of 119.) FCC 1994 then
`
`requires radio, TV, and cable stations to transmit the messages to the defined areas.
`
`(Id. at 19-26 of 119.)
`
`57. Radio, TV, and cable transmit their messages to their entire listening
`
`or viewing audiences. People receive these messages without needing to subscribe
`
`– the messaging service is part of the regular radio, TV or cable transmission. The
`
`people who receive these messages are all anonymous. And, regardless of the
`
`number of active receivers in a location, the messages are sent over the network
`
`without causing any network congestion.
`
`58.
`
`It is my opinion that FCC 1994 therefore discloses all of the
`
`limitations of the claims. However, I offer the opinion that claim 19 is obvious in
`
`light of the combination of FCC 1994, NSTC and CAP 0.5 because I understand
`
`that eve
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
