`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`
`GOOGLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01685
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`_________________
`
`DECLARATION OF STUART J. LIPOFF
`Exhibit 1002
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1002
`
`Page 1 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Qualifications and Background ....................................................................... 1
`III. Summary of Opinions ...................................................................................... 7
`IV. State of the Art ................................................................................................. 7
`V. Overview of the ’948 Patent ..........................................................................13
`VI. Legal Standard ...............................................................................................16
`A.
`Claim Construction..............................................................................16
`B. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................17
`VII. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................17
`VIII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................18
`IX. Unpatentability ..............................................................................................20
`A. Overview of Prior Art..........................................................................20
`1.
`Overview of Tanigawa .............................................................20
`2.
`Overview of Liversidge .............................................................26
`Rationale for Combining Tanigawa and Liversidge ...........................29
`Claims 1-4, 6-8, 18, 21, and 22 are Unpatentable as Obvious
`Over Tanigawa in View of Liversidge ................................................33
`1.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................34
`2.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................50
`3.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................51
`4.
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................54
`5.
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................55
`
`B.
`C.
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................58
`6.
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................59
`7.
`Claim 18 ....................................................................................61
`8.
`Claim 21 ....................................................................................62
`9.
`10. Claim 22 ....................................................................................63
`Conclusion .....................................................................................................64
`
`
`
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`Introduction
`I, Stuart J. Lipoff, submit this declaration to state my opinions on the
`1.
`
`matters described below.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Google, Inc., 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. 7,804,948
`
`(“the ’948 patent”), and that I have been asked to provide my opinions as to the
`
`patentability or unpatentability of certain claims of the ’948 patent.
`
`4.
`
`This declaration sets forth my opinions, which 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 am being compensated for my time at the rate of $375 per hour.
`
`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.
`
`II. Qualifications and Background
`I believe that I am well qualified to serve as a technical expert in this
`6.
`
`matter based upon my educational and work experience.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that my curriculum vitae (“CV)” is being filed in this
`
`proceeding as Exhibit 1003.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 4 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`8.
`
`I am currently the president of IP Action Partners Inc., which is a
`
`consulting practice serving the telecommunications, information technology,
`
`media, electronics, and e-business industries.
`
`9.
`
`Through consulting projects, industry involvement, and educational
`
`studies, I have gained substantial experience with the technologies at issue in this
`
`proceeding. For example, I have prepared analyses and programs relating to voice
`
`over internet protocol technology, including an engineering simulation and
`
`analysis of the impact of over the top voice over IP telephony services for the
`
`National Cable Telecommunications Association Cableshow. I have also worked
`
`with clients to select voice over internet protocol codes and algorithms that support
`
`the client’s current products offering cordless industrial voice telephony over a
`
`quality of service managed wireless IP network. I have also led a project for the
`
`Multimedia Cable Network Systems consortium that developed a roadmap and
`
`specific framework for evolving the business from simple high speed internet
`
`services to multimedia broadband services combining voice, data, and secure
`
`electronic content delivery.
`
`10.
`
`I am very familiar with chat and instant messaging technology due to
`
`a combination of usage as well as the integration of this technology into other
`
`systems. I began using this technology on mainframe timeshare computers on the
`
`Xerox Data Systems 940 computers in the 1960s continuing to explore such
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 5 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`services on Compuserve in the 1980s followed by similar experiences with AOL,
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`Yahoo, Internet Relay Chat, Skype, and many others. I have developed software to
`
`interface cellular short message service into email and chat services and vice versa.
`
`I have recently performed a project that required researching early presence
`
`systems such as circa 1980 MIT Zephyr protocol and chat integrated into
`
`multiplayer game systems such as the 1990s iFrag front end for DOOM. I have
`
`worked with clients who make strategic use of IM and SMS for alarm system
`
`notification to alert on call corporate IT staff for a need for their quick response
`
`services. I have also implemented my own integrated home unified messaging
`
`system that integrates VoIP with IM and email using SIP protocols. In other work,
`
`I performed a design review of a SIP based IMS telecom system for Comcast. I
`
`have used early PC based multimedia internet software such as CU See Me and
`
`Netmeeting. I also regularly employ Web Conferencing systems that integrate
`
`voice with other meeting capabilities in the course of providing my consulting
`
`services to clients.
`
`11.
`
`I earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering in
`
`1968 and a second Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering Physics in 1969,
`
`both from Lehigh University. I also earned a Master of Science degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering from Northeastern University in 1974, and a Master of
`
`Business Administration degree from Suffolk University in 1983.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 6 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`12.
`
`I have prepared and presented many papers at IEEE and other
`
`professional meetings. For example, in Fall 2000, I served as general program
`
`chair for the IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference on advanced wireless
`
`communications technology. I have also organized sessions at The International
`
`Conference on Consumer Electronics and was the 1984 program chairman. I also
`
`conducted an eight-week IEEE sponsored short course on Fiber Optics System
`
`Design. I received IEEE’s Centennial Medal in 1984, and I received the IEEE’s
`
`Millennium Medal in 2000.
`
`13.
`
`I hold a Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) General
`
`Radiotelephone License. I also hold a Certificate in Data Processing (“CDP”)
`
`from the Association for Computing Machinery (“ACM”)-supported Institute for
`
`the Certification of Computing Professionals (“ICCP”).
`
`14.
`
`I am a registered professional engineer in the Commonwealth of
`
`Massachusetts and in the State of Nevada.
`
`15.
`
`I am a fellow of the IEEE Consumer Electronics, Communications,
`
`Computer, Circuits, and Vehicular Technology Groups. I have been a member of
`
`the IEEE Consumer Electronics Society National Board of Governors (formerly
`
`known as the Administrative Committee) since 1981, and I was the Boston Chapter
`
`Chairman of the IEEE Vehicular Technology Society from 1974 to 1976. I served
`
`as the 1996-1997 President of the IEEE Consumer Electronics Society, and have
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 7 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`also served as Chairman of the Society’s Technical Activities and Standards
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`Committee. I am now Vice President of Publications for the Society. I have also
`
`served as an Ibuka Award committee member.
`
`16. As Vice President and Standards Group Chairman of the Association
`
`of Computer Users (“ACU”), I served as the ACU representative to the ANSI X3
`
`Standards Group. I also served as Chairman of the task group on user rule
`
`compliance for the FCC’s Citizens Advisory Committee on Citizen’s Band (“CB”)
`
`radio (“PURAC”).
`
`17.
`
`I have been elected to membership in the Society of Cable Television
`
`Engineers (“SCTE”), the ACM, and The Society of Motion Picture and Television
`
`Engineers (“SMPTE”). I also served as a member of the USA advisory board to
`
`the National Science Museum of Israel, presented a short course on international
`
`product development strategies as a faculty member of Technion Institute of
`
`Management in Israel, and served as a member of the board or directors of The
`
`Massachusetts Future Problem Solving Program.
`
`18.
`
`I am a named inventor on seven United States patents and have
`
`several publications on data communications tops in Electronics Design,
`
`Microwaves, EDN, The Proceedings of the Frequency Control Symposium,
`
`Optical Spectra, and IEEE publications.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 8 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`19. For 25 years, I worked for Arthur D. Little, Inc. (“ADL”), where I
`
`became Vice President and Director of Communications, Information Technology,
`
`and Electronics (“CIE”). At ADL, I was responsible for the firm’s global CIE
`
`practice in laboratory-based contract engineering, product development, and
`
`technology-based consulting.
`
`20. Prior to my time at ADL, I served as a Section Manager for Bell &
`
`Howell Communications Company for four years. Prior to working at Bell &
`
`Howell, I served as a Project Engineer for Motorola’s Communications Division
`
`for three years. At both Bell & Howell and Motorola, I had project design
`
`responsibilities for wireless communication and paging products.
`
`21. Throughout my career, I have been heavily involved in the study,
`
`analysis, evaluation, design, and implementation of systems and products
`
`involving wired and wireless communications. My wired telecommunications
`
`work has been wide ranging, and includes projects for Mitel and Tadiran involving
`
`business telephone systems and the analysis of a next generation digital internet
`
`protocol multimedia nationally deployed telephone network. My wireless work
`
`has been equally wide ranging, and includes development of multiple access layer
`
`protocols used in today’s IEEE 802.11 WiFi networks, and analysis of alternative
`
`cellular air interface technologies that led to Sprint PCS selecting CDMA as their
`
`technology of choice. I have worked with multiple domestic and international
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 9 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`cellular services providers to assist in securing their license authorizations and
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`developing plans for future services. I have also worked with manufacturers of
`
`cellular handsets and infrastructure equipment to evaluate their product offerings
`
`and recommend next generation products.
`
`22. Please see my attached CV for a selected list of my published works,
`
`conferences, and academic presentations.
`
`III. Summary of Opinions
`I have been asked to provide my opinion on whether the claims of the
`23.
`
`’948 patent are unpatentable over certain prior art references. It is my opinion that
`
`each of claims 1-4, 6-8, 18, 21, and 22 of the ’948 patent is unpatentable because
`
`each would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in view of the prior art.
`
`IV. State of the Art
`24. By the late 1990s, instant messaging had become very popular. (Ex.
`
`1004 ¶ [0008].) The Internet and Worldwide Web had become popular, and people
`
`wanted face-to-face interaction in real time. (See Ex. 1005 at 1:32-35, 1:61-63,
`
`1:44-48.) Also, instant messaging kept track of user “presence information,” that
`
`is, information indicating to a user whether other users were also available to send
`
`and receive instant messages in real time. (See Ex. 1005 at 2:42-44; see also Ex.
`
`1006 at 5.) This allowed for efficient real-time communication.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`25. Many companies realized the benefits of presence information, and
`
`adapted instant messaging to work with other modes of communication. (Ex. 1006
`
`at 5; Ex. 1006 at 8.) Some adapted instant messaging services to send audio and
`
`video files. For example, one designed a system where a user could “speak a
`
`response to the instant message,” have that response recorded and compressed into
`
`an audio file, and then send that file to another user through the instant messaging
`
`service by “preferably encapsulat[ing the audio file] as part or all of the payload in
`
`an instant message.” (See Ex. 1005 at 14:42-51.) Another developed a system that
`
`could send video files between users. (Ex. 1007 at Abstract; see also Ex. 1007 at
`
`11:45-52, 13:62-16:23.) The figure below shows an example of how video files
`
`were sent between users of an instant messaging service. (Ex. 1007 at Fig. 10B.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`
`
`26. Others modified instant messaging services to set up conference calls
`
`between several users. (Ex. 1004 ¶ [0010].) Microsoft designed NetMeeting®,
`
`“enabl[ing] collaboration between two or more people using text chat, streaming
`
`video, and/or voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) conversation.” (See Ex. 1004
`
`¶ [0010].) Another reference discusses using an instant messaging platform to start
`
`a conference call. In that reference, it states “IM/Chat systems work well for many
`
`communications, but
`
`there are
`
`times when clients would prefer voice
`
`communications. . . . [O]n occasion the contents or subject matter of an IM/Chat
`
`session can give rise to a desire for voice communications.” (Ex. 1008 at 1:23-27.)
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 12 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The reference created an instant messaging system that could start a conference
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`call by “inserting in an IM a voice communications identifier”; “transmitting the
`
`IM to a recipient”; and then, “responsive to the recipient selecting the voice
`
`communications identifier, establishing a voice communications link with the
`
`recipient.” (Ex. 1008 at 2:5-12.) As was particularly common at the time, the
`
`“communication link” could be through a Voice over Internet Protocol connection
`
`or a telephony-based communications link on a public switched telephone network
`
`(“PSTN”). (See Ex. 1008 at 2:12-20.)
`
`27. Another reference discussed a similar problem, and designed a system
`
`for converting between a texting session and a conference call. It described users
`
`at their personal computers participating in an instant messaging session across the
`
`Internet. (See, e.g., Ex. 1009 ¶¶ [0015], [0018], [0036], [0060], [0062].) It then
`
`described one user using that instant messaging service to determine whether the
`
`other user was “talk enabled,” that is free and available to have a voice chat. (Ex.
`
`1009 ¶ [0066].) Once it was determined that the other user could have a voice
`
`chat, it described the instant messaging service providing a “START TALK”
`
`button to “initiate[] a talk session” in the first user’s interface. (Ex. 1009
`
`¶¶ [0066]-[0071].) That user could select the “START TALK” button and send a
`
`talk request to another user. (Ex. 1009 ¶¶ [0072]-[0073].) The other user, upon
`
`receiving the talk request, could then select the “CONNECT” button and “engage
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`in a talk session.” (Ex. 1009 ¶¶ [0073]-[0075].) This peer-to-peer communication
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`platform was particularly common. But the reference also indicated that the same
`
`platform could be used to start a larger conference call between more than two
`
`users. (See, e.g., Ex. 1009 ¶ [0082].)
`
`28. Again, using an instant messaging platform to start a conference call
`
`became common practice. Many companies developed such services between
`
`February 2001 and June 2003. (See Ex. 1010 (Jabber.com); Ex. 1011 (Yahoo); Ex.
`
`1012 (AOL and MSN Messenger).) In early 2001, for instance, Jabber.com and
`
`MeetingOne Corporation joined forces to provide an “advanced teleconferencing
`
`platform” that had “instant Click & Meet (TM) capabilities.” (E.g., Ex. 1010 at 2
`
`(“Enhanced by customized Jabber technology, MeetingOne users will now be able
`
`to initiate teleconferencing right from their desktop by highlighting users within
`
`their instant messaging client and selecting a single button to teleconference.”).)
`
`Similarly, in June 2003, Yahoo integrated the WebEx Meeting Center into its
`
`Messenger Enterprise Edition, to, as it stated, “seamlessly escalate from instant
`
`messaging sessions into highly interactive WebEx meetings.” (Ex. 1011 at 1; Ex.
`
`1011 at 1 (“With integrated access to the WebEx MediaTone Network, business
`
`people can move instantly from applications, chat sessions and telephone calls into
`
`multimedia Web conferences.”).) As shown in the Figures below, MSN
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 14 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Messenger also had a way for users to set up a video conference. (Ex. 1012 at 13
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`(Appendix) (excerpted).)
`
`
`
`29. Many companies used instant messaging services to communicate
`
`with a conference call server to set up a conference call between participants of an
`
`ongoing instant messaging session. (See, e.g., Ex. 1013; Ex. 1014; Ex. 1004; Ex.
`
`1015; accord Ex. 1016 ¶ [0008]; cf. Ex. 1017.) One reference described “mov[ing]
`
`from message chatting to conference calling by one of the subscribers in the
`
`subscriber group sending a pre-defined message to the server, which message acts
`
`as a signal to the server to move to conference calling.” (Ex. 1013 at Abstract.) It
`
`described a user in a group chat sending a “short message CALL,” which might
`
`include an “ALIAS” identifying other users then participating in the group chat, to
`
`a server. (Ex. 1013 at 6:1-2; Ex. 1013 at 4:27-32.) The server, once it receives the
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`message, would then process the request and start a conference call between the
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`members of the group chat. (See Ex. 1013 at 6:2-32; see also Ex. 1013 at 1:25-27.)
`
`30. By 2003, using an instant messaging service to start a conference call
`
`was particularly well-known. (Ex. 1006; Ex. 1008; Ex. 1009; Ex. 1010; Ex. 1011;
`
`Ex. 1012; Ex. 1013; Ex. 1014; Ex. 1015; Ex. 1016; Ex. 1017.)
`
`V. Overview of the ’948 Patent
`31. The ’948 patent describes a similar “system and method for initiating
`
`conference calls via an instant messaging system.” (Ex. 1001 at Abstract.) It uses
`
`“a communications channel established through an instant messaging service to
`
`transmit a request to initiate a conference call from a network access device
`
`associated with a conference call requester to a conference call server.” (Ex. 1001
`
`at 3:51-58.) The conference call server, “upon receiving the request,” “may
`
`directly or indirectly establish a conference bridge, initiate a series of outbound
`
`calls to each of the selected users from the instant messaging session, and
`
`seamlessly join those users in a conference call using a conference bridge.” (Ex.
`
`1001 at 3:57-60, 4:23-28.) Figure 4 shows an example of the system described in
`
`the ’948 patent. (Ex. 1001 at Fig. 4.)
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`
`
`32. As shown, the conference call server (402) connects to a network, and
`
`stores data relating to account information, user information, and call management
`
`information (406). (Ex. 1001 at 9:13-18.) The conference call server may then
`
`connect directly with telephone networks (408), or indirectly by a third party
`
`conference bridge (410), to start a conference call. (Ex. 1001 at 9:19-25.)
`
`33. The figure also indicates that users (A, B, and C) similarly connect to
`
`the network through network access devices (414). (Ex. 1001 at 9:39-41.) As the
`
`’948 patent states, each network access device may be a computer, a server, a
`
`personal digital assistant, or a mobile telephone, among other things. (Ex. 1001 at
`
`5:39-45.) Each network access device then connects to the “network to which the
`
`conference call server is connected,” and “to an instant messaging service adapted
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 17 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`to communicate a conference call request to the conference call server.” (See Ex.
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`1001 at 6:24-27.) The instant messaging service connected to each network access
`
`device is capable of requesting that a conference call be initiated, and may recite
`
`parameters associated with the call in its request. (See Ex. 1001 at 6:27-31.)
`
`34. During an instant messaging session with users A, B, and C, one user
`
`(what the ’948 patent describes as “the conference call requester”) may request a
`
`conference call through its instant messaging service. (Ex. 1001 at 6:36-41, 6:64-
`
`66, 7:27-44.) That requester generates a message identifying each party that may
`
`be a participant who is a “target” in the conference call. (See Ex. 1001 at 6:36-41;
`
`Ex. 1001 at 6:64-66, 27-44; Ex. 1001 at 7:34-44.) Each target may be identified by
`
`a specific phone number or address. (See Ex. 1001 at 6:41-47.) The message is
`
`then sent across the network to the conference call server. (See Ex. 1001 at 6:47-
`
`50.)
`
`35. The conference call server receives the request, and then “parse[s] . . .
`
`the received message to determine the address of the selected conference call
`
`targets.” (Ex. 1001 at 6:51-54.) The conference call server may also process
`
`whether each user is a subscriber to the server, and whether each user has adequate
`
`charge information. (See Ex. 1001 at 7:45-8:10.) “The conference call server may
`
`then initiate 114 or request initiation of a conference bridge between the
`
`conference call requester and the conference call targets.” (Ex. 1001 at 6:57-59.)
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 18 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The conference call server may further be connected to a telephone network or
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`VoIP connection to facilitate the call. (See Ex. 1001 at 9:13-25.)
`
`VI. Legal Standard
`In forming my opinions and considering the subject matter of the ’948
`36.
`
`patent and its claims in light of the prior art, I am relying on certain legal principles
`
`that counsel in this case has explained to me. My understanding of these concepts
`
`is summarized below.
`
`37.
`
`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, once the claims have
`
`been construed, the content of the prior art is compared to the construed claims.
`
`38. For purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to opine only on
`
`issues regarding the technology at issue, the level of ordinary skill in the art, claim
`
`construction, and obviousness. I have also been informed of the following legal
`
`standards, which I have applied in forming my opinions.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`I have been informed that, for each claim term construed in this
`39.
`
`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
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 19 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`and prosecution history of the ’948 patent at the time of each claim’s earliest
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`priority date.
`
`B. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`I understand that the existence of each and every element of the
`40.
`
`claimed invention in the prior art does not necessarily prove obviousness and that
`
`most, if not all, inventions rely on building blocks of prior art. But I have been
`
`informed that a claim may be unpatentable as 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 determination of obviousness. These inquiries include
`
`(1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`(3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) any
`
`objective evidence of non-obviousness.
`
`VII. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I have been informed that unpatentability must be analyzed from the
`41.
`
`perspective of “one of ordinary skill in the art” in the same field as the patent-in-
`
`suit at the time of the invention. I have also been informed that several factors are
`
`considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, including the (1) types
`
`of problems encountered in the prior art; (2) prior-art solutions to those problems;
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 20 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`(3) rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) sophistication of the technology;
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`and (5) educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`42.
`
`I am familiar with the technology at issue here and the state of the art
`
`at the time the application leading to the ’948 patent was filed. For purposes of
`
`this Declaration, I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`someone knowledgeable in collaboration applications and telecommunications
`
`services. That person would have held at least a Bachelor’s degree in Computer or
`
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or the equivalent training, and that
`
`person would have had approximately five years of experience working on
`
`computer-based collaboration or telecommunications services.
`
`43.
`
`I consider myself to have such “level of ordinary skill in the art” with
`
`respect to the subject matter of the ’948 patent at the time of the application, as I
`
`have a degree in Electrical Engineering and experience in the telecommunications
`
`services. Thus, I am able to opine on how the person of ordinary skill would have
`
`understood the disclosure and claims of the ’948 patent, the disclosures of the prior
`
`art, the motivation to combine the prior art, and what combinations would or would
`
`not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`VIII. Claim Construction
`I understand that several terms have been defined in the specification
`44.
`
`of the ’948 patent, and that my patentability assessment should be in light of those
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`express definitions. Specifically, I have been informed that the following terms
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`and definitions are provided in the specification:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Definition Provided in the Specification
`
`Network Access
`Device
`
`Address
`
`Conference Call
`
`“[A]ny device capable of communicating
`over a network to one or more other Network
`Access Devices using a common protocol.
`Such NADs can include but are not limited
`to computers, servers, workstations, Internet
`appliances, terminals, hosts, personal digital
`assistants (hereafter ‘PDAs’), and digital
`cellular telephones.” (Ex. 1001 at 5:39-45.)
`
`“This is the identifier for where a participant
`to a conference call may be contacted, and
`may be, but is not limited to, a PSTN or
`cellular phone number, such as an ANI, or a
`unique identifier associated with a voice over
`Internet protocol communications path.” (Ex.
`1001 at 5:53-57.)
`
`“A communication between two or more
`parties who are disparately located, using a
`connection allowing the transmission of
`audible, verbal, or visual data, or a
`combination thereof, including
`videoconferencing in which participants are
`visible to other participants as well as able to
`verbally communicate with each other.”
`(Ex. 1001 at 5:65-6:3.)
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`
`1-3, 21, and 22
`
`18
`
`1-4, 6-8, 18, 21,
`and 22
`
`VOIP
`
`“Voice over Internet Protocol.” (Ex. 1001 at
`6:6.)
`
`6
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 22 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IX. Unpatentability
`45. The analysis below presents the technical subject matter described in
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`the ’948 patent, as well as background known in the art as of the earliest priority
`
`date of the ’948 patent. It also presents my opinions regarding the unpatentability
`
`of certain ’948 patent claims based on certain references that I considered.
`
`46.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill would have understood
`
`claims 1-4, 6-8, 18, 21, and 22 of the ’948 patent to be unpatentable as obvious
`
`over U.S. Patent No. 7,233,589 (“Tanigawa”) and U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`
`2002/0076025 (“Liversidge”). My specific opinions as to the unpatentability of
`
`claims 1-4, 6-8, 18, 21, and 22 are set forth below.
`
`A. Overview of Prior Art
`1. Overview of Tanigawa
`47. Tanigawa issued on June 19, 2007, from an application filed in the
`
`United States on August 30, 2002. I have therefore been informed that Tanigawa
`
`is prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`48. Tanigawa is an example of a system and method that uses an instant
`
`messaging service to set up a conference call between participants of an instant
`
`messaging session. (See Ex. 1014 at 1:38-43; Ex. 1014 at 2:6-12 (“[I]t is an object
`
`of the present invention to achieve . . . switching between a group chat using
`
`electronic documents and a group chat through voice . . . .”) I have reproduced
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 23 of 68
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 as an example of Tanigawa’s communications system. (See Ex. 1014 at
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,948
`
`Fig.1; Ex. 1014 at 3:56-59 (Figure 1 “is a schematic diagram of an IM-Voice over
`
`Internet Protocol (VoIP) interconnecting system.”).)
`
`
`
`49. As shown, Tanigawa’s system operates on an IP, that is, an Internet
`
`Protocol, network. (Ex. 1014 at Fig. 1) The IP network connects several IP
`
`terminals (7-1, 7-2, and 7-3) to an IM server (4); an AP server that manages voice
`
`chatting (5); an MD server that mixes voice data (6), and a VR server (10) that
`
`relays voice data between the IP network (1), a radio communicatio