Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Hypermedia Navigation LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814
`
`TITLE: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CREATING AND NAVIGATING
`A LINEAR HYPERMEDIA RESOURCE PROGRAM
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER M. SCHMANDT
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 1
`A. Qualifications and Experience ............................................................. 1
`B. Materials Considered ............................................................................ 2
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 5
`II.
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................... 8
`A.
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 8
`B. Obviousness .......................................................................................... 9
`IV. RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ....................................... 14
`A. Overview of the World Wide Web .................................................... 14
`B. Hypermedia vs. “Linear” Documents ................................................ 15
`C.
`Providing “Guided Tours” Through Hypermedia .............................. 18
`THE ’814 PATENT ...................................................................................... 21
`A.
`The Specification ................................................................................ 21
`B.
`The Claims of the ’814 Patent ............................................................ 25
`C.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 28
`
`“map area” ................................................................................ 28
`
`the “linear” terms ..................................................................... 31
`
`“video element” and “linear program of video elements” ....... 33
`VI. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO THE CLAIMS ........................ 39
`A.
`Brief Summary of Prior Art ............................................................... 41
`
`Greer [Ex. 1003] ...................................................................... 41
`
`Richardson [Ex. 1004] ............................................................. 45
`
`Behlendorf [Ex. 1007] ............................................................. 46
`
`Stevens [Ex. 1005] ................................................................... 47
`
`Appleman [Ex. 1006] ............................................................... 48
`Claims 14-18 and 20 are Obvious ...................................................... 49
`
`Independent Claim 20 (Grounds 1 and 4) ................................ 49
`
`B.
`
`- i -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`“A method for navigating a linear Web program
`wherein the linear Web program includes a
`plurality of addresses that correspond to a plurality
`of media elements of a World Wide Web, wherein
`the plurality of addresses are ordered in the linear
`Web program in accordance with a linear
`sequence, and wherein the linear Web program and
`the plurality of media elements are stored on a
`network node, the method comprising:” (Claim 20,
`Preamble) ....................................................................... 51
`(i)
`Issue: Potential Limitation of “Exclusive
`Forward and Backward Links” ........................... 57
`(a) Combination with Richardson For
`Narrow Construction of “Linear Web
`Program” (Ground 4) ................................ 65
`Issue: “A Network Node” as a Single Server ..... 89
`(a) Combination with Behlendorf .................. 90
`“sending data from the network node to display, in
`a display window of a display device of a
`subscriber station at a user location, a first media
`element of the plurality of media elements,”
`(Claim 20[a]) ................................................................. 96
`“the first media element having a forward link to a
`second media element of the linear Web program;”
`(Claim 20[b]) ............................................................... 102
`“sending the linear Web program from the network
`node to the subscriber station;” (Claim 20[c]) ............ 107
`
`(ii)
`
`- ii -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(e)
`
`“when the first media element is displayed in the
`display window, receiving a first signal in response
`to an action of the user indicating a first forward
`link activation, and in response to the first signal,
`sending data from the network node to display in
`the display window, the second media element of
`the linear Web program,” (Claim 20[d]) ..................... 108
`“the second media element having a forward link
`to a third media element of the linear Web
`program; and” (Claim 20[e]) ....................................... 111
`“when the second media element is displayed in
`the display window, receiving a second signal in
`response to an action of the user indicating a
`second forward link activation, and in response to
`the second signal, sending data from the network
`node to display in the display window, the third
`media element of the linear Web program.” (Claim
`20[f]) ............................................................................ 113
`Independent Claim 14 (Grounds 1 and 4) .............................. 115
`(a)
`“A method of presenting a linear program of video
`elements, the linear program including a first video
`element, a second video element and a third video
`element, the method comprising:” (Claim 14,
`Preamble) ..................................................................... 117
`“sending data for displaying a plurality of
`indicators in a map area of a display screen, each
`of the plurality of indicators representing a
`corresponding one of the first video element, the
`second video element or the third video element,
`wherein the plurality of indicators includes at least
`one of: text, icons or graphical depictions;” (Claim
`14[a]) ............................................................................ 124
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(b)
`
`- iii -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 4
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`(i)
`
`Issue: Potential Limitation of “In the Order
`Arranged” .......................................................... 133
`“sending data for displaying a forward link
`indicator corresponding to a next program element
`of the linear program of video elements;” (Claim
`14[b]) ........................................................................... 138
`“selecting, by a server, the next program element
`of the linear program of video elements in
`response to a user selection of the forward link
`indicator; and” (Claim 14[c]) ...................................... 142
`“sending data for displaying the selected next
`program element in a viewing area of the display
`screen;” (Claim 14[d]) ................................................. 144
`“wherein the first video element, the second video
`element and the third video element are stored on
`the server.” (Claim 14[e]) ............................................ 149
`Dependent Claim 15 (Grounds 1 and 4) ................................ 151
`
`Dependent Claim 17 (Grounds 3 and 4) ................................ 153
`
`Dependent Claim 18 .............................................................. 156
`
`Claim 16 is Obvious over Greer, Richardson, Stevens and
`Appleman (Grounds 2 and 5) ........................................................... 158
`VII. ENABLEMENT AND REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF
`SUCCESS ................................................................................................... 181
`VIII. NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS .... 185
`IX. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 188
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`C.
`
`- iv -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814
`
`I, Christopher M. Schmandt, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A. Qualifications and Experience
`I am currently employed as a Principal Research Scientist at the Media
`1.
`
`Laboratory at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“M.I.T.”). In that role I also
`
`serve as faculty for the M.I.T. Media Arts and Sciences academic program. I have
`
`more than 35 years of experience in the field of Media Technology, and was a
`
`founder of the M.I.T. Media Laboratory.
`
`2.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science from M.I.T in 1978, and my Master of Science degree in Visual
`
`Studies (Computer Graphics) also from M.I.T. I have been employed at M.I.T. since
`
`1980, initially at the Architecture Machine Group which was an early computer
`
`graphics research Lab. In 1985 I helped found the Media Laboratory and continue
`
`to work there today. I have run a research group titled “Living Mobile.” My research
`
`spans distributed and online communication and collaborative systems, with an
`
`emphasis on multi-media (including images and video) and user interfaces; I have
`
`more than 70 published conference and journal papers and one book in these fields.
`
`3.
`
`In my faculty position I have taught courses and directly supervise
`
`student research and theses at the Bachelors, Masters, and Ph.D. level. I have
`
`- 1 -
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt, in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814
`
`overseen the Masters and Ph.D. thesis programs for the entire Media Arts and
`
`Sciences academic program. Based on the above experience and qualifications, I
`
`have a solid understanding of the knowledge and perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in this technical field since at least 1990.
`
`4. My Curriculum Vitae is submitted herewith as Exhibit A.
`
`5.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook” or
`
`“Petitioner”) to provide my expert opinion in connection with the above-captioned
`
`proceeding. More particularly, I have been asked to provide my opinion about the
`
`state of the art of the technology described in U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814 (“’814
`
`Patent” or “’814”) [Exhibit 1001] and on the patentability of certain claims of this
`
`patent in light of certain prior art references discussed below. I am being
`
`compensated at a rate of $450 per hour for my study and other work in this matter.
`
`I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses associated with
`
`my work in this investigation. My compensation is not contingent on the outcome
`
`of this matter or the specifics of my testimony. The following is my written report
`
`on these topics.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my years of
`6.
`
`education, research, and experience, as well as my investigation and study of
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt, in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814
`
`relevant materials, including U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814, which states on its face that
`
`it issued from an application filed on June 2, 2015, in turn claiming priority back to
`
`an earliest application filed on October 6, 1998. For purposes of this Declaration, I
`
`have assumed October 6, 1998 as the effective filing date for the ’814 patent.1 I
`
`have cited to the following documents in my analysis below:
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`
`Description of Document
`U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814 to Bruce Edward Stuckman et al. (filed
`June 2, 2015, issued September 26, 2017) (“’814” or “’814
`patent”).
`
`1 I am not offering an opinion that the ’814 patent should be entitled to this earlier
`
`priority date. I am informed that in the concurrent litigation between the Patent
`
`Owner and the Petitioner, the Patent Owner has identified March 18, 1998 as the
`
`date of the alleged invention. I have formed no opinion as to whether the challenged
`
`claims can properly be afforded this invention date, as the prior art on which I rely
`
`predates even that earlier claimed date. Moreover, my opinions as to the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, and all of the opinions presented in my Declaration, would
`
`remain the same even March 1998 was established as the date of invention for
`
`purposes of the challenged claims. In the event the Patent Owner later asserts an
`
`even earlier date in an attempt to predate the prior art, I reserve my right to respond
`
`to such assertion as appropriate.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt, in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`1019
`
`Description of Document
`U.S. Patent No. 6,009,429 to Timothy Dan Greer et al. (filed
`November 13, 1997, issued December 28, 1999) (“Greer”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,809,247 to John A. Richardson et al. (filed July
`22, 1996, issued September 15, 1998) (“Richardson”)
`Excerpts from George H. Stevens et al., Designing Electronic
`Performance Support Tools: Improving Workplace Performance
`with Hypertext, Hypermedia and Multimedia (1995) (“Stevens”)
`Excerpts from Daniel Appleman, PC Magazine Visual Basic
`Programmer’s Guide to the Windows API (1993) (“Appleman”)
`Excerpts from Brian Behlendorf & David Chandler, Running a
`Perfect Web Site with Apache (1996)
`Excerpts from Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical Engineering
`(1999)
`Excerpts from Webster’s New World Dictionary of Computer
`Terms (7th ed. 1999)
`Excerpts from McGraw-Hill Illustrated Telecom Dictionary (1998)
`Excerpts from Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (3rd ed. 1997)
`Excerpts from Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (14th ed. 1998)
`Excerpts from PC Magazine (June 1995)
`Excerpts from Kooros et al., JavaScript (1996) (“Kooros”)
`Excerpts from Sengupta et al., C++: Object-Oriented Data
`Structures (1994) (“Sengupta”)
`Excerpts from Silvester, Data Structures for Engineering Software
`(1993) (“Silvester”)
`Excerpts from Brookshear, Computer Science: An Overview (4th
`ed. 1994)
`Excerpts from PC Magazine (Jan. 1991)
`Excerpts from Gibson, Computer Systems: Concepts and Design
`(1991)
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt, in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`Description of Document
`Excerpts from John B. Smith et al., Hypertext, Communications of
`the ACM, Vol. 31, No. 7 (July 1988) (“Smith”)
`RFC 1866, “Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0,”
`<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1866>
`Excerpts from Webster's New World College Dictionary (4th ed.
`1999)
`Excerpts from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.
`1998)
`RFC 2068 (1997), <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2068.txt>
`Excerpts from Valerie Quercia, Internet in a Nutshell (1997)
`Excerpts from Eric Ladd et. al, Platinum Edition Using HTML 3.2,
`Java 1.1, and CGI (1996) (“Ladd”)
`Excerpts from David Fox et al., Web Publisher’s Construction Kit
`with HTML 3.2 (1996)
`Excerpts from Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (2d
`ed. 1999)
`Excerpts from Crespo et al., Responsive interaction for a large Web
`application: the meteor shower architecture in the WebWriter II
`Editor (1997) (“Crespo”)
`
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I understand that an assessment of claims of the ’814 patent should be
`7.
`
`undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the
`
`earliest claimed priority date, which I understand is October 6, 1998.2 I have also
`
`
`2 As explained in footnote 1, all of the opinions presented in my Declaration would
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt, in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814
`
`been advised that to determine the appropriate level of a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art, the following factors may be considered: (1) the types of problems
`
`encountered by those working in the field and prior art solutions thereto; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology in question, and the rapidity with which innovations
`
`occur in the field; (3) the educational level of active workers in the field; and (4) the
`
`educational level of the inventor.
`
`8.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of October 1998
`
`would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer
`
`engineering, or electrical engineering with at least two years of experience in Web
`
`development (or equivalent degree or experience). A person could also have
`
`qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more
`
`formal education (such as a master’s of science degree) and less technical
`
`experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional
`
`experience in the fields listed above.
`
`9. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on, among other things, my over 35 years of experience in the field of computer
`
`
`remain the same even if I accepted March 1998 as the date of invention for purposes
`
`of the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt, in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814
`
`science, multimedia, and Web technology, my understanding of the basic
`
`qualifications that would be relevant to an engineer or scientist tasked with
`
`investigating methods and systems in the relevant area, and my familiarity with the
`
`backgrounds of colleagues, co-workers, and employees, both past and present. I also
`
`note that the ’814 patent itself confirms that the underlying technology is not overly
`
`sophisticated. The specification notes that the alleged invention of the ’814 patent
`
`“can be implemented in software, in one of a variety of known computer languages”
`
`(’814, 9:60-65), and “the type of computers and communications devices used may
`
`be any one of a number of commonly available computers and communications
`
`devices.” (’814, 10:14-17; see also id., 8:14-16 (“Examples of other suitable file
`
`formats are any of a number of known graphics, video, audio and tactile data
`
`formats.”).)
`
`10. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis and
`
`opinions regarding the ’814 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of October 1998.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt, in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814
`
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`I have been instructed by counsel that a purpose of claim construction
`11.
`
`is determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the
`
`claim terms to mean. Claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, which is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date
`
`of the patent application. Additionally, the person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which
`
`the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`
`specification. I am further informed that the patent specification may be highly
`
`relevant to the claim construction, and has been described as the single best guide to
`
`the meaning of a disputed term. For terms that do not have a customary meaning
`
`within the art, the specification usually supplies the best context for understanding
`
`the meaning of those terms.3
`
`
`3 I understand that, in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings filed after November
`
`13, 2018, claims are generally construed according to the “Phillips” claim
`
`construction standard, and not the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt, in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814
`
`
`12.
`
`I am further informed that other claims of the patent in question, both
`
`asserted and unasserted, can also be valuable sources of information as to the
`
`meaning of a claim term. Because claim terms are normally used consistently
`
`throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the
`
`meaning of the same term in other claims. Differences among claims can also be a
`
`useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that the prosecution history can further inform the meaning
`
`of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventors understood the invention
`
`and whether the inventors limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making
`
`the claim scope narrower than it otherwise would be. Extrinsic evidence may also
`
`be consulted in construing the claim terms, such as my expert testimony.
`
`B. Obviousness
`14. Counsel has advised me that under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103, effective
`
`before March 16, 2013, a patent claim may be found invalid as obvious if, at the time
`
`when the invention was made, the subject matter of the claim, considered as a whole,
`
`
`that previously governed IPRs. The description of the legal principles set forth in
`
`the text, therefore, provides my understanding of the “Phillips” claim construction
`
`standard as provided by counsel.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt, in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814
`
`would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`technology (the “art”) to which the claimed subject matter belongs.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that the following factors should be considered in
`
`analyzing obviousness: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`
`art. I also understand that certain other factors known as “secondary considerations”
`
`such as commercial success, unexpected results, long felt but unsolved need,
`
`industry acclaim, simultaneous invention, copying by others, skepticism by experts
`
`in the field, and failure of others may be utilized as indicia of nonobviousness. I
`
`understand, however, that secondary considerations should be connected, or have a
`
`“nexus”, with the invention claimed in the patent at issue.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is assumed to have
`
`knowledge of all prior art. I understand that one skilled in the art can combine
`
`various prior art references based on the teachings of those prior art references, the
`
`general knowledge present in the art, or common sense. I understand that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be implicit in the prior art, and there is no
`
`requirement that there be an actual or explicit teaching to combine two references.
`
`Thus, one may take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ to combine the known elements in the prior
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt, in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814
`
`art in the manner claimed by the patent at issue. I understand that one should avoid
`
`“hindsight bias” and ex post reasoning in performing an obviousness analysis. But
`
`this does not mean that a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of the
`
`obviousness inquiry does not have recourse to common sense.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that when determining whether a patent claim is obvious
`
`in light of the prior art, neither the particular motivation for the patent nor the stated
`
`purpose of the patentee is controlling. The primary inquiry has to do with the
`
`objective reach of the claims, and that if those claims extend to something that is
`
`obvious, then the entire patent claim is invalid.
`
`18.
`
`I understand one way that a patent can be found obvious is if there
`
`existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there was an obvious
`
`solution encompassed by the patent’s claims. I understand that a motivation to
`
`combine various prior art references to solve a particular problem may come from a
`
`variety of sources, including market demand or scientific literature. I understand
`
`that a need or problem known in the field at the time of the invention can also provide
`
`a reason to combine prior art references and render a patent claim invalid for
`
`obviousness. I understand that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
`
`primary purpose, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple prior art references together like the pieces of a puzzle. I
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt, in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814
`
`understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of at least ordinary
`
`creativity. I understand when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
`
`problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person
`
`of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
`
`technical grasp. If these finite number of predictable solutions lead to the anticipated
`
`success, I understand that the invention is likely the product of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense, and not of any sort of innovation. I understand that the fact that a
`
`combination was obvious to try might also show that it was obvious, and hence
`
`invalid, under the patent laws. I understand that if a patent claims a combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods, the combination is likely to be
`
`obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Thus, if a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, an invention is likely
`
`obvious. I understand that combining embodiments disclosed near each other in a
`
`prior art reference would not ordinarily require a leap of inventiveness.
`
`19.
`
`I have been advised by counsel that obviousness may be shown by
`
`demonstrating that it would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single
`
`piece of prior art to create the patented invention. Obviousness may also be shown
`
`by demonstrating that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of more
`
`than one item of prior art. I have been advised by counsel that a claimed invention
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt, in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814
`
`may be obvious if some teaching, suggestion, or motivation exists that would have
`
`led a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the invalidating references.
`
`Counsel has also advised me that this suggestion or motivation may come from the
`
`knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art, or from sources such as
`
`explicit statements in the prior art. Alternatively, any need or problem known in the
`
`field at the time and addressed by the patent may provide a reason for combining
`
`elements of the prior art. Counsel has advised me that when there is a design need
`
`or market pressure, and there are a finite number of predictable solutions, a person
`
`of ordinary skill may be motivated to apply common sense and his skill to combine
`
`the known options in order to solve the problem.
`
`20.
`
`I understand the following are examples of approaches and rationales
`
`that may be considered in determining whether a piece of prior art could have been
`
`combined with other prior art or with other information within the knowledge of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art:
`
`(1) Some teaching, motivation, or suggestion in the prior art that would have
`
`led a person of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`
`prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention;
`
`(2) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use
`
`in the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt, in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814
`
`
`forces if the variations would have been predictable to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art;
`
`(3) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`(4) Applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready
`
`for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(5) Applying a technique or approach that would have been “obvious to try”
`
`(choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success);
`
`(6) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results; or
`
`(7) Use of a known technique to improve similar products, devices, or
`
`methods in the same way.
`
`IV. RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`A. Overview of the World Wide Web
`21. The ’814 patent, entitled “System and Method for Creating and
`
`Navigating a Linear Hypermedia Resource Program,” generally relates to presenting
`
`content on the World Wide Web to end users. (See ’814, 1:50-2:16 (section entitled
`
`“Background of the Invention”).) The term “Web” or “World Wide Web” generally
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 19
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt, in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814
`
`refers to a particular technique for communicating and conveying information over
`
`the Internet. By October 1998, the Web was commonly understood as referring to a
`
`collection of web sites, each web site including one or more documents or pages
`
`formatted using a standardized format known as HyperText Markup Language
`
`(HTML). HTML documents were (and still are) commonly referred to as “web
`
`pages.” These web pages could (and still can) be accessed via the Internet using a
`
`software program known as a “web browser,” which uses the Hypertext Transport
`
`Protocol (HTTP) to communicate with a “web server” that can transmit web pages
`
`to the web browser in response to a request. A web page may include, among other
`
`things, text and hyperlinks to content such as images and video, or links to other web
`
`sites. The “web browser” typically resides on a user’s (client) computer and allows
`
`the user to receive and display web pages over the Internet.
`
`B. Hypermedia vs. “Linear” Documents
`22. Human beings have long reviewed physical documents in a linear
`
`fashion, i.e. by reading documents such as novels and articles from beginning to end.
`
`This linear presentation was largely the result of constraints in the physical world,
`
`such as the use of paper as the presentation medium. As one author explained:
`
`In most conventional paper documents—such as journal articles,
`specifications, or novels—physical structure and logical structure are
`closely related. Physically, the document is a long linear sequence of
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 20
`
`

`

`Declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt, in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9