Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., INSTAGRAM, LLC and WHATSAPP INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`Issue Date: May 24, 2016
`
`Title: System and Method for Silencing Notifications for a Message Thread
`
`DECLARATION OF SANDEEP CHATTERJEE, PH.D.
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 1
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 1 
`A.  Qualifications and Experience ............................................................. 1 
`B.  Materials Considered ............................................................................ 4 
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 5 
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................... 7 
`A. 
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 7 
`IV.  THE ’120 PATENT ........................................................................................ 9 
`A.  Overview of the Specification .............................................................. 9 
`B. 
`The Challenged Claims ...................................................................... 14 
`V.  APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO ASSERTED CLAIMS ........... 16 
`A. 
`Brief Summary of Prior Art ............................................................... 17 
`1. 
`References for Grounds 1-3 ..................................................... 17 
`(a)  Dallas [Ex. 1003] ........................................................... 17 
`(b)  Brown [Ex. 1004] .......................................................... 29 
`(c)  Kent [Ex. 1010] ............................................................. 30 
`(d)  Bott [Ex. 1007] .............................................................. 32 
`(e)  Mann [Ex. 1011] ............................................................ 32 
`References for Grounds 4-6 ..................................................... 37 
`(a) 
`LeBlanc [Ex. 1005] ........................................................ 37 
`Analysis of Grounds 1-3 .................................................................... 38 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 38 
`(a) 
`“the communication subsystem adapted for
`receiving the incoming electronic messages; and”
`(Claim 1[a]) ................................................................... 50 
`“the non-transitory media readable by the data
`processor comprising coded program instructions
`adapted to cause the processor to:” (Claim 1[b]) .......... 50 
`-i-
`
`
`II. 
`III. 
`
`
`
`
`
`2. 
`
`B. 
`
`(b) 
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 2
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(c) 
`
`(d) 
`
`(e) 
`
`(f) 
`
`“receive a selected message thread for silencing;”
`(Claim 1[c]) ................................................................... 52 
`“in response to receiving the selected message
`thread, activate a flag stored in the non-transitory
`media in association with the selected message
`thread, wherein the flag indicates that the selected
`message thread has been silenced;” (Claim 1[d]) ......... 55 
`“determine that a new incoming electronic
`message is associated with the selected message
`thread;” (Claim 1[e]) ..................................................... 67 
`“determine that the selected message thread has
`been flagged as silenced using the flag stored in
`the non-transitory media;” (Claim 1[f]) ........................ 74 
`“override a currently-enabled notification setting
`to prevent a receipt notification pertaining to new
`incoming electronic messages associated with the
`selected message thread from being activated; and”
`(Claim 1[g]) ................................................................... 75 
`“display the new incoming electronic message in
`an inbox together with any message thread not
`flagged as silenced, while silencing any further
`notifications pertaining to receipt of the new
`incoming electronic message, wherein the new
`incoming message thread flagged as silenced is
`displayed in the inbox in a different manner than
`any message thread not flagged as silenced.”
`(Claim 1[h]) ................................................................... 82 
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 92 
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 93 
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 95 
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 96 
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 97 
`
`(g) 
`
`(h) 
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. 
`3. 
`4. 
`5. 
`6. 
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 3
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`7. 
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 98 
`Claim 10 ................................................................................. 102 
`8. 
`Claim 11 ................................................................................. 103 
`9. 
`10.  Claim 13 ................................................................................. 113 
`11.  Claims 14-15, 17, 19-22 ......................................................... 116 
`12.  Claim 24 ................................................................................. 119 
`Analysis of Grounds 4-6 .................................................................. 122 
`C. 
`VI.  NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS .... 127 
`VII.  CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 130 
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`I, Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A. Qualifications and Experience
`1.
`I am the Chief Executive Officer of Experantis LLC, a technology
`
`consulting company. I am also the Dean of the Mobility Center of Excellence at the
`
`International Institute of Digital Technologies. Previously, I was the Executive Vice
`
`President and Chief Technology Officer of SourceTrace Systems, Inc., a technology
`
`and services company enabling the delivery of secure remote electronic services
`
`over landline and wireless telecommunications networks.
`
`2.
`
`I received my bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science from the University of California, Berkeley in 1995. I received
`
`my master’s degree in Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (MIT) in 1997, and my doctorate in Computer Science from MIT in
`
`2001. I received a certificate of completion for an executive education program on
`
`global leadership from Harvard University in 2011. My doctoral dissertation at MIT,
`
`entitled “Composable System Resources for Networked Systems,” which involved
`
`networked client architectures and systems, was selected as one of the top inventions
`
`in the history of MIT’s Laboratory for Computer Science. This invention is
`
`showcased in a time capsule at the Museum of Science in Boston, Massachusetts.
`
`3.
`
`In 2011, I was named a Young Global Leader. This honor, bestowed
`1
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`each year by the World Economic Forum, recognizes and acknowledges the top
`
`leaders—all below the age of 40—from around the world for their professional
`
`accomplishments, commitment to society, and potential to contribute to shaping the
`
`future of the world. In 2016, I was appointed to the World Economic Forum’s expert
`
`network as an expert in technology and innovation, and I advise world leaders on
`
`issues related to technology and innovation.
`
`4.
`
`From 1997, I was the Entrepreneur-in-Residence at FidelityCAPITAL,
`
`the venture capital arm of Fidelity Investments. In 1999, I founded and served as
`
`President and Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of Satora Networks, which
`
`developed tools and technologies for building appliances and services for the
`
`Internet using wireless and other technologies to extend it beyond the desktop.
`
`5.
`
`In 2001, I joined Bluestone Software’s Mobile Middleware Labs as a
`
`Senior Engineer developing applications and systems infrastructure for enterprise
`
`Java/J2EE, Web services, and enterprise mobile solutions. After the completion of
`
`Hewlett-Packard’s (“HP”) acquisition of Bluestone, I became a Senior Member of
`
`the Technical Staff at HP’s Middleware Division. I was responsible for architecting
`
`and developing the company’s next-generation Web services platform for enterprise
`
`as well as mobile environments, known as the Web Services Mediator.
`
`6.
`
`I was part of the Expert Group that developed the JSR-00172 J2ME
`
`
`
`2
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`(Java 2 Platform, Micro Edition) Web Services Specification, the worldwide
`
`standard for mobile Web services. I am the co-author, with James Webber, of the
`
`book “Developing Enterprise Web Services: An Architect’s Guide” (published by
`
`Prentice-Hall in 2004). This book has been adopted by over 100 universities and
`
`colleges around the world and has been translated or reprinted in numerous countries
`
`around the world.
`
`7.
`
`I have extensive experience in architecting, developing, optimizing,
`
`deploying and managing complex computing systems, including mobile computing
`
`systems and messaging based systems, throughout the world. I have architected and
`
`developed mobile and distributed computing systems, including hardware and
`
`software for these systems. Specifically, I have developed mobile messaging
`
`solutions that support different types of multimedia messages. These solutions also
`
`supported different types of notifications and events based on semantic analyses of
`
`each message.
`
`8.
`
`I have been an invited speaker at conferences throughout the world,
`
`including the 2003 Automated Software Engineering Conference, the 2003 and 2004
`
`International Multiconference in Computer Science & Computer Engineering, the
`
`2004 IASTED International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications,
`
`and the 2004 IEEE International Conference on e-Technology, e-Commerce, and e-
`
`
`
`3
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`Service. I served as the General Chair for the 2004 International Symposium on Web
`
`Services and Applications. I also have served as a columnist on mobile and
`
`enterprise software systems for a number of IT magazines, including Java Boutique
`
`and Dataquest.
`
`9.
`
`I have attached a more detailed list of my qualifications as Exhibit A.
`
`10. Experantis is being compensated for my time working on this matter at
`
`my standard hourly rate plus expenses. Neither Experantis nor I have any personal
`
`or financial stake or interest in the outcome of the present proceeding, and the
`
`compensation is not dependent on the outcome of this IPR and in no way affects the
`
`substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`11. The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my education
`
`and experience in the field of computer systems, as well as the documents I have
`
`considered, including U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2 (“’120 patent”) [Ex. 1001] and
`
`its file wrapper, which states on its face that it issued from an application filed on
`
`February 26, 2010. The ’120 patent further claims priority to a provisional
`
`application filed on April 8, 2009. For purposes of this Declaration, I have assumed
`
`April 8, 2009 as the effective filing date for the ’120 patent. I have cited to the
`
`following documents in my analysis below:
`
`
`
`4
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2 to Kalu Onuka Kalu (filed February 26,
`2010, issued May 24, 2016) (“’120” or “’120 patent”)
`1003 Excerpts from Alastair Dallas, Special Edition Using Collabra Share 2
`(1995) (“Dallas”)
`1004 Excerpts from Mark R. Brown, Special Edition Using Netscape
`Communicator 4 (1997) (“Brown”)
`1005 Excerpts from Dee-Ann LeBlanc, Using Eudora (2d ed. 1997)
`(“LeBlanc”)
`1006 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0161849 A1 to Jeffrey Randolph
`Miller et al. (filed Jan. 18, 2005, published July 20, 2006) (“Miller”)
`1007 Excerpts from Ed Bott, Special Edition Using Microsoft Windows
`Millennium Edition (2001) (“Bott”)
`1008 Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002)
`1009 Excerpts from Dan Goodkin & Wallace Wang, Illustrated Computer
`Dictionary for Dummies (2d ed. 1995) (“Goodkin”)
`1010 Excerpts from Jeff Kent, C++ Demystified: A Self-Teaching Guide
`(2004) (“Kent”)
`1011 Excerpts from Bill Mann, How to Do Everything with Microsoft Office
`Outlook 2007 (2007) (“Mann”)
`
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`12.
`I understand that an assessment of claims of the ’120 patent should be
`
`undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the
`
`earliest claimed priority date, which I understand is April 8, 2009. I have also been
`
`
`
`5
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`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.
`
`13. The ’120 patent states that “[t]he present disclosure relates generally to
`
`electronic messages, and more particularly to systems and methods for silencing
`
`notifications for electronic messages.” (’120, 1:16-18.) In my opinion, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of April 2009 would have possessed at least a bachelor’s
`
`degree in software engineering, computer science, or computer engineering, or
`
`electrical engineering with at least two years of experience in software application
`
`development, including development of applications for messaging (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. For
`
`example, acquired as part of the person’s basic computer education and/or
`
`experience, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a working knowledge
`
`
`
`6
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`about computer-based systems for messaging that included message threading and
`
`notification functionality, which the specification of the ’120 patent admits was
`
`known in the art. (’120, 1:22-32.)
`
`14. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on, among other things, my over 20 years of experience in computer science, 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.
`
`15. 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 ’120 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of April 2009.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`16.
`I understand that under the legal principles, 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. I further
`
`understand that the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim
`7
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`term not only in the context of the particular claim in which a claim term appears,
`
`but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.
`
`17.
`
`I am informed by counsel that the patent specification, under the legal
`
`principles, has been described as the single best guide to the meaning of a claim
`
`term, and is thus highly relevant to the interpretation of claim terms. And I
`
`understand for terms that do not have a customary meaning within the art, the
`
`specification usually supplies the best context of understanding the meaning of those
`
`terms.
`
`18.
`
`I am further informed by counsel that other claims of the patent in
`
`question, both asserted and unasserted, can be valuable sources of information as to
`
`the meaning of a claim term. Because the claim terms are normally used consistently
`
`throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim an 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.
`
`19.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that, in Inter Partes Review (IPR)
`
`proceedings, a claim of a patent shall be construed using the same claim construction
`
`standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 282(b) (the “Phillips” claim construction standard), including construing the claim
`
`in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.
`
`21.
`
`I have applied the “Phillips” claim construction standard for purposes
`
`of interpreting the claims in this proceeding, to the extent they require an explicit
`
`construction. The description of the legal principles set forth above thus provides
`
`my understanding of the “Phillips” standard as provided to me by counsel.
`
`IV. THE ’120 PATENT
`A. Overview of the Specification
`22. The ’120 patent states that it “relates generally to electronic messages,
`
`and more particularly to systems and methods for silencing notifications for
`
`electronic messages.” (’120, 1:16-18.) In the “Background” section, the ’120 patent
`
`states that “[e]lectronic messages, such as electronic mail messages and messages
`
`posted to group sites, can be grouped into message threads” and that “[e]ach message
`
`thread can relate to a particular matter such as a particular topic of conversation or
`
`an activity.” (’120, 1:22-25.) The Background section further states that “[a] user
`
`may receive a notification each time an electronic message is received,” examples
`9
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`of which are “auditory user alerts such as ring tones, visual alerts such as flashing
`
`lights or pop-ups and physical alerts such as vibrations.” (’120, 1:28-32.)
`
`23. Against this background, the ’120 patent states that it provides a
`
`“communication system configured to silence notifications for incoming electronic
`
`messages” that “determine[s] that a new incoming electronic message is associated
`
`with a message thread; determine[s] that the message thread has been flagged as
`
`silenced; and override[s] a currently-enabled notification setting to prevent a receipt
`
`notification pertaining to new incoming electronic messages associated with the
`
`message thread from being activated.” (’120, 2:22-35.) Therefore, the ’120 patent
`
`indicates that “silencing” a message thread means that a user no longer receives
`
`notifications of new messages added to the thread. (’120, 9:37-43, 13:19-22,
`
`Abstract.)
`
`24. Figure 5 of the ’120 patent “shows a flow diagram representing an
`
`example of a method 500 of silencing and reactivating a message thread according
`
`to one embodiment”:
`
`
`
`10
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`
`(’120, Fig. 5.)
`
`
`
`
`
`25. The ’120 patent states that the method 500 “can begin at 502 where a
`
`user can, using suitably-configured GUI(s) and input device, select a message
`
`inbox.” (’120, 11:11-13.) The ’120 patent states that “an inbox generally refers to
`
`a virtual folder with which incoming messages are initially associated” and that “it
`
`should be understood that incoming messages may be organized or flagged as
`
`belonging to or being associated with a certain defined group; or as satisfying certain
`
`criteria (e.g., is sent by a member of a defined group or contact list); and that such
`
`association with a group may be referred to as being associated with an inbox or
`
`virtual folder.” (’120, 11:13-23; see also ’120, 8:32-39.)
`
`26. The ’120 patent states that “[a]t 504, the user selects a message thread
`
`
`
`11
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`using, for example, a user interface such as a GUI 304, displaying one or more
`
`selectable options such as a list of one or more message threads.” (’120, 12:59-62.)
`
`Figure 8 depicts an exemplary user interface identifying two message threads 810
`
`and 812:
`
`
`(’120, Fig. 8; ’120, 15:26-27.) The ’120 patent states that messaging applications
`
`
`
`have various ways of determining the message thread with which a message is
`
`associated:
`
`For example, in various embodiments a filter algorithm may be applied
`to a subject line of an electronic message and/or the body of an
`electronic message in order to determine to which message thread it
`relates. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that there may be many
`12
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`
`different methods of associating a particular electronic message with a
`message thread.
`
`(’120, 11:65-12:7.)
`
`27. The ’120 patent states that “[a]t 506, a user can silence a message thread
`
`or reactivate a message thread that had previously been silenced with respect to a
`
`device the user is using.” (’120, 12:66-13:1.) Exemplary interfaces for silencing
`
`and reactivating a message thread are depicted in Figures 10 and 11, respectively:
`
`
`
`
`
`(’120, Figs. 10 & 11.) With reference to Figure 10, the ’120 patent states that “[a]
`
`drop down menu 1002 for initiating actions related to a selected message thread is
`
`displayed on display 1000.” (’120, 15:53-55.) “Menu 1002 includes an option 1004
`
`for silencing the current message thread. The option 1004 can be selected by a group
`
`
`
`13
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`member using, for example, keyboard 154 or thumbwheel 160 of wireless device
`
`102 as described above.” (’120, 15:60-63.) In Figure 11, “menu 1102 includes an
`
`option 1104 for reactivating the current message thread.” (’120, 16:18-21.)
`
`28. The ’120 patent states that “[a] message thread which has been silenced
`
`may be marked or flagged as silenced in memory 300 by, for example, setting a flag
`
`or other indicator in a data record associated with the message thread.” (’120, 13:9-
`
`12.) After a message thread is flagged as silenced, a user no longer receives
`
`notifications for new messages associated with the thread:
`
`When a new electronic message associated with a message thread
`which has been flagged as silenced is received, any currently enabled
`notification settings may be overridden and notification module 310
`may be prevented from producing notifications for the new message.
`Thus, when a user silences a thread, the user will no longer receive
`notifications (e.g. ring tones, flashing lights or vibrations) when a new
`message arrives belonging to the silenced message thread.
`
`(’120, 13:14-22.)
`
`B.
`The Challenged Claims
`29. This Declaration addresses claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13-15, 17, 19-22 and 24
`
`of the ’120 patent. Independent claim 1 is representative and recites:
`
`1. A communication system configured to silence notifications for
`incoming electronic messages, the system comprising a data processor,
`
`
`
`14
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`
`
`
`the data processor and a
`
`non-transitory media readable by
`communications subsystem:
`the communication subsystem adapted for receiving the incoming
`electronic messages;
`and the non-transitory media readable by the data processor
`comprising coded program instructions adapted to cause the
`processor to:
`receive a selected message thread for silencing;
`in response to receiving the selected message thread, activate a flag
`stored in the non-transitory media in association with the selected
`message thread, wherein the flag indicates that the selected
`message thread has been silenced;
`determine that a new incoming electronic message is associated with
`the selected message thread;
`determine that the selected message thread has been flagged as
`silenced using the flag stored in the non-transitory media;
`override a currently-enabled notification setting to prevent a receipt
`notification pertaining to new incoming electronic messages
`associated with the selected message thread from being
`activated; and
`display the new incoming electronic message in an inbox together
`with any message thread not flagged as silenced, while silencing
`any further notifications pertaining to receipt of the new
`incoming electronic message, wherein the new incoming
`message thread flagged as silenced is displayed in the inbox in a
`different manner than any message thread not flagged as
`15
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 19
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`
`silenced.
`
`(’120, 16:46-17:11.)
`
`30.
`
`I address the claims further in my detailed analysis in Part V below.
`
`V. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO ASSERTED CLAIMS
`31.
`I have reviewed and analyzed the prior art references and materials
`
`listed in Part I.B above. In my opinion the claims of the ’120 patent are rendered
`
`obvious based on the following prior art:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`References
`Dallas (Ex. 1003) in view of Brown
`(Ex. 1004) and Kent (Ex. 1010)
`Dallas in view of Brown and Kent, in
`further view of Bott (Ex. 1007)
`Dallas in view of Brown and Kent, in
`further view of Mann (Ex. 1011)
`
`Dallas in view of Brown and Kent, in
`further view of LeBlanc (Ex. 1005)
`Dallas in view of Brown, Kent, and
`LeBlanc, in further view of Bott
`Dallas in view of Brown, Kent, and
`LeBlanc, in further view of Mann
`
`Claim(s)
`1-3, 5, 7-8, 10, 13-15,
`17, 19-21, 24
`9
`
`11, 22
`
`1-3, 5, 7-8, 10, 13-15,
`17, 19-21, 24
`9
`
`11, 22
`
`32. Grounds 1-3 are similar to Grounds 4-6 except that the latter further
`
`
`
`includes the LeBlanc reference, which I cite to account for a potentially narrower
`
`interpretation of the term “notification” recited in the independent claims. I am
`
`informed by counsel that each of the references cited in the grounds above qualifies
`
`as prior art to the challenged claims because each reference was filed and/or
`
`
`
`16
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 20
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`published before the earliest filing date for the ’120 patent.
`
`A. Brief Summary of Prior Art
`1.
`References for Grounds 1-3
`(a) Dallas [Ex. 1003]
`Special Edition Using Collabra Share 2, by Alastair Dallas (“Dallas”),
`
`33.
`
`is a book that details features and operation of Collabra Software’s Collabra Share 2
`
`(“Collabra”) software product. (Dallas, p.xxix (“The book covers thoroughly all the
`
`important features as well as operational details of Collabra Share 2.0.”).) My
`
`analysis cites to Dallas as the primary reference that discloses the majority of the
`
`features recited in the claims of the ’120 patent.
`
`34. Dallas explains that Collabra is a “like a mail program” and “facilitates
`
`communication and captures group discussions.” (Dallas, p.19; see also id.
`
`(Collabra “presents documents written by people from across the enterprise.”).) An
`
`example of Collabra’s user interface is shown below, which shows a familiar multi-
`
`pane window interface similar to Microsoft’s Outlook e-mail program:
`
`
`
`17
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 21
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`
`
`(Dallas, p.108, Fig. 5.6.) The figure above shows a window for a “Competitive
`
`
`
`Analysis Forum” that includes several “categories” (listed in the upper-left
`
`“Category pane”) including “Swift Aeronautics,” which is selected in Figure 5.6.
`
`The “Swift Aeronautics” category, in turn, includes several “documents” (listed in
`
`the upper-right “Thread pane”), including one at the top titled “Marketing Plan.”
`
`35. The figure above illustrates how Collabra organizes information—a
`
`“forum” includes “categories,” and a category includes “documents.” And I will
`
`explain below, “documents” can further be organized into “threads.”
`
`36. Dallas explains that Collabra “is basically hierarchical; that is it’s a
`
`container inside a box inside a carton.” (Dallas, p.25.) Forums are “analogous to
`
`
`
`18
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1002 - Page 22
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2
`
`the drawers of the file cabinet, and one or more documents are found in folders called
`
`categories,” as depicted in the figure below:
`
`
`(Dallas, pp.19-20; see also Dallas, p.242 (“forums” have “logical file folders called
`
`
`
`categories”) (italics in original).)
`
`37. Dallas describes a forum as a database that comprises a heterogeneous
`
`collection of documents. (Dallas, p.34.) There are different kinds of forums,
`
`including “discussion” forums. (Dallas, p.214.) A “discussion” forum, as its name
`
`suggests, is a forum for users to post messages to discuss various topics. For
`
`example, “[y]ou might have a current events forum in which people post stories from
`
`the news and solicit comments about