Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SNAP INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`Issue Date: October 23, 2012
`
`Title: System and Method for Pushing Information to a Mobile Device
`
`DECLARATION OF SANDEEP CHATTERJEE, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0001
`
`

`

`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS........................................ 1
`A. Qualifications and Experience ..................................................... 1
`B. Materials Considered.................................................................. 4
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART.................................... 6
`II.
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES.............................................. 8
`A. Claim Construction .................................................................... 8
`IV. THE ’351 PATENT .......................................................................... 10
`A. Relevant Technology Background.............................................. 10
`“Push” Technologies ....................................................... 10
`1.
`2.
`Bringing “Push” Technologies to Mobile Devices ............... 17
`B. Overview of the Specification.................................................... 20
`The Challenged Claims............................................................. 25
`C.
`V. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO ASSERTED CLAIMS ......... 27
`A. Brief Summary of Prior Art ....................................................... 28
`Ground 1 Prior Art .......................................................... 28
`1.
`(a) Noble [Ex. 1003] ................................................... 28
`(b) Hassett [Ex. 1004] ................................................. 33
`Ground 2 Prior Art .......................................................... 41
`(a) Mann [Ex. 1005].................................................... 41
`Johnson [Ex. 1006] ................................................ 43
`(b)
`Ground 3 and Ground 4 Prior Art ...................................... 45
`(a) De Boor [Ex. 1007] ................................................ 45
`B. Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, 15, and 21 Over
`Noble in view of Hassett ........................................................... 48
`Claim 1 ......................................................................... 48
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`-i-
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0002
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`“a proxy content server that receives information
`over a computer network from an information
`source and stores the information to one of a
`plurality of channels based on pre-defined
`information categories, wherein the plurality of
`channels comprise memory locations included in at
`least one of the proxy content server or a proxy
`content server database” (Claim 1[a]) ....................... 53
`“the proxy content server to receive a feedback
`signal over a wireless network that indicates a
`position of the mobile device, and to use the
`feedback signal to select a channel for
`transmission of the information from the selected
`channel over the wireless network to the mobile
`device” (Claim 1[b]) ............................................. 82
`“wherein the information comprises at least one of
`static advertising information, dynamic advertising
`information, default advertising information, or
`content information, and wherein a combination of
`the static advertising information with one of the
`dynamic or default advertising information
`comprises an advertisement or an information
`bulletin.” (Claim 1[c]) ........................................... 87
`Claim 2 ......................................................................... 92
`2.
`Claim 9 ......................................................................... 93
`3.
`Claim 14........................................................................ 99
`4.
`Claim 15.......................................................................104
`5.
`Claim 21.......................................................................106
`6.
`C. Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 9, 14, 15, and 21 Over
`Noble in View of Mann and Johnson ........................................106
`Claim 1 ........................................................................106
`1.
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0003
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`“a proxy content server that receives information
`over a computer network from an information
`source and stores the information to one of a
`plurality of channels based on pre-defined
`information categories, wherein the plurality of
`channels comprise memory locations included in at
`least one of the proxy content server or a proxy
`content server database” (Claim 1[a]) ..................... 107
`“the proxy content server to receive a feedback
`signal over a wireless network that indicates a
`position of the mobile device, and to use the
`feedback signal to select a channel for
`transmission of the information from the selected
`channel over the wireless network to the mobile
`device” (Claim 1[b]) ............................................130
`“wherein the information comprises at least one of
`static advertising information, dynamic advertising
`information, default advertising information, or
`content information, and wherein a combination of
`the static advertising information with one of the
`dynamic or default advertising information
`comprises an advertisement or an information
`bulletin.” (Claim 1[c]) ..........................................132
`Claim 2 ........................................................................135
`2.
`Claim 9 ........................................................................136
`3.
`Claim 14.......................................................................139
`4.
`Claim 15.......................................................................142
`5.
`Claim 21.......................................................................142
`6.
`D. Grounds 3 and 4: Obviousness in Further View of De Boor .........143
`VI. NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ...149
`VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................152
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0004
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`-ii-
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0005
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 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
`
`
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0006
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 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
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0007
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 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. I have developed mobile messaging solutions that
`
`support different types of multimedia messages and that provide notifications. As
`
`part of supporting multiple devices and form factors, I have extensive experience
`
`with a number of relevant technologies, including web technologies, and with the
`
`design and creation of client and server software, devices, and systems, as well as
`
`user interfaces that allow users to send, receive, access, and view content distributed
`
`on the web, including text and multimedia.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`I have attached a more detailed list of my qualifications as Exhibit A.
`
`Experantis is being compensated for my time working on this matter at
`
`3
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0008
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`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
`10. 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. 8,296,351 B2 (“’351 patent”) [Ex. 1001] and
`
`its prosecution history. The ’351 patent states on its face that it issued from an
`
`application filed on March 18, 2010 and claims priority to a series of continuation
`
`applications and a provisional application filed on July 23, 2001. For purposes of
`
`this Declaration, I have assumed July 23, 2001 as the effective filing date for the
`
`’351 patent. I have cited to the following documents in my analysis below:
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2 to Mihal Lazaridis et al. (filed Mar. 18,
`2010, issued Oct. 23, 2012) (“’351” or “’351 patent”)
`International Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/61559 A1 to David Noble
`et al. (filed Feb. 16, 2001, published Aug. 23, 2001) (“Noble”)
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,807,558 B1 to Gregory P. Hassett et al. (filed June 2,
`1998, issued October 19, 2004) (“Hassett”)
`
`1003
`
`4
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0009
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`
`1007
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1005 Excerpts from Anthony T. Mann, Microsoft SQL Server 7 for
`Dummies (1998) (“Mann”)
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,456,234 B1 to William J. Johnson (filed Jun. 7,
`2000, issued Sep. 24, 2002) (“Johnson”)
`International Patent App. Pub. No. WO 99/59283 to Adam De Boor et
`al. (filed May 7, 1999, published November 18, 1999) (“De Boor”)
`1009 Todd Spangler, The Intranet Channel, PC Magazine, pp.156-180 (June
`10, 1997)
`1010 Kevin Kelly, Push!, Wired Magazine, March 1997
`https://web.archive.org/web/19991013012158/http://www.wired.com/
`wired/archive/5.03/ff_push_pr.html
`1011 Castedo Ellerman, Microsoft Corporation, Channel Definition Format
`(CDF), March 10, 1997.
`https://web.archive.org/web/19970731002642/https://www.w3.org/TR
`/NOTE-CDFsubmit.html
`1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,449,638 B1 to Dave Wecker et al. (filed June 30,
`1998, issuing September 10, 2002) (“Wecker”)
`1013 U.S. Patent No. 6,879,838 B2 to Paul John Rankin et al. (filed April
`20, 2001, issuing April 12, 2005) (“Rankin”)
`1014 Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed. 1999)
`1015 Excerpts from Dictionary of Computer and Internet Words (2001)
`1016 Excerpts from Webster’s II New College Dictionary (1995)
`1017 Excerpts from Robert Cowart et al., Special Edition Using Microsoft
`Windows XP Professional (3rd ed.) (2005) (“Cowart”)
`
`5
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0010
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1018 Excerpts from Rafe Colburn, Special Edition Using SQL (2000)
`(“Colburn”)
`1019 U.S. Patent App. No. 09/507,774 (filed Feb. 18, 2000), the parent
`patent application to Ex. 1003 (“Noble Priority App.”)
`1020 Redline comparison showing differences between International Patent
`App. Pub. No. WO 01/61559 A1 to David Noble (Ex. 1003) against
`U.S. Patent App. No. 09/507,774 (Ex. 1019)
`1025 Elizabeth Cowley, Primacy Effects: When First Learned is Best
`Recalled, 4 Eur. Advances in Consumer R. 155 (1999)
`
`II. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I understand that an assessment of claims of the ’351 patent should be
`11.
`
`undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the
`
`earliest claimed priority date, which I understand is July 23, 2001. I have also 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.
`
`12. The ’351 patent states that “a system and method for pushing
`
`6
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0011
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`information to a mobile handheld communication device is provided in which the
`
`pushed information may be controlled and monitored by a user through selectable
`
`channels or content categories accessible to the user through the mobile handheld
`
`communication device.” (’351, 1:19-24.) In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art as of July 2001 would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in
`
`software engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or electrical
`
`engineering with at least two years of experience in software application
`
`development, including experience in developing software and systems for storing,
`
`retrieving, and transmitting displayable information (such as text and images) over
`
`a computer network to another device (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 about databases and servers on the
`
`Internet (such as web servers) and about techniques for transmitting information
`
`over a computer network to a mobile device. (’351, 1:32-35 (“Systems for
`
`transmitting information from databases in a computer network, such as World-
`
`7
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0012
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`Wide-Web (WWW) servers on the Internet, over a wireless network to a mobile
`
`device are known.”).)
`
`13. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on, among other things, my more than 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.
`
`14. 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 ’351 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of July 2001.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`I understand that under the legal principles, claim terms are generally
`15.
`
`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
`
`term not only in the context of the particular claim in which a claim term appears,
`8
`
`
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0013
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.
`
`16.
`
`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.
`
`17.
`
`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 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.
`
`18.
`
`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.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that, in Inter Partes Review (IPR)
`
`9
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0014
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`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 filed in a U.S.
`
`district court (which I understand is called 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.
`
`20.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel to apply 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 ’351 PATENT
`A. Relevant Technology Background
`“Push” Technologies
`1.
`21. The ’351 patent, entitled “System and Method for Pushing Information
`
`to a Mobile Device,” states that it “relates to pushing information to a mobile
`
`handheld communication device.” (’351, 1:18-19 (underlining added).) The
`
`concept of “pushing” information to communications devices was not new.
`
`22. The basic premise behind “pushing” information was straightforward –
`
`generally speaking,
`
`information is delivered (i.e. “pushed”) to a user’s
`10
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0015
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`communications device without requiring that the user make a specific request for
`
`the information. “Pushing” was often contrasted with “pulling” which, as its name
`
`implies, generally requires that a user make a specific request for the to-be-retrieved
`
`information. Push delivery became popular in the mid-1990s as a way to deliver
`
`relevant or targeted content. As explained in the Todd Spangler, The Intranet
`
`Channel, PC Magazine, June 10, 1997:
`
`The premise of push, perhaps the most popular idea to spring from the
`Internet such HTML, is irresistibly simple: Information finds you.
`Push networks, the theory goes, turn the traditional “pull” information-
`retrieval model on its head. To find information the old-fashioned way,
`you have to initiate your search at an arbitrary starting point, and the
`information you turn up might be dubious or dated. And even if you
`think you know where to look, you might have missed some important
`information that’s now old news.
`Push, by contrast, is constantly aware of your information profile.
`Ideally, a push server will deliver exactly what you need, before you
`realized you’re looking for it. Traditionally networks are passive
`storage bins—more like libraries—whereas push networks are alive
`and dynamic personal assistants.
`
`(Spangler, Ex. 1009, p.156.) As of 1997, “[t]he current push craze grew out of
`
`Internet-based content services. PointCast was the first of these, delivering a host of
`
`various news and information channels in a slick interface.” (Id.)
`
`11
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0016
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`23. Spangler further explains that “[p]ush content is grouped together in
`
`individual channels. The administrator of the person responsible for creating
`
`channel content generates the necessary files or information—anything from a
`
`simple text message to a Java application—and submits the content to the server to
`
`be broadcast.” (Spangler, p.157.) As further explained in Spangler, most push
`
`technologies also used a proxy server that collected channel information from
`
`sources on the Internet for distribution to client computers:
`
`Most push products today supply preconfigured channels of general-
`interest news and information. To access this content, the push server
`caches the channel information from the Internet locally, acting as a
`proxy server so that network clients don’t need to access the Internet
`for every update request.
`
`(Spangler, p.157 (underlining added).)
`
`24. Push technologies became exceedingly popular by the mid- to late-
`
`1990s. (Spangler, p.156 (“At times, the buzz on push has grown so loud that some
`
`frenzied observers have predicted the death of the Web browser.”).) As explained
`
`in Kevin Kelly, Push!, Wired Magazine (March 1, 1997):
`
`Billions of dollars are at stake. The Yankee Group, a Boston-based
`market research firm, predicts that within three years, nearly a third of
`the projected $19.1 billion in annual Internet revenue — from
`advertising, transactions, and subscriber fees — will derive from push
`
`12
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0017
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`media.
`
`(Ex. 1010 at 010.)
`
`25. As noted in Spangler, one of the early companies to introduce and
`
`commercialize push technology in the 1990s was PointCast, who was awarded U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,807,558 to Gregory P. Hassett et al., entitled “Utilization Information
`
`‘Push’ Technology.” (Ex. 1004.) Hassett describes various aspects of a push
`
`delivery system – many of which would, more than four years later, find their way
`
`into the specification and claims of the ’351 patent. Figure 1B of Hassett shows a
`
`basic architecture of a push delivery system:
`
`13
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0018
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Hassett, Fig. 1B.) The top of Figure 1B shows “subscriber workstations 200,
`
`typically PC-based computers,” which are “coupled to and communicate with a
`
`caching proxy server 210 that is provided with a data cache 220 where frequently
`
`requested information can be stored. Proxy server 210 is connected to the Internet
`
`250 via a firewall and/or proxy server 230.” (Hassett, 7:40-47.) As further explained
`
`
`
`14
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0019
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`in Hassett:
`
`The present invention is an apparatus and computer-implemented
`method for distributing information to a plurality of client devices on a
`network. The computer-implemented method includes the steps of: 1)
`receiving a variety of information from a plurality of sources, 2)
`organizing the variety of information into information categories, and
`3) distributing the variety of information to the plurality of client
`devices based on the information categories requested by the plurality
`of client devices.
`
`(Hassett, 3:7-15.) Hassett also explains that the delivery of information can be
`
`scheduled to occur at particular times, e.g., during the middle of the night, during
`
`the subscriber’s lunch time, etc. (Hassett, 9:57-62, 10:7-15.)
`
`26. Hassett also made clear that “push” technologies were not limited to
`
`delivering news or nonpromotional
`
`information –
`
`they could also push
`
`advertisements based on the categories. As explained in Hassett: “Advertisements
`
`138 are also stored in the information database 134 and each advertisement is
`
`assigned to at least one of the predefined information categories. Each advertisement
`
`is displayed on subscribers’ workstations simultaneously with news items assigned
`
`to the same category as the advertisement.” (Hassett, 6:22-27.)
`
`27. Figure 6 of Hassett provides an exemplary display showing how pushed
`
`information, including advertising, can be presented on a client computer:
`
`15
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0020
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`
`
`(Hassett, Fig. 6; see also id., 11:31-35.)
`
`28. Microsoft also attempted to capitalize on the popularity of push
`
`technology by proposing an open standard known as the Channel Definition
`
`Format (CDF). (Spangler, p.174 (“The push concept has picked up so much
`
`momentum that Microsoft has proposed a standard format for push content channels.
`
`16
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0021
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`
`Microsoft’s Channel Definition Format (CDF) is a simple, text-based format for
`
`letting publishers define channels that point to Web pages.”).) Microsoft submitted
`
`CDF to the World Wide Web Consortium in March 1997. (Ex. 1011.) CDF was
`
`“an open specification that permits a web publisher to offer frequently updated
`
`collections of information, or channels, from any web server for automatic delivery
`
`to compatible receiver programs on PCs or other information appliances.” (Id., 1.)
`
`Based on the eXtensible Markup Language (XML), CDF defined several different
`
`elements specifying the definition of a channel, a logo to accompany the channel, a
`
`user-specified schedule, among others. (Id., 2.)
`
`Bringing “Push” Technologies to Mobile Devices
`2.
`29. When PointCast was first introduced during the mid-1990s, mobile
`
`devices were not as common or as advanced as they would later become.
`
`Accordingly, most implementations of “push” technology (including the ones
`
`offered by PointCast in the 1990s) delivered content to PCs.
`
`30. But as mobile technology progressed, many began to realize the value
`
`of the push concept to mobile devices. Indeed, this was predicted by Wired
`
`magazine as early as 1997: “Push media will penetrate environments that have, in
`
`the past, been media-free – work, school, church, the solitude of a country walk.
`
`Through cheap wireless technologies, push media are already colonizing the world's
`
`17
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1002
`Page 0022
`
`

`

`Declaration of Sandeep Chatterjee, Ph.D. in Support
`of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 B2
`last quiet nooks and crannies.” (Ex. 1010, at 007 (underlining added).)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`31. For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,449,638 (Ex. 1012) to Dave Wecker et
`
`al., entitled “Channel Definition Architecture Extension,” Ex. 1012, was filed by
`
`Microsoft, one of the creators of the proposed CDF standard. Wecker discloses a
`
`wireless push server 20 that takes information from a content provider 12 and
`
`repackages it for delivery to a wireless mobile device:
`
`[W]ireless carrier 14 is configured to receive web content from the web
`content provider 12 via dial-up or direct internet connection, or a
`network connection. Wireless carrier 14 also includes a wireless push
`server 20. Server 20 splits the content received from content provider
`12 into pieces which are compatible with the particular type of transport
`being used by wireless carrier 14. For instance, server 20 may split the
`data such that it conforms to maximum packet size constraints,
`character set requirements, etc. for the channel type or transport type
`being used. Prior to transmission, the data is preferably translated to a
`different form.