UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`TIKTOK INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`10TALES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`__________
`
`IPR Case No. IPR2021-00476
`Patent 8,856,030
`
`__________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. KEVIN ALMEROTH
`
`IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,856,030
`
`Executed this 9th day of February, 2021 at Santa Barbara, California.
`
`___________________________
` Dr. Kevin Almeroth
`
`-i-
`
`
`TikTok TTI-1003, Page 1
`IPR2021-00476 (TikTok Inc. v. 10Tales Inc.)
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND CREDENTIALS .................................. 1
`
`BASIS FOR OPINIONS, AND MATERIALS REVIEWED ....................... 11
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ......................................................................... 13
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 14
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 16
`
`Claim Interpretation in Inter Partes Review ....................................... 23
`
`VII. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................... 24
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Evolution of Personalization ............................................................... 24
`
`Evolution of Social Networks and Integration with
`Personalization Systems ...................................................................... 27
`
`Evolution of Composite Displays and Integration with
`Personalization Systems ...................................................................... 33
`
`Evolution of Computer Readable Storage Medium for Server
`Based Systems ..................................................................................... 37
`
`VIII. THE ‘030 Patent ............................................................................................ 39
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Features and Embodiments of the ‘030 Patent .................................... 39
`
`Prosecution History of the ’030 Patent ............................................... 45
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’030 Patent ................................................. 56
`
`Grounds of Unpatentability of the ’030 Patent ................................... 56
`
`IX.
`
`THE PRIOR ART .......................................................................................... 56
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Bar-El ............................................................................. 56
`
`Overview of Reisman .......................................................................... 62
`
`Overview of Leeke .............................................................................. 68
`
`X.
`
`OPINIONS IN SUPPORT OF GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`OF THE ’689 Patent ...................................................................................... 71
`
`-ii-
`
`TTI-1003, Page 2
`
`

`

`A.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1 and 2 Are Rendered Obvious by Bar-El in
`View of Reisman ................................................................................. 71
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 71
`
`Claim 2 ................................................................................... 114
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1 and 2 Are Rendered Obvious by Bar-El in
`View of Leeke and Further in View of Reisman .............................. 115
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 ................................................................................... 116
`
`Claim 2 ................................................................................... 122
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1 and 2 Are Rendered Obvious by Leeke in
`view of Reisman ................................................................................ 123
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 ................................................................................... 123
`
`Claim 2 ................................................................................... 144
`
`D.
`
`Obviousness and Motivation to Combine ......................................... 145
`
`1.
`
`Bar-El, Leeke, and Reisman are Analogous Art ................ 145
`
`2. Motivation to Combine Bar-El with Leeke with
`respect to Claim Elements 1[b], 1[c], and/or 1[d] .............. 146
`
`3. Motivation to Combine Bar-El and Leeke with
`Reisman with respect to Claim Element 1[g] ..................... 151
`
`4.
`
`Additional Reasons for Combining the References as
`Described ................................................................................ 163
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 173
`
`-iii-
`
`TTI-1003, Page 3
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. I have been retained by TIKTOK INC., (“Petitioner”) to provide my expert
`
`opinions regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,856,030 (“the ’030 Patent”) assigned to
`
`10Tales, Inc. (“Patent Owner” or “PO”). More specifically, I have been
`
`asked to compare Claims 1 and 2, of the ’030 Patent, to prior art
`
`patents and publications, and to render an opinion on the validity of those
`
`claims. I submit this Declaration in support of Petitioner’s petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of the ‘030 Patent.
`
`2. I am being compensated for my work in this matter at a rate of $750 per hour.
`
`I am also being reimbursed for expenses that I incur during the course of this
`
`work. My compensation in no way depends upon the outcome of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND CREDENTIALS
`
`3. My qualifications for presenting the opinions in this Declaration are set forth
`
`herein, including in my curriculum vitae attached hereto as Appendix A,
`
`which is summarized below.
`
`4. I am currently a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Computer Science
`
`at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). While active at
`
`UCSB, I held faculty appointments and was a founding member of the
`
`-1-
`
`TTI-1003, Page 4
`
`

`

`Computer Engineering (CE) Program, Media Arts and Technology (MAT)
`
`Program, and the Technology Management Program (TMP). I also served as
`
`the Associate Director of the Center for Information Technology and Society
`
`(CITS) from 1999 to 2012. I have been a faculty member at UCSB since July
`
`1997.
`
`5.
`
`I hold three degrees from the Georgia Institute of Technology: (1) a Bachelor
`
`of Science degree in Information and Computer Science (with minors in
`
`Economics, Technical Communication, and American Literature) earned in
`
`June 1992; (2) a Master of Science degree in Computer Science (with
`
`specialization in Networking and Systems) earned in June 1994; and (3) a
`
`Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in Computer Science (Dissertation Title:
`
`Networking and System Support for the Efficient, Scalable Delivery of
`
`Services in Interactive Multimedia System, minor in Telecommunications
`
`Public Policy) earned in June 1997. During my education, I have taken a wide
`
`variety of courses as demonstrated by my minor.
`
`6. One of the major concentrations of my research from the beginning has been
`
`the delivery of multimedia content and data between computing devices,
`
`including various network architectures. For example, in my dissertation, I
`
`evaluated interactive multimedia systems, which are relevant to the technical
`
`field of the ’030 Patent. In my research, I have studied large-scale content
`
`-2-
`
`TTI-1003, Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`delivery systems, and the use of servers located in a variety of geographic
`
`locations to provide scalable delivery to hundreds or thousands of users
`
`simultaneously. I have also studied smaller-scale content delivery systems in
`
`which content is exchanged between individual computers and portable
`
`devices. My work has emphasized the exchange of content more efficiently
`
`across computer networks, including the scalable delivery of content to many
`
`users, mobile computing, satellite networking, delivering content to mobile
`
`devices, and network support for data delivery in wireless networks.
`
`7. An important component of my research has been investigating the challenges
`
`of communicating multimedia content, including video, between computers
`
`and across networks including the Internet. Although the early Internet was
`
`used mostly for text-based, non-real time applications, the interest in sharing
`
`multimedia content, such as video, quickly developed. Multimedia-based
`
`applications ranged from downloading content to a device to streaming
`
`multimedia content to be instantly used. One of the challenges was that
`
`multimedia content is typically larger than text-only content, but there are also
`
`opportunities to use different delivery techniques since multimedia content is
`
`more resilient to errors. I have worked on a variety of research problems and
`
`used a number of systems that were developed to deliver multimedia content
`
`to users. One content-delivery method I have researched is the one-to-many
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1003, Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`communication facility called “multicast,” first deployed as the Multicast
`
`Backbone, a virtual overlay network supporting one-to-many communication.
`
`Multicast is one technique that can be used on the Internet to provide
`
`streaming media support for complex applications like video-on-demand,
`
`distance learning, distributed collaboration, distributed games, and large-scale
`
`wireless communication. The delivery of media through multicast often
`
`involves using Internet infrastructure, devices and protocols, including
`
`protocols for routing and TCP/IP. My research in this area extended prior to,
`
`during, and after the time frame of the ’030 patent.
`
`8. As a parallel research theme, starting in 1997, I began researching issues
`
`related to wireless devices and sensors. In particular, I was interested in
`
`showing how to provide greater communication capability to “lightweight
`
`devices,” i.e., small form-factor, resource-constrained (e.g., CPU, memory,
`
`networking, and power) devices. Starting in 1998, I published several papers
`
`on my work to develop a flexible, lightweight, battery-aware network protocol
`
`stack. The lightweight protocols we envisioned were similar in nature to
`
`protocols like Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) and Digital Living Network
`
`Alliance (DLNA).
`
`9. Between 2002 and 2004, I developed a digital classroom at UCSB to enable
`
`real-time collaboration, and for lectures and presentations to be archived and
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1003, Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reviewed at a later time, which is particularly relevant to the ’030 Patent
`
`technology. One goal of this research was to ensure distance learning students
`
`felt included in the lectures they attended remotely. To this end, the digital
`
`classroom I helped to develop utilized multiple cameras distributed across
`
`different locations in a room that, together, captured all of the classroom
`
`activity in composite displays. All the cameras were connected to an
`
`electronic network so their video feeds could be combined in composite
`
`display and shared with remote students.
`
`10. Employing such a system for distance learning required experimentation with
`
`a variety of different video encoders to select one that is most suitable for
`
`livestreaming. Over the duration of the research, the cameras we used
`
`required periodic software updates to enable new features or render them
`
`compatible with new technologies. In particular, controlling and maintaining
`
`numerous, heterogeneous video capturing devices introduced a non-trivial bit
`
`of complexity that required developing a specialized digital classroom
`
`infrastructure. My work developing and programming this video and camera-
`
`based distance learning system spanned several years and is described in my
`
`refereed conference papers listed in my CV.
`
`11. I have co-authored papers corresponding to significant research at the
`
`intersection of social networks and media. I have also conducted significant
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1003, Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`research on the fundamentals of media distribution technologies (e.g.,
`
`streaming, content delivery systems). For a complete list of research and
`
`papers, see my CV, attached as Appendix A. Some specific examples include:
`
`• "On Pricing Algorithms for Batched Content Delivery Systems,"
`
`Electronic Commerce Research and Applications Journal, vol. 1,
`
`num. 3-4, pp. 264-280, Fall 2002.
`
`• "Does Social Contact Matter? Modelling the Hidden Web of
`
`Trust Underlying Twitter," ACM International Workshop on
`
`Social Recommender Systems (SRS), Rio de Janeiro, BRAZIL,
`
`May 2013;
`
`• "Do Social Networks Improve e-Commerce: A Study on Social
`
`Marketplaces," ACM Sigcomm Workshop on Online Social
`
`Networks (WOSN), Seattle, Washington, USA, August 2008.1
`
`• "Social Computing: An Intersection of Recommender Systems,
`
`Trust/Reputation Systems, and Social Networks,"
`
`IEEE
`
`Network, Vol. 26, Num. 4, pp. 53-58, July/August 2012.
`
`
`1 In this related research, I studied how users value content, and their affinities for
`content.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1003, Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• "Exploiting Locality of Interest in Online Social Networks,"
`
`ACM CoNEXT, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, November
`
`2010.
`
`12. I have also conducted numerous tutorials and lectures on social applications
`
`and services on the Internet, economic incentives (such as how content is
`
`valued), multicast technologies, including in the time frame of the ’030 Patent.
`
`For a complete list of tutorial and lectures, see my CV, attached as Appendix
`
`A.
`
`13. As an additional important component of my research program, I have been
`
`involved in the development of academic research into available technology
`
`in the market place. One aspect of this work is my involvement in the Internet
`
`Engineering Task Force (IETF). The IETF is a large and open international
`
`community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers
`
`concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth
`
`operation of the Internet. I have been involved in various IETF groups
`
`including many content delivery-related working groups like the Audio Video
`
`Transport (AVT) group, the MBone Deployment (MBONED) group, Source
`
`Specific Multicast (SSM) group, the Inter-Domain Multicast Routing (IDMR)
`
`group, the Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) group, the Protocol
`
`Independent Multicast (PIM) group, etc. I have also served as a member of
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1003, Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Multicast Directorate (MADDOGS), which oversaw the standardization
`
`of all things related to multicast in the IETF. Finally, I was the Chair of the
`
`Internet2 Multicast Working Group for seven years.
`
`14. My involvement in the research community extends to leadership positions
`
`for several academic journals and conferences. I am the co-chair of the
`
`Steering Committee for the ACM Network and System Support for Digital
`
`Audio and Video (NOSSDAV) workshop and on the Steering Committees for
`
`the International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), ACM Sigcomm
`
`Workshop on Challenged Networks (CHANTS), and IEEE Global Internet
`
`(GI) Symposium. I have served or am serving on the Editorial Boards of
`
`IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, IEEE Transactions on Mobile
`
`Computing, IEEE Network, ACM Computers in Entertainment, AACE
`
`Journal of Interactive Learning Research (JILR), and ACM Computer
`
`Communications Review. I have co-chaired a number of conferences and
`
`workshops including the IEEE International Conference on Network
`
`Protocols (ICNP), IEEE Conference on Sensor, Mesh and Ad Hoc
`
`Communications and Networks (SECON), International Conference on
`
`Communication Systems and Networks
`
`(COMSNETS),
`
`IFIP/IEEE
`
`International Conference on Management of Multimedia Networks and
`
`Services (MMNS), the International Workshop On Wireless Network
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1003, Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Measurement (WiNMee), ACM Sigcomm Workshop on Challenged
`
`Networks (CHANTS), the Network Group Communication (NGC) workshop,
`
`and the Global Internet Symposium, and I have served on the program
`
`committees for numerous conferences.
`
`15. Furthermore, in the courses I teach at UCSB, a significant portion of my
`
`curriculum covers aspects of the Internet and network communication
`
`including the physical and data link layers, and standardized protocols for
`
`communicating across a variety of physical media such as cable systems,
`
`telephone lines, wireless, and high-speed Local Area Networks (LANs). The
`
`courses I have taught also cover most major topics in Internet communication,
`
`including data communication, content delivery, multimedia encoding, and
`
`mobile application design. Further, the courses I taught covered societal and
`
`services aspects, such as Technology and Society, Media Networks and
`
`Services, and Economics Systems Seminar. I taught many of these relevant
`
`courses prior to and at the time of the ’030 Patent. For example, I taught
`
`Distributed Computing and Computer Networks, Network Computing,
`
`Introduction to Computer Communication Networks, Networking for
`
`Multimedia, Media Networks and Services, and a short course titled The
`
`Evolution of Advanced Networking Services, at or prior to the time of the ’030
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1003, Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent. For a complete list of courses I have taught, see my CV, attached as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`16. In addition, I co-founded a technology company called Santa Barbara Labs
`
`that was working under a sub-contract from the U.S. Air Force to develop
`
`very accurate emulation systems for the military’s next generation
`
`internetwork. Santa Barbara Labs’ focus was in developing an emulation
`
`platform to test the performance characteristics of the network architecture in
`
`the variety of environments in which it was expected to operate, and, in
`
`particular, for network services including IPv6, multicast, Quality of Service
`
`(QoS), satellite-based communication, and security. Applications for this
`
`emulation program included communication of a variety of multimedia-based
`
`services, including video conferencing and video-on-demand.
`
`17. In addition to having co-founded a technology company myself, I have
`
`worked for, consulted with, and collaborated with companies for nearly 30
`
`years. These companies range from well-established companies to start-ups
`
`and include IBM, Hitachi Telecom, Turner Broadcasting System (TBS), Bell
`
`South, Digital Fountain, RealNetworks, Intel Research, Cisco Systems, and
`
`Lockheed Martin.
`
`18. I am a Member of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) and a
`
`Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1003, Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`19. As set forth in my CV, I have authored nearly 200 refereed papers on topics
`
`including mesh networks, wireless network monitoring and management,
`
`information dissemination in mobile networks, multicast applications support,
`
`multicast security, and tools for multicast monitoring and management.
`
`20. Additional details about my employment history, fields of expertise, and
`
`publications are further included in my CV, attached as Appendix A.
`
`III. BASIS FOR OPINIONS, AND MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`21. The opinions set forth in my Declaration are based on my personal knowledge
`
`gained from my education, on my personal experience, and on the review of
`
`the documents and information described in this Declaration.
`
`22. In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed:
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`TTI-1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,856,030 to Russek
`TTI-1002 U.S. Patent No. 8,856,030 File History
`TTI-1003 Declaration of Kevin Almeroth
`
`TTI-1004 WO 1999/026415A1 to Bar-El
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011021941 to
`Reisman
`TTI-1006 U.S. Patent No. 6587491 to Leeke et. al
`
`TTI-1005
`
`TTI-1007 Reisman Provisional 60/455,433
`
`TTI-1008 Reisman Provisional 60/408,605
`
`TTI-1009 Reisman Provisional 60/379,635
`
`TTI-1010 PCT Pub. WO2003015406 to Dempski
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1003, Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`TTI-1011
`
`TTI-1012
`
`TTI-1013
`
`Nielsen Adrelevance. Available at
`web.archive.org/web/20030210102338/h
`ttp://www.adrelevance.com/services/serv
`ices_tour.jsp
`Nielsen NetRatings. Available at
`web.archive.org/web/20021010055740/h
`ttp://www.nielsen-
`netratings.com/corporate/partners.htm
`Nielsen Monitor. Available at
`web.archive.org/web/20030208081141/h
`ttp://nielsen.com/nielsen_monitor-
`plus.html
`Recommending and Evaluating Choices
`in a Virtual Community of Use to Hill
`Social Information Filtering for Music
`Recommendation to Shardanand
`Virtual Communities of Transaction to
`Schubert
`, “Content-Based Collaborative
`Recommendation,” Comm. ACM, Mar.
`1997, to Balabanovic et. al.
`Data Mining Industry Emerging Trends
`to Aldana
`TTI-1019 U.S. Patent No. 7483871 to Herz
`TTI-1020 U.S. Patent 7483871 to Patel et. al.
`TTI-1021 WO 1999046702A1 to Hjelsvold
`TII-1022 WO 2001/077876A2 to Bolnick
`TTI-1023 U.S. Patent No. 7,472,110 to Achlioptas
`
`TTI-1014
`
`TTI-1015
`
`TTI-1016
`
`TTI-1017
`
`TTI-1018
`
`TTI-1024
`
`Groove Networks’ Groovy Collaboration
`Tool (December 31, 2001), available at:
`https://www.mcpressonline.com/social/c
`ollaboration-messaging/groove-
`networks-groovy-collaboration-tool/print
`
`TTI-1025
`
`Amazon.com Recommendations to
`Linden et. al
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1003, Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`TTI-1027
`
`TTI-1028
`
`TTI-1026 U.S. Patent No. 3595987 to Vlahos
`U.S. Patent Pub. 20030066078 to
`Bjorgan
`U.S. Patent No. 6,357,042 to Srinivasan
`et. al.
`TTI-1029 U.S. Patent No. 6,272584 to Stancil
`TTI-1030 U.S. Patent No. 6,442,657 to Hunt
`TTI-1031 U.S. Patent No. 10,679,822 File History
`TTI-1032 U.S. Patent No. 5754787 to Dedrick
`TTI-1033 U.S. Patent 7,904,922 to Haberman
`10Tales’ Preliminary Infringement
`Contentions
`U.S. Patent Pub. 20030177063 to
`Currans
`Scheduling Order in Parallel Case 6:20-
`cv-00810-ADA
`
`TTI-1034
`
`TTI-1035
`
` TTI-1036
`
`TTI-1037 Western District Texas COVID Order
`
`TTI-1038 Email Stipulation
`TTI-1039 MV3 v Roku Docket
`GeoCities, available at:
`https://www.mcpressonline.com/social/c
`ollaboration-messaging/groove-
`networks-groovy-collaboration-tool/print
`
`TTI-1040
`
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`23. This Declaration explains the conclusions I have formed based on my
`
`analysis. To summarize these conclusions, based upon my knowledge and
`
`experience and my review of the prior art publications discussed in this
`
`Declaration, it is my opinion that:
`
`• Claims 1 and 2 of the ’030 Patent are rendered obvious by Bar-El
`
`(TTI-1004) in view of Reisman (TTI-1005).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1003, Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`• Claims 1 and 2 of the ’030 Patent are rendered obvious by Bar-El
`
`(TTI-1004) in view of Leeke (TTI-1006) and further in view of
`
`Reisman (TTI-1005).
`
`• Claim 1 and 2 of the ’030 Patent are rendered obvious by Leeke
`
`and Reisman.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`24. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’030 Patent (“POSITA”)
`
`would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or an equivalent degree, in
`
`electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and 2-3 years’
`
`experience researching, designing, developing, and/or testing systems for
`
`digital media creation and related firmware and software, or equivalent
`
`experience. Someone with less formal education but more experience or more
`
`formal education but less experience could also have qualified as a POSITA.
`
`25. I believe that I am at least a POSITA and, furthermore, I have supervised those
`
`who were also POSITAs. Moreover, I qualified as a POSITA as of the
`
`claimed priority date of the ’030 Patent. Accordingly, I believe that I am
`
`qualified to opine from the perspective of a POSITA regarding the ’030
`
`Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1003, Page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`VI. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`26. In preparing and expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter
`
`of the ’030 Patent, I am relying on certain basic legal principles that counsel
`
`have explained to me. These principles are discussed below.
`
`27. I understand that prior art to the ’030 Patent includes patents and printed
`
`publications in the relevant art that may predate the priority date of the
`
`purported inventions recited in the ’030 Patent. For the purposes of my
`
`analysis, I have assumed that the priority date for the ’030 Patent is the earliest
`
`filing date claimed on the face of the patent, which is April 7, 2003, the date
`
`of the provisional application No. 60/460, 998.
`
`28. I understand that a prior art reference may disclose a claim or claims without
`
`expressly disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if that missing feature
`
`is necessarily present, or inherent, in the prior art reference.
`
`29. I understand that inherency requires more than a probability or possibility that
`
`a claimed feature is present in the prior art, but rather that the feature or
`
`characteristic is a necessary part of the prior art. I am informed that
`
`recognition of inherency by a POSITA at the time is not required. I
`
`understand it is acceptable to examine evidence outside the prior art reference
`
`(extrinsic evidence) in determining whether a feature, while not expressly
`
`discussed in the reference, is necessarily present in it.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1003, Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30. In determining whether or not a claim elements of the claimed invention is
`
`found in an item of prior art, I understand one should take into account what
`
`a POSITA would have understood from his or her examination of the
`
`particular item of prior art.
`
`A. Obviousness
`
`31. I understand that a claim is invalid for obviousness if the differences between
`
`the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention
`
`to a POSITA to which the subject matter pertains. In deciding this question,
`
`I understand it is relevant whether a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`combine or modify the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether
`
`there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`32. I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on more than one
`
`item of prior art. I have also been informed that the analysis of obviousness
`
`generally requires consideration of the following four factual inquiries
`
`(although not necessarily in the listed order): (i) the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, (ii) the differences between the prior art and the claim, (iii) the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention, and (iv) the
`
`existence of any objective factors (also referred
`
`to as secondary
`
`considerations) indicating obviousness or non-obviousness that may be
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1003, Page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`present in any particular case, such as commercial success, long-felt but
`
`unresolved needs, failure of others, and so on.2
`
`33. I understand that to be part of the “scope and content of the prior art” for
`
`purposes of an obviousness determination, in addition to qualifying as prior
`
`art, the referenced prior art must be “analogous” prior art. I understand a
`
`reference constitutes analogous prior art if it is within the same field as the
`
`inventor’s endeavor. I also understand that even though a prior art reference
`
`may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, the reference
`
`may still be used as an obvious reference if it is “reasonably pertinent” to the
`
`particular problem with which the inventor was involved. I understand a
`
`reference is reasonably pertinent if it is one that, because of the matter with
`
`which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s
`
`attention in considering the inventor’s problem.
`
`34. I understand that the question of obviousness should be expansive and
`
`flexible, and should account for the inferences and creative steps a POSITA
`
`would have employed in reviewing the prior art at the time of the invention.
`
`35. I understand that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art need not be
`
`expressly stated in the prior art but may be expressly or impliedly contained
`
`
`2 To date, I am unaware of any objective indicia of non-obviousness. To the extent
`that the Patent Owner offers any in connection with this proceeding, I will respond
`to them as appropriate.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1003, Page 20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`therein or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to a
`
`POSITA, established scientific principles, or legal precedent.
`
`36. I have been informed that, in seeking to determine whether an invention that
`
`is a combination of known elements would have been obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, one must consider the
`
`references in their entirety to ascertain whether the disclosures in those
`
`references render the combination obvious to such a person.
`
`37. I also understand that the historical framework applicable for assessing
`
`obviousness was whether there was a teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`either explicitly or implicitly in the prior art to combine the teachings of the
`
`reference. I have been informed, however, that although the claimed subject
`
`matter can still be found obvious when that test is satisfied, the obviousness
`
`inquiry is actually broader and more flexible than that. One need not identify
`
`such teachings, suggestion, or motivation explicitly in the prior art. Instead,
`
`one can take into account the inferences, creative steps, common knowledge,
`
`and common sense that a POSITA would have employed.
`
`38. I further understand that an obviousness analysis recognizes that market
`
`demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references also may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace.
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1003, Page 21
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`39. I have been informed that, if a technique has been used to improve one device,
`
`and a POSITA would have recognized that it would improve similar devices
`
`in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application
`
`is beyond the POSITA’s skill. Stated differently, I understand that the
`
`proper question is whether one of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of
`
`needs created by developments in the field of endeavor, would have seen a
`
`benefit to combining the teachings of the prior art.
`
`40. I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious merely by
`
`showing that it was “obvious to try” the combination. For example, when
`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a
`
`finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a POSITA has good reason
`
`to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp because the
`
`result is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
`
`sense.
`
`41. I have been informed that the combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`predictable results. Thus, where all of the elements of a claim are used in
`
`substantially the same manner, in devices in the same field of endeavor, the
`
`claim is likely obvious. Additionally, I understand that a patent is likely to be
`
`invalid for obviousness if a POSITA can implement a predictable variation or
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1003, Page 22
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. Therefore,
`
`when a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other
`
`market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different
`
`one.
`
`42. I further understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference
`
`without the need to combine references if the elements of the claim that are
`
`not found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the
`
`teachings of multiple embodiments disclosed in the reference, or by the
`
`common sense of a POSITA. I further understand that combining
`
`embodiments related to each other in a single prior art reference would not
`
`ordinarily require a leap of inventiveness.
`
`43. I have also been informed that certain