`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`Twitter, Inc. and Google LLC,
`
`Petitioner
`
`- vs. -
`
`B.E. Technology, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. HENRY H. HOUH UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN
`SUPPORT OF PETITIONS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,769,440
`
`IPR2021-00482
`IPR2021-00483
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 9 
`I. 
`Background and Qualifications ..................................................................... 11 
`II. 
`III.  Understanding of Patent Law ........................................................................ 17 
`A.  Anticipation ......................................................................................... 18 
`B. 
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 19 
`IV.  The ’440 Patent .............................................................................................. 21 
`V. 
`Prior Proceedings Involving the ’314 Patent ................................................. 30 
`VI.  Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art .................................................. 34 
`VII.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 36 
`VIII.  Detailed Invalidity Analysis .......................................................................... 37 
`A.  Ground 1 [IPR2021-00482]: Claims 1, 5-7, 10-12, and 26-27
`are anticipated by Guyot. .................................................................... 40 
`1. 
`The Prior Art References ......................................................... 40 
`a) 
`Background on Guyot .................................................... 40 
`Unpatentability of Claims 1, 5-7, 10-12, and 26-27 ................ 50 
`a) 
`Claim 1 ........................................................................... 50 
`b) 
`Claim 5 ........................................................................... 63 
`c) 
`Claim 6 ........................................................................... 64 
`d) 
`Claim 7 ........................................................................... 70 
`e) 
`Claim 10 ......................................................................... 70 
`f) 
`Claim 11 ......................................................................... 73 
`g) 
`Claim 12 ......................................................................... 74 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`2
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Claim 26 ......................................................................... 75 
`h) 
`Claim 27 ......................................................................... 75 
`i) 
`Ground 3 [IPR2021-00482]: Claim 8 is obvious over the
`combination of Guyot and Lazarus. .................................................... 77 
`1. 
`The Prior Art References ......................................................... 77 
`a) 
`Background on Lazarus ................................................. 77 
`b) 
`Claim 8 ........................................................................... 77 
`Ground 5 [IPR2021-00482]: Claim 9 is obvious over the
`combination of Guyot and Angles. ..................................................... 79 
`1. 
`The Prior Art References ......................................................... 80 
`a) 
`Background on Angles ................................................... 80 
`b) 
`Claim 9 ........................................................................... 80 
`D.  Ground 6 [IPR2021-00482]: Claim 25 is obvious over Guyot. .......... 83 
`a) 
`Claim 25 ......................................................................... 83 
`Ground 1 [IPR2021-00483]: Claims 2-4 are obvious over the
`combination of Guyot and Kikinis. ..................................................... 86 
`1. 
`The Prior Art References ......................................................... 86 
`a) 
`Background on Kikinis .................................................. 86 
`b) 
`Claim 2 ........................................................................... 88 
`c) 
`Claim 3 ........................................................................... 92 
`d) 
`Claim 4 ........................................................................... 93 
`Ground 3 [IPR2021-00483]: Claim 13-18 are obvious over the
`combination of Guyot, Apte, and Angles. ........................................... 94 
`1. 
`The Prior Art References ......................................................... 94 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`
`
`3
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`
`Background on Angles ................................................... 94 
`a) 
`Background on Apte ...................................................... 95 
`b) 
`Claim 13 ......................................................................... 95 
`c) 
`Claim 14 ....................................................................... 103 
`d) 
`Claim 15 ....................................................................... 104 
`e) 
`Claim 16 ....................................................................... 105 
`f) 
`Claim 17 ....................................................................... 105 
`g) 
`Claim 18 ....................................................................... 106 
`h) 
`G.  Ground 5 [IPR2021-00483]: Claims 19-20 are obvious over the
`combination of Guyot, Apte, Angles, and Cheng. ............................ 106 
`1. 
`The Prior Art References ....................................................... 107 
`a) 
`Background on Cheng ................................................. 107 
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claims 19-20 ............................ 107 
`a) 
`Claim 19 ....................................................................... 107 
`b) 
`Claim 20 ....................................................................... 109 
`H.  Ground 7 [IPR-2021-00483]: Claims 21-24 are obvious over
`the combination of Guyot and Ellsworth. ......................................... 110 
`1. 
`The Prior Art References ....................................................... 111 
`a) 
`Background on Ellsworth ............................................ 111 
`b) 
`Claim 21 ....................................................................... 111 
`c) 
`Claim 22 ....................................................................... 113 
`d) 
`Claim 23 ....................................................................... 114 
`e) 
`Claim 24 ....................................................................... 115 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`4
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`2. 
`
`Ground 9 [IPR2021-00483]: Claims 28-37 are obvious over the
`combination of Guyot and Blumenau. .............................................. 115 
`1. 
`The Prior Art Reference ......................................................... 115 
`a) 
`Background on Blumenau ........................................... 115 
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claims 28–37 ............................ 116 
`a) 
`Claim 28 ....................................................................... 116 
`b) 
`Claim 29 ....................................................................... 118 
`c) 
`Claim 30 ....................................................................... 119 
`d) 
`Claim 31 ....................................................................... 119 
`e) 
`Claim 32 ....................................................................... 119 
`f) 
`Claim 33 ....................................................................... 120 
`g) 
`Claim 34 ....................................................................... 120 
`h) 
`Claim 35 ....................................................................... 120 
`i) 
`Claim 36 ....................................................................... 121 
`j) 
`Claim 37 ....................................................................... 121 
`Ground 2 [IPR2021-00482]: Claims 1, 5–7, 9–12, and 25–27
`are obvious over Robinson in view of Kobata further in view of
`Angles ................................................................................................ 122 
`1. 
`The Prior Art References ....................................................... 122 
`a) 
`Background on Robinson ............................................ 122 
`b) 
`Background on Kobata ................................................ 123 
`c) 
`Background on Angles ................................................. 123 
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claims 1, 5-7, 10-12, and 25-27
` 124 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`5
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Claim 1 ......................................................................... 124 
`a) 
`Claim 5 ......................................................................... 152 
`b) 
`Claim 6 ......................................................................... 155 
`c) 
`Claim 7 ......................................................................... 161 
`d) 
`Claim 9 ......................................................................... 162 
`e) 
`Claim 10 ....................................................................... 165 
`f) 
`Claim 11 ....................................................................... 171 
`g) 
`Claim 12 ....................................................................... 171 
`h) 
`Claim 25 ....................................................................... 173 
`i) 
`Claim 26 ....................................................................... 174 
`j) 
`Claim 27 ....................................................................... 175 
`k) 
`K.  Ground 4 [IPR2021-00482]: Claim 8 is obvious over the
`combination of Robinson, Kobata, Angles, and Lazarus .................. 176 
`1. 
`The Prior Art References ....................................................... 177 
`a) 
`Background on Lazarus ............................................... 177 
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claim 8 ..................................... 177 
`a) 
`Claim 8 ......................................................................... 177 
`Ground 2 [IPR2021-00483]: Claims 2-4 are obvious over the
`combination of Robinson, Kobata, Angles, and Kikinis ................... 179 
`1. 
`The Prior Art References ....................................................... 179 
`a) 
`Background on Kikinis ................................................ 179 
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claims 2-4 ................................ 181 
`a) 
`Claim 2 ......................................................................... 181 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`
`L. 
`
`
`
`6
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`
`Claim 3 ......................................................................... 185 
`b) 
`Claim 4 ......................................................................... 187 
`c) 
`M.  Ground 4 [IPR2021-00483]: Claims 13-18 are obvious over the
`combination of Robinson, Kobata, Angles, and Apte ....................... 188 
`1. 
`The Prior Art References ....................................................... 188 
`a) 
`Background on Apte .................................................... 188 
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claims 13-18 ............................ 188 
`a) 
`Claim 13 ....................................................................... 188 
`b) 
`Claim 14 ....................................................................... 196 
`c) 
`Claim 15 ....................................................................... 196 
`d) 
`Claim 16 ....................................................................... 197 
`e) 
`Claim 17 ....................................................................... 198 
`f) 
`Claim 18 ....................................................................... 198 
`N.  Ground 6 [IPR2021-00483]: Claims 19-20 are obvious over the
`combination of Robinson, Kobata, Angles, Apte, and Cheng .......... 199 
`1. 
`The Prior Art References ....................................................... 199 
`a) 
`Background on Cheng ................................................. 199 
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claims 19-20 ............................ 199 
`a) 
`Claim 19 ....................................................................... 199 
`b) 
`Claim 20 ....................................................................... 201 
`O.  Ground 8 [IPR2021-00483]: Claims 21-24 are obvious over the
`combination of Robinson, Kobata, Angles, and Ellsworth ............... 203 
`1. 
`The Prior Art References ....................................................... 203 
`a) 
`Background on Ellsworth ............................................ 203 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`7
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`
`P. 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claims 21-24 ............................ 204 
`a) 
`Claim 21 ....................................................................... 204 
`b) 
`Claim 22 ....................................................................... 205 
`c) 
`Claim 23 ....................................................................... 206 
`d) 
`Claim 24 ....................................................................... 207 
`Ground 10 [IPR2021-00483]: Claims 28–37 are obvious over
`Robinson, Kobata, Angles, and Blumenau ....................................... 207 
`1. 
`The Prior Art Reference ......................................................... 208 
`a) 
`Background on Blumenau ........................................... 208 
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claims 28–37 ............................ 208 
`a) 
`Claim 28 ....................................................................... 208 
`b) 
`Claim 29 ....................................................................... 211 
`c) 
`Claim 30 ....................................................................... 212 
`d) 
`Claim 31 ....................................................................... 212 
`e) 
`Claim 32 ....................................................................... 212 
`f) 
`Claim 33 ....................................................................... 213 
`g) 
`Claim 34 ....................................................................... 213 
`h) 
`Claim 35 ....................................................................... 213 
`i) 
`Claim 36 ....................................................................... 214 
`j) 
`Claim 37 ....................................................................... 214 
`IX.  Secondary Considerations ........................................................................... 215 
`X. 
`Conclusion ................................................................................................... 215 
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`I, Henry H. Houh, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. I have been retained as an independent expert witness on behalf of Twitter,
`
`Inc. and Google LLC (“Petitioner”) for the above-captioned Petitions for Inter
`
`Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440 (“the ’440 Patent”). I am being
`
`compensated at my usual and customary rate for the time I spent in connection with
`
`these IPRs. My compensation is not affected by the outcome of these IPRs.
`
`2. I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-37 (each
`
`a “Challenged Claim” and collectively the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’440 Patent
`
`are invalid as they would have been anticipated by the prior art or obvious to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the earliest claimed priority date.
`
`It is my opinion that all of the Challenged Claims would have been anticipated and/or
`
`obvious to a POSITA after reviewing the prior art discussed below.
`
`3. In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Ex-1001, the ’440 Patent;
`
`Ex-1002, the file history of the ’440 Patent;
`
`the prior art references discussed below:
`
` Ex-1004, U.S. Patent 5,918,014 to Robinson (“Robinson”),
`
` Ex-1005, U.S. Patent 6,058,418 to Kobata (“Kobata”),
`
` Ex-1006, U.S. Patent 5,933,811 to Angles (“Angles”),
`
`
`
`9
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`
` Ex-1041, U.S. Patent 6,119,098 to Guyot et al. (“Guyot”),
`
` Ex-1008, U.S. Patent 7,225,142 to Apte et al. (“Apte”),
`
` Ex-1009, U.S. Patent 6,009,410 to LeMole et al.
`
`(“LeMole”),
`
` Ex-1012, U.S. Patent 5,848,396 to Gerace (“Gerace”),
`
` Ex-1014, U.S. Patent 6,151,643 to Cheng et al. (“Cheng”),
`
` Ex-1025, WO 97/09682 to Kikinis (“Kikinis”)
`
` Ex-1009, U.S. Patent 6,134,532 to Lazarus et al.
`
`(“Lazarus”),
`
` Ex-1030, U.S. Patent 7,680,889 to Blumenau et al.
`
`(“Blumenau”), and
`
` any other document cited below.
`
`4. The ’440 Patent issued on July 1, 2014, from U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`12/692,290 (“the ’290 application”), filed on January 22, 2010. I understand
`
`the ’290 application claims priority to a number of previous applications, the earliest
`
`of which was filed July 17, 1998. The face of the ’440 Patent lists Martin David
`
`Hoyle as the inventor. Further, the face of the ’440 Patent identifies B.E.
`
`Technology, L.L.C. as the initial assignee of the ’440 Patent.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`
`5. In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon my
`
`education and experience in the relevant field of art, and have considered the
`
`viewpoint of a POSITA, as of July 17, 1998. I have also considered:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`the documents listed above,
`
`any additional documents and references cited in the analysis
`
`below,
`
`c)
`
`the relevant legal standards, including the standard for
`
`obviousness, and
`
`d) my knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area
`
`as described below.
`
`6. I understand that claims in an IPR are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. I further understand that
`
`this is the same claim construction standard as one would use in a District Court
`
`proceeding.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`7. My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is
`
`attached as Exhibit 1031. As set forth in my curriculum vitae:
`
`8. I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from the
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) in 1998. I also received a Master of
`
`Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1991, a Bachelor
`
`
`
`11
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1989, and a
`
`Bachelor of Science Degree in Physics in 1990, all from MIT.
`
`9. I am currently self-employed as an independent technical consultant. I am
`
`also president of Einstein’s Workshop, a company that provides supplemental
`
`science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (“STEM”) education to children
`
`of all ages. I am also on the board of directors of BlocksCAD, Inc., a company that
`
`makes educational computer-aided design software, which we created at Einstein’s
`
`Workshop and spun-out into an independent company.
`
`10. I first worked in the area of telecommunications in 1987 when I worked as a
`
`summer intern at AT&T Bell Laboratories as part of a five-year dual degree program
`
`at MIT. I continued to work at AT&T Bell Laboratories as part of this MIT program.
`
`While I was at MIT, I was a teaching assistant (“TA”) in the Electrical Engineering
`
`and Computer Science Department’s core Computer Architectures course. I first
`
`was a TA as a senior, performing a role typically reserved for graduate students. I
`
`later became head TA. As a TA, I helped write homework assignments, lab
`
`assignments, and exams. I also taught in the recitation sections.
`
`11. Later, as part of my doctoral research at MIT from 1991-1998, I was a research
`
`assistant in the Telemedia Network Systems (“TNS”) group at the Laboratory for
`
`Computer Science. The TNS group built a high-speed gigabit network and created
`
`applications that ran over the network. Example applications included ones for
`
`
`
`12
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`remote video capture, processing, and display of video on computer terminals. In
`
`addition to working on the design of core network components, designing and
`
`building the high-speed links, and designing and writing the device drivers for the
`
`interface cards, I also set up the group’s web server.
`
`12. With the TNS group I researched and installed web servers and web caches.
`
`I also helped to build the web pages that initiated these video sessions via a web
`
`interface. Vice-President Al Gore visited our group in 1996 and received a
`
`demonstration of— and remotely drove—a radio controlled toy car with a wireless
`
`video camera mounted on it; the video was encoded by TNS-designed hardware,
`
`streamed over the TNS-designed network and displayed using TNS-designed
`
`software.
`
`13. I defended and submitted my Ph.D. thesis, titled “Designing Networks for
`
`Tomorrow’s Traffic,” in January 1998. As part of my thesis research, I analyzed
`
`local-area and wide-area flows to show a more efficient method for routing packets
`
`in a network, based on traffic patterns at the time.
`
`14. While I was in graduate school, I started a company that provided web site
`
`design services and targeted advertising opportunities. We also sold targeted
`
`advertising placements. As the web became popular first at colleges and
`
`universities, we focused initially on building college recruiting web sites and sold
`
`advertisements to companies wishing to target students to recruit at specific colleges.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`We developed technology that utilized the web user’s college affiliation to
`
`customize advertisements targeted to students at that college.
`
`15. From 1997 to 1999, I was a Senior Scientist and Engineer at NBX
`
`Corporation, a start-up that made business telephone systems for streaming
`
`packetized audio over data networks instead of using traditional telephone lines.
`
`NBX was later acquired by 3Com Corporation, and the phone system created by
`
`NBX is still used today by numerous businesses. As part of my work at NBX, I
`
`designed the core audio reconstruction algorithms for the telephones, as well as the
`
`packet transmission algorithms. I also designed and validated the core packet
`
`transport protocol used by the phone system. The protocol was used for all signaling
`
`in the phone system, including for the setup of conference calls. The NBX system
`
`also featured a computer interface for initiating phone calls, which could also initiate
`
`conference calls. The NBX system also supported TAPI, the Telephony Application
`
`Programming Interface, thus allowing other computer programs to integrate with our
`
`system telephony features. We obtained U.S. Patent No. 6,697,963, entitled
`
`“Telecommunication method for ensuring on-time delivery of packets containing
`
`time-sensitive data,” as a result of part of this work.
`
`16. From 1999-2004, I was employed by Empirix or its predecessor company,
`
`Teradyne. Empirix was a leader in test tools for telecommunications protocols and
`
`systems, providing functional testing tools as well as load testing tools. From 2000-
`
`
`
`14
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`2001, I conceived and built a test platform for testing Voice-over-IP (VoIP). The
`
`first application on this new test platform was a cloud emulator for simulating the
`
`effects of transmitting VoIP over a busy network. Starting in 2001, I was architect
`
`for the next generation of web testing product by Empirix known as e-Test Suite. e-
`
`Test Suite is now owned by Oracle Corporation. e-Test provided functional and load
`
`testing for web sites. e-Test emulated a user's interaction with a web site and
`
`provided web developers with a method of creating various scripts and providing
`
`both functional testing (e.g., did the web site provide the correct response) and load
`
`testing (e.g., could the web site handle 5000 users on its web site simultaneously).
`
`Among Empirix's customers was H&R Block, who used e-Test Suite to test the tax
`
`filing functionality of their web site as whether the web site could handle a large
`
`expected load prior to the filing deadline.
`
`17. While I was Chief Technology Officer at Eons, a venture backed company
`
`founded by Jeff Taylor, who also founded the hiring web site Monster.com, Eons
`
`launched an advertising network. Eons built a network of sites on which
`
`advertisements could be placed, fulfilled client advertisement purchases, and tracked
`
`delivery of clients’ advertisements.
`
`18. I have also continued to develop web sites for various business projects, as
`
`well as setting up web sites on a volunteer basis for various groups that I am
`
`associated with.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`
`19. In 2006, as part of my role at BBN Technologies, I helped found PodZinger
`
`Inc., now known as RAMP Inc. PodZinger utilized BBN’s speech recognition
`
`algorithms to search through the spoken words in audio and video segments. We
`
`used the spoken content of the media to target advertising to viewers of the media,
`
`for which we filed a patent application. While I was Vice President of Operations
`
`and Technology, PodZinger followed its initial prototype with a full streaming audio
`
`and video search solution.
`
`20. I have been awarded several United States patents, and I have several patent
`
`applications pending, including the following examples:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,975,296, “Automated security threat testing of web
`
`pages”,
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,877,736, “Computer language interpretation and
`
`optimization for server testing”,
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,801,910, “Method and apparatus for timed tagging
`
`of media content”,
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. 20070106693, “Methods and apparatus
`
`for providing virtual media channels based on media search”,
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. 20070106760, “Methods and apparatus
`
`for dynamic presentation of advertising, factual, and informational
`
`
`
`16
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`
`content using enhanced metadata in search-driven media
`
`applications”,
`
` U.S. Patent Publication No. 20090222442, “User-directed navigation
`
`of multimedia search results”.
`
`21. I previously provided testimony and opinions regarding the patentability of
`
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 (“the ’314 Patent”), which I understand is
`
`related to the’440 Patent.
`
`22. Additional details about my employment history, fields of expertise, and
`
`publications are further included in my curriculum vitae.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`
`23. I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law was provided to me by Petitioner’s attorneys.
`
`24. I understand that prior art to the ’440 Patent includes patents and printed
`
`publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the ’440 Patent. For
`
`purposes of this Declaration, I have applied the date of July 17, 1998, the filing date
`
`
`
`17
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`of the earliest application that the ’440 Patent claims priority to, as the priority date.1
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it would have been “anticipated” by or
`
`“obvious” in view of the prior art. My understanding of the two legal standards is
`
`set forth below.
`
`25. I understand that other challenges to the validity of a patent, including patent
`
`ineligibility, enablement, written description, and definiteness, cannot be raised in
`
`inter partes review proceedings before the Board to challenge the validity of the ’440
`
`Patent. Accordingly, I did not consider those other challenges.
`
`26. I understand that Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability by a
`
`preponderance of evidence, which means that the claims are more likely than not
`
`invalid.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`27. I understand that the following standards govern the determination of whether
`
`a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`
`28. I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior art, each
`
`and every requirement of the claim must be found, expressly or inherently, in a single
`
`
`1 I have not considered and express no opinion as to whether the claims of the ’440
`
`Patent are actually entitled to a priority date of July 17, 1998 (or to that of a
`
`later-filed patent application).
`
`
`
`18
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`prior art reference as recited in the claim. I understand that claim limitations that are
`
`not expressly described in a prior art reference may still be there if they are
`
`“inherent” to the thing or process being described in the prior art. For example, an
`
`indication in a prior art reference that a particular process complies with a published
`
`standard would indicate that the process must inherently perform certain steps or use
`
`certain data structures that are necessary to comply with the published standard.
`
`29. I understand that it is acceptable to consider evidence other than the
`
`information in a particular prior art document to determine if a feature is necessarily
`
`present in or inherently described by that reference.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`30. I understand that the following standards govern the determination of whether
`
`a patent claim is “obvious” in view of the prior art.
`
`31. I understand that obviousness of a claim requires that the claim would have
`
`been obvious from the perspective of a POSITA at the time the alleged invention
`
`was made. I understand that a claim could have been obvious from a single prior art
`
`reference or from a combination of two or more prior art references.
`
`32. I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged invention and
`
`the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the pertinent art.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Ex-1007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Henry H. Houh Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440
`
`
`33. I further understand that a claim would have been obvious if it unites old
`
`elements with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by mere
`
`substitution of one element for another known in the field and that combination
`
`yields predictable results. Also, I understand that obviousness does not require
`
`physical combination/bodily incorporation, but rather consideration of wh