Declaration of Edward A. Fox in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PALO ALTO RESEARCH CENTER INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`Issue Date: May 9, 2006
`
`Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CLUSTERING USER SESSIONS USING MULTI-
`MODAL INFORMATION AND PROXIMAL CUE INFORMATION
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF EDWARD A. FOX
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 001
`
`

`

`I. 
`
`II. 
`III. 
`
`V. 
`
`Declaration of Edward A. Fox in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 6 
`A.  Qualifications and Experience ............................................................. 6 
`B.  Materials Considered .......................................................................... 12 
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................................... 13 
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................................................... 16 
`A. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 16 
`B. 
`Obviousness ........................................................................................ 18 
`IV.  TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND .............................................................. 24 
`A. 
`Text, hypertext, multimedia, and hypermedia ................................... 24 
`B. 
`Proximity, information extraction, segmentation, association,
`vector representations ......................................................................... 25 
`Queries, information needs, sessions, logs, user profiles ................... 27 
`C. 
`Services: (focused) crawling, searching, ranking, clustering............. 27 
`D. 
`THE ’475 PATENT ...................................................................................... 29 
`A.  Overview of the Specification ............................................................ 29 
`B. 
`The Challenged Claims ...................................................................... 35 
`VI.  APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ....................................................................................................... 36 
`A. 
`Brief Summary of Prior Art ............................................................... 37 
`1. 
`Konig [Ex. 1003]...................................................................... 37 
`2.  Millhollon [Ex. 1004] .............................................................. 54 
`3. 
`Chang [Ex. 1006] ..................................................................... 58 
`4. 
`Callihan [Ex. 1007] .................................................................. 61 
`5. 
`Viswanathan [Ex. 1008] ........................................................... 63 
`6. 
`Heer [Ex. 1009] ........................................................................ 67 
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`(b) 
`
`(c) 
`
`(d) 
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-12, 15, and 16 Are Obvious
`Over Konig in view of Millhollon, Chang, Callihan, and
`Viswanathan. ...................................................................................... 78 
`1. 
`Claim 1 (Independent) ............................................................. 78 
`(a) 
`“selecting a plurality of user paths in a collection
`of content portions, and for each user path:”
`(Claim 1[a]) ................................................................... 81 
`“determining multi-modal information for content
`portions associated with the user path;” (Claim
`1[b]) ............................................................................... 90 
`“determining proximal information for content
`portions associated with the user path;” (Claim
`1[c]) .............................................................................. 102 
`“combining the multi-modal information for
`content portions and the proximal information for
`content portions associated with the user path to
`form a user profile having a unified representation;
`and” (Claim 1[d] .......................................................... 114 
`“clustering multi-modal information and proximal
`information of user profiles based on similarity.”
`(Claim 1[e]) ................................................................. 119 
`Claim 2: “The method of claim 1, wherein determining
`proximal information includes: analyzing portions of a
`text associated with a link between content portions
`along the user path.” .............................................................. 125 
`Claim 3: “The method of claim 1, wherein determining
`proximal information includes: analyzing portions of a
`text associated with an image link between content
`portions along the user path.” ................................................ 128 
`Claim 5: “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
`using vectors to represent multi-modal information and
`proximal information.” .......................................................... 128 
`
`(e) 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 003
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Claim 7: “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
`weighting content portion in the user path based on
`access frequency of the content portion.” .............................. 129 
`Claim 10 (Independent) ......................................................... 131 
`Dependent claims 11 and 12 .................................................. 136 
`Dependent claim 15: “The system of claim 10, further
`comprising: an information weighting circuit that weights
`the multi-modal information and the proximal
`information.” .......................................................................... 136 
`Dependent claim 16: “The system of claim 10, further
`comprising: a content portion access frequency weighting
`circuit that weights at least one content portion associated
`with the user path based on access frequency.” ..................... 137 
`Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-12, 15, 16 Are Obvious Over
`Heer in view of Chang and Callihan. ............................................... 138 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ................................................................................... 138 
`(a) 
`“selecting a plurality of user paths in a collection
`of content portions, and for each user path:”
`(Claim 1[a]) ................................................................. 142 
`“determining multi-modal information for content
`portions associated with the user path;” (Claim
`1[b]) ............................................................................. 146 
`“determining proximal information for content
`portions associated with the user path;” (Claim
`1[c]) .............................................................................. 149 
`“combining the multi-modal information for
`content portions and the proximal information for
`content portions associated with the user path to
`form a user profile having a unified representation;
`and” (Claim 1[d] .......................................................... 161 
`
`(b) 
`
`(c) 
`
`(d) 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`7. 
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 004
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`(e) 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`“clustering multi-modal information and proximal
`information of user profiles based on similarity.”
`(Claim 1[e]) ................................................................. 168 
`Claim 2: “The method of claim 1, wherein determining
`proximal information includes: analyzing portions of a
`text associated with a link between content portions
`along the user path.” .............................................................. 170 
`Claim 3: “The method of claim 1, wherein determining
`proximal information includes: analyzing portions of a
`text associated with an image link between content
`portions along the user path.” ................................................ 172 
`Claim 5: “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
`using vectors to represent multi-modal information and
`proximal information.” .......................................................... 173 
`Claim 7: “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
`weighting content portion in the user path based on
`access frequency of the content portion.” .............................. 175 
`Claim 10 (Independent) ......................................................... 177 
`Dependent claims 11 and 12 .................................................. 181 
`Dependent claim 15: “The system of claim 10, further
`comprising: an information weighting circuit that weights
`the multi-modal information and the proximal
`information.” .......................................................................... 182 
`Dependent claim 16: “The system of claim 10, further
`comprising: a content portion access frequency weighting
`circuit that weights at least one content portion associated
`with the user path based on access frequency.” ..................... 183 
`VII.  NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ...... 184 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 185 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`7. 
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Edward A. Fox in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`I, Edward A. Fox, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A. Qualifications and Experience
`
`1. My Curriculum Vitae is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I reside in Blacksburg, Virginia.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner to provide my expert
`
`opinion in connection with the above-captioned proceeding as set forth herein. I
`
`have been a professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University (“Virginia
`
`Tech”) since September 1983, in the Department of Computer Science. Since
`
`February 2016, I also have had a courtesy appointment as Professor in the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Since January 1998, I have
`
`been the Director of the Digital Library Research Laboratory at Virginia Tech. From
`
`June 1990 to June 2014, I was the Associate Director for Research at Virginia Tech’s
`
`Computing Center, a position that evolved to Faculty Advisor to Information
`
`Technology.
`
`4.
`
`Before that, during August 1982 to April 1983, I was Manager of
`
`Information Systems at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, in Ibadan,
`
`Nigeria. Before that, from September 1978 to August 1982, I was an Instructor,
`
`Research Assistant, and Teaching Assistant at the Department of Computer Science
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 006
`
`

`

`Declaration of Edward A. Fox in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`at Cornell University. Before that, from September 1972 to August 1978, in
`
`Florence, SC, I was the Data Processing Manager in the Vulcraft Division of
`
`NUCOR Corporation. Before that, from September 1971 to June 1972, I was a Data
`
`Processing Instructor at Florence Darlington Technical College. Since December
`
`2018 I also have served as Chief Technology Officer of Mayfair Group LLC, as well
`
`as of its product division, ClaimEdge, which serves the insurance and law industries
`
`with collaboration and summarization software.
`
`5.
`
`I earned a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering (in the computer
`
`science option) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1972, a
`
`master’s degree in computer science from Cornell University in 1981, and a Ph.D.
`
`degree in computer science from Cornell University in 1983. My undergraduate
`
`advisor was JCR Licklider, then Director of Project MAC, who, when working at
`
`DARPA, managed projects that led to the Internet. My graduate advisor was Gerard
`
`Salton, often called the father of information retrieval (IR). Some of my bachelor’s
`
`work was in the area of information storage and retrieval, and that area has been the
`
`focus of my work since 1978. My doctoral dissertation related to all of the major IR
`
`approaches, including Boolean, extended Boolean, vector, and probabilistic
`
`handling of queries and documents. It involved studying logs of user sessions,
`
`clustering, TF-IDF term weighting, similarity measures, weighting different content
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Edward A. Fox in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`types, ranking, and unified vector representations including any number of content
`
`types (including words in different document sections, key words or key phrases,
`
`categories or descriptors, in-links, out-links, co-citations, and bibliographic
`
`coupling).
`
`6.
`
`As detailed in my Curriculum Vitae and below, much of my research
`
`involves areas of technology that are directly related to the subject matter of the
`
`patent at issue in the Petition. I have led development of numerous software and
`
`information systems projects and products, including but not limited to: SMART,
`
`REVTOLC, CODER (including LEND), MARIAN, ENVISION, CITIDEL,
`
`CTRnet, and IDEAL/GETAR. I have published papers in a broad range of areas
`
`related to IR. By the mid-1980s my work in IR connected with the field of human-
`
`computer interaction (HCI), by the late 1980s that broadened into work on
`
`multimedia information and systems, and since the early 1990s my work has
`
`included a concentration on digital libraries. In recent decades especially, my work
`
`has connected with artificial intelligence, including with natural language processing
`
`(computational linguistics), knowledge bases, ontologies, machine learning, and
`
`deep learning, especially involving classification and clustering.
`
`7. With regard to IR, I have worked on topics related to queries, query
`
`operations, searching, ranking, and related sub-topics. Other topics I have worked
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 008
`
`

`

`Declaration of Edward A. Fox in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`on relate to content, text, multimedia, and related types of information and data, in
`
`collections. Yet another area in which I have worked relates to indexes, indexing
`
`(including tokenizing and constructing vectors), and other data structures to improve
`
`retrieval performance. With regard to HCI, I have worked with topics including user
`
`interfaces, portals, user studies, WWW logs, interactive systems and applications,
`
`user-centered databases, hypertext/hypermedia, personalization, recommendation,
`
`annotation, visualization, virtual environments, and social networks. With regard to
`
`multimedia, I have worked with technologies, systems, content, and applications,
`
`including digital video, electronic publishing, multimedia databases, multimedia file
`
`systems, fingerprint matching, indexing, and searching with image collections. With
`
`regard to digital libraries, I have worked broadly on theory, content, technologies,
`
`applications, and user aspects, thus connecting the fields of IR, HCI, and multimedia.
`
`Specific examples include: hashing, information extraction, knowledge graphs,
`
`lexicons, parallel and distributed approaches, query construction, query expansion
`
`(using both algorithmic and AI methods), relevance feedback, segmentation,
`
`summarization, text mining, thesauri, workflows, and WWW (archiving, crawling,
`
`indexing, logging, mining, and searching).
`
`8.
`
`I am a member of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
`
`(since 1967) and its Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval (SIGIR), for
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 009
`
`

`

`Declaration of Edward A. Fox in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`which I served from 1987-1995 as vice chairman and then chairman. From 1988-
`
`1991 I served on the ACM Publications Board, and again served on that Board as
`
`well as co-chair of its Digital Libraries Committee from 2018-2019. ACM has
`
`awarded me seven recognition of service awards. I am a Fellow of ACM (cited for
`
`contributions in information retrieval and digital libraries) and a Fellow of the
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (cited for leadership in
`
`digital libraries and information retrieval), as well as a member of IEEE-CS. I am
`
`an inaugural inductee of the ACM SIGIR Academy, class of 2021, “to honor and
`
`recognize individuals who have made significant, cumulative contributions to the
`
`development of the field of information retrieval (IR). Inductees to the SIGIR
`
`Academy are the principal leaders in IR, whose efforts have shaped the discipline
`
`and/or industry through significant research, innovation, and/or service.” Regarding
`
`the IEEE Technical Committee on Digital Libraries, I served through 2018 on its
`
`Executive Committee and was its chairman 2004-2008.
`
`9.
`
`Since 1987, I have led activities so that theses and dissertations could
`
`be prepared, archived, and made accessible in electronic forms. Since 1996, I have
`
`served as Executive Director of the Networked Digital Library of Theses and
`
`Dissertations (NDLTD), which was incorporated in 2003; I also serve as Founder
`
`and Chairman of the Board for NDLTD, which now has over 6 million electronic
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 010
`
`

`

`Declaration of Edward A. Fox in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`records for theses and dissertations in its Union Catalog.
`
`10.
`
`I have been the recipient of a number of honors and awards relating to
`
`my work in information retrieval and other areas. One related honor, at Virginia
`
`Tech, is the XCaliber Award 2016 “for extraordinary contributions to technology-
`
`enriched learning activities” for the project “Enhanced problem-based learning
`
`connecting big data research with classes.” I have taught classes on information
`
`retrieval since the early 1980s, and about multimedia since the early 1990s.
`
`11.
`
`I have held numerous board positions in various editorial, professional,
`
`and industry organizations and groups. For example, I served during 2010-2013 as
`
`an elected member of the Computing Research Association Board, broadly
`
`representing the U.S. computing research community.
`
`12.
`
`I have a strong background in many of the key areas related to handling
`
`information with computers, including information retrieval, digital libraries, and
`
`Web archiving. This work involves theory, algorithms, systems, and interfaces/user
`
`studies. It also is described currently by buzz words such as search engines, big data,
`
`data analytics, machine learning, and natural language processing.
`
`13.
`
`In these areas, I have participated in, organized, and presented at
`
`hundreds of conferences and workshops, and I have over 672 related keynotes,
`
`papers, book chapters, posters, demonstrations, or reports, as well as over 355 other
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 011
`
`

`

`Declaration of Edward A. Fox in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`presentations.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`I also have conducted more than 87 tutorials in more than 28 countries.
`
`I have received more than 137 grants to fund my research, and have
`
`(co)authored 19 books, as well as edited book series for two publishers. In addition,
`
`I have (co)authored 141 journal or magazine articles. Google Scholar reports my
`
`works have been cited over 19,000 times, with an h-index of 61 and i10-index of
`
`263. I am a longstanding member of multiple professional societies including ACM
`
`(which I joined in 1967) and IEEE, as explained above, as well as Sigma Xi (since
`
`1972).
`
`16.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual consulting rate of $525 per hour
`
`($625 per hour for time spent testifying at a deposition or trial) for my work on this
`
`matter. I also am being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not dependent upon my opinions or testimony or the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`
`17. The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my education,
`
`research, and experience, as well as the documents I have considered. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have read and considered U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2 (“’475
`
`patent”) [Ex. 1001] and its prosecution history. I have cited to or considered the
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 012
`
`

`

`Declaration of Edward A. Fox in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`following documents in my analysis below:
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2 to Jeffrey M. Heer et al. (filed
`December 19, 2002, issued May 9, 2006)
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,981,040 B1 to Yochai Konig et al. (filed January 20,
`2000, issued December 27, 2005)
`1004 Excerpts from Mary Millhollon et al., Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0
`Frontrunner (1996)
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 7,346,703 B2 to Brian Charles Cope et al. (filed October
`5, 2001, issued March 18, 2008)
`1006 Excerpts from George Chang et al., Mining the World Wide Web: An
`Information Search Approach (2001)
`1007 Excerpts from Steven E. Callihan, Learn HTML in a Weekend (1998)
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,345,253 B1 to Mahesh Viswanathan (filed June 18,
`1999, issued February 5, 2002)
`
`1009
`
`Jeffrey Heer and Ed H. Chi, Identification of Web User Traffic
`Composition Using Multi-Modal Clustering and Information Scent,
`published as part of the Proceedings of the Workshop on Web Mining,
`First SIAM Conference on Data Mining (SMD 2001), Chicago, Illinois,
`Apr. 7, 2001
`
`1010
`
`Patent Prosecution file history for U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`18.
`I am informed by counsel that, under the patent laws in effect before
`
`the America Invents Act (“AIA”) of 2011, an assessment of claims of a patent filed
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 013
`
`

`

`Declaration of Edward A. Fox in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`before the AIA took effect should be undertaken from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest claimed priority date (i.e., the “time the
`
`invention was made”). For purposes of the ’475 patent, I have assumed that date to
`
`be December 19, 2002, which is the date the application for the ’475 patent (Appl.
`
`Ser. No. 10/248,136) was filed. I am not aware of any claim by the patent owner
`
`that the claims of the ’475 patent are entitled to an earlier date of invention, but the
`
`opinions and analysis in this Declaration would not change if the patent owner were
`
`to later claim that the ’475 patent was entitled to an earlier priority date.
`
`19.
`
`I have been advised that to determine the appropriate level of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art, I may consider the following factors: (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. I am also informed that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is presumed to be aware of all of the pertinent prior art.
`
`20. The ’475 patent “relates to systems and methods for navigating through
`
`and searching for sites on a distributed network.” (’475, 1:18-20.) More
`
`specifically, the ’475 patent discloses “systems and methods for clustering user
`
`sessions using multi-modal information and proximal information,” and which is
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 014
`
`

`

`Declaration of Edward A. Fox in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`obtained from “content portions” (such as web pages) in a “user path.” (’475, 1:58-
`
`65, 3:3-7.) The patent further describes techniques for clustering this information
`
`based on similarity. (’475, 4:47-50, 5:25-29, Fig. 3 (step S170).) I provide a more
`
`complete overview of the ’475 patent in Part V.A below (¶¶52-59). As noted above,
`
`I have extensive academic and industry experience and computer science
`
`background in the field of information retrieval (IR), including techniques for
`
`storing, searching for, and retrieving desired content. Having taught undergraduate
`
`and graduate students in the field since 1983, I am familiar with the relevant skill set
`
`that would have been possessed by a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(POSITA) at the time of the invention of the ’475 patent (December 2002).
`
`21.
`
`In my opinion and based on the subject matter of the ’475 patent, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art as of December 2002 would have possessed at least
`
`a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and at least two
`
`years of experience in systems for retrieval and processing of information, such as
`
`web pages obtained over the Internet. 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.
`
`22. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 015
`
`

`

`Declaration of Edward A. Fox in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`on, among other things, my more than 40 years of experience in the field of computer
`
`science and information storage and retrieval technologies, 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.
`
`23. 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 ’475 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of December 2002. As noted, my opinions and analysis
`
`in this Declaration would not change if the relevant timeframe were December 2002
`
`or any time between 1999 and December 2002.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a purpose of claim construction is to determine what
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claim terms to mean.
`
`Claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the
`
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question
`
`as of the critical date (i.e., either the earliest claimed priority date (pre-AIA) or the
`
`effective filing date (AIA)).
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 016
`
`

`

`Declaration of Edward A. Fox in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`
`25.
`
`I 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 the disputed
`
`term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. I
`
`understand 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. Also, 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.
`
`26.
`
`I further understand 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.
`
`27.
`
`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, such as
`
`dictionaries, may also be consulted in construing the claim terms.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 017
`
`

`

`Declaration of Edward A. Fox in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`
`28.
`
`I understand that, in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, a claim of
`
`a patent shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be
`
`used to construe the claim in a civil action 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.
`
`29.
`
`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.
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious if, as of the critical date (i.e.,
`
`either the earliest claimed priority date (pre-AIA) or the effective filing date (AIA),
`
`it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`technology (the “art”) to which the claimed subject matter belongs.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the following factors should be considered in
`
`analyzing obviousness: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
`
`
`
`18
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 018
`
`

`

`Declaration of Edward A. Fox in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`between the prior art and the claims; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`
`art. I also understand that certain other facts known as “secondary considerations”
`
`such as commercial success, unexplained results, long felt but unsolved need,
`
`industry acclaim, simultaneous invention, copying by others, skepticism by experts
`
`in the field, and failure of others may be utilized as indicia of nonobviousness. I
`
`understand, however, that secondary considerations should be connected, or have a
`
`“nexus,” with the invention claimed in the patent at issue.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that a reference qualifies as prior art for obviousness
`
`purposes when it is analogous to the claimed invention. The test for determining
`
`what art is analogous is: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
`
`regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field
`
`of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
`
`particular problem with which the inventor is involved.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is assumed to have
`
`knowledge of all prior art. I understand that one skilled in the art can combine
`
`various prior art references based on the teachings of those prior art references, the
`
`general knowledge present in the art, or common sense. I understand that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be implicit in the prior art, and there is no
`
`requirement that there be an actual or explicit teaching to combine two references.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Petitioner Exhibit 1002
`Page 019
`
`

`

`Declaration of Edward A. Fox in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,475 B2
`
`Thus, one may take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ to combine the known elements in the prior
`
`art in the manner claimed by the patent at issue. I understan