`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALMONDNET, INC. and INTENT IQ, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01281
`U.S. Patent No. 10,715,878 B2
`Issue Date: July 14, 2020
`
`Title: TARGETED TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENTS BASED ON ONLINE BEHAVIOR
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER M. SCHMANDT
`
`
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 1 of 157
`
`

`

`I.
`
`II.
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................ 7
`A. Qualifications and Experience ........................................................... 7
`B. Materials Considered ......................................................................... 9
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... 11
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................................................. 12
`A.
`Claim Construction .......................................................................... 12
`B.
`Obviousness ..................................................................................... 14
`IV. THE ’878 PATENT ................................................................................... 20
`A. Overview of the Specification .......................................................... 20
`B.
`The Challenged Claims .................................................................... 23
`V. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS .................................................................................................... 24
`A.
`Brief Summary of Prior Art ............................................................. 25
`1.
`Prior Art Common to All Grounds ......................................... 25
`(a) Baig and Baig Provisional (EX1003/1004) .................. 25
`(b)
`Laidlaw (EX1006) ....................................................... 37
`(c)
`Sitaraman (EX1007) .................................................... 42
`(d) Hahn (EX1008) ............................................................ 43
`Additional Prior Art for Certain Dependent Claims ............... 45
`(a) Xu (EX1009) ............................................................... 45
`(b) Gerace (EX1010) ......................................................... 47
`Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 8-10, 13-14, 19, and 22 Are Obvious
`Over Baig in view of Laidlaw, Sitaraman, and Hahn. ...................... 49
`1.
`Claim 1 .................................................................................. 49
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 2 of 157
`
`

`

`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(iii)
`
`“with a computer system, determining an
`association between device identifiers of two or
`more Internet-accessing electronic devices based
`on electronically stored association-detection
`information about a plurality of Internet-accessing
`electronic devices, wherein the stored association-
`detection information for each of the plurality of
`Internet-accessing electronic devices includes:” ........... 59
`(i)
`“a device identifier;” .......................................... 59
`(ii)
`“at least one dynamically assigned IP
`address assigned to a modem that connects a
`router of the LAN to the Internet; and” .............. 59
`“at least one timestamp specifying a time
`when the Internet-accessing electronic
`device accessed the Internet via the router of
`the LAN;” .......................................................... 59
`“wherein determining the association in part (a) is
`done by using the stored association-detection
`information to determine that the two or more
`Internet-accessing electronic devices have
`separately accessed the Internet through a router of
`the LAN during a predetermined period of time via
`a common IP address;” ................................................ 88
`“wherein the computer system determining the
`association in part (a) is outside the LAN and is
`connected to the LAN through the Internet; and” ......... 92
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 3 of 157
`
`

`

`2.
`
`3.
`
`(d)
`
`“with the computer system, using the association
`determined in part (a) to utilize user profile
`information associated with the device identifier of
`a first of the associated Internet-accessing
`electronic devices, and comprising behavioral or
`demographic data collected via the first of the
`associated Internet-accessing electronic devices, to
`take an automatic action with respect to a second
`of the associated Internet-accessing electronic
`devices using the device identifier of the second of
`the associated Internet-accessing electronic
`devices.” ...................................................................... 94
`Claim 2: “The method of claim 1 wherein the first device
`comprises a mobile device that is connected to the LAN
`only intermittently.” ............................................................. 108
`Claim 8: “The method of claim 1 wherein the device
`identifier of at least one of the first device and the second
`device is a cookie readable by the computer system.” .......... 110
`Claim 9: “The method of claim 8 further comprising,
`using the computer system, automatically storing, in a
`memory in the first device, the cookie.” ............................... 110
`Claim 10: “The method of claim 1 wherein the device
`identifiers of the first device and the second device
`include no personally identifiable information pertaining
`to a user of the first device or the second device.”................ 113
`Independent Claim 13 .......................................................... 114
`6.
`Claims 14 and 19 ................................................................. 116
`7.
`Independent Claim 22 .......................................................... 117
`8.
`Ground 2: Claims 3-4, 15-16 Are Obvious Over Ground 1 Prior
`Art in Further View of Xu. ............................................................. 120
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`C.
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 4 of 157
`
`

`

`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 3: “The method of claim 2 wherein the user profile
`information associated with the device identifier utilized
`in part (d) comprises behavioral data collected via the
`first device at a time when the first device is not
`connected to the LAN.” ....................................................... 120
`Claim 4: “The method of claim 3 wherein the behavioral
`data collected via the first device is received at the
`computer system as a result of redirection of the first
`device from an online site visited by the first device
`while the first device is not connected to the LAN.” ............ 126
`Claims 15-16 ....................................................................... 132
`3.
`D. Ground 3: Claims 6-7, 17-18 Are Obvious Over Ground 1 Prior
`Art in Further View of Gerace. ...................................................... 133
`1.
`Claim 6: “The method of claim 1 wherein the automatic
`action comprises selecting an advertisement, from among
`a plurality of possible advertisements, based at least in
`part on at least a portion of the user profile information
`associated with the device identifier of the first device.” ...... 133
`Claim 7: “The method of claim 6 wherein the automatic
`action comprises causing the selected advertisement to be
`directed to the second device.” ............................................. 133
`Claims 17-18 ....................................................................... 140
`3.
`Ground 4: Claims 11-12, 20-21, 23 Are Obvious Over Ground
`1 Prior Art with Xu and Gerace...................................................... 141
`1.
`Claim 11: “The method of claim 1 wherein” ........................ 141
`(a)
`“(i) the first device comprises a mobile device that
`is connected to the LAN only intermittently,” ............ 141
`“(ii) the user profile information associated with
`the device identifier utilized in part (d) comprises
`behavioral data collected via the first device at a
`time when the first device is not connected to the
`LAN,.......................................................................... 141
`
`(b)
`
`2.
`
`E.
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 5 of 157
`
`

`

`(c)
`
`2.
`
`(d)
`
`“(iii) wherein the behavioral data collected via the
`first device is received at the computer system as a
`result of redirection of the first device from an
`online site visited by the first device while the first
`device is not connected to the LAN, and” .................. 141
`“(iv) the automatic action comprises (A) selecting
`an advertisement, from among a plurality of
`possible advertisements, based at least in part on at
`least a portion of the user profile information
`associated with the device identifier of the first
`device, and (B) causing the selected advertisement
`to be directed to the second device.” .......................... 142
`Claim 12: “The method of claim 11 wherein the device
`identifiers of the first device and the second device
`include no personally identifiable information pertaining
`to a user of the first device or the second device.”................ 142
`Claims 20-21 and 23 ............................................................ 142
`3.
`VI. ENABLEMENT OF THE PRIOR ART................................................... 145
`VII. NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ..... 147
`VIII. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 149
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 6 of 157
`
`

`

`I, Christopher M. Schmandt, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A. Qualifications and Experience
`I have recently retired from my position as a Principal Research
`1.
`
`Scientist at the Media Laboratory at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
`
`(“M.I.T”), after 40 years of employment by M.I.T. In that role, I also served as
`
`faculty for the M.I.T. Media Arts and Sciences academic program. I have more than
`
`40 years of experience in the field of Media Technology, and was a founder of the
`
`M.I.T. Media Laboratory.
`
`2.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science from M.I.T. in 1978, and my Master of Science degree in Visual
`
`Studies (Computer Graphics), also from M.I.T. I had been employed at M.I.T. since
`
`1980, initially at the Architecture Machine Group, which was an early computer
`
`graphics research lab. In 1985, I helped found the Media Laboratory and continued
`
`to work there until my retirement. I ran a research group titled “Living Mobile.”
`
`My research spanned distributed communication and collaborative systems, with an
`
`emphasis on multi-media and user interfaces; I have more than 70 published
`
`conference and journal papers and one book in these fields.
`
`3.
`
`In my faculty position, I taught courses and directly supervised student
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 7 of 157
`
`

`

`research and theses at the Bachelors, Masters, and Ph.D. level. I oversaw the Masters
`
`and Ph.D. thesis programs for the entire Media Arts and Sciences academic program.
`
`Based on the above experience and qualifications, I have a solid understanding of
`
`the knowledge and perspective of a person of ordinary skill in this technical field
`
`since at least 1980.
`
`4.
`
`During my career at the MIT Media Laboratory I worked extensively
`
`with issues in management, delivery, and interaction with multimedia content
`
`through user context modeling.
`
` This work emphasized asynchronous or
`
`synchronous delivery of current news, either as audio, video, or text. In this context
`
`I have worked with a wide variety of network technologies and protocols, connecting
`
`a broad assortment of devices. Because much of my work also involved client-server
`
`computing with segments in home networks or mobile networks, I am well versed
`
`in NAT technologies and IP port management.
`
`5.
`
`In this context I developed network protocols, servers, client software,
`
`and user interfaces and applications for networked real time data. Related to this
`
`work, for some years in the 1990s I was a member of an IETF (Internet Engineering
`
`Task Force, later IAB, Internet Activities Board) working group exploring network
`
`requirements for real time delivery of multimedia content, both point to point as well
`
`as multicast.
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 8 of 157
`
`

`

`6.
`
`In the late 1980s I was involved in the installation and management of
`
`a broadband IP network using cable television hardware. In addition I have
`
`consulted with major cable television suppliers, some of whom were sponsors of
`
`work at the Media Laboratory of which I was a part. As such I am familiar with
`
`data-over-cable technologies such as Docsis, cable modem protocols, and media
`
`gateway protocols on such mixed use video plus IP networks, with delivery media
`
`spanning copper, fiber, and hybrid layered network architectures.
`
`7. My Curriculum Vitae is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`8.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner to provide my expert
`
`opinion in connection with the above-captioned proceeding as set forth herein.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my education,
`9.
`
`research, and experience, as well as the documents I have considered. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have read and considered U.S. Patent No. 10,715,878 B2 (“’878
`
`patent”) [EX1001] and its prosecution history. I have cited to the following
`
`documents in my analysis below:
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,715,878 B2 to Roy Shkedi (filed December 20,
`2018, issued July 14, 2020) (“’878” or “’878 patent”)
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 9 of 157
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1003 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0113674 A1 to
`Mohammad Faisal Baig (filed October 31, 2007, published May 15,
`2008) (“Baig”)
`1004 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/858,204 to Mohammad Baig (filed
`Nov. 10, 2006) (“Baig Provisional”)
`1005 Redline document showing differences between Baig (EX1003) and
`Baig Provisional (EX1004)
`1006 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0128547 A1 to Robert
`Laidlaw et al. (filed December 31, 2002, published July 1, 2004)
`(“Laidlaw”)
`1007 U.S. Patent No. 6,427,170 B1 to Aravind Sitaraman et al. (filed
`December 8, 1998, issued July 30, 2002) (“Sitaraman”)
`1008 Excerpts from Harley Hahn, The Internet Complete Reference (2d ed.
`1996) (“Hahn”)
`1009 U.S. Patent No. 7,730,030 B1 to Yongyong Xu (filed August 15, 2004,
`issued June 1, 2020) (“Xu”)
`1010 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0282328 A1 to Thomas
`Gerace et al. (filed June 12, 2006, published December 14, 2006)
`(“Gerace”)
`1011 Excerpts from Robbin Zeff et al., Advertising on the Internet (2d ed.
`1999) (“Zeff”)
`1012 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0175181 A1 to Magnus
`H. Bergs et al. (filed September 7, 2004, published August 11, 2005)
`(“Bergs”)
`1013 Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002)
`
`
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 10 of 157
`
`

`

`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I understand that, under the patent laws in effect before the America
`10.
`
`Invents Act (“AIA”) of 2011, an assessment of claims of a patent filed 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”). I have assumed that date to be April 17, 2007, the filing date of the
`
`earliest application to which the ’878 patent claims priority (Appl. Ser. No.
`
`11/736,544).
`
`11.
`
`I have also been advised that to determine the appropriate level of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art, the following factors may be considered: (1)
`
`the types of problems encountered by those working in the field and prior art
`
`solutions thereto; (2) the sophistication of the technology in question, and the
`
`rapidity with which innovations occur in the field; (3) the educational level of active
`
`workers in the field; and (4) the educational level of the inventor.
`
`12. The ’878 patent states “[t]he field of the present invention relates to
`
`online access and targeted delivery of advertisements.” (’878, 1:23-24.) In my
`
`opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed a bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work
`
`experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 11 of 157
`
`

`

`sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such
`
`as the Internet or World Wide Web). 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.
`
`13. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on, among other things, my over 40 years of experience in the field of computer
`
`science, my understanding of the basic qualifications that would be relevant to an
`
`engineer or scientist tasked with investigating methods and systems in the relevant
`
`area, and my familiarity with the backgrounds of colleagues, co-workers, and
`
`employees, both past and present.
`
`14. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis and
`
`opinions regarding the ’878 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of April 2007.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`I understand that a purpose of claim construction is to determine what
`15.
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claim terms to mean.
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 12 of 157
`
`

`

`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 effective filing date.
`
`16.
`
`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. And I understand for terms that do not
`
`have a customary meaning within the art, the specification usually supplies the best
`
`context of understanding the meaning of those terms.
`
`17.
`
`I 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.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that the prosecution history can further inform the meaning
`
`of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventors understood the invention
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 13 of 157
`
`

`

`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.
`
`19.
`
`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.
`
`20.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel to apply the “Phillips” claim
`
`construction standard for purposes of interpreting the claims in this proceeding, to
`
`the extent they require an explicit construction. The description of the legal
`
`principles set forth above thus provides my understanding of the “Phillips” standard
`
`as provided to me by counsel.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious if, as of the effective filing
`21.
`
`date, 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.
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 14 of 157
`
`

`

`22.
`
`I understand that the following factors should be considered in
`
`analyzing obviousness: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
`
`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.
`
`23.
`
`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.
`
`24.
`
`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
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 15 of 157
`
`

`

`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.
`
`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 understand that one should avoid
`
`“hindsight bias” and ex post reasoning in performing an obviousness analysis. But
`
`this does not mean that a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of the
`
`obviousness inquiry does not have recourse to common sense.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that when determining whether a patent claim is obvious
`
`in light of the prior art, neither the particular motivation for the patent nor the stated
`
`purpose of the patentee is controlling. The primary inquiry has to do with the
`
`objective reach of the claims, and that if those claims extend to something that is
`
`obvious, then the entire patent claim is invalid.
`
`26.
`
`I understand one way that a patent can be found obvious is 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. I understand that a motivation to
`
`combine various prior art references to solve a particular problem may come from a
`
`variety of sources, including market demand or scientific literature. I understand
`
`that a need or problem known in the field at the time of the invention can also provide
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 16 of 157
`
`

`

`a reason to combine prior art references and render a patent claim invalid for
`
`obviousness. I understand that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
`
`primary purpose, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple prior art references together like the pieces of a puzzle. I
`
`understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of at least ordinary
`
`creativity. I understand when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
`
`problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person
`
`of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
`
`technical grasp. If this finite number of predictable solutions leads to the anticipated
`
`success, I understand that the invention is likely the product of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense, and not of any sort of innovation. I understand that the fact that a
`
`combination was obvious to try might also show that it was obvious, and hence
`
`invalid, under the patent laws. I understand that if a patent claims a combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods, the combination is likely to be
`
`obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results. Thus, if a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, an invention is likely
`
`obvious. I understand that combining embodiments disclosed near each other in a
`
`prior art reference would not ordinarily require a leap of inventiveness.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that obviousness may be shown by demonstrating that it
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 17 of 157
`
`

`

`would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to
`
`create the patented invention. Obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating
`
`that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of more than one item of
`
`prior art. I understand that a claimed invention may be obvious if some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation exists that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to combine the invalidating references. I also understand that this suggestion or
`
`motivation may come from the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art, or from sources such as explicit statements in the prior art. I understand that
`
`when there is a design need or market pressure, and there are a finite number of
`
`predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill may be motivated to apply common
`
`sense and his skill to combine the known options in order to solve the problem.
`
`28.
`
`I understand the following are examples of approaches and rationales
`
`that may be considered in determining whether a piece of prior art could have been
`
`combined with other prior art or with other information within the knowledge of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art:
`
`(1)
`
`Some teaching, motivation, or suggestion in the prior art that would
`
`have led a person of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention;
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 18 of 157
`
`

`

`(2) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations would have been predictable to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art;
`
`(3) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`(4) Applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(5) Applying a technique or approach that would have been “obvious to
`
`try” (choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with
`
`a reasonable expectation of success);
`
`(6)
`
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; or
`
`(7) Use of a known technique to improve similar products, devices, or
`
`methods in the same way.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that, when determining whether a claimed combination is
`
`obvious, the correct analysis is not whether one of ordinary skill in the art, writing
`
`on a blank slate, would have chosen the particular combination of elements
`
`described in the claim. Instead, I understand the correct analysis considers whether
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 19 of 157
`
`

`

`one of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by developments in the
`
`field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to selecting the combination claimed.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of
`
`a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
`
`reference. The test for obviousness, in other words, is not whether the references
`
`could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered
`
`obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.
`
`IV. THE ’878 PATENT
`A. Overview of the Specification
`31. The ’878 patent states that “[t]he field of the present invention relates
`
`to online access and targeted delivery of advertisements.” (’878, 1:23-24.) The
`
`patent discloses a number of techniques involving, generally speaking, recognizing
`
`related devices so that activities performed with a first device can be used to
`
`determine an action to perform with respect to a second device. (E.g., ’878, 8:13-
`
`25.) In an exemplary embodiment, the patent describes applying its techniques to
`
`target advertisements to a user’s television based on the online activities of the user’s
`
`computer. (E.g., ’878, 8:52-9:8 (“[O]ne person might access the online site while
`
`the corresponding television ad might be delivered to another person in the
`
`household, office, business, or other site or establishment. The delivery end-point
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 20 of 157
`
`

`

`may be one television set….”).) Figure 1 of the patent depicts a basic layout of a
`
`system for targeting advertisements in accordance this exemplary context:
`
`
`(’878, Fig. 1.) As shown, the system includes online access device 32 (such as a
`
`
`
`modem or wireless access point), online user interface device 34 (such as a
`
`networked computer or mobile device), set-top box (“STB”) 36 and television 38
`
`associated with user 30. (’878, 9:36-40, 2:49-67.) Common service provider 20 can
`
`offer both Internet access via the online access device 32 as well as television service
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 21 of 157
`
`

`

`through STB 36. (’878, 9:45-56.) Common service provider 20 also provides to
`
`Central Ad Server (“CAS”) 40 the IP addresses of the user’s devices, such as
`
`computer 34 and STB 36. And online site 50 reports to CAS 40 computer 34’s
`
`online activities at the site. (’878, 11:8-15.) Thus, by determining the computer 34
`
`and STB 36 are related to each other, CAS 40 can provide targeted advertisements
`
`to STB/TV based on the computer’s online activities. (’878, 11:4-62.)
`
`32.
`
`In order to determine that, for example, computer 34 and STB 36 are
`
`related to each other, the ’878 patent explains that IP address information associated
`
`with those devices can be used. (’878, 9:57-10:18, 10:49-11:3.) For example, if
`
`both the computer and STB access the internet via modem 32 (e.g., they are part of
`
`a local area network (“LAN”)), the remote network will only see the same IP
`
`address—i.e., modem 32’s IP address—for both of those devices. (’878, 10:4-5
`
`(“[T]he modem IP address is the only address ‘seen’ by the remote network.”),
`
`10:40-44, 13:4-46 (“An online site or server access by any one of the multiple
`
`devices only ‘sees’ the common IP address (the modem IP address).”).) Thus, “[t]he
`
`common IP address enables delivery of television ads to STB 36 based on access of
`
`an online site via the common IP address (or based on other user profile information
`
`derived from online activity observed as originating from the online access IP
`
`address of modem 32, i.e., from the common IP address).” (’878, 14:1-6.) I discuss
`
`Roku Exhibit 1002
`Page 22 of 157
`
`

`

`additional aspects of the ’878 patent as needed in the analysis below.
`
`The Challenged Claims
`
`B.
`33. This Declaration addresses claims 1-4 and 6-23 of the ’878 patent.
`
`Independent claim 1 recites:
`
`1. A method for identifying an association among multiple electronic
`devices of a group of devices connected through a common local area
`network (LAN) and using the association for cross-device action, the
`method comprising:
`
`(a) with a computer system, determining an association between device
`identifiers of two or more Internet-accessing electronic devices based
`on electronically stored associatio