`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`TESLA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________________________________
`Case IPR2025-00342
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,336,805
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF SYLVIA D. HALL-ELLIS, PH.D.
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis. I have been retained as an expert by
`
`Counsel for Tesla (referred to herein as “Tesla”).
`
`2.
`
`I have written this declaration at the request of Tesla to provide my
`
`expert opinion regarding the authenticity and public availability of three
`
`publications. My declaration sets forth my opinions in detail and provides the
`
`basis for my opinions regarding the public availability of these publications.
`
`3.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement or amend my opinions, and basis for
`
`them, in response to any additional evidence, testimony, discovery, argument,
`
`and/or other additional information that may be provided to me after the date of
`
`this declaration. If called to testify in the above-captioned matter, I will testify with
`
`regard to the opinions and bases set forth below.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated for my time spent working on this matter at
`
`my normal consulting rate of $400 per hour, plus reimbursement for any additional
`
`reasonable expenses. My compensation is not in any way tied to the content of this
`
`declaration, the substance of my opinions, or the outcome of this proceeding. I
`
`have no other interests in this proceeding or with any of the parties.
`
`5.
`
`All of the materials that I considered are discussed explicitly in this
`
`declaration.
`
`1
`
`
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`I am currently an Adjunct Professor in the School of Information at
`6.
`
`San José State University. I obtained a Master of Library Science from the
`
`University of North Texas in 1972 and a Ph.D. in Library and Information Science
`
`from the University of Pittsburgh in 1985. Over the last fifty years, I have held
`
`various positions in the field of library and information resources. I was first
`
`employed as a librarian in 1966 and have been involved in the field of library
`
`sciences since, holding numerous positions.
`
`7.
`
`I am a member of the American Library Association (“ALA”) and its
`
`Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (“ALCTS”) Division,
`
`and I served on the Committee on Cataloging: Resource and Description (which
`
`wrote the new cataloging rules) and as the chair of the Committee for Education
`
`and Training of Catalogers and the Competencies and Education for a Career in
`
`Cataloging Interest Group. I also served as the Chair of the ALCTS Division’s
`
`Task Force on Competencies and Education for a Career in Cataloging.
`
`Additionally, I served as the Chair for the ALA Office of Diversity’s Committee
`
`on Diversity, as a member of the REFORMA National Board of Directors, and as a
`
`member of the Editorial Board for the ALCTS premier cataloging journal, Library
`
`Resources and Technical Services, as a Co-Chair of the Membership Committee
`
`for the Library Research Round Table (LRRT) of the American Library
`
`2
`
`
`
`Association, and as a member of the LRRT Nominating Committee. Currently I
`
`serve as a member of the CORE Margaret Mann Citation Committee.
`
`8.
`
`I have also given over one-hundred presentations in the field,
`
`including several on library cataloging systems and Machine-Readable Cataloging
`
`(“MARC”) standards. My current research interests include library cataloging
`
`systems, metadata, and organization of electronic resources.
`
`9.
`
`I have been deposed thirty-eight times: (1) Symantec Corp. vs. Finjan,
`
`Inc., Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926, May 26, 2016,
`
`on behalf of Symantec Corp.; (2) Symantec Corp. vs. Finjan, Inc., Northern
`
`District of California, 14-cv-299-HSG, on behalf of Symantec Corp., September
`
`14, 2017; (3) one deposition for ten matters: Intellectual Ventures I LLC vs. AT&T
`
`Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., SBC
`
`Internet Services, Inc., Wayport, Inc., and Cricket Wireless LLC, C.A. No. 12-193
`
`(LPS); Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. AT&T Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II
`
`LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., SBC Internet Services, Inc., Wayport,
`
`Inc., and Cricket Wireless LLC, C.A. No. 13-1631 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I
`
`LLC vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1632 (LPS);
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc., C.A.
`
`No. 13-1633 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC, vs. Nextel Operations, Inc., Sprint
`
`Spectrum L.P., Boost Mobile, LLC and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., C.A. No. 13-1634
`
`3
`
`
`
`(LPS); Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. Nextel Operations, Inc., Sprint Spectrum
`
`L.P., Boost Mobile, LLC and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., C.A. No. 13-1635 (LPS);
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC, vs. United States Cellular Corporation, C.A. No. 13-
`
`1636 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC vs. United States Cellular Corporation,
`
`C.A. No. 13-1637 (LPS); Intellectual Ventures II LLC vs. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`
`AT&T Mobility II LLC, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., C.A. No. 15-799
`
`(LPS); Intellectual Ventures I LLC vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc.,
`
`C.A. No. 15-800 (LPS), on behalf of AT&T Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility II
`
`LLC, Boost Mobile, LLC Cricket Wireless LLC, Nextel Operations, Inc., New
`
`Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., SBC Internet Services, Inc., Sprint Spectrum
`
`L.P., T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., United States Cellular Corporation
`
`Virgin Mobile USA, L.P., and Wayport, Inc., November 15, 2016; (4) Hitachi
`
`Maxell, LTD., v. Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co. Ltd., et al., Eastern District
`
`of Texas, 2:14-cv-1121 JRG-RSP (E.D. Texas), on behalf of Top Victory
`
`Electronics (Taiwan) Co. LTD, et. al., January 20, 2016; (5) Sprint Spectrum, L.P.
`
`vs. General Access Solutions, Ltd., Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,173,916, on behalf of Sprint Spectrum L.P., July 13, 2018; (6) Nichia
`
`Corporation vs. Vizio, Inc., Central District of California, 8:16-cv-00545; on behalf
`
`of Vizio, Inc., October 12, 2018; (7) Intellectual Ventures I LLC, vs. T-Mobile
`
`USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., Ericsson Inc., and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson,
`
`4
`
`
`
`Middle District of Florida, 2:17-cv-00557 (JRG), on behalf of T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`
`T-Mobile US, Inc., Ericsson Inc., and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, October
`
`19, 2018; (8) Pfizer, Inc. vs. Biogen, Inc., Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,821,873, on behalf of Pfizer, November 3, 2018; (9) Finjan, Inc. vs.
`
`ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL. S.R.O., Southern District of California, 3:17-cv-
`
`00183-CAB-BGS, on behalf of ESET, January 15, 2019; (10) Finjan, Inc. vs.
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Northern District of California, 5:17-cv-00072-BLF-SVK, on
`
`behalf of Cisco Systems, Inc., September 6, 2019; (11) Facebook, Inc., Instagram,
`
`LLC and Whatsapp Inc. vs. Blackberry Limited, Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120 B2, on behalf of Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC and
`
`Whatsapp Inc. December 20, 2019; (12) 3Shape A/S and Shape Inc. v. Align
`
`Technology, Inc., Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,156,661,
`
`IPR2020-00222 and IPR2020-00223, August 10, 2020, on behalf of 3Shape A/S
`
`and 3Shape Inc.; (13) Finjan Inc. v. Rapid7, Inc. and Rapid7 LLC, District of
`
`Delaware, 1:18-cv-01519-MN, September 15, 2020; (14) VLSI Technology LLC v.
`
`Intel Corporation, Western District of Texas, 6:19-cv-00254, 6:19-cv-00255, 6:19-
`
`cv-00256, on behalf of Intel Corporation, September 23, 2020; (15) Finjan Inc. v.
`
`Sonicwall, Inc., Northern District of California, 5:17-cv-04467-BLF-HRL, on
`
`behalf of Sonicwall, Inc., October 27, 2020; (16) VLSI Technology, LLC v. Intel
`
`Corporation, District of Delaware, 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB, February 5, 2021, on
`
`5
`
`
`
`behalf of the Intel Corporation; (17) Unified Patents, LLC v. Good Kaisha IP
`
`Bridge 1, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U. S. Patent 7,817,868, February 11,
`
`2021, on behalf of Unified Patents; (18) Finjan, Inc. v. Qualsys, Inc., Northern
`
`District of California, 4:18-cv-07229-YGR, March 1, 2021, on behalf of Qualsys,
`
`Inc.; (19) Qualcomm, Inc. v. Monterey Research LLC, Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U. S. Patent 6,534,805, May 6, 2021, on behalf of Qualcomm, Inc.; (20)
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.
`
`S. Patent 5,806,062, May 14, 2021, on behalf of Hulu, LLC; (21) VLSI Technology
`
`LLC v. Intel Corporation, Western District of Texas, 6:19-cv-00254, 6:19-cv-
`
`00255 and 6:19-cv-00256, August 3, 2021, on behalf of Intel Corporation; (22)
`
`Liquidia Technologies, Inc. v. United Therapeutics Corporation, Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U. S. Patent 10,716,793 B2, October 20, 2021, on behalf of
`
`Liquidia Technologies, Inc.; (23) EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Western District
`
`of Texas, 6:20-cv-00075 (ADA), 6:20-0078-ADA, and 6:20-cv-00080 ADA,
`
`October 27, 2021, on behalf of Google, Inc.; (24) Liquidia Technologies, Inc. v.
`
`United Therapeutics Corporation, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U. S. Patent
`
`10,716,793 B2, March 11, 2022, on behalf of Liquidia Technologies, Inc.; (25)
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLC, Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`of U. S. Patent 9,852,004, May 5, 2022, on behalf of Juniper Networks, Inc.; (26)
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corporation, Western District of Texas, 6:20-cv-108
`
`6
`
`
`
`(ADA), October 26, 2022, on behalf of the Intel Corporation; (27) CommScope v.
`
`TQ Delta, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U. S. Patents 9,094,348 and
`
`10,833,809, February 16, 2023, on behalf of CommScope; (28) WSOU Investments
`
`d/b/a Brazos v. Salesforce.com, Inc. for Western District of Texas, 6:20-cv-01164-
`
`ADA and 6:20-cv-01170-ADA, April 18, 2023, on behalf of Salesforce; (29)
`
`Regents of the University of Minnesota v. AT&T Mobility LLC, District of
`
`Minnesota, 14:cv-4999-JRT-TNL & 14-cv-4669-JRT-TNL, May 18, 2023, on
`
`behalf of AT & T Mobility LLC; (30) VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation,
`
`Northern District of California, 5:17-cv-0571-BLF-NC, July 11, 2023, on behalf of
`
`Intel Corporation; (31) Trustees of Purdue University v. ST Microelectronics,
`
`Western District of Texas, 6:21-cv-00727-ADA, July 27, 2023, on behalf of ST
`
`Microelectronics; (32) Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Realtek Semiconductor
`
`Corp., Petition for Inter Partes Review of U. S. Patents 7,936,245 & 9,590,582,
`
`August 10, 2023, on behalf of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; (33) Motif
`
`Foodworks, Inc. v. Impossible Foods, Inc., Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.
`
`S. Patent 9,943,096, August 24, 2023, on behalf of Motif Foodworks, Inc.; (34)
`
`Network System Technologies, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc., Eastern District of
`
`Texas, 2:22-cv-00482-RWS, March 20, 2024, on behalf of Texas Instruments, Inc.;
`
`(35) Pardalis Technology Licensing, LLC v. International Business Machines,
`
`Corporation, Eastern District of Texas, 2:22-cv-00452, May 23, 2024, on behalf of
`
`7
`
`
`
`International Business Machines, Corporation;
`
`(36) Pardalis Technology
`
`Licensing, LLC v. International Business Machines, Corporation, Eastern District
`
`of Texas, 2:22-cv-00452, May 23, 2024, on behalf of International Business
`
`Machines, Corporation; (37) Meta Platforms, InstaGram, Inc., Whatsapp LLC,
`
`Facebook Technologies LLC, and Giphy, Inc. v. VL Collective IP LLC, Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U. S. Patent 7,436,980, July 18, 2024, on behalf of Meta
`
`Platforms, InstaGram, Inc., Whatsapp LLC, Facebook Technologies LLC, and
`
`Giphy, Inc.; and, (38) LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. v. RadiciChimica S.p.A,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U. S. Patent 11,781,148, August 6, 2024, on
`
`behalf of LCY Biotechnology Holding, Inc. I have testified at trial three times: (1)
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., U. S. Patents
`
`7,936,245 & 9,590,582, October 20, 2023, International Trade Commission,
`
`Washington, DC, on behalf of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; (2) Trustees of
`
`Purdue University v. ST Microelectronics, Western District of Texas, 6:21-cv-
`
`00727-ADA, November 29, 2023, on behalf of ST Microelectronics; and, (3)
`
`Certain Power Converter Modules and Computing Systems Containing the Same,
`
`Investigation ITC-337-TA-1370, International Trade Commission, May 1, 2024,
`
`on behalf of Delta Electronics, Inc.
`
`10. My full curriculum vitae is submitted herewith as Appendix A.
`
`8
`
`
`
`III. PRELIMINARIES
`A. Scope of this declaration.
`I have been asked to offer an opinion on the public availability dates
`11.
`
`of the following documents:
`
`a. Broggi, A., M. Bertozzi, A. Fascioli, C. Guarino Lo Bianco, and A.
`
`Piazzi. “Visual Perception of Obstacles and Vehicles for
`
`Platooning.” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation
`
`Systems, vol. 1, no. 3 (September 2000): 164-176. (“Broggi,”
`
`EX1005)
`
`b. Huttenlocher, Daniel P., and Shiman Ullman. “Object Recognition
`
`Using Alignment.” Image Understanding Workshop: Proceedings
`
`of a Workshop (vol. 1, pp. 370-380). 2 vols. U.S. Defense
`
`Advanced Research Projects Agency. San Mateo, CA: Distributed
`
`by Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1987. (“Huttenlocher,” EX1006)
`
`c. Broggi, Alberto, Massimo Bertozzi, Gianni Conte, and Alessandra
`
`Fascioli. Automatic Vehicle Guidance : the Experience of the
`
`ARGO Autonomous Vehicle. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific
`
`Publishing Company, 1999.
`
`12.
`
`I am informed by counsel that the alleged priority date for the patent
`
`at issue is June 16, 2004. As I will explain below, it is my opinion that the
`
`9
`
`
`
`publications discussed in my declaration were publicly accessible before the
`
`alleged June 16, 2004, priority date.
`
`13.
`
`I am not an attorney and will not offer opinions on the law. I am,
`
`however, rendering my expert opinion on the authenticity of the documents
`
`referenced herein and on when and how each of these documents was disseminated
`
`or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily
`
`skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, could have
`
`located the documents before June 16, 2004.
`
`14.
`
`I am informed by counsel that an item is considered authentic if there
`
`is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the item is what it is claimed to be. I
`
`am also informed that authenticity can be established based on the contents of the
`
`documents themselves, such as the appearance, contents, substance, internal
`
`patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all of
`
`the circumstances. I am further informed that an item is considered authentic if it
`
`is at least 20 years old, in a condition that creates no suspicion of its authenticity,
`
`and in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be. Lastly, I have been informed
`
`that a document’s authenticity can be established by comparison with an authentic
`
`specimen.
`
`15.
`
`I am informed by counsel that a printed publication qualifies as
`
`publicly accessible as of the date it was disseminated or otherwise made available
`
`10
`
`
`
`such that a person interested in and ordinarily skilled in the relevant subject matter
`
`could locate it through the exercise of ordinary diligence.
`
`16. While I understand that the determination of public accessibility under
`
`the foregoing standard rests on a case-by-case analysis of the facts particular to an
`
`individual publication, I also understand that a printed publication is rendered
`
`“publicly accessible” if it is cataloged and indexed by a library such that a person
`
`interested in the relevant subject matter could locate it (i.e., I understand that
`
`cataloging and indexing by a library is sufficient, though there are other ways that
`
`a printed publication may qualify as publicly accessible). One manner of sufficient
`
`indexing is indexing according to subject matter category. I understand that the
`
`cataloging and indexing by a single library of a single instance of a particular
`
`printed publication is sufficient, even if the single library is in a foreign country. I
`
`understand that, even if access to a library is restricted, a printed publication that
`
`has been cataloged and indexed therein is publicly accessible so long as a
`
`presumption is raised that the portion of the public concerned with the relevant
`
`subject matter would know of the printed publication. I also understand that the
`
`cataloging and indexing of information that would guide a person interested in the
`
`relevant subject matter to the printed publication, such as the cataloging and
`
`indexing of an abstract for the printed publication, is sufficient to render the
`
`printed publication publicly accessible.
`
`11
`
`
`
`17.
`
`I understand that routine business practices, such as general library
`
`cataloging and indexing practices, can be used to establish an approximate date on
`
`which a printed publication became publicly accessible.
`
`B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I am told by counsel that the subject matter of this proceeding relates
`18.
`
`generally to a docking assistance using image analysis. ’805 Patent, Abstract.
`
`19.
`
`I am informed by counsel that a “person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention” (“POSITA”) is a hypothetical person who is presumed to
`
`be familiar with the relevant field and its literature at the time of invention. This
`
`hypothetical person
`
`is also a person of ordinary creativity, capable of
`
`understanding the scientific principles applicable to the pertinent field.
`
`20.
`
`I was told by counsel that a POSITA in June 2004 would have had a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer
`
`science, or a related subject, and four years of work experience in image
`
`processing, automated vehicle control/navigation, or a related field. Less
`
`experience may be necessary with additional education (e.g., a master’s degree),
`
`and likewise, less education may be necessary with additional work experience
`
`(e.g., 5-7 years).
`
`21.
`
`It is my opinion that such a person would have been engaged in
`
`research, learning through study, and practice in the field and possibly through
`
`12
`
`
`
`formal instruction the bibliographic resources relevant to his or her research. By
`
`no later than the early 2000s (and more specifically, before June 16, 2004), such a
`
`person would have had access to a vast array of long-established print resources in
`
`the field, as well as to a rich set of online resources providing indexing
`
`information, abstracts, and full text services for publications relevant to the field of
`
`this dispute, including at least the publications discussed in this declaration.
`
`C. Authoritative Databases
`In preparing this declaration, I used authoritative databases, such as
`22.
`
`the OCLC WorldCat, the Library of Congress Online Catalog, and the U. S.
`
`Copyright Office database, to confirm citation details of the publications discussed.
`
`23. OCLC WorldCat Database. The OCLC was created “to establish,
`
`maintain and operate a computerized library network and to promote the evolution
`
`of library use, of libraries themselves, and of librarianship, and to provide
`
`processes and products for the benefit of library users and libraries, including such
`
`objectives as increasing availability of library resources to individual library
`
`patrons and reducing the rate of rise of library per-unit costs, all for the
`
`fundamental public purpose of furthering ease of access to and use of the ever-
`
`expanding body of worldwide scientific, literary and educational knowledge and
`
`13
`
`
`
`information.”1 Among other services, OCLC and its members are responsible for
`
`maintaining the WorldCat database, 2 used by independent and institutional
`
`libraries throughout the world.
`
`24. U. S. Copyright Office. Created by Congress in 1897, the Copyright
`
`Office is responsible for administering a complex and dynamic set of laws, which
`
`include registration, the recordation of title and licenses, a number of statutory
`
`licensing provisions, and other aspects of the 1976 Copyright Act and the 1998
`
`Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The public catalog in the Copyright Office
`
`includes information filed since 1978.3 Individuals can search by title, personal or
`
`corporate name, key word, registration number, and document number. Works
`
`filed before 1978 can be located through the Copyright Public Records Reading
`
`Room. 4 A researcher can find the date on which an item was published and
`
`deposited for copyright.
`
`
`
`1 Third Article, Amended Articles of Incorporation of OCLC Online Computer
`Library Center, Incorporated (available at
`https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/membership/articles-of-incorporation.pdf)
`2 http://www.worldcat.org/
`3 https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First
`4 https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ23.pdf
`14
`
`
`
`Indexing
`D.
`25. A researcher may discover material relevant to his or her topic in a
`
`variety of ways. One common means of discovery is to search for relevant
`
`information in an index of periodical and other publications. Having found
`
`relevant material, the researcher will then normally obtain it online, look for it in
`
`libraries, or purchase it from a publisher, a bookstore, a document delivery service,
`
`or other provider. Sometimes, the date of a document’s public accessibility will
`
`involve both indexing and library date information. However, date information for
`
`indexing entries is often unavailable. This is especially true for online indices.
`
`26.
`
`Indexing services use a wide variety of controlled vocabularies to
`
`provide subject access and other means of discovering the content of documents.
`
`The formats in which these access terms are presented vary from service to service.
`
`27. Before the widespread development of online databases to index
`
`articles in journals, magazines, conference papers, and technical declarations,
`
`libraries purchased printed volumes of indices. Graduate library school education
`
`mandated that students learn about the bibliographic control of disciplines, the
`
`prominent indexing volumes, and searching strategies required to use them
`
`effectively and efficiently. Half of the courses that I studied in library school were
`
`focused on bibliography and resources in academic disciplines.
`
`15
`
`
`
`28. Librarians consulted with information seekers to verify citations,
`
`check availability in union catalogs, printed books catalogs, and the OCLC
`
`database, and make formal requests for materials, e.g., books, conference
`
`proceedings, journal articles. Requests were transmitted using Telex machines,
`
`rudimentary email systems, and the United States Postal Service. During my
`
`career, I have performed and supervised staff who handled these resource sharing
`
`tasks.
`
`29. A major firm known for the breadth of subjects and comprehensive
`
`treatment in the preparation of index volumes, the H. W. Wilson Company offered
`
`these reference resources since the firm was founded in 1898. The Reader’s Guide
`
`to Periodical Literature is one of the best-known titles available from H. W.
`
`Wilson. Each volume includes a comprehensive index for 300 of the most popular
`
`and important periodicals published in the United States and Canada. Information
`
`seekers have subject access expressed in plain language terminology, author
`
`access, and cross references to find the desired results from their searches. The
`
`family of index titles included Science & Technology Index, Business Periodicals,
`
`Applied Science & Technology Index, Humanities Index, Biological & Agricultural
`
`Index, and Industrial Arts Index. These printed indices have been superseded by
`
`digital database offerings available to information seekers through Ebsco.
`
`16
`
`
`
`30. Online
`
`indexing
`
`services
`
`commonly provide bibliographic
`
`information, abstracts, and full-text copies of the indexed publications, along with
`
`a list of the documents cited in the indexed publication. These services also often
`
`provide lists of publications that cite a given document. A citation of a document
`
`is evidence that the document was publicly available and in use no later than the
`
`publication date of the citing document.
`
`IV. LIBRARY CATALOGING PRACTICES
`
`A. MARC RECORDS AND THE ONLINE LIBRARY CATALOG
`I am fully familiar with the library cataloging standard known as the
`31.
`
`MARC standard, which is an industry-wide standard method of storing and
`
`organizing library catalog information.5 MARC was first developed in the 1960s
`
`by the Library of Congress. A MARC-compatible library is one that has a catalog
`
`consisting of individual MARC records for each of its items. Today, MARC is the
`
`primary communications protocol for the transfer and storage of bibliographic
`
`metadata in libraries.6
`
`
`
`5 The full text of the standard is available from the Library of Congress at
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/.
`6 Almost every major library in the world is MARC-compatible. See, e.g., MARC
`Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), Library of Congress,
`https://www.loc.gov/marc/faq.html (last visited September 2, 2024) (“MARC is
`the acronym for MAchine-Readable Cataloging. It defines a data format that
`17
`
`
`
`32. MARC is a framework into which descriptive bibliographic data are
`
`transcribed to interact with the software in online library catalogs to provide access
`
`to books, journals, and other resources in the collection. The bibliographic data
`
`provide points of access and can be searched by a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) to identify and obtain resources in the library collection. An
`
`information seeker (or POSITA) can search a local online library catalog or the
`
`holdings of a group of libraries in a state or region or in the global catalog
`
`WorldCat.
`
`33. MARC records are not designed for public viewing. Although a
`
`significant number of libraries provide access to the MARC version of a
`
`bibliographic record, the public display is designed to show information in a
`
`succinct manner that is quickly understood and useful to the information seeker.
`
`Libraries determine the default search for the online catalog to make the entry of
`
`search terms efficient and result in a successful search. Information seekers can
`
`enter a keyword, title, author, or standard number for the item. Libraries may also
`
`provide a search capability called “Summon” that allows the information seeker to
`
`
`emerged from a Library of Congress-led initiative that began nearly forty years
`ago. It provides the mechanism by which computers exchange, use, and interpret
`bibliographic information, and its data elements make up the foundation of most
`library catalogs used today.”). MARC is the ANSI/NISO Z39.2-1994 (reaffirmed
`2016) standard for Information Interchange Format.
`18
`
`
`
`enter known information about the item to conduct a search.
`
`34. Since at least the early 1970s and continuing to the present day,
`
`MARC has been the primary communications protocol for the transfer and storage
`
`of bibliographic metadata in libraries.7 As explained by the Library of Congress:
`
`You could devise your own method of organizing the
`bibliographic information, but you would be isolating your library,
`limiting its options, and creating much more work for yourself. Using
`the MARC standard prevents duplication of work and allows libraries
`to better share bibliographic resources. Choosing to use MARC
`enables libraries to acquire cataloging data that is predictable and
`reliable. If a library were to develop a “home-grown” system that did
`not use MARC records, it would not be taking advantage of an
`industry-wide standard whose primary purpose
`is
`to
`foster
`communication of information.
`Using the MARC standard also enables libraries to make use of
`commercially available library automation systems to manage library
`operations. Many systems are available for libraries of all sizes and
`are designed to work with the MARC format. Systems are maintained
`and improved by the vendor so that libraries can benefit from the
`
`
`
`7 A complete history of the development of MARC can be found in MARC: Its
`History and Implications by Henrietta D. Avram (Washington, DC: Library of
`Congress, 1975) and available online from the Hathi Trust
`(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015034388556;view=1up;seq=1; last
`visited September 2, 2024).
`
`19
`
`
`
`latest advances in computer technology. The MARC standard also
`allows libraries to replace one system with another with the assurance
`that their data will still be compatible.
`
`a MARC Record Necessary? LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
`
`Is
`
`Why
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um01to06.html#part2 (last visited September 2,
`
`2024).
`
`35. Examining the MARC records for a specific item reveals the
`
`comprehensive data transcribed about a particular item at the time that cataloging
`
`and classification occurred. In addition to the creator, title, subjects, and standard
`
`numbers, additional information may provide additional and relevant data
`
`depending on the type of resource. Understanding the full extent of bibliographic
`
`data for an item and the points of access associated with it provides essential
`
`information that can be used to determine the indexing and public availability for
`
`documents described in this Declaration.
`
`B. MARC RECORDS
`36. A MARC record comprises several fields, each of which contains
`
`specific data about the work. Each field is identified by a standardized, unique,
`
`three-digit code corresponding to the type of data that follow. For example, a
`
`work’s title is recorded in field 245, the primary author or creator of the work is
`
`recorded in field 100, an item’s International Standard Book Number (“ISBN”) is
`
`recorded in field 020, an item’s International Standard Serial Number (“ISSN”) is
`20
`
`
`
`recorded in field 022, an item’s Library of Congress call number is recorded in
`
`field 050, and the publication date is recorded in field 260 under the subfield “c.”
`
`Id.8 If a work is a periodical, then its publication frequency is recorded in field
`
`310, alternate publication frequency is recorded in field 321, and the publication
`
`dates (e.g., the first and last publication) are recorded in field 362, which is also
`
`referred
`
`to
`
`as
`
`the
`
`enumeration/chronology
`
`field.
`
`
`
`See
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd3xx.html (last visited September 2,
`
`2024).
`
`37. The library that created the record is recorded in Field 040 in subfield
`
`“a” with a unique library code. When viewing the MARC record online via Online
`
`Computer Library Center’s (“OCLC”) bibliographic database, hovering over this
`
`code with the mouse reveals the full name of the library. I used this method of
`
`“mousing over” the library codes in the OCLC database to identify the originating
`
`library for the MARC records discussed in this Declaration. Where this “mouse
`
`over” option was not available, I consulted the Directory of OCLC Libraries to
`
`
`8 In some MARC records, field 264 is used rather than field 260 to record
`publication information. See http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd264.html
`(last visited September 2, 2024) (“Information in field 264 is similar to information
`in field 260 (Publication, Distribution, etc. (Imprint)). Field 264 is useful for cases
`where the content standard or institutional policies make a distinction between
`functions”).
`
`21
`
`
`
`identify the institution that created the MARC record.9
`
`38. MARC records also include several fields that include subject matter
`
`classification information. An overview of MARC record fields is available
`
`through the Library of Congress at http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/. For
`
`example, 6XX
`
`fields
`
`are
`
`termed
`
`“Subject Access Fields.”
`
` See
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd6xx.html. Among these, for example, is
`
`the 650 field; this is the “Subject Added Entry – Topical Term” field. See
`
`http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd650.html. The 650 field is a “[s]ubject
`
`added entry in which the entry element is a topical te
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
