UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FLEXIWORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case No. PGR2021-00111
`Patent No. 10,846,031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF SAMRAT BHATTACHARJEE, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,846,031
`
`
`
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`LIST OF APPENDICES
`
`Appendix A
`
`Curriculum Vitae
`
`Appendix B
`
`
`Appendix C
`
`
`
`
`Appendix D
`
`
`Appendix E
`
`
`
`Appendix F
`
`
`
`Appendix G
`
`
`Appendix H
`
`
`Excerpts from Jim Geier, Wireless LANs: Implementing
`Interoperable Networks (MacMillan, 1999)
`
`John Markoff, New Economy: Airborne and grass roots. By
`popular acclaim, a wireless format with a name only a geek
`could love is taking hold. (New York Times, Sec. C, p. 5,
`October 30, 2000)
`
`Jaap C. Haartsen, The Bluetooth Radio System (IEEE Personal
`Communications, February 2000)
`
`Golden G. Richard III, Service Advertisement and Discovery:
`Enabling Universal Device Cooperation (IEEE Internet
`Computing, September / October 2000)
`
`Excerpt from Tom Sheldon, McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of
`Networking & Telecommunications (Osborne / McGraw Hill,
`2001) at pp. 1131-33 (“Service Advertising and Discovery”).
`
`Charlie Russel and Sharon Crawford, Running Microsoft
`Windows NT Server 4.0 (1997)
`
`Excerpts from Alan Neibauer, This Wired Home: The Microsoft
`Guide to Home Networking (2000)
`
`Appendix I
`
`Steve Rigney, Print Servers (PC Magazine, January 19, 1999)
`
`Appendix J
`
`
`Appendix K
`
`
`Appendix L
`
`
`Excerpts from Sue Plumley, Home Networking Bible (IDG
`Books, 1999)
`
`Excerpts from Aeleen Frisch, Essential Windows NT System
`Administration (1998)
`
`Apple Computer, AirPort: Wireless Networking, A Technical
`Overview (May 2000)
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Appendix M
`
`
`Excerpts from Eric A. Hall, Internet Core Protocols: The
`Definitive Guide (2000)
`
`Appendix N
`
`Hewlett-Packard, Jornada: PC Companion Products (1999)
`
`Appendix O
`
`Proxim, Inc., RangeLAN2 7410 CE PC Card (1999)
`
`Appendix P
`
`
`Appendix Q
`
`
`Appendix R
`
`
`Appendix S
`
`
`Appendix T
`
`
`Appendix U
`
`
`
`
`Appendix V
`
`
`
`Appendix W
`
`
`Appendix X
`
`
`Excerpts from Bluetooth Core Specification v1.0 B
`(December 1, 1999)
`
`Yaron Goland et al., IETF Draft: Simple Service Discovery
`Protocol/1.0 (Oct. 28, 1999)
`
`Excerpt from E. Guttman et al., RFC 2608: Service Location
`Protocol, Version 2 (June 1999)
`
`Excerpts from Ron Person, Using Windows 95: Special Edition
`(1995)
`
`Excerpts from David Pogue, Mac OS 9: The Missing Manual
`(2000)
`
`Universal Plug and Play Device Architecture v1.0 (June 8,
`2000) (archived copy accessible at:
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000816073450/http://upnp.org/U
`PnPDevice_Architecture_1.0.htm)
`
`Erik Guttman, Service Location Protocol: Automatic Discovery
`of IP Network Services (IEEE Internet Computing, July /
`August 1999)
`
`Excerpt from J. Veizades et al., RFC 2165: Service Location
`Protocol (June 1997)
`
`Excerpts from HP Jornada 600 Series Handheld PC, User’s
`Guide (1999)
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY ............................ 1
`OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................ 5
`1. Wireless Communications ......................................................... 5
`4.
`Network Printing via Wired and Wireless Networks ................ 9
`Overview of the ’031 Patent ............................................................... 12
`The ’031 Patent’s Priority Applications Do Not Describe Using
`an Internet Appliance as an Output Device or Output System. ......... 19
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 25
`D.
`III. UNPATENTABILITY OF THE CHALLENGED PATENT CLAIMS...... 25
`A.
`Legal Standards for Invalidity Subject Matter Eligibility Under
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................. 25
`The Conventionality of the ’031 Patent Claims ................................. 26
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 27
`a.
`The preamble ................................................................. 27
`b.
`The claimed “mobile information apparatus” ............... 27
`c.
`The claimed “output system” ........................................ 31
`d.
`The five functions .......................................................... 35
`(i)
`Function 1: discover the output system ............... 36
`(ii)
`Functions 2 & 3: display the output system
`for user selection ................................................. 42
`(iii) Function 4: send security or authentication
`information .......................................................... 46
`(iv) Function 5: establish a wireless
`communication link ............................................. 49
`The final “wherein …” clause ....................................... 51
`e.
`The elements of claim 1 as an ordered combination ..... 52
`f.
`Independent Claims 8, 14, 21, 28, and 34 ................................ 53
`a.
`Claims 8 and 28 ............................................................. 53
`b.
`Claims 14, 21, and 34 .................................................... 58
`Dependent Claims .................................................................... 65
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Claims 2, 3, 10, 15, 16, 22, 29, and 35 .......................... 65
`a.
`Claim 4 ........................................................................... 65
`b.
`Claim 5 ........................................................................... 66
`c.
`Claim 6 ........................................................................... 67
`d.
`Claim 7 ........................................................................... 70
`e.
`Claim 9 ........................................................................... 70
`f.
`Claim 11 ......................................................................... 72
`g.
`Claim 12, 20, and 23 ...................................................... 72
`h.
`Claims 13 and 31 ........................................................... 74
`i.
`Claim 17 ......................................................................... 75
`j.
`Claims 18, 24, and 36 .................................................... 75
`k.
`Claim 19 ......................................................................... 76
`l.
`Claims 25 and 37 ........................................................... 78
`m.
`Claim 26 ......................................................................... 80
`n.
`Claims 27 and 38 ........................................................... 80
`o.
`Claim 30 ......................................................................... 81
`p.
`Claim 32 ......................................................................... 82
`q.
`Claim 33 ......................................................................... 83
`r.
`Claim 39 ......................................................................... 84
`s.
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 87
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
`I, Samrat Bhattacharjee, have been retained by Petitioner Roku, Inc.
`
`
`(“Roku”) to investigate and opine on certain issues relating to United States Patent
`
`No. 10,846,031 (“the ’031 patent”) in Roku’s Petition for Post Grant Review of
`
`that patent. The Petition requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”
`
`or “Board”) review and cancel claims 1-39 of the ’031 patent.
`
`
`
`I am being compensated for my work on this matter by Roku for
`
`consulting services including time spent testifying at any hearing that may be held.
`
`I am also reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses associated with my
`
`work in this case. I receive no other forms of compensation related to this case.
`
`My compensation does not depend on the outcome of this post-grant review or the
`
`co-pending district court litigation, and I have no other financial interest in this
`
`post grant review.
`
`
`
`This declaration is based on the information currently available to me.
`
`To the extent that additional information becomes available, I reserve the right to
`
`continue my investigation and study, which may include a review of documents
`
`and information that may be produced, as well as testimony from depositions that
`
`have not yet been taken.
`
`
`
`I understand that the ’031 patent has been assigned to Flexiworld
`
`Technologies, Inc. (“Flexiworld” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`A. Qualifications
`
` My qualifications for forming the opinions in this expert report are
`
`summarized here and more fully detailed in my CV attached hereto as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`
`
`I received Bachelor of Science degrees in both Computer Science and
`
`in Mathematics from Georgia College in 1994, and a Ph.D. in Computer Science in
`
`1999 from Georgia Tech. My Ph.D. research was in developing a new form of
`
`networking architecture, and part of the work I did focused heavily on better
`
`delivery of video over the Internet. After receiving my Ph.D., I joined the
`
`University of Maryland as an Assistant Professor in 1999. In 2005, I was
`
`promoted to Associate Professor with tenure, and to Full Professor in 2009. At
`
`Maryland, I have taught both undergraduate and graduate courses in Computer
`
`Networking, Operating Systems, Computer Security, and various special topics
`
`courses on topics in related fields. My courses cover the basic structure of
`
`Computer systems and networking, and some cover media content delivery over
`
`the Internet in detail.
`
`
`
`Both as a graduate student and as a faculty member, I have published
`
`in the top venues in Computer Networking, Computer Systems, and in Security.
`
`The list of my publications is attached as part of my CV in Appendix A. My
`
`research work has been supported by multiple grants from the US National Science
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Foundation, and the Department of Defense. I have also started a Joint Ph.D.
`
`program with the University of Maryland and the Max Planck Society in Germany,
`
`and co-founded the annual Cornell, Maryland, Max Planck Research School that
`
`provides research exposure to about 80 students from across the world during a
`
`week-long school.
`
`
`
`As I mentioned earlier, part of my Ph.D. research was to develop new
`
`architectures for video delivery on the Internet, and I have published papers on this
`
`architecture during my graduate studies. I continued to work on video delivery as
`
`a faculty member, and have published various papers on video streaming, content
`
`delivery architectures, and on resilient large-scale content delivery. During 2007, I
`
`was a visiting researcher at AT&T Labs, and one of the projects I focused on was a
`
`video content delivery platform. This work resulted in both publications and a
`
`granted US patent (U.S. Pat. No. 8,752,100 B2).
`
`B. Materials Considered
`
`
`
`Among the materials I reviewed in forming my opinions are the ʼ031
`
`patent, the prosecution history of the ʼ031 patent, Exhibit 8 to Flexiworld’s
`
`complaint which sets forth infringement allegations for the ’031 patent, and the
`
`Exhibits and Appendices referenced in this declaration. I have also relied on my
`
`own professional and academic experience and my experience with working with
`
`others involved in the industry.
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`
`
`It is my opinion that a person or ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at
`
`the time of the invention would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in computer science
`
`or computer engineering or a similar field, and (2) two years of experience
`
`developing software. The POSA would be familiar with well-known networking
`
`technologies. This description is approximate, in the sense that additional
`
`experience could make up for less education and vice versa.
`
`
`
`I understand Flexiworld has not yet identified an alleged priority date
`
`for any claims of the ’031 patent in the district court litigation. I have not been asked
`
`to analyze whether the claims of the ’031 patent are supported by any of the priority
`
`applications. In my view, the level of ordinary skill in the art would be similar
`
`regardless of whether the claims are entitled to a priority date as early as November
`
`1, 2000 based on the earliest filed provisional application or if the claims are only
`
`entitled to a priority date of May 12, 2017 based on the filing of the ’031 patent’s
`
`actual application. Of course, a POSA in 2017 would have additional knowledge of
`
`newer technologies (e.g., the iPhone), but none of the claims require technologies
`
`that would not have been known to a POSA on November 1, 2000.
`
`D.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`
` Throughout my analysis and in forming all the opinions stated in this
`
`declaration, I have considered the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`as of November 1, 2000, which is the date of the earliest-filed priority application.
`
`
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1-39 recite technology that was routine and
`
`conventional by November 1, 2000.
`
`
`
`It is my opinion that the applications the ’031 patent cites for priority
`
`fail to describe using an Internet appliance as an output device or output system.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`A. Relevant State of the Art
`
`1. Wireless Communications
` Although wireless networking technology had existed for years,
`
`standardization efforts in the late 1990s spurred increased interest in and use of
`
`wireless. The first major international wireless local area network (LAN) standard
`
`was IEEE 802.11. See Appx. B (Geier, 1999) at 89-96 (introducing the 802.11
`
`standard). The initial 802.11 standard was finalized in 1997 and supplements in
`
`1999 covered extensions (802.11a and b) that provided for increased data rates.
`
`IEEE 802.11 quickly came to dominate the wireless LAN space and replace earlier
`
`proprietary wireless technologies. By the time of the alleged invention (no earlier
`
`than November 1, 2000), IEEE 802.11 was essentially synonymous with wireless
`
`LAN technology. A New York Times article from October 30, 2000 describes
`
`surging enthusiasm around IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN technology. Appx. C
`
`(Markoff); see id. at 1 (“There is no doubt, however, that ‘wireless Ethernet’--
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`formally known as the 802.11b wireless technical standard as specified by the
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers -- is finally taking off.”).
`
` Another important wireless standard, Bluetooth, was adopted in 1999.
`
`Bluetooth was developed to support low power radio connections between
`
`electronic devices, including computers and peripherals. See generally Appx. D
`
`(Haartsen, The Bluetooth Radio System, Feb. 2000).
`
`Service Discovery Technologies
`2.
`In the late 1990s portable and handheld computing devices were
`
`
`
`becoming increasingly popular and it was generally understood that the utility of
`
`these devices could be enhanced by enabling them to discover and interact with
`
`other computing devices. To that end, a number of “service discovery
`
`technologies were developed … to simplify the use of mobile devices in a network
`
`by allowing them to be ‘discovered,’ configured and used by other devices with a
`
`minimum of manual effort.” Appx. E (Richard, Service Advertisement and
`
`Discovery: Enabling Universal Device Cooperation, 2000) at 18; see also Appx. F
`
`(Networking Encyclopedia, 2001) at 1131-33 (“Service Advertising and
`
`Discovery”).
`
` Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) is a technology platform developed
`
`by the UPnP Forum led by Microsoft. UPnP includes Simple Service Discovery
`
`Protocol (SSDP) “for service discovery and advertisement.” Appx. E (Richard) at
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`23; id. at 24 (“In SSDP, each service has three associated IDs—service type,
`
`service name, and location—which are multicast when services are advertised.”).
`
`Apart from service discovery, UPnP includes a range of complementary
`
`technologies that facilitate interoperability between networked devices. Id. at 24
`
`(discussing description, control, and presentation functionality).
`
`
`
`In addition to UPnP, there were several other technologies that
`
`provided similar service discovery functionality. The Richard article discusses
`
`Jini, Salutation, and SLP, for example. Appx. E at 20-25. Bluetooth included a
`
`service discovery protocol (SDP) that “provides a simple API for enumerating the
`
`devices in range and browsing available services.” Id. at 19; see also Appx. F
`
`(Networking Encyclopedia, 2001) at 1131-33 (discussing Salutation, SLP,
`
`Microsoft.NET, SSDP, Bluetooth, Jini, JetSend, and Inferno).
`
`Print Servers
`3.
` The ’031 patent states that an output controller for a printer can be a
`
`print server. ’031 patent at 20:20-22 (“Other possible implementations of output
`
`controller 230 may include, for example, a … print server.”); see also id. at 18:20-
`
`21; 19:60-64; 24:2-4. Because many printers did not include built-in network-
`
`interface cards (“NICs”), print servers could be used to connect printers lacking
`
`such cards to networks.
`
`There are two basic methods for connecting your printers
`directly to the network. You can use a high-end printer
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`that comes with a network card that is either built in or
`available as an option. Or you can use a stand-alone
`network print serverthe Hewlett-Packard JetDirect EX
`is a good examplethat supports a variety of protocols
`and usually comes with drivers to support many network
`operating systems, including Windows NT server.
`Appx. G (Russel, Running Windows NT Server 4.0, 1997) at 220; see also, e.g., Ex.
`
`1012 (Poole, The Little Network Book for Windows and Macintosh, 1999) at 130
`
`(“If the printer doesn’t have a built-in network port, you’ll have to install and
`
`configure the internal or external network adapter, or print server, that was
`
`described earlier in this chapter.”).
`
` Some print servers were embodied as cards that were physically
`
`installed in the printer. Id. (“Installing an internal print server usually means
`
`inserting an adapter card intro the printer’s expansion slot.”); Appx. H (Neibauer,
`
`This Wired Home, 2000) at 245 (“For some HP LaserJet printers, you can purchase
`
`an internal print server that fits inside the printer, much the way some NICs fit
`
`inside a computer.”). External print servers, on the other hand, connected to the
`
`printer by cable (e.g., parallel or USB cable). Id. at 247-249 (discussing setup of
`
`external print server). Appx. I is a PC Magazine feature from January 1999
`
`comparing various external print servers including products from Axis, D-Link,
`
`HP, Intel, Lexmark and Linksys.
`
` Server computers were also used as print servers. Appx. J (Plumley,
`
`Home Networking Bible, 1999) at 283 (“A print server can be the software
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`included within a network operating system to control prints, printer drivers, and
`
`the print queue. NT server, for example, includes a print server applet that enables
`
`you to control the printers attached to the server.”); Appx. K (Frisch, Essential
`
`Windows NT System Administration, 1998) at 260-266 (describing adding a shared
`
`printer connected to parallel port of server running Windows NT).
`
` Even conventional PCs could share their locally connected printers to
`
`other computers on their networks. See, e.g., Ex. 1012 (Poole, The Little Network
`
`Book for Windows and Macintosh, 1999) at 113-145 (Chapter 6, describing setting
`
`up and sharing printers over networks). In these configurations, the host computer
`
`that shares the printer is analogous to a print server.
`
`When you share the local printer connected to your
`computer, your computer provides the network
`connection to other computers. Other network computers
`that want to print to your shared local printer must
`contact your computer over the network and send your
`computer the pages to be printed. Your computer has to
`do a bit of processing before it tells its printer to print the
`pages. This means your computer must be up and
`running if anyone wants to use your shared local printer,
`and it also means that processing some of those printing
`jobs could cause some minor delays on your machine if
`you’re simultaneously working on your computer as
`another user is printing.
`
`Id. at 115.
`
`Network Printing via Wired and Wireless Networks
`4.
` Network printing is not significantly impacted by the use of wireless
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`technologies. An Apple document from 2000 describing the use of its “AirPort”
`
`wireless platform in connection with network printing makes this point
`
`unambiguously:
`
`Printing
`When an AirPort Base Station is plugged into an Ethernet
`network, users can print to the same printers they would
`if their computers were connected to the network with an
`Ethernet cable. Users see no difference when printing to
`these printers whether they’re using AirPort or are
`connected to the Ethernet.
`Appx. L (AirPort Technical Overview, May 2000) at 23.
`
` Network printing is largely implemented at upper layers of the
`
`networking stack. For example, the figure below illustrates the use of TCP (a
`
`Layer 4 / Transport Layer protocol in the OSI model) to print a document over a
`
`network.
`
`See, e.g., Appx. M (Hall, Core Internet Protocols, 2000) at 22; id. at 21 (“When
`
`the user wants to print, the client software on the end user’s PC establishes a TCP
`
`session with the printer, sends the data to the printer’s software, and then closes the
`
`
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`connection once the job was submitted.”).
`
` Wireless networking is largely confined with lower layers of the
`
`networking stack, i.e., the physical layer, data link layer, and sometimes the data
`
`link layer.
`
`
`
`Appx. B (Geier, Wireless LANs, 1999) at 39 (“As shown in Figure 1.11, wireless
`
`networks operate only within the bottom three layers [of the seven-layer OSI
`
`networking model].”). Transport layer protocols such as TCP “shield[] the higher
`
`layers from the networking implementation details.” Id. at 38.
`
` As a result, the printing process is functionally identical from the
`
`perspective of the client computer and the networked printer regardless of whether
`
`wireless networking may be used at some point in the communication path. I
`
`further note that the ’031 patent describes no specific technical challenges to using
`
`wireless technology to transmit output data to printers or other output devices.
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`B. Overview of the ’031 Patent
` The ’031 patent describes a user computing device (“information
`
`apparatus 200”) that wirelessly connects to an output device 220 (e.g., a printer)
`
`and uses the output device to output content (e.g., a document). The information
`
`apparatus 200 can be a PC, laptop, or handheld computing device. ’031 patent at
`
`13:25-33. Output device 220 can be a conventional printer. Id. at 17:8-14
`
`(conventional printer with a printer controller); 17:53-67 (conventional printer with
`
`no printer controller); Figs. 4A, 4B.
`
` The output device 220 has an associated “output controller” 230. Id.
`
`at 13:20-24. The output controller 230 can manage communication with the
`
`information apparatuses and process output data for the output device. Id. at
`
`18:13-16. Standard Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11 wireless communication can be
`
`used between the information apparatus and the output device / output controller.
`
`Id. at 14:15-19.
`
` The output controller 230 can either be integrated into the output
`
`device 220 or can be external to the output device. These two alternatives are
`
`depicted in Figs. 2A and 2B (below, annotations added), respectively.
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`See also id. at 13:13-24 (introducing Figs. 2A and 2B).
`
` The output controller 230 can be implemented with “a conventional
`
`personal computer (PC)”:
`
`Other possible implementations of output
`controller 230 may include, for example, a conventional
`personal computer (PC), a workstation, and an output
`server or print server. In these cases, the functionalities of
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`output controller 230 may be implemented using
`application software installed in a computer (e.g., PC,
`server, or workstation), with the computer connected
`with a wired or wireless connection to an output
`device 220. Using a PC, server, workstation, or other
`computer to implement the feature sets of output
`controller 230 with application software is just another
`possible embodiment of the output controller 230 and in
`no way departs from the spirit, scope and process of the
`present invention.
`Id. at 20:20-321.
`
` The alleged invention supposedly enables user information
`
`apparatuses to output content to output devices without first having to first install
`
`device drivers for those output devices. ’031 patent at 1:31-36 (“Present invention
`
`relates to providing content to an output device and, in particular, to providing
`
`universal output in which an information apparatus can pervasively output content
`
`to an output device without the need to install a dedicated device dependent driver
`
`or applications for each output device.”). The patent suggests that users have
`
`traditionally been required to install output device drivers to use output devices
`
`because output device drivers are needed to process content into the format
`
`required by particular output devices. Id. at 2:27-51. The patent suggests,
`
`however, that searching for and installing drivers is time-consuming and complex.
`
`1 All emphasis used when quoting source material in this declaration has
`been added unless otherwise noted.
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Id. at 2:64-3:46. The patent also notes that installing device drivers uses memory
`
`which can be limited in information apparatuses. Id. at 3:47-55. The patent further
`
`suggests that, even if drivers are located and installed, information apparatuses
`
`may lack the processing speed and battery power to execute the device drivers and
`
`process the content into the appropriate output format. Id. at 3:56-61.
`
` The ’031 patent explains that the alleged invention eliminates the need
`
`for output device-specific drivers at the user’s information apparatus by
`
`intelligently splitting the responsibility for raster image processing (RIP) of
`
`content. Id. at 5:50-57 (“Accordingly, this invention provides a convenient
`
`universal data output method in which an information apparatus and an output
`
`device or system share the raster image processing operations. Moreover, the new
`
`data output method eliminates the need to install a plurality of device-dependent
`
`dedicated drivers or applications in the information apparatus in order to output to
`
`a plurality of output devices.”).
`
` The Summary of the Invention explains that the information apparatus
`
`performs partial rasterization of content to generate “intermediate output data,”
`
`but, importantly, the information apparatus does not perform the “device
`
`dependent image processing operations of a RIP (e.g., color matching and
`
`halftoning).” Id. at 6:35-38. The output device dependent image processing is
`
`instead performed downstream by the output controller. Id. at 6:56-59 (“An output
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`controller application or component included in the output device or output system
`
`implements the remaining part of the raster image processing operations such as
`
`digital halftoning, color correction among others.”); see also id. at 30:25-43
`
`(explaining that “output controller 230 may generate the proper language or input
`
`format required to interface with the printer controller”); see also id. at 28:32-56
`
`(similar).
`
` The ’031 patent asserts that “[u]nlike conventional raster image
`
`processing methods, this invention provides a more balanced distribution of the
`
`raster image processing computational load between the Information apparatus
`
`and the output device or the output system.” Id. at 6:60-64. This distribution of
`
`raster image processing supposedly “reduces the processing and memory
`
`requirements for the information apparatus” and allows for a smaller “driver,”2
`
`since it is only used to perform part of the rasterization process. Id. at 6:67-7:11.
`
`Additionally, the patent suggests that the partially (i.e., generically) rasterized
`
`output generated by the information apparatus may be “more universally accepted
`
`by a plurality of output devices.” Id. at 7:14-17. As a result, “a user does not need
`
`2 The ’031 patent sometimes refers to the software that generates the
`intermediate output data as a “driver.” See, e.g., 6:48-52 (“In an example of raster
`image process and data output method of the present invention, a client application
`such as a printer driver is included in an information apparatus and performs part
`of raster image processing operation such as rasterization on the content.”).
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`to preinstall in the information apparatus multiple dedicated device dependent
`
`drivers or applications for each output device.” Id. at 7:23-26.
`
` The ’031 patent thus explains that the alleged invention avoids the
`
`need to install output device-specific drivers at the information apparatus by
`
`freeing the information apparatus from the responsibility of performing
`
`rasterization that is specific to the output device.
`
` The claims of the ’031 patent have nothing to do with how raster
`
`image processing is allocated between the information apparatus and the output
`
`device. The ’031 patent’s claims focus instead on what the patent describes as
`
`“optional discovery process 1020 [that] may be implemented to help the user select
`
`an output device 220.” Id. at 29:36-38. The ’031 patent explains that “During the
`
`discovery process step 1020, a user's information apparatus 200 may (1) search for
`
`available output devices 220; (2) provide the user with a list of available output
`
`devices 220; and (3) provide means for the user to choose one or more output
`
`devices 220 to take the output job.” Id. at 29:38-43; see also id. at 30:61-31:15
`
`(similar description).
`
` The patent describes “[a]n example of a discovery process 1010” in
`
`connection with Fig. 11 (below). Id. at 29:43-45.
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`See also id. at 30:61-32:43 (describing Fig. 11).
`
` The ’031 patent states that “[v]arious protocols and or standards may
`
`be used during discovery process 1020.” Id. at 31:17-18. The patent further states
`
`that “[e]xamples of applicable protocols or standards may include, without
`
`limitation, Bluetooth, HAVi, Jini, Salutation, Service Location Protocol, and
`
`Universal Plug-and-play among others.” Id. at 31:20-23. The ’031 patent
`
`specification thus suggests that existing, standardized discovery technologies could
`
`be used in the alleged invention by the information apparatus to locate output
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`devices. As I discussed above, the specifically-referenced standards included the
`
`same type of discovery functionality described by the ’031 patent. See supra
`
`¶¶ 17-19.
`
` Although the ’031 patent specification describes the invention almost
`
`exclusively in terms of printing, it asserts in a few places that the invention applies
`
`to other types of output devices as well. See, e.g., id. at 16:42-48 (“However, it
`
`should be recognized that present invention applies also to other output devices
`
`220 such as fax machines, digital copiers, display screens, monitors, televisions,
`
`projectors, voice output devices, among others.”); see also id. at 1:54-57; 16:34-41.
`
`Certain claims of the ’031 patent are restricted to transmission of audio and/or
`
`video data and to output devices such as televisions, but there is no meaningful
`
`discussion of audio or video data or of televisions in the patent. There is no
`
`discussion at all of how audio or video data is processed or how such data is output
`
`by a television or any other type of output device.
`
`C. The ’031 Patent’s Priority Applications Do Not Describe Using an
`Internet Appliance as an Output Device or Output System.
` The ’031 patent states that information apparatuses can be an “Internet
`
`appliances.” ’031 patent at 1:47-54 (“Examples of such information apparatuses
`
`include … Internet appliances ….”); 3:47-52 (“Another challenge for mobile users
`
`is that many mobile information apparatuses h