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. PGR2021-00112
`Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`DECLARATION OF SAMRAT BHATTACHARJEE, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 11,029,903
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`B. 
`
`B. 
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY ............................ 1 
`OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................ 5 
`1.  Wireless Communications ......................................................... 5 
`The ’903 Patent .................................................................................. 10 
`1. 
`The ’903 Patent Purports to Eliminate the Need to Pre-
`Install Drivers for Printers and Other Output Devices. ........... 10 
`The ’903 Patent’s Pervasive Output Process ........................... 12 
`2. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 19 
`C. 
`III.  UNPATENTABILITY OF THE CHALLENGED PATENT CLAIMS...... 19 
`A. 
`Relevant Legal Standards ................................................................... 19 
`1. 
`Lack of Written Description Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 .............. 19 
`2. 
`Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ................... 20 
`Lack of Written Description ............................................................... 20 
`1. 
`The Written Description Fails to Support the Independent
`Claims. ..................................................................................... 21 
`a. 
`The ’903 Patent’s Written Description Does Not
`Support an Output System / Device that Connects
`to Servers Over the Internet. .......................................... 21 
`The ’903 Patent’s Written Description Does Not
`Support an Output System / Device that Sends the
`Job Object and Document / Content Object to the
`Server. ............................................................................ 27 
`The ’903 Patent’s Written Description Does Not
`Support an Output System / Device that Receives
`Indications of Content Selections From the User. ......... 31 
`The ’903 Patent’s Written Description Does Not
`Support an Output System / Device that Receives
`Output Data From the Server......................................... 35 
`The Written Description Fails to Support the Dependent
`Claims for the Same Reasons. ................................................. 38 
`i
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`2. 
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`C. 
`
`3. 
`
`a. 
`Dependent Claims 3, 14, and 18 .................................... 38 
`Information Apparatus 100 is not an “Output System”
`(claims 1 & 15) or “Wireless Output Device” (claim 8). ........ 40 
`Subject Matter Ineligibility ................................................................ 46 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 47 
`a. 
`Preamble ........................................................................ 47 
`b. 
`Claim 1 Recites Conventional Computing Devices ...... 48 
`(i) 
`“Output System” ................................................. 48 
`(ii) 
`“One or More Servers” ........................................ 56 
`(iii) 
`“Client Device” ................................................... 59 
`Claim 1 Recites Conventional Wireless
`Communications ............................................................ 60 
`Claim 1 Recites Conventional Steps ............................. 60 
`(i) 
`Step 1: Obtaining Authentication
`Information .......................................................... 61 
`Step 2: Connecting to a Wireless LAN ............... 65 
`(ii) 
`(iii)  Step 3: Connecting to a Server on the
`Internet ................................................................. 67 
`(iv)  Step 4: Sending Authentication Information ...... 70 
`(v) 
`Step 5: Accessing a Content Service ................... 74 
`(vi)  Step 6: Receiving User Selection of Content ...... 75 
`(vii)  Step 7: Identifying Selected Content to the
`Server ................................................................... 79 
`(viii)  Step 8: Receiving Content ................................... 81 
`(ix)  Step 9: Processing Content .................................. 85 
`(x) 
`Step 10: Delivering Content to an Output
`Device .................................................................. 92 
`(xi)  Step 11: Executing a Discovery Operation ......... 93 
`(xii)  Step 12: Receiving Content from a Client
`Device .................................................................. 95 
`The Claim Elements as an Ordered Combination ......... 98 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`e. 
`
`ii
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`2. 
`3. 
`
`Independent Claims 8 and 15 ................................................. 100 
`Dependent Claims .................................................................. 106 
`(i) 
`Claims 2, 13 and 16 ........................................... 106 
`(ii)  Claims 3, 14, and 18 .......................................... 109 
`(iii)  Claims 4, 11, and 19 .......................................... 110 
`(iv)  Claim 5 .............................................................. 111 
`(v)  Claims 6, 7 and 20 ............................................. 113 
`(vi)  Claim 9 .............................................................. 114 
`(vii)  Claims 10 and 17 ............................................... 117 
`(viii)  Claim 12 ............................................................ 118 
`IV.  CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 121 
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`LIST OF APPENDICES
`
`Appendix A
`
`Curriculum Vitae
`
`Appendix B
`
`
`Appendix C
`
`
`
`
`Appendix D
`
`
`Appendix E
`
`
`
`Appendix F
`
`
`
`Appendix G
`
`
`Appendix H
`
`
`Appendix I
`
`
`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 Lon Poole & John Rizzo, The Little Network
`Book for Windows and Macintosh (1999)
`
`Excerpts from Alan Neibauer, This Wired Home: The Microsoft
`Guide to Home Networking (2000)
`
`Appendix J
`
`Steve Rigney, Print Servers (PC Magazine, January 19, 1999)
`
`Appendix K
`
`Excerpts from Dan Gookin, PCs for Dummies (6th Ed., 1998)
`
`Appendix L
`
`
`Apple Press Release: Apple Introduces AirPort Wireless
`Networking (July 21, 1999)
`
`viii
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`Appendix M
`
`
`Frank J. Derfler Jr. and Les Freed, Wireless LANs (PC
`Magazine, April 18, 2000)
`
`Appendix N
`
`Intersil Corp., PRISMTM II Chip Set Overview (February 1999)
`
`Appendix O
`
`
`Apple Press Release: Apple Introduces PowerBook G3
`(May 6, 1998)
`
`Appendix P
`
`Apple, Macintosh PowerBook G3 Series brochure (May 1998)
`
`Appendix Q
`
`
`Appendix R
`
`
`Appendix S
`
`
`Apple Press Release: Apple Unveils New iBook Line
`(Sept. 13, 2000)
`
`Apple, iBook web page: “Presentations” tab
`(archived Oct. 19, 2000)
`
`Excerpts from Mary Ann Pike and Noel Estabrook, Using FTP
`(1995)
`
`Appendix T
`
`Excerpt from Preston Gralla, How the Internet Works (1998)
`
`Appendix U
`
`Excerpts from Ian S. Graham, HTML Sourcebook (1995)
`
`Appendix V
`
`
`Appendix W
`
`
`Appendix X
`
`
`Appendix Y
`
`
`Excerpts from J. Postel and J. Reynolds, RFC 959: File
`Transfer Protocol (FTP) (October 1985)
`
`Excerpts from T. Berners-Lee et al., RFC 1945: Hypertext
`Transfer Protocol - - HTTP/1.0 (May 1996)
`
`Excerpts from Jill Ellsworth, Bill Barron, et al., The Internet
`1997 Unleashed (1997)
`
`Excerpts from Aviel D. Rubin et al., Web Security Sourcebook
`(1997)
`
`Appendix Z
`
`Excerpts from David Pogue, The iBook for Dummies (2000)
`
`Appendix AA
`
`
`Appendix BB
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Cisco Aironet 340 Series Client Adapters and
`Access Points, Data Sheet (Feb. 2000)
`
`Excerpts from W. Richard Stevens, TCP/IP Illustrated, Vol. 3
`(1996)
`
`ix
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`Appendix CC
`
`
`Appendix DD
`
`
`Appendix EE
`
`
`J. Franks et al., RFC 2069: An Extension to HTTP : Digest
`Access Authentication (Jan. 1997)
`
`Excerpts from Rogers Cadenhead, How to Use the Internet:
`2001 Edition (2000)
`
`Excerpts from Chuck Musciano & Bill Kennedy, HTML &
`XHTML (4th ed., August 2000)
`
`Appendix FF
`
`Excerpts from Thomas J. Fallon, The Internet Today (2001)
`
`Appendix GG
`
`
`Appendix HH
`
`
`Appendix II
`
`
`Appendix JJ
`
`
`Appendix KK
`
`
`Appendix LL
`
`
`Excerpts from Brian Underdahl and Keith Underdahl, Internet
`Bible (2nd edition, 2000)
`
`Excerpts from Roy Hoffman, Data Compression in Digital
`Systems (1997)
`
`Excerpts from Ronald K. Jurgen, Digital Consumer Electronics
`Handbook (1997)
`
`Excerpts from Bluetooth Core Specification v1.0 B
`(December 1, 1999)
`
`Excerpts from David Pogue, Mac OS 9: The Missing Manual
`(2000)
`
`Christopher Breen, Cut Loose (discussing Apple’s Airport
`Technology), MacWorld (June 2000)
`
`Appendix MM
`
`
`
`Erik Guttman, Service Location Protocol: Automatic Discovery
`of IP Network Services (IEEE Internet Computing, July /
`August 1999)
`
`Appendix NN
`
`Mark R. Brown, Using Netscape Communicator 4 (1997)
`
`Appendix OO
`
`
`Yaron Goland et al., IETF Draft: Simple Service Discovery
`Protocol/1.0 (Oct. 28, 1999)
`
`Appendix PP
`
`
`Excerpts from Cisco Systems, Using the Cisco Aironet 340
`Series Access Point (2000)
`
`x
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`
`
`Appendix QQ
`
`
`Appendix RR
`
`
`Appendix SS
`
`
`
`Appendix TT
`
`
`Appendix UU
`
`
`
`Appendix VV
`
`
`Excerpts from Axis Communications, Axis 540/640 Network
`Print Server User’s Manual (Sept. 1997)
`
`Excerpts from Abdelsalam (Sumi) Helal et al., Any Time,
`Anywhere Computing (1999)
`
`Thomas E. Truman et al., The InfoPad Multimedia Terminal: A
`Portable Device for Wireless Information Access (IEEE
`Transactions on Computers, Oct. 1998)
`
`Excerpts from Michael Miller, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to
`Home Theater Systems (2000)
`
`Jaap Haartsen, BLUETOOTHThe Universal Radio Interface
`for Ad Hoc, Wireless Connectivity (Ericsson Review No. 3,
`1998)
`
`Excerpts from Martin Doucette, Digital Video for Dummies
`(1999)
`
`Appendix WW Adobe Systems, Adobe Premiere 5.0 At a Glance (1998)
`
`Appendix XX
`
`
`Excerpts from Douglas W. Allen and Steve Johnson, The
`Learning Guide to the Internet (1997)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. in support of
`PGR Petition for U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`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. 11,029,903 (“the ’903 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 1-20 of the ’903 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 ’903 patent has been assigned to Flexiworld
`
`Technologies, Inc. (“Flexiworld” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`1
`
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. in support of
`PGR Petition for U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`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
`
`2
`
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. in support of
`PGR Petition for U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`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 ʼ903
`
`patent, the prosecution history of the ʼ903 patent, Exhibit 12 to Flexiworld’s
`
`complaint which sets forth infringement allegations for the ’903 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.
`
`3
`
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. in support of
`PGR Petition for U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`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
`
`and web 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 ’903 patent in the district court litigation. 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
`
`November 26, 2019 based on the filing of the ’903 patent’s actual application. Of
`
`course, a POSA in 2019 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
`
`at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`4
`
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. in support of
`PGR Petition for U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1-20 of the ’903 patent are invalid for lack
`
`of written description.
`
`
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1-20 recite technology that was well-
`
`understood, routine, and conventional by late 2000 and even more well-understood,
`
`routine, and conventional by late 2019 when the ’903 patent was filed.
`
`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’--
`
`5
`
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. in support of
`PGR Petition for U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`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 such as printers. See
`
`generally Appx. D (Haartsen, The Bluetooth Radio System, Feb. 2000); see id. at 6
`
`(“The Bluetooth technology ... eliminates the need for wires, cables, and the
`
`corresponding connectors between cordless or mobile phones, modems, headsets,
`
`PDAs, computers, printers, projectors, and so on, and paves the way for new and
`
`completely different devices and applications.”).
`
`
`
` Wireless networking is largely confined within the lower layers of the
`
`networking stack, i.e., the physical layer, data link layer, and sometimes the data
`
`link layer.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. in support of
`PGR Petition for U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`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, many
`
`upper layer / application processes that rely on networking (e.g., network printing,
`
`accessing a network share, web browsing) are not significantly impacted by the use
`
`of wireless networking.
`
`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
`
`7
`
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. in support of
`PGR Petition for U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`Protocol (SSDP) “for service discovery and advertisement.” Appx. E (Richard) at
`
`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 ’903 patent states that an output controller for a printer can be a
`
`print server. ’903 patent at 14:59-61 (“Other possible implementations of output
`
`controller 104 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.
`
`8
`
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. in support of
`PGR Petition for U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`There are two basic methods for connecting your printers
`directly to the network. You can use a high-end printer
`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.,
`
`Appx. H (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. I (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. J is a PC Magazine feature from January 1999
`
`comparing various external print servers including products from Axis, D-Link,
`
`HP, Intel, Lexmark and Linksys.
`
`9
`
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. in support of
`PGR Petition for U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`B.
`
`The ’903 Patent
`The ’903 Patent Purports to Eliminate the Need to Pre-
`1.
`Install Drivers for Printers and Other Output Devices.
` The ’903 patent suggests that the invention relates to way of enabling
`
`users to output content from their information apparatuses to output devices
`
`without having to install device drivers before doing so. For example, the patent
`
`suggests “there is a need to provide in a manner in which a user can more
`
`conveniently or easily output digital content to an output device without the
`
`inconvenience of finding and installing new device drivers or printer drivers.”
`
`’903 patent at 3:45-49.1 The patent also suggests that “a more convenient or
`
`automated printing and output solution is needed so that a user can simply walk up
`
`to an output device (e.g., printer or display device) and easily output a digital
`
`document without having to install or pre-install a particular output device driver
`
`(e.g., printer driver).” Id. at 4:4-10.
`
` The ’903 patent critiques the “conventional[]” process for outputting
`
`content from an information apparatus to an output device (e.g., printer) is
`
`problematic because it requires users to install device drivers. Id. at 2:59-3:13;
`
`13:44-47. “For a home or office user, this installation process may take anywhere
`
`
`
`1 All emphasis used when quoting source material in this declaration has
`been added unless otherwise noted.
`
`10
`
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. in support of
`PGR Petition for U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`from several minutes to several hours ….” Id. at 3:28-38. Device drivers are even
`
`more of a problem, according to the patent, for “mobile device users.” Id. at 3:50-
`
`55. The patent suggests it is not practical for mobile device users to pre-install
`
`drivers for all the output devices they may encounter while traveling. Id. at 3:55-
`
`64. Additionally, “many mobile information apparatuses have limited memory
`
`space, processing capacity, and power.” Id. at 4:11-13. Installing and running
`
`device drivers uses up that limited memory space. Id. at 4:16-19. Running device
`
`drivers on mobile devices can be slow due to their limited processing capacity and
`
`can drain their limited power. Id. at 4:20-25.
`
` The ’903 patent purports to describe an invention that solves these
`
`problems and enables users to output content from their information apparatuses to
`
`output devices without the need to pre-install a device driver:
`
`One implementation of the present invention provides an
`easy, friendly and convenient process for digital output.
`Unlike conventional output or printing, a user does not
`have to manually pre-install a device driver (e.g.,
`printer driver) from a CD, floppy disk, or download the
`driver somewhere from a network. This is well-suited for
`providing output capability to small and lower-cost mo-
`bile devices with limited memory space, power supply
`and processing capability to still be able to output or print
`to an output device.
`Id. at 4:48-56.
`
` The way that the alleged invention avoids the need to install device
`
`drivers is by processing content for output not at the information apparatus itself
`
`11
`
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. in support of
`PGR Petition for U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`but instead at a “remote application server 110”:
`
`In pervasive output operations of the present invention
`described below, various device specific drivers or appli-
`cations may be available and may be executed
`completely or partially in a remote application server
`110, thereby reducing the workload of information
`apparatus 100 and realizing device-independent
`pervasive output.
`Id. at 13:51-57. Relatedly, the patent states that server application 112 may
`
`include “[c]omponents and operations to process the objects received to generate
`
`device-dependent output data acceptable to one or more output devices 106
`
`selected by a user.” Id. at 18:4-7; see also id. at 21:58-61 (“A server application
`
`112 obtaining and processing the document object and converting it into output
`
`data, reflecting at least in part a relationship to said output device object;”); 22:61-
`
`23:2 (“The processing and generation of output data [by server application 112]
`
`may reflect at least in part a relationship to the output device object and or job
`
`object contained in the composite message received from client application 102.”);
`
`29:45-32:35 (describing server application process in connection with Fig. 7).
`
`The ’903 Patent’s Pervasive Output Process
`2.
` The ’903 patent states that the “[p]resent invention relates to
`
`providing digital content to an output device and, in particular, to providing
`
`pervasive output in which an information apparatus can pervasively output
`
`digital content to an output device regardless of the processing power, display
`
`12
`
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. in support of
`PGR Petition for U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`screen size and memory space of the information apparatus.” ’903 patent at
`
`1:49-56.
`
` This “pervasive output” process involves processing content for
`
`output at a remote application server rather than at the user’s device, as just
`
`discussed. Id. at 13:51-57 (“In pervasive output operations of the present
`
`invention described below, various device specific drivers or applications may be
`
`available and may be executed completely or partially in a remote application
`
`server 110, thereby reducing the workload of information apparatus 100 and
`
`realizing device-independent pervasive output.”). Because the pervasive output
`
`process does not require the information apparatus to display or process content for
`
`output devices itself, the process purportedly works “regardless of the processing
`
`power, display screen size and memory space of the information apparatus.”
`
` Figure 1 (below, annotations added) “is a block diagram of a
`
`pervasive output system 98 that can implement the process and apparatus of
`
`present invention.” Id. at 8:59-61.
`
`13
`
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. in support of
`PGR Petition for U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`
`
`Information apparatus 100 communicates with application server 110 and content
`
`server 114 over network 108. Id. at 8:61-65. Network 108 may include a wide
`
`area network (WAN) or the Internet. Id. at 9:3-9.
`
`
`
`“Information apparatus 100 is a computing device with processing
`
`capability.” Id. at 9:10-11. “[I]nformation apparatus 100 may be a mobile
`
`computing device such as palmtop computer, handheld device, laptop computer,
`
`personal digital assistant (PDA), smart phone, screen phone, e-book, Internet pad,
`
`communication pad, Internet appliance, pager, digital camera, etc.” Id. at 9:11-18.
`
`“A typical example of output device 106 may be a printer ….” Id. at 11:65-66; see
`
`14
`
`
`ROKU EXH. 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Samrat Bhattacharjee, Ph.D. in support of
`PGR Petition for U.S. Patent No. 11,029,903
`
`also id. at 12:1-20 (identifying other possible output devices including “monitors,”
`
`“projectors,” and “sound output devices”).
`
`
`
`Information apparatus 100 communicates with an output device 106
`
`over communication link 116. Id. at 8:65-67. Communication link 116 “may be a
`
`short-range radio interface such as those implemented according to the Bluetooth
`
`or IEEE 802.11 standard.” Id. at 9:57-61. Thus, in contrast to network 108, there
`
`is no suggestion that communication link 116 involves communication over a
`
`WAN or the Internet.
`
` The patent suggests that an application on information apparatus,
`
`namely “pervasive output client application 102,” is what “provides [the]
`
`pervasive output capability of the present invention.” Id. at 10:56-60; Fig. 1. The
`
`“functionalities and process of pervasive output client application 102 are
`
`described … in the pervasive output process with reference to FIG. 4.” Id. at
`
`