UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`METACLUSTER LT, UAB,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`
`Case PGR2022-00052
`
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`______________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JAMES OLIVIER
`
`Metacluster LT, UAB
`EX1002
`Page 1 of 115
`
`

`

`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`
`
`Case PGR2022-00052
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST ................................................................................
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II.
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND ............................................................... 1
`III. COMPENSATION .......................................................................................... 5
`IV. OVERVIEW OF TASK & BASIS FOR OPINIONS ..................................... 6
`V.
`LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................ 7
`VI. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE RELEVANT ART ........................................... 11
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNICAL FIELD & PRIOR ART ..................... 13
`A. Knowledge of a POSITA .................................................................... 13
`1.
`RFC1035 ................................................................................... 14
`2.
`RFC2616 ................................................................................... 15
`3.
`RFC791 ..................................................................................... 18
`VIII. THE ’034 PATENT ....................................................................................... 21
`A.
`Challenged Claims .............................................................................. 22
`B.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 23
`C.
`Claim Construction.............................................................................. 23
`1.
`“Client Device” and “First Server” ........................................... 24
`IX. COMPARISON OF PRIOR ART TO ’034 PATENT’S
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ............................................................................ 28
`A. Ground 1 – Mithyantha Renders Obvious Claims 1-27 ...................... 28
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 40
`2.
`Limitation 2: The method according to claim 1, wherein
`the steps are sequentially executed ........................................... 68
`Limitation 3: The method according to claim 1, wherein
`at least two steps are concurrently executed using
`multitasking or multiprocessing ................................................ 71
`Limitation 4: The method according to claim 1, further
`comprising receiving, by the third server from the first
`client device, the first content identifier; and in response
`sending, by the third server to the second client device,
`the first content identifier .......................................................... 73
`Limitation 5: The method according to claim 4, for use
`with a group of devices that includes the second client
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`- i -
`
`Page 2 of 115
`
`

`

`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`6.
`
`Case PGR2022-00052
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`device, each device in the group is identified in the
`Internet using a respective identifier that is an IP address
`in IPv4 or IPv6 form, wherein the identifiers of the
`devices in the group are stored in the third server .................... 74
`Limitation 6: The method according to claim 5, further
`comprising selecting, by the third server, the second
`client device from the group, in response to the receiving
`of the first content identifier from the first client device .......... 78
`Limitation 7: The method according to claim 6, wherein
`the selecting comprises randomly selecting .............................. 81
`Limitation 8: The method according to claim 6, wherein
`the selecting is based on an attribute or a characteristic of
`the selected device .................................................................... 82
`Limitation 9: The method according to claim 6, wherein
`the selecting is based on a physical geographical location
`of the selected device ................................................................ 83
`10. Limitation 10: The method according to claim 9, wherein
`the selecting is based on a physical geographical
`proximity to the first web server ............................................... 84
`11. Limitation 11: The method according to claim 9, wherein
`the selecting is based on the value of the selected device
`identifier .................................................................................... 85
`12. Limitation 12: The method according to claim 9, wherein
`the selecting is based on past activities ..................................... 86
`13. Limitation 13: The method according to claim 12,
`wherein the selecting is based on a timing of an event............. 88
`14. Limitation 14: The method according to claim 1, further
`comprising receiving, by the third server from the second
`client device, the first content; and in response sending,
`by the third server to the first client device, the first
`content ....................................................................................... 89
`15. Limitation 15: The method according to claim 1, wherein
`the first content includes, consists of, or comprises, a part
`or whole of files, text, numbers, audio, voice,
`multimedia, video, images, music, or computer program ........ 91
`
`9.
`
`- ii -
`
`Page 3 of 115
`
`

`

`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`
`
`Case PGR2022-00052
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`16. Limitation 16: The method according to claim 1, wherein
`the first content includes, consists of, or comprises, a part
`of, or a whole of, a web-site page ............................................. 92
`17. Limitation 17: The method according to claim 1, wherein
`each of the identifiers comprises a respective URL ................. 92
`18. Limitation 18: The method according to claim 1, wherein
`the first or second web server responds to HTTP requests
`via the Internet .......................................................................... 93
`19. Limitation 19: The method according to claim 1, wherein
`the communication with the first or second client device
`is based on, or using, HTTP persistent connection ................... 94
`20. Limitation 20: The method according to claim 1, wherein
`the communication over the Internet with the first or
`second client device is based on, or according to, TCP/IP
`protocol or connection .............................................................. 95
`21. Limitation 21: The method according to claim 1, further
`comprising establishing a connection with the first client
`device or the second client device using TCP, and
`wherein the connection is established by performing
`‘Active OPEN’ or ‘Passive OPEN’ .......................................... 96
`22. Limitation 22: The method according to claim 1, wherein
`the first or second client device is communicating over
`the Internet using a VPN ........................................................... 97
`23. Limitation 23: The method according to claim 1, wherein
`the third server is storing, operating, or using, a server
`operating system ....................................................................... 98
`24. Limitation 24: The method according to claim 23,
`wherein the server operating system consists or,
`comprises of, or based on, one out of Microsoft Windows
`Server®, Linux, or UNIX ......................................................... 99
`25. Limitation 25: The method according to claim 23,
`wherein the server operating system consists or,
`comprises of, or based on, one out of Microsoft Windows
`Server® 2003 R2, 2008, 2008 R2, 2012, or 2012 R2
`variant, Linux™ or GNU/Linux based Debian GNU/
`Linux, Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, Debian GNU/Hurd,
`Fedora™, Gentoo™, Linspire™, Mandriva, Red Hat®
`
`- iii -
`
`Page 4 of 115
`
`

`

`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`
`
`Case PGR2022-00052
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`Linux, SuSE, and Ubuntu®, UNIX® variant Solaris™,
`AIX®, Mac™ OS X, FreeBSD®, OpenBSD, and
`NetBSD® .................................................................................. 99
`26. Limitation 26: The method according to claim 1, wherein
`the second client device is a cellular telephone device ........... 100
`27. Limitation 27: The method according to claim 1, wherein
`the mobile operating system is one out of Android
`version 2.2 (Froyo), Android version 2.3 (Gingerbread),
`Android version 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich), Android
`Version 4.2 (Jelly Bean), Android version 4.4 (KitKat),
`Apple iOS version 3, Apple iOS version 4, Apple iOS
`version 5, Apple iOS version 6, Apple iOS version 7,
`Microsoft Windows® Phone version 7, Microsoft
`Windows® Phone version 8, Microsoft Windows®
`Phone version 9, and Blackberry® operating system ............. 100
`Ground 2 – Mithyantha in View of RFC 2616 Renders Obvious
`Claim 19 ............................................................................................ 101
`1.
`RFC 2616 ................................................................................ 101
`2. Motivation to Combine ........................................................... 103
`3. Modification of Mithyantha in view of RFC 2616 ................. 105
`4.
`Limitation 19: The method according to claim 1, wherein
`the communication with the first or second client device
`is based on, or using, HTTP persistent connection ................. 107
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 108
`
`B.
`
`X.
`
`- iv -
`
`Page 5 of 115
`
`

`

`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`
`
`RFC 1035
`
`Code200 CC
`Order
`
`Motion for
`Hearing
`
`Case PGR2022-00052
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`Shorthand
`Description
`’034 Patent U.S. Patent No. 11,272,034
`Olivier
`Declaration of Dr. James Olivier
`Olivier CV CV of Dr. James Olivier
`’604 Patent U.S. Patent No. 8,560,604
`RFC 2616
`Internet Engineering Task Force, Hypertext Transfer
`Protocol – HTTP/1.1, June 1999
`Internet Engineering Task Force, Domain Names –
`Implementation and Specification, November 1987
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 11,272,034
`’034 FH
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,440,146
`’146 FH
`Mithyantha U.S. Patent No. 8,972,602 (issued March 3, 2015)
`Teso CC
`Claim Construction Opinion and Order, Document
`Order
`191, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., Case
`No. 2:19-cv-00395 (E.D. Tex.)
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Document 97, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Code200 et
`al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00396 (E.D. Tex.)
`Defendants’ Motion for Hearing Regarding O2 Micro
`Issue, Document 444, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et
`al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395 (E.D. Tex.)
`Supplemental Claim Construction Order, Document
`453, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., Case No. 2:19-
`cv-00395 (E.D. Tex.)
`Redacted Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary
`Judgment of Noninfringement or in the Alternative
`Invalidity for the ‘511 Patent, Document 101, Bright
`Data Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. d/b/a NordVPN, Case No.
`2:19-cv-00414 (E.D. Tex.)
`for
`Internet Engineering Task Force, Request
`Comments 1122 Internet Protocol, September 1981
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`Supplemental
`CC Order
`
`Tefincom
`’511 MSJ
`
`RFC 791
`
`- -
`
`Page 6 of 115
`
`

`

`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`
`
`Shorthand
`RFC 793
`
`RFC 2131
`
`Case PGR2022-00052
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`Description
`for
`Internet Engineering Task Force, Request
`Comments 1122 Transmission Control Protocol,
`September 1981
`for
`Internet Engineering Task Force, Request
`Comments 2131 Dynamic Host Configuration
`Protocol, March 1997
`Claim Construction Opinion and Order, Document
`121, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, Case
`No. 2:18-CV-299 (E.D. Tex.)
`Claim Construction Opinion and Order, Document
`130, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BIScience Inc., Case
`No. 2:18-CV-483 (E.D. Tex.)
`RFC Index August 3, 2001 archived Internet Society webpage for
`RFC
`Index
`from
`Internet Archive
`(Wayback
`Machine),
`available
`at:
`http://web.archive.org/web/20010803120225/
`http://www.rfc-editor.org:80/rfc-index2.html
`’777 Patent U.S. Patent No. 7,734,777 (issued June 8, 2010)
`
`Exhibit
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`Tesonet CC
`Order
`
`BIScience
`CC Order
`
`- i -
`
`Page 7 of 115
`
`

`

`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is James L. Olivier, Ph.D. I have been retained by
`
`Case PGR2022-00052
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`
`Metacluster Lt, Uab as an independent expert in the relevant art.
`
`II.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`I have a Ph.D. from The Ohio State University in Electrical Engineering
`2.
`
`with minors in Discrete Mathematics, Computer Science, and Microelectronics. I
`
`have published papers in the areas of coding theory and multiprocessor computer
`
`systems. I received my Bachelor of Science degree from Ohio State University in
`
`1983. My CV is submitted herewith as EX1003, which shows my education and
`
`experience in more detail.
`
`3.
`
`I have extensive experience in the design and development of
`
`telecommunication systems and have specialized experience in network product
`
`development.
`
`4.
`
`I have developed and designed equipment for cellular networks since I
`
`first joined AT&T Bell Laboratories in 1990. From 1990 to 2005, I also designed
`
`and implemented a variety of telecommunication systems, including Asynchronous
`
`Transfer Mode (“ATM”) based systems for use in cellular networks. ATM is a
`
`broadband, packet-switched telecommunications standard defined by the American
`
`National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) and the International Telecommunication
`
`Union (“ITU”). I also participated in the design and development of AT&T
`
`- 1 -
`
`Page 8 of 115
`
`

`

`Case PGR2022-00052
`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`
`Autoplex Series base stations. I also participated in the design and development of
`
`AT&T’s Network Control Points, “NCPs” which were massive network databases
`
`containing subscription information for customers. During this time, I first began
`
`my work with telecommunication standards bodies as a contributing member of the
`
`ATM Forum.
`
`5.
`
`In 1995, I transitioned to the Digital Switch Corporation (“DSC”)
`
`Switch Products Division and was the Senior Manager of the ATM systems
`
`engineering group developing ATM packet switches for a new generation base
`
`station for use by Motorola in their Centralized Base Station Controller, a core part
`
`of the second generation cellular network. Later, as Senior Manager for Intelligent
`
`Networks, I designed and developed a video residential gateway which was
`
`presented at SuperComm 1996.
`
`6.
`
`I next worked at Samsung Telecommunications America from 1996 to
`
`1999 as a Principal Engineer for Samsung’s next generation wireless broadband
`
`switching system over the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System
`
`(“UMTS”). UMTS is a third-generation (“3G”) broadband standard developed by
`
`the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”). My work at Samsung included
`
`designing their next generation UMTS cellular switch, which provided both packet
`
`and voice services, such as telephony services, wireless services, broadband
`
`services, and Internet services. While at Samsung, I also served as Samsung’s North
`
`- 2 -
`
`Page 9 of 115
`
`

`

`Case PGR2022-00052
`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`
`American corporate representative to the ITU, which is the agency of the United
`
`Nations
`
`responsible
`
`for
`
`facilitating
`
`interconnectivity of
`
`information and
`
`communication technologies worldwide. The ITU participated in the 3GPP under
`
`the ITU’s International Mobile Telecommunications 2000 effort. It was there that I
`
`participated in the development of standards for advanced wireless networks.
`
`7.
`
`After that, I worked for Marconi Communications from 1999 to 2002,
`
`where I was responsible for design and development of a number of systems for the
`
`access market, including Digital Subscriber Line (“DSL”) modems, along with the
`
`design of point-to-point wireless systems. I was also responsible for the servers for
`
`the Network Management System for the North American Access product division,
`
`which provide service provisioning for DSL customers. It was here where I
`
`architected a triple play residential gateway which provided voice, video, and data
`
`to residential subscribers.
`
`8.
`
`I joined Navini Networks in 2002 as a Senior Manager. The Navini
`
`system was an entirely packet-based cellular system. I was responsible for layer 2
`
`and layer 3 network protocols for Navini’s Wideband Code Division Multiple
`
`Access (“WCDMA”) wireless base stations and broadband modems. These layers
`
`were responsible for packet transmissions for various services over the WCDMA air
`
`interface. I also developed network-based servers and databases for network
`
`authentication, network services, service provisioning, and subscriber management
`
`- 3 -
`
`Page 10 of 115
`
`

`

`Case PGR2022-00052
`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`
`for the Navini’s Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access ‘WiMAX’
`
`Network.
`
`9.
`
`I have been the owner of Olivier Consulting since 2003 and have
`
`provided consulting services to various companies to develop networking systems
`
`and on intellectual property matters, including many such matters relating to
`
`networking technologies specifically.
`
`10.
`
`I am currently Adjunct Executive in Residence in the Hunt Institute for
`
`Engineering and Humanity, which is part of the Lyle School of Engineering at
`
`Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. Here, I serve as the Program Lead
`
`for Transformational Technology. As Program Lead, I am responsible for the
`
`Maps4Good project which uses SMU’s data center servers to provide web-based
`
`services for the community, such as a COVID Relief Map.
`
`11.
`
`I am also currently an Adjunct Professor in the Telecommunications
`
`and Network Engineering Program at Southern Methodist University’s Graduate
`
`School of Electrical Engineering, where I teach classes in networking and
`
`networked enabled applications.
`
`12. Overall, I have over 20 years of experience in advanced network
`
`engineering and product development. I have been recognized as an expert by the
`
`International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in security and firewalls in routers and
`
`switches, cellphone hardware and software for imaging, operating systems for
`
`- 4 -
`
`Page 11 of 115
`
`

`

`Case PGR2022-00052
`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`
`mobile devices, mobile devices hardware and software architectures, and ethernet
`
`switch packet processor hardware and software.
`
`13.
`
`I have also opined on the meaning of claim terms to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art on numerous occasions. For example, I provided opinions on the
`
`meanings of claim terms in QPSX Developments 5 Pty Ltd. v. Nortel Networks, Inc.
`
`and In the Matter of Certain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phone and Tablets
`
`II, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-905.
`
`14. My CV, which I understand is being submitted with this declaration,
`
`includes a listing of patent applications on which I am an inventor.
`
`15. Because of my background, training, education, and experience, I am
`
`qualified as an expert to explain the background of the technology encompassed by
`
`the ‘034 Patent as well as to opine on the validity of the claims of the ‘034 Patent in
`
`view of the prior art references discussed herein.
`
`16.
`
`If called upon to do so, I could and would testify truthfully regarding
`
`the points stated below in this declaration.
`
`III. COMPENSATION
`17. My work on this matter is being billed at my customary rate of 625.00
`
`per hour. Also, I am being reimbursed for reasonable expenses I incur in relation to
`
`my services. I will be paid regardless of the outcome of any proceeding that my
`
`work is used in.
`
`- 5 -
`
`Page 12 of 115
`
`

`

`Case PGR2022-00052
`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF TASK & BASIS FOR OPINIONS
`I have been asked to review the ‘034 Patent. I have been asked to
`18.
`
`provide opinions related to certain issues from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill, having knowledge of the relevant art, as of August 28th, 2013, and—except
`
`where otherwise noted—the opinions stated in this declaration are from that
`
`perspective. The qualifications and abilities of such a person are described in
`
`Section VI below.
`
`19. More particularly, I have been informed that this proceeding is
`
`currently at a preliminary stage during which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will
`
`decide whether the Petition establishes that it is more likely than not that at least one
`
`claim of the ‘034 Patent is invalid.
`
`20. My opinions are based on my education, training, and experience as
`
`well as items that I reviewed to prepare my opinions, including the documents listed
`
`in the Exhibit List included with the Petition and any other items I reference in my
`
`below analysis.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that other issues may arise that require further explanation,
`
`and I will provide that explanation if appropriate. As a result, I respectfully reserve
`
`the right to update and supplement this declaration and the information and opinions
`
`provided herein.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Page 13 of 115
`
`

`

`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`
`V. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
`I am not an attorney. My understanding of the law is based on
`22.
`
`Case PGR2022-00052
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`
`information provided by counsel for Petitioner.
`
`23. My opinions address what would have been logical to, and within the
`
`skill level of, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`alleged invention, given the state of the relevant art, the knowledge and skill that a
`
`POSITA would have, the teachings of the references discussed below, and how a
`
`POSITA would have understood those teachings. My opinions also address whether
`
`a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of the modified systems
`
`discussed below successfully yielding the results discussed below. I understand that
`
`a POSITA is a hypothetical person. He is not a genius. He thinks along the lines of
`
`conventional wisdom. I understand that a POSITA is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity, not an automaton (see Section VI below for qualifications of a POSITA).
`
`I also understand that, in determining who would qualify as a POSITA, it is
`
`appropriate to consider criteria such as: (a) the type of problems encountered in the
`
`art; (b) prior art solutions to those problems; (c) the rapidity with which innovations
`
`are made; (d) the sophistication of the technology; and (e) the education level of
`
`active workers in the field. I understand that a given reference would have been
`
`relevant for a POSITA to consider if it came from the same field of endeavor or was
`
`reasonably related to a problem faced by the ‘034 Patent inventors, and that this
`
`- 7 -
`
`Page 14 of 115
`
`

`

`Case PGR2022-00052
`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`
`relevance determination underlies a principle known as “analogous art,” which
`
`should be construed broadly.
`
`24. First, turning to the types of problems and prior art solutions in the art,
`
`the “Field of the Invention” to the specification of the ’034 Patent states that the
`
`patent “relates generally to an apparatus and method for improving communication
`
`over the Internet.” EX1001, 1:19-20. The “Background” section further explains
`
`that the patent pertains to the standardized Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP),
`
`including Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and the Internet Protocol (IP). Id.,
`
`1:32-35. The ’034 Patent goes on to describe the operation of TCP and IP, client
`
`server models, various operating systems, process management, file systems, kernels
`
`and device drivers, web browsers and HTTP, proxy servers, Onion routing, VPNs,
`
`MPLS and BGP, VOIP, CRCs, hash functions, sockets, caching, LAN and WIFI,
`
`WAP, lossless data compression, and Gateways and subnets, within the background
`
`of the invention. See EX1001, 1:27 – 52:19, “Background”. The ‘034 states that it
`
`wishes to improve on these well-known concepts stating “In consideration of the
`
`foregoing, it would be an advancement in the art to provide an improved
`
`functionality method and system that is simple, secure, anonymous, cost-effective,
`
`load balanced, redundant, reliable, provide lower CPU and/ or memory usage,
`
`enable pipelining of requests and responses, reduce network congestion, easy to use,
`
`reduce latency, faster, has a minimum part count, minimum hardware, and/or uses
`
`- 8 -
`
`Page 15 of 115
`
`

`

`Case PGR2022-00052
`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`
`existing and available components, protocols, programs and applications for
`
`providing better quality of service, overload avoidance, better or optimal resources
`
`allocation, better communication and additional functionalities, and provides a
`
`better user experience.” EX1001, 52:8-19.
`
`25. Second, turning to the sophistication of the technology and the rapidity
`
`with which innovations occur in the field, the technical knowledge required to
`
`understand techniques to improve data communication speed and bandwidth
`
`efficiency on the Internet at the time of the alleged invention required education and
`
`experience in Internet communications technology to understand. For example, the
`
`’034 Patent specifically discusses the knowledge of a POSITA in regards to HTTP,
`
`TCP/IP, IP addresses, and Request for Comments (“RFC”) 675, 791, 792, 793, 1034,
`
`1035, 1072, 1323, 1349, 1591, 1750, 1825-1829, 1885, 1918, 1951, 2131, 2198,
`
`2401, 2460, 2463, 2547, 2616, 3207, 3261, 3315, 3339, 3467, 3489, 3550, 4026,
`
`4098, 4301, 4309, 5246, 6195, 6323, 6520, 7230-7235. See id., 1:27 – 52:19,
`
`“Background”. A person skilled in the art would have been monitoring these
`
`developments.
`
`26. Third, with respect to the educational level of active workers in the
`
`field, I personally observed that the individuals that participated in development and
`
`implementation of Internet routers/switches, network communication, and Web
`
`servers typically had a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or related field (or
`
`- 9 -
`
`Page 16 of 115
`
`

`

`Case PGR2022-00052
`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`
`equivalent experience) and at least two years’ experience working with and
`
`programming networked computer systems.
`
`27. Fourth, turning to the educational level of the named inventors, the
`
`‘034 Patent names two inventors: Derry Shribman and Ofer Vilenski. I am not
`
`personally acquainted with either of these individuals, but I located information from
`
`their LinkedIn profiles that I reasonably believe to be associated with these
`
`individuals.
`
`28. Derry Shribman’s profile indicates that he has a bachelor’s degree in
`
`Computer Science from the Open University and at least two years’ experience
`
`working with and programming networked computer systems, including designing
`
`or implementing of Web, Internet, or network communication systems through with
`
`work companies including Cisco. https://www.linkedin.com/in/derryshribman
`
`/details/experience/
`
`29. Ofer Vilenski’s profile indicates that he has a bachelor’s degree in
`
`Computer Science or related field (or equivalent experience) from Israel Institute of
`
`Technology and at least two years’ experience working with and programming
`
`networked computer systems, including designing or implementing of Web,
`
`Internet, or network communication systems through with work companies
`
`including Cisco. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ofer-vilenski/
`
`- 10 -
`
`Page 17 of 115
`
`

`

`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`
`
`Case PGR2022-00052
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`I have not been asked to take a position on whether a given claim would
`
`30.
`
`have been legally obvious to a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention, but I
`
`have been told that some or all of my opinions are being used to support the argument
`
`that the claims of the ’034 Patent are obvious.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a claim term is given the meaning that the term would
`
`have to a POSITA at the time of the invention, which generally is the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of the term. I further understand that the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of
`
`the claims themselves, the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic
`
`evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms,
`
`and the state of the art.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE RELEVANT ART
`I understand that the claims and specification of a patent must be read
`32.
`
`and construed through the eyes of a POSITA at the time of the earliest alleged
`
`priority date for the ’034 Patent, August 28, 2013 (“Priority Date”). Unless
`
`otherwise stated, this declaration concerns the viewpoint of a POSITA with respect
`
`to the ’034 Patent.
`
`33.
`
`In my opinion, a person of “ordinary skill in the art” to which the ‘034
`
`Patent pertains would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or
`
`related field (or equivalent experience) and at least two years’ experience working
`
`- 11 -
`
`Page 18 of 115
`
`

`

`Case PGR2022-00052
`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`
`with and programming networked computer systems, including designing or
`
`implementing of Web, Internet, or network communication systems, data transfer,
`
`and content sharing across networks, including the DNS, HTTP, and TCP/IP
`
`protocols. A POSITA would also have familiarity with the Internet Engineering
`
`Task Force (IETF) standards and protocols relating to DNS, HTTP, TCP/IP, and IP
`
`addresses. This definition is approximate, and more education may substitute for
`
`industry experience or vice versa.
`
`34.
`
`In addition, in my opinion, while a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have some familiarity with such underlying technologies, that familiarity
`
`would need only be sufficient to utilize the technology in connection with a broader
`
`system and method. For example, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be
`
`aware of how networked communication takes place over the Internet and how
`
`HTTP requests are processed in accordance to standards, but would not necessarily
`
`need to be an expert on the design of the Web servers or Internet caches.
`
`35. Based on my educational and employment background, I am qualified
`
`to provide opinions concerning what a POSITA would have known and understood
`
`by August 28, 2013. Indeed, as reflected in my qualifications above, I am more than
`
`qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the relevant date of the ’034
`
`Patent.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`Page 19 of 115
`
`

`

`Case PGR2022-00052
`Declaration of James Olivier, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 11,272,034
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNICAL FIELD & PRIOR ART
`A. Knowledge of a POSITA
`In this section, I describe the field of technology prior to the Priority
`36.
`
`Date of the ’034 Patent in August 28, 2013. This would be indicative of the working
`
`knowledge of a POSITA at that time. In particular, a POSITA would be aware of
`
`Internet communication and protocols, including DNS, HTTP, TCP/IP, IP
`
`addresses, and even persistent HTTP connections as part of their level of ordinary
`
`skill. Further, because the following discussion relates to Internet communication
`
`and protocols, this knowledge directly relates to the subject matter of the ’034 Patent.
`
`37. The inventors named on the ’034 Patent did not invent the Internet
`
`protocols to which they cite, both because the ’034 Patent specification refers to the
`
`existing protocols and RFCs and because, as discussed below, DNS, HTTP, and
`
`TCP/IP were defined and well known to a POSITA well prior to the priority date of
`
`the ’034 Patent. For example, the ’034 Patent discloses that data servers may be
`
`“HTTP servers, sometimes known as web servers.” EX1001, 31:57-59. The Patent
`
`defines the Internet in terms of TCP/IP: “The Internet is a global system of
`
`interco