UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MULLEN INDUSTRIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2025-00737
`Patent 8,585,476 B2
`Issue Date: November 19, 2013
`
`Title: LOCATION-BASED GAMES AND
`AUGMENTED REALITY SYSTEMS
`
`DECLARATION OF INGRID HSIEH-YEE, PH.D.
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 001
`
`

`

`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................ 4
`A. Qualifications and Professional Experience ....................................... 4
`BACKGROUND OF LIBRARY CATALOGING ....................................... 5
`A. Machine-Readable Cataloging (“MARC”) ......................................... 5
`B.
`Library Online Catalogs ..................................................................... 8
`C.
`Scope of this Declaration ................................................................. 12
`D.
`Evidence Considered in Forming My Opinion ................................. 15
`III. AUTHENTICITY AND PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF PIEKARSKI
`1999 (EX1004) .......................................................................................... 15
`A. Authentication ................................................................................. 15
`B.
`Records of Linda Hall Library ......................................................... 17
`C. MARC Record of Brown University Library ................................... 20
`D.
`Copyright Registration Record ......................................................... 22
`E.
`IEEE Metadata Record .................................................................... 23
`F. Webpage of “tinmith research papers” ............................................. 26
`G. Usage Records ................................................................................. 28
`H.
`Summary of My Opinion on Piekarski 1999 .................................... 28
`IV. AUTHENTICATION AND PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF
`PIEKARSKI 2001 (EX1009) ...................................................................... 30
`A. Authentication ................................................................................. 30
`B.
`Internet Archive Records ................................................................. 32
`C.
`Usage Records ................................................................................. 34
`D.
`Summary of My Opinion on Piekarski 2001 .................................... 34
`V. AUTHENTICITY AND PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF MILGRAM
`(EX1010) ................................................................................................... 35
`A. Authentication ................................................................................. 35
`B.
`Records of Linda Hall Library ......................................................... 36
`C.
`Usage Records ................................................................................. 40
`D.
`Summary of My Opinion on Milgram .............................................. 40
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 002
`
`

`

`VI. AUTHENTICATION AND PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF
`ROLLAND (EX1013) ................................................................................. 41
`A. Authentication ................................................................................. 41
`B.
`Records of Linda Hall Library ......................................................... 43
`C.
`Copyright Registration Record ......................................................... 47
`D. Usage Records ................................................................................. 48
`E.
`Summary of My Opinion on Rolland ............................................... 48
`VII. AUTHENTICITY AND PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF STRATTON
`(EX1014) ................................................................................................... 49
`A. Authentication ................................................................................. 49
`B.
`Record of Library of Congress ......................................................... 51
`C.
`Internet Archive Record ................................................................... 54
`D.
`Summary of My Opinion on Stratton ............................................... 55
`VIII. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 56
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 003
`
`

`

`I, Ingrid Hsieh-Yee, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`I am over the age of eighteen and otherwise competent to make this
`1.
`
`declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner to provide my expert
`
`opinion in connection with the above-captioned proceeding (“IPR”) regarding the
`
`public availability of a certain prior art references in relation to U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,585,476 B2 (“Challenged Patent”).
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in connection with this IPR at my
`
`current consulting rate. I am also being reimbursed for any reasonable expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not contingent on the results of my study, the substance of my opinions, or the
`
`outcome of this matter.
`
`A. Qualifications and Professional Experience
`4. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my academic curriculum vitae (Appendix A). The following is a brief summary
`
`of my relevant qualifications and professional experience.
`
`5.
`
`I was a professor in the Department of Library and Information Science
`
`at the Catholic University of America for 32 years and was conferred the title of
`
`Professor Emerita in December 2022. I have experience working in an academic
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 004
`
`

`

`library, a medical library, and a legislative library. I hold a Ph.D. and a Masters in
`
`Library and Information Studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
`
`6.
`
`I am an expert on library cataloging and classification and have
`
`published two editions on this subject, Organizing Audiovisual and Electronic
`
`Resources for Access: A Cataloging Guide (2000 and 2006). I taught a variety of
`
`courses, including Cataloging and Classification, Advanced Cataloging and
`
`Classification, Organization of Internet Resources, Organization of Information,
`
`Metadata, Digital Content Creation and Management, Internet Searches and Web
`
`Design, Information Literacy Instruction, Advanced Information Retrieval and
`
`Analysis Strategies, and The Information Professions in Society. I am familiar with
`
`metadata schema design and implementation. In my teaching, I covered the design
`
`and implementation of metadata in databases, search engines, digital repositories,
`
`digital libraries, and digital archives. I also covered how information organization
`
`affects the discovery and access to digital resources on the Internet. My research
`
`interests cover cataloging and classification, information organization, metadata,
`
`information retrieval,
`
`information architecture, digital collections, scholarly
`
`communication, social media, user interaction with information systems, and others
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF LIBRARY CATALOGING
`A. Machine-Readable Cataloging (“MARC”)
`I am very familiar with a library cataloging encoding standard known
`7.
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 005
`
`

`

`as the “Machine-Readable Cataloging” standard, also known as “MARC,” which
`
`became the national standard for sharing bibliographic data in the United States by
`
`1971 and the international standard by 1973. MARC is the primary communications
`
`protocol for the transfer and storage of bibliographic metadata in libraries. Experts in
`
`my field reasonably rely upon MARC records when forming their opinions.
`
`8.
`
`A MARC record consists of several fields, each of which contains
`
`specific data about the work. Each field is identified by a standardized, unique, three-
`
`digit code corresponding to the type of data that follows. Appendix B is a true and
`
`correct copy of Parts VII to X of “Understanding MARC Bibliographic: Machine-
`
`Readable Cataloging” (https://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um07to10.html), a brief
`
`description and tutorial published by the Library of Congress in 2009 that explains
`
`commonly used MARC fields. For example, the personal author of a work is recorded
`
`in Field 100, the title is recorded in Field 245, publisher information is recorded in
`
`Field 260, the physical volume and characteristics of a publication are recorded in
`
`Field 300, and topical subjects are recorded in Fields 650. More details of MARC21
`
`format for Bibliographic Data are available on the Library of Congress website at
`
`https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/.
`
`9.
`
`I am very familiar with library cataloging and processing practices and
`
`the relationships between OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) and library
`
`catalogs, and how libraries create and share their records to help the public discover
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 006
`
`

`

`and access information.
`
`10. OCLC is the largest bibliographic network of the world, and its
`
`WorldCat database contains more than 559 million records from thousands of
`
`member institutions (many of which are libraries of some type) in more than 100
`
`countries. OCLC was founded in 1967 to promote and support library cooperation.
`
`According to the third article of the “Amended Articles of Incorporation of OCLC
`
`[Online Computer Library Center], Inc.,” OCLC was created “to establish, maintain,
`
`and operate a computerized library network and to promote the evolution of library
`
`use, of libraries themselves, and of librarianship, and to provide processes and
`
`products for the benefit of library users and libraries, including such objectives as
`
`increasing availability of library resources to individual library patrons and reducing
`
`the rate of rise of library per-unit costs, all for the fundamental public purpose of
`
`furthering ease of access to and use of the ever-expanding body of worldwide
`
`scientific,
`
`literary, and educational knowledge and
`
`information”
`
`(source:
`
`https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/membership/articles-of-incorporation.pdf).
`
`11. OCLC members can contribute original cataloging records in MARC
`
`to the system or derive cataloging records from existing records, an activity referred
`
`to as “copy cataloging.” When an OCLC participating institution acquires a work, it
`
`can create an original MARC record for the work in OCLC’s Connexion system (a
`
`system for catalogers to create and share MARC records), and the system will
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 007
`
`

`

`automatically generate a code for the date of record creation in the yymmdd format,
`
`and the creating library’s OCLC symbol is recorded in subfield “a” of the 040 field.
`
`Once the MARC record is in Connexion, it becomes available to other OCLC
`
`members for adoption to their local online catalogs (i.e., copy cataloging).
`
`12. After a MARC record is created in Connexion, it also becomes
`
`searchable and viewable on WorldCat.org, which is a free web portal for users to
`
`explore more than 10,000 libraries worldwide. Records in WorldCat.org, however,
`
`are not presented in MARC fields. Instead, the data elements are labeled to help users
`
`interpret the records. Thus, the information stored in MARC records in Connexion is
`
`available to the interested public through the user-friendly WorldCat web portal.
`
`WorldCat records can also be searched on OCLC FirstSearch, a subscription-based
`
`search system that provides access to many proprietary databases, including the
`
`WorldCat database.
`
`B.
`13.
`
`Library Online Catalogs
`Library online catalogs gained acceptance in the early 1980s and many
`
`libraries migrated their systems to the World Wide Web in the mid-1990s. Library
`
`online catalogs are based on MARC records that represent their collections in order
`
`to help the public understand what materials are publicly accessible in those libraries.
`
`Most libraries with online catalogs have made their catalogs freely available on the
`
`Web. These online catalogs offer user-friendly search interfaces. Strong user interest
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 008
`
`

`

`in keyword searches and the popularity of Google have led to the “googlization” of
`
`library search systems. As a result, many library catalogs nowadays provide a single
`
`search box for users to conduct keyword searches, with additional support for
`
`searches by author, title, subject terms, and other data elements such as ISBN
`
`(International Standard Book Number). Library catalogs these days also offer
`
`features for users to narrow their search results by language, year, format, and other
`
`elements. Many libraries display MARC records on their online catalogs with labels
`
`for the data elements to help the public interpret MARC records. Many libraries also
`
`offer the option to display MARC records in MARC fields.
`
`14.
`
`Libraries create MARC records for works they acquire, including
`
`books, serials, motion pictures, and publications in other formats. Monograph
`
`cataloging is fairly common in libraries, and most libraries make a newly cataloged
`
`monograph available to the public soon after the cataloging work is completed,
`
`usually within a week. Libraries can create original cataloging records or use an
`
`existing record in the OCLC WorldCat database to create a copy cataloging record.
`
`As soon as the cataloging record is completed, it is added to the library’s online
`
`catalog for users. If the record is an original record, it is also entered into the OCLC
`
`system. If it is a copy cataloging record, the library’s holding symbol is attached to
`
`the existing original record in the OCLC system to facilitate searching and
`
`interlibrary loan.
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 009
`
`

`

`15.
`
`The cataloging of serials and the serial check-in process are discussed
`
`here to show how libraries usually provide access to newly received serial issues.
`
`According to the glossary of the RDA: Resource Description and Access cataloging
`
`standard, a serial is “a mode of issuance of a manifestation issued in successive parts,
`
`usually bearing numbering, that has no predetermined conclusion. A serial includes
`
`a periodical, monographic
`
`series, newspaper, etc.”
`
`(RDA Glossary at
`
`https://original.rdatoolkit.org/rdagloss_rdaregistry.info-termList-ModeIssue-
`
`1003_1.html
`
`(subscription
`
`required
`
`for
`
`access);
`
`cited
`
`https://www.ccslib.org/Catalogers/index.php/Category:Serials).
`
`Because
`
`in
`
`the
`
`publisher of a serial makes new issues of the serial available successively, a
`
`customary cataloging practice is to create one bibliographic record for the serial, and
`
`the serial record (encoded in MARC) typically provides information on the beginning
`
`date and frequency of the serial, not the dates of individual issues. In other words,
`
`libraries typically do not create MARC records for individual issues of a serial.
`
`Instead, they rely on a serial check-in system to track the receipt of new issues. A
`
`common check-in practice is to date stamp a new issue when it arrives. This practice
`
`has become automated since the late 1990s, and libraries now vary in how they share
`
`the receipt date of a new serial issue with the public. Some libraries use a date stamp,
`
`some affix a label to indicate the receipt date, some pencil in the receipt date, and
`
`some do not provide the information to the public.
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0010
`
`

`

`16.
`
`The serial check-in process usually takes less than an hour, and one of
`
`the steps involves placing a date stamp on the new issue to document the date the
`
`issue is checked in. After that, the holdings information of the serial is updated in the
`
`library’s catalog so that users know which issues are available for request or access.
`
`After serial check-in is completed, the new issue is placed on the shelf with the
`
`previous issues of the serial. Libraries with a public periodical room typically place
`
`new issues in the periodical room for easy user access. Because information presented
`
`in serials often reflects latest discovery, a general practice of libraries is to make new
`
`issues of serials available for user access soon after they are checked in, usually
`
`within a week.
`
`17.
`
`I am personally familiar with many online catalogs, databases, and
`
`search engines. In preparing for this declaration, I used the following authoritative
`
`information systems to search for records:
`
`• Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/)
`
`• Internet Archive (https://archive.org/)
`
`• Libraries.org, a directory of
`
`libraries
`
`throughout
`
`the world
`
`(https://librarytechnology.org/libraries/)
`
`• Online
`
`catalog
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Brown
`
`University
`
`Library
`
`(https://library.brown.edu/catalogs/)
`
`• Online catalog of the Library of Congress (https://catalog.loc.gov/)
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0011
`
`

`

`• Online
`
`catalog
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Linda
`
`Hall
`
`Library
`
`(https://catalog.lindahall.org/discovery/search?vid=01LINDAHALL_I
`
`NST:LHL)
`
`• Public
`
`catalog
`
`of
`
`the
`
`US
`
`Copyright
`
`Office
`
`(https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-
`
`bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First)
`
`• WorldCat.org (https://search.worldcat.org/)
`
`C.
`18.
`
`Scope of this Declaration
`I have been asked to offer an opinion on the public availability dateS of
`
`the following documents:
`
`• Piekarski, W., Gunther, B., & Thomas, B. (1999, October). Integrating
`
`virtual and augmented realities in an outdoor application, in Proceedings
`
`2nd IEEE and ACM International Workshop on Augmented Reality
`
`(IWAR'99), pp. 45-54, EX1004 (“Piekarski 1999”);
`
`• Piekarski, W., & Thomas, B. (2001, January). Augmented reality with
`
`wearable computers running Linux, in 2nd Australian Linux Conference
`
`(Sydney), 14 unnumbered pages, EX1009 (“Piekarski 2001”);
`
`• Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994, December). A taxonomy of mixed
`
`reality visual displays, IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems,
`
`Vol. E77-D, No. 12, 1321-1329, EX1010 (“Milgram”);
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0012
`
`

`

`• Rolland, J. P., Holloway, R. L., & Fuchs, H. (1995, December).
`
`Comparison of optical and video see-through, head-mounted displays,
`
`in Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies : 31 October-1
`
`November 1994, Boston, Massachusetts, Proceedings of SPIE vol. 2351,
`
`pp. 293-307, EX1013 (“Rolland”); and
`
`• Excerpts of The Legend of Zelda : A Link to the Past : Prima’s Official
`
`Strategy Guide by Bryan Stratton and Stephen Stratton (2002), obtained
`
`from the Library of Congress, EX1014 (“Stratton”).
`
`19.
`
`I am informed by counsel and. Understand that a given reference is
`
`“published” upon a satisfactory showing that such a document has been disseminated
`
`or otherwise made publicly available to the extent that persons interested and
`
`ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art could locate it exercising reasonable
`
`diligence and obtain the document. I have also been informed by counsel and
`
`understand that materials available in a library constitute “printed publications” if
`
`they are catalogued and indexed according to general library practices and protocols
`
`that make the references available and accessible to members of the interested public.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the Challenged Patent claims
`
`November 16, 2004, as its earliest priority date. I have assessed public accessibility
`
`of the documents referenced below as of this claimed priority date.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the subject matter of this
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0013
`
`

`

`proceeding generally relates to virtual and augmented reality computing systems.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a “person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention” (POSA) is a hypothetical person who is presumed to
`
`be familiar with the relevant field and its literature at the time of the inventions. I
`
`have been informed by counsel that this hypothetical person is also a person of
`
`ordinary creativity, capable of understanding the scientific principles and literature
`
`applicable to the pertinent field.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art as of November 16, 2004, would have knowledge of the scientific literature and
`
`have skills relating to virtual and augmented reality computing systems. A person of
`
`ordinary skill would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer science, or similar field, with two years combined experience in designing
`
`and/or developing interactive location-based computer systems/software, such as
`
`video games or other simulations incorporating location information (such as GPS
`
`information associated with a user’s physical location), and in designing and/or
`
`developing computer systems/software involving graphical virtual and/or augmented
`
`reality. A person could also have qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art with
`
`some combination of (1) more formal education (such as a master’s of science
`
`degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical
`
`or professional experience.
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0014
`
`

`

`24.
`
`It is my opinion that such a person would have been actively engaged
`
`in learning about the field, possibly through formal instruction and through
`
`bibliographic resources. By at least November 16, 2004, such a person would have
`
`had access to a vast array of print and electronic resources, including at least the
`
`documents referenced below.
`
`D. Evidence Considered in Forming My Opinion
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have reviewed EX1004,
`25.
`
`EX1009, EX1010, EX1013, and EX1014 referenced in paragraph 18 above, and any
`
`other documents I reference herein. Each of these is a type of material that experts in
`
`my field would reasonably rely upon when forming their opinions. I provided a
`
`further description of materials I considered in Appendix C.
`
`III. Authenticity and Public Availability of Piekarski 1999 (EX1004)
`
`A. Authentication
`
`26.
`
`Exhibit 1004 is a true and correct copy of “Integrating virtual and
`
`augmented realities in an outdoor application,” (“Piekarski 1999”), by W. Piekarski,
`
`B. Gunther, and B. Thomas, in Proceedings 2nd IEEE and ACM International
`
`Workshop on Augmented Reality (IWAR'99), pp. 45-54, that I obtained from the
`
`Linda Hall Library. This copy is presented as EX1004 in this declaration.
`
`27.
`
`Page 1 is the cover that shows the conference name, dates, location,
`
`sponsors, and publisher. Page 2 is the title page that shows the same information as
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0015
`
`

`

`the cover and also shows the names of four sponsors, and the location of the publisher.
`
`Page 3 is the copyright page that shows a “1999” copyright date and The Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. as the copyright holder. The top of the page
`
`shows a hand-written call number of “T385 .I48 1999.” This page shows “PRO0359”
`
`as the IEEE Computer Society order number for this work, “99-64284” as the Library
`
`of Congress Catalog Number for the library record for this work, and “0-7659-0359-
`
`4” and “0-7659-0361-6” (for microfiche) as the ISBNs (International Standard Book
`
`Numbers). Page 4 (internal page v) is the table of contents that carries a library stamp
`
`and shows Piekarski 1999 is in “Session 2: Mobility + Displays” and begins on
`
`internal page 45. The left side of this page shows a date annotation of “12-8-99” (i.e.,
`
`December 8, 1999) that indicates the Linda Hall Library added this work to their
`
`collections on this date. The knowledge of this date annotation practice is based on
`
`my personal knowledge and experience with the Linda Hall Library and its
`
`collections. Pages 6 to 15 are the full text of this article. EX1004 shows Piekarski
`
`1999 has a total of ten pages, including eight figures and 18 references.
`
`28.
`
`To authenticate EX1004, I located a metadata record for Piekarski 1999
`
`from IEEE Xplore at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/803805 and used
`
`it to obtain a PDF of this article. This IEEE copy is presented as EX1004A in this
`
`declaration. EX1004A shows this article has a total of ten pages, including eight
`
`figures and 18 references. I have closely compared the Linda Hall Library copy
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0016
`
`

`

`(EX1004) with the IEEE copy (EX1004A), and found them to contain the same
`
`content for Piekarski 1999.
`
`29.
`
`EX1004 is in a condition that raises no suspicion about its authenticity.
`
`Specifically, this copy is not missing any intermediate pages, and there are no visible
`
`alterations to the document. Furthermore, this library copy has the same content as
`
`the IEEE copy (EX1004A) and is held by a well-known public research library.
`
`Based on my review and analysis, it is my opinion that EX1004 is authentic.
`
`B. Records of Linda Hall Library
`
`30.
`
`To determine the public availability date of IWAR’99 that contains
`
`Piekarski 1999 at libraries, I obtained records for this work from the online catalog
`
`of the Linda Hall Library. EX1004B is a true and correct copy of the bibliographic
`
`and MARC records for this work. I personally located, identified, and obtained these
`
`records. They are the type of records experts in my field would reasonably rely upon
`
`when forming their opinions.
`
`31.
`
`Pages 1 to 3 of EX1004B are the bibliographic record and Page 4 is a
`
`copy of the MARC record. Page 1 shows ”conference proceeding” is the format of
`
`this work, and it is cataloged as a book and available at “Linda Hall Library Books –
`
`2nd Floor (T385 .I48 1999).” The record details include the title, subtitles, a variant
`
`title (“IWAR’99”), two contributors, subjects, identifiers, publisher, creation date
`
`(“c1999”), physical description, and a note on bibliographic references and author
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0017
`
`

`

`index. The title, variant title, contributors, two 10-digit ISBNs, and publisher
`
`information match the information presented in EX1004, confirming this record
`
`represents IWAR’99 that contains Piekarski 1999.
`
`32.
`
`Page 4 is a copy of the MARC record. The first six digits of Field 008
`
`show the record was created on “991209” (i.e., December 9, 1999). Subfields ‘a” and
`
`“c” of Field 040 show “LHL” created the original record and entered it into the OCLC
`
`WorldCat database. According
`
`to
`
`the Directory of OCLC Members
`
`(https://www.oclc.org/en/contacts/libraries.html), “LHL” is the OCLC library
`
`symbol for the Linda Hall Library. Based on the data in Fields 008 and 040, it is my
`
`opinion that the Linda Hall Library created the original record for the conference
`
`proceedings containing Piekarski 1999 on December 9, 1999, making this work
`
`discoverable in their online catalog from that date on. A customary library practice is
`
`to process a newly cataloged monograph promptly for public access, usually within
`
`a week after the cataloging work is completed. It is therefore my opinion that, after
`
`processing, the physical copy of IWAR’99 that contains Piekarski 1999 became
`
`publicly accessible at the Linda Hall Library by December 16, 1999.
`
`33.
`
`Field 010 shows the Library of Congress card number, Field 020 shows
`
`the 13-digit and 10-digit ISBNs, Field 111 shows the conference name, Field 245
`
`shows the title, subtitles, and statement of responsibility, Field 246 shows a variant
`
`title, and Field 260 shows the publisher and copyright date. Field 504 shows a note
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0018
`
`

`

`for bibliographic references and author index, and Field 710 shows the Task Force
`
`on Human-Centered Information Systems of the IEEE Computer Society is included
`
`to help users discover this work.
`
`34.
`
`Interested users could also conduct subject searches to discover this
`
`conference proceedings, because the MARC record contains subject representations.
`
`Field 090 shows a Library of Congress Classification number (“T385”) that
`
`represents “General works” on “Computer-assisted drafting. Computer graphics”
`
`(source:
`
`Library
`
`of
`
`Congress
`
`Classification
`
`Schedule
`
`T
`
`at
`
`https://www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeLCC/LCC_T2019TEXT.pdf), and Fields
`
`650 show three Library of Congress subject headings, with “Computer graphics,”
`
`“Virtual reality,” and “Visualization” as the main topics, each followed by
`
`“Congresses” as a form subheading encoded in subfield “v” to indicate the main
`
`topics are treated at a conference.
`
`35.
`
`The MARC record (EX1004B) shows that the Linda Hall Library
`
`created their original cataloging record for IWAR’99 on December 9, 1999, making
`
`this work discoverable in their online catalog from that date on. As of that date,
`
`interested users could discover this work by the conference name, title, variant title,
`
`and sponsor. They could also conduct subject searches to discover this conference
`
`proceedings that contains Piekarski 1999.
`
`36. As evidence that the Linda Hall Library had an online catalog in
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0019
`
`

`

`operation in December 1999 when the library’s MARC record for IWAR’99 that
`
`contains Piekarski 1999 was completed, I obtained a profile of the library at
`
`https://librarytechnology.org/library/2294 from libraries.org, a directory of libraries
`
`throughout the world. I personally located, identified, and obtained this profile. This
`
`is the type of record experts in my field would reasonably rely upon when forming
`
`their opinions. This profile is presented as EX1004C in this declaration.
`
`37.
`
`The Technology Profile on page 2 of EX1004C shows the Linda Hall
`
`Library began using Horizon as their online catalog in 1994, and changed to Voyager
`
`in 2010. These dates mean that in December 1999 interested users were able to use
`
`the Horizon system to search for the conference proceedings containing Piekarski
`
`1999 and access this article at the Linda Hall Library.
`
`C. MARC Record of Brown University Library
`
`38. As further evidence that IWAR’99 was publicly available in late 1999
`
`and early 2000, I obtained the MARC record for this work from the Brown University
`
`Library. I personally located, identified, and obtained this record from the library’s
`
`online catalog. This is the type of record experts in my field would reasonably rely
`
`upon when forming their opinions.
`
`39.
`
`EX1004D is a true and correct copy of the MARC record for IWAR’99
`
`that contains Piekarski 1999. The first six digits of Field 008 show the record was
`
`created on “991209” (i.e., December 9, 1999). Subfields “a” and “c” of Field 040
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0020
`
`

`

`show the record was created by “LHL” and subfield “d” shows “RBL” modified the
`
`record
`
`later. According
`
`to
`
`the Directory
`
`of OCLC Members
`
`(https://www.oclc.org/en/contacts/libraries.html), “LHL” is the OCLC library
`
`symbol for Linda Hall Library, and “RBL” is the OCLC library symbol for the Brown
`
`University Library. Field 005 is a machine-generated field that automatically record
`
`the last date the Brown University Library modified this record, and their last record
`
`modification date was “20000110093057” (i.e., January 10, 2000, at 9 a.m., 30
`
`minutes and 57 seconds). Record modification can be made for various reasons such
`
`as correcting typos and updating record encoding practice. The record modification
`
`date in Field 005 is usually the same or later than the record creation date in Field
`
`008, because a record needs to be created before it can be modified. Fields 008, 040,
`
`and 005 inform my opinion that the Linda Hall Library created the original record on
`
`December 9, 1999, and the Brown University Library used the Linda Hall Library
`
`MARC record for copy cataloging and their copy cataloging record was last modified
`
`on January 10, 2000, meaning IWAR’99 was discoverable in the online catalog of the
`
`Brown University Library by January 10, 2000.
`
`40.
`
`Since EX1004D is a copy cataloging record based on the Linda Hall
`
`MARC record (EX1004B), it is logical that the two records have many data elements
`
`in common, including the Library of Congress card number (Field 010), ten-digit
`
`ISBNs (Fields 020), conference name (Field 111), title (Field 245), publisher and
`
`Meta Exhibit 1017
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0021
`
`

`

`copyright date (Field 260), physical description (Field 300),