Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MULLEN INDUSTRIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2025-00742
`U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2
`Issue Date: February 20, 2024
`
`Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LOCATION BASED GAMES AND
`EMPLOYMENT OF THE SAME ON LOCATION ENABLED DEVICES
`
`DECLARATION OF JEREMY COOPERSTOCK
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 001
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................. 8
`
`A. Qualifications and Experience ............................................................. 8
`
`B. Materials Considered ......................................................................... 13
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................................... 14
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES .................................................. 17
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 17
`
`Obviousness (§ 103) .......................................................................... 19
`
`IV. THE ’243 PATENT ..................................................................................... 25
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Priority Date ....................................................................................... 25
`
`Specification ...................................................................................... 26
`
`The Challenged Claims ...................................................................... 29
`
`V. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS....................................................................................................... 30
`
`A.
`
`Brief Summary and Overview of Prior Art ....................................... 31
`
`1.
`
`Levesque (EX1003) ................................................................. 31
`
`(a)
`
`Levesque Provisional Application ................................ 38
`
`Ronzani (EX1004) ................................................................... 48
`
`Fager (EX1005) ....................................................................... 50
`
`Ohshima (EX1006) .................................................................. 53
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 6-8, 17, 24-28, and 30 Are Obvious Over
`Levesque in view of Ronzani............................................................. 57
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 1: “A location based game system
`comprising:” (Claim 1[pre]) .................................................... 57
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 002
`
`

`

`
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`“a head-mounted device operable to provide a
`location based game in a semi-visible environment
`in which a user of said head-mounted device can
`simultaneously view at least a portion of a real-
`world environment around said user as well as
`virtual indicia for said location based game, said
`virtual indicia comprising at least one of a virtual
`game character and a virtual interactive object;”
`(Claim 1[a]) ................................................................... 58
`
`“processing circuitry in said head-mounted
`device;” (Claim 1[b]) ................................................... 66
`
`“memory in said head-mounted device storing
`computer programming capable of execution by
`said processing circuitry;” (Claim 1[c]) ....................... 78
`
`“a first locating device in said head-mounted
`device for providing a first control signal for said
`location based game;” (Claim 1[d]) ............................. 81
`
`“a second locating device in said head-mounted
`device for providing a second control signal for
`said location based game; and” (Claim 1[e]) ............... 85
`
`“a display provided on said head-mounted device,
`wherein said head-mounted device is a portable
`device and said processing circuitry is operable to
`execute said computer programming to cause said
`display to display said location based game based
`on a location, direction, and pitch associated, at
`least in part, with said first control signal and said
`second control signal, said display of said location
`based game comprising display of said virtual
`indicia in a manner that blocks part of, but not all
`of, said user’s view of said real-world environment
`around said user, and” (Claim 1[f]) .............................. 88
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 003
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`(g)
`
`“wherein said processing circuitry is operable to
`execute said computer programming to allow said
`user of said head-mounted device to manually set
`one or more boundaries for said location based
`game.” (Claim 1[g]) ..................................................... 93
`
`Claim 6: “The location based game system of claim 1,
`wherein said location based game is operable to be
`played on a physical playfield that correlates to a virtual
`playfield and said processing circuitry is operable to
`execute said computer programming to set one or more
`physical boundaries for said physical playfield that
`correlate to one or more virtual location boundaries of
`said virtual playfield for said location based game.” .............. 95
`
`Claim 7: “The location based game system of claim 6,
`wherein said processing circuitry is operable to execute
`said computer programming to allow said user of said
`head-mounted device to manually set dimensions for said
`physical playfield for said location based game.” ................. 101
`
`Claim 8: “The location based game system of claim 7,
`wherein said processing circuitry is operable to execute
`said computer programming to provide a graphical user
`interface for display on said display of said head-
`mounted device to allow said user of said head-mounted
`device to manually set said dimensions for said physical
`playfield for said location based game.” ............................... 102
`
`Claim 17: “The location based game system of claim 1,
`wherein said system further comprises a controller
`operable to communicate with said head-mounted
`device.” .................................................................................. 103
`
`Claim 24: “The location based game system of claim 1,
`wherein said head-mounted device further comprises a
`communications device operable to communicate with a
`remote server.” ...................................................................... 108
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 004
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 25: “The location based game system of claim 24,
`wherein said location based game is a multiplayer game
`and said communications device of said head-mounted
`device is operable to communicate with said remote
`server in order to enable said multiplayer game.” ................. 110
`
`Claim 26: “The location based game system of claim 25,
`wherein said communications device of said head-
`mounted device is operable to communicate location
`information regarding said head-mounted device to said
`remote server.” ...................................................................... 112
`
`Claim 27: “The location based game system of claim 26,
`wherein said communications device of said head-
`mounted device is operable to receive location
`information regarding a device of another player in said
`multiplayer game from said remote server.” ......................... 115
`
`10. Claim 28: “The location based game system of claim 25,
`wherein said head-mounted device is operable to allow
`said user of said head-mounted device to talk to another
`player during said multiplayer game.” .................................. 117
`
`11. Claim 30: “The location based game system of claim 1,
`wherein:” (Claim 30[pre]) .................................................... 117
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`“said location based game is operable to be played
`on a physical playfield that correlates to a virtual
`playfield;” (Claim 30[a]) ............................................ 118
`
`“said location based game comprises said virtual
`game character and said virtual game character is
`computer controlled;” (Claim 30[b]).......................... 118
`
`“said location based game comprises a second
`virtual game character and said second virtual
`game character is user controlled; and” (Claim
`30[c]) ........................................................................... 119
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 005
`
`

`

`
`
`(d)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`“said processing circuitry is operable to execute
`said computer programming to cause said user of
`said head-mounted device to lose control of said
`second virtual game character when said user
`travels through a location on a physical playfield
`correlating to a virtual boundary of said virtual
`playfield, and to regain said control of said second
`virtual game character when said user returns to
`said location on said physical playfield.” (Claim
`30[d]) ........................................................................... 121
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 9, 10, and 22 Are Obvious Over Ground 1
`Prior Art in Further View of Fager .................................................. 124
`
`1.
`
`Claim 9: “The location based game system of claim 6,
`wherein said processing circuitry is operable to execute
`said computer programming to:” (Claim 9[pre]) .................. 124
`
`(a)
`
`“provide default dimensions for said physical
`playfield for said location based game; and”
`(Claim 9[a]) ................................................................. 124
`
`(b)
`
`“allow said user of said head-mounted device to
`change said default dimensions.” (Claim 9[b]) .......... 132
`
`Claim 10: “The location based game system of claim 9,
`wherein said processing circuitry is operable to execute
`said computer programming to provide a graphical user
`interface for display on said display of said head-
`mounted device to allow said user of said head-mounted
`device to change said default dimensions for said
`physical playfield for said location based game.” ................. 134
`
`Claim 22: “The location based game system of claim 17,
`wherein said controller comprises at least one directional
`device for providing a control signal associated with a
`direction and/or a pitch of said controller for said location
`based game.”.......................................................................... 135
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`D. Ground 3: Claim 14 is Obvious Over Ground 1 Prior Art in
`Further View of Ohshima ................................................................ 139
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 006
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Claim 14: “The location based game system of claim 1,
`wherein:” (Claim 14[pre]) .................................................... 139
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`“said location based game comprises said virtual
`game character and said virtual game character is
`computer controlled;” (Claim 14[a]) .......................... 140
`
`“said location based game comprises a second
`virtual game character and said second virtual
`game character is user controlled; and” (Claim
`14[b]) ........................................................................... 140
`
`“said processing circuitry is operable to execute
`said computer programming to utilize at least one
`of said first control signal from said first locating
`device and said second control signal from said
`second locating device for controlling, at least in
`part, said virtual game character that is computer
`controlled.” (Claim 14[c]) .......................................... 140
`
`V. NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ..... 147
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 149
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2
`
`
`I, Jeremy Cooperstock, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`A. Qualifications and Experience
`
`1.
`
`I am an expert in the field of interactive computing systems, including
`
`virtual and augmented reality systems, as well as mobile and wearable technologies.
`
`I have studied, taught, practiced, and researched the design of such interactive
`
`computing technologies for over 30 years, and I have been leading research and
`
`development activities pertaining to hardware and software designs for interactive
`
`virtual and augmented reality computing systems since at least 2007.
`
`2.
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, work
`
`experience, and other relevant qualifications, as reflected in my curriculum vitae,
`
`attached to this declaration as Appendix A.
`
`3.
`
`I earned a Bachelor of Applied Science (B.A.Sc) degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering (Computer Engineering Option) with Honors from the University of
`
`British Columbia in 1990, a Master of Science (M.Sc.) degree in Computer Science
`
`from the University of Toronto in 1992, and a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree
`
`in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Toronto in 1996. My
`
`dissertation on “Reactive Environments and Augmented Media Spaces” was
`
`nominated by the University of Toronto for the Natural Sciences and Engineering
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 008
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2
`
`
`Research Council (NSERC) Doctoral Dissertation Award.
`
`4.
`
`From 1987 to 1988, I worked at IBM Research on very large scale
`
`integration (VLSI) circuit simulation, and in 1989, I worked at the IBM T.J. Watson
`
`Research Center on very long instruction word (VLIW) simulation. In 1990, I
`
`worked at Fibronics Research to develop and test an FDDI-to-token ring bridge for
`
`network communication.
`
`5.
`
`After obtaining my Doctorate degree, I carried out research and
`
`development work at the Sony Computer Science Laboratory in Tokyo, Japan from
`
`1996 to 1997, working in part on “smart” consumer electronics.
`
`6.
`
`I have been employed at McGill University since November 1997,
`
`where I am currently a Full Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering, and recently, the endowed Werner Graupe Distinguished Chair in
`
`Automation Engineering.
`
`7.
`
`I am a member of the Centre for Intelligent Machines, a founding
`
`member of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and
`
`Technology, a member of the International Laboratory on Learning System, a
`
`member of the McGill Institute for Aerospace Engineering, and an associate member
`
`of Biomedical Engineering at McGill University.
`
`8.
`
`In this capacity, I conduct and supervise research activities, directing a
`9
`
`
`
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 009
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2
`
`
`group of approximately 50 researchers at the Shared Reality Lab, which focuses on
`
`computer mediation to facilitate high-fidelity human communication and the
`
`synthesis of perceptually engaging, multimodal, immersive environments. Over the
`
`span of my academic career, I have supervised more than 100 graduate students and
`
`post-doctoral fellows, and approximately 250 undergraduate research students.
`
`9.
`
`I have also developed and continue to teach courses on human-
`
`computer interaction, artificial intelligence, embedded systems, haptic interaction
`
`design, computer architecture, and operating systems.
`
`10.
`
`I led the development and demonstrations of the world’s first high-
`
`fidelity multichannel audio streaming system over the Internet in 1999 and 2000,
`
`recognized by a Distinction Award from the Audio Engineering Society, and
`
`followed in 2005 by simultaneous low-latency transmission of multiple streams of
`
`uncompressed high-definition video as part of the McGill Ultra-Videoconferencing
`
`system. This work was recognized by an award for Most Innovative Use of New
`
`Technology from the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and the Institute
`
`of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Supercomputing.
`
`11. Among other projects, I led the development and supported ongoing
`
`use of a semi-automated classroom environment (the “Intelligent Classroom”), a
`
`high-fidelity orchestra rehearsal simulator (“Open Orchestra,”), a simulation
`10
`
`
`
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0010
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2
`
`
`environment that renders graphic, audio, and vibrotactile effects in response to
`
`footsteps (“Natural Interactive Walking”), and a mobile game treatment for
`
`amblyopia that was licensed to Novartis.
`
`12. The research and development I supervised on the Autour project
`
`earned the Hochhausen Research Award from the Canadian National Institute for
`
`the Blind and an Impact Award from the Canadian Internet Registry Association.
`
`My Real-Time Emergency Response project won the Gold Prize (brainstorm round)
`
`of the Mozilla Ignite Challenge. I have carried out significant research involving
`
`design and implementation of haptic feedback systems, virtual and augmented
`
`reality, and mobile computing applications. My research experience includes design
`
`of systems employing virtual and augmented reality devices for simulation, training,
`
`gaming, distributed performance, and medical applications, as well as the use of
`
`various sensor technologies including GPS, WiFi and Bluetooth, and inertial
`
`measurement units (IMUs) for tracking position and orientation of a user.
`
`13. My research activities are funded by industry contracts, collaboration
`
`programs, and government grants. In the past 5 years, I have obtained grants and
`
`contracts for my research program of approximately three million dollars.
`
`14.
`
`I led the theme of Enabling Technologies for a Networks of Centres of
`
`Excellence on Graphics, Animation, and New Media (GRAND), and chaired the
`11
`
`
`
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0011
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2
`
`
`Technical Committee on Network Audio Systems. Among other visiting academic
`
`appointments, I was a visiting professor at Bang & Olufsen, Denmark, where I
`
`conducted research on telepresence technologies as part of the World Opera Project.
`
`15.
`
`I have authored and co-authored more than 200 journal articles and
`
`peer-reviewed conference proceedings papers, mostly concerning human-computer
`
`interaction and applications of these technologies. Eight of my publications were
`
`finalists or winners of “best paper”, “honorable mention”, and similar awards from
`
`scholarly societies. A complete list of my publications is contained in my curriculum
`
`vitae.
`
`16. My professional affiliations include services in various professional
`
`organizations and serving as a reviewer for a number of technical publications,
`
`journals, and conferences, which are listed in my curriculum vitae. I served as an
`
`Associate Editor of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, and presently
`
`serve as Associate Editor in Chief for the IEEE Transactions on Haptics, and
`
`Associate Editor for the Frontiers in Virtual Reality.
`
`17.
`
`I have also served as an expert in numerous legal proceedings, both on
`
`behalf of patent owners and petitioners, including proceedings involving industrial
`
`design, hardware architecture, and firmware of wearable technologies. A list of cases
`
`in which I have provided written declarations, testified at trial or by deposition is
`12
`
`
`
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0012
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2
`
`
`provided in my curriculum vitae.
`
`18. My experience in academic and practical situations as well as my
`
`hands-on experience with hardware and software related to virtual and augmented
`
`reality systems, provides me with an appreciation of, and expertise in, the technology
`
`involved with U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2.
`
`19.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner to provide my expert
`
`opinion in connection with the above-captioned proceeding as set forth herein. I am
`
`being compensated for my work in this case at my standard consulting rate. This
`
`compensation is not contingent upon my performance, the outcome of this case, or
`
`any issues involved in or related to this case. I have no financial interest in this
`
`matter.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`
`20. The analysis that I provide in this Declaration is based on my education,
`
`research, and experience, as well as the documents I have considered. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have read and considered U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2 (“’243
`
`patent”) (EX1001) and its prosecution history. I have cited to the following
`
`documents in my analysis below:
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0013
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description of Document
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2 to Jeffrey D. Mullen (filed July 15,
`2007, issued February 20, 2024) (“’243” or “’243 patent”)
`
`1003 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0110565A1 to Louis
`Levesque (filed December 4, 2003, published June 10, 2004)
`(“Levesque”)
`
`1004 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0163486A1 to Peter A.
`Ronzani et al. (filed May 16, 1997, published November 7, 2002)
`(“Ronzani”)
`
`1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0104934A1 to Jan G.
`Fager et al. (filed February 7, 2002, published June 3, 2004) (“Fager”)
`
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,951,515 B2 to Toshikazu Ohshima et al. (filed
`February 17, 2000, published October 4, 2005) (“Ohshima”)
`
`1007 U.S. Patent App. No. 10/932,536 (“2004 Utility Application”)
`
`1008 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/603,481 (“2004
`Provisional”)
`
`1009 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/499,810 (“2003
`Provisional”)
`
`1010 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/430,682 (“Levesque
`Provisional”)
`
`1011 Redline Comparison of Levesque Provisional and Levesque
`
`1012 Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`filed in Mullen Industries LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-
`00354-DAE (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2025)
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`21.
`
`I understand that, under the patent laws in effect before the America
`
`Invents Act (“AIA”) of 2011, an assessment of claims of a patent filed before the
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0014
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2
`
`
`AIA took effect should be undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art as of the earliest claimed priority date (i.e., the “time the invention
`
`was made”). I have preliminarily for purposes of my Declaration only assumed that
`
`date to be September 1, 2004, the filing date of the earliest application to which the
`
`’243 patent can claim priority (utility application no. 10/932,536). I understand that
`
`the ’243 patent claims priority to two earlier-filed provisional applications—no.
`
`60/499,810, filed September 2, 2003, and no. 60/603,481, filed August 20, 2004. As
`
`I explain in Part IV.A below, it is my opinion that the ’243 patent is not entitled to
`
`a priority date based on either of these provisional applications.
`
`22.
`
`I have also been advised that to determine the appropriate level of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art, the following factors may be considered: (1)
`
`the types of problems encountered by those working in the field and prior art
`
`solutions thereto; (2) the sophistication of the technology in question, and the
`
`rapidity with which innovations occur in the field; (3) the educational level of active
`
`workers in the field; and (4) the educational level of the inventor.
`
`23. The ’243 patent states that it “relates to video games and video game
`
`systems.” (’243, 1:22-23.) The patent states that it “provides an actual, reality-based
`
`video game in which a user’s physical (actual) location on a playfield, reflects a
`
`virtual game character’s virtual location in a video game environment.” (’243, 2:28-
`15
`
`
`
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0015
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2
`
`
`31.)
`
`24.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of September 2004
`
`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. My opinion would be the same for the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art as of September 2003.
`
`25. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on, among other things, my experience in the fields of computer science and
`
`engineering, my understanding of the basic qualifications that would be relevant to
`
`an engineer or scientist tasked with investigating methods and systems in the
`
`relevant area, and my familiarity with the backgrounds of colleagues and students,
`
`both past and present.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0016
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2
`
`
`
`26. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis and
`
`opinions regarding the ’243 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of September 2004.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a purpose of claim construction is to determine what
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claim terms to mean.
`
`Claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the
`
`meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question
`
`as of the effective filing date.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read
`
`the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed
`
`term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. I
`
`understand that the patent specification, under the legal principles, has been
`
`described as the single best guide to the meaning of a claim term, and is thus highly
`
`relevant to the interpretation of claim terms. And I understand for terms that do not
`
`have a customary meaning within the art, the specification usually supplies the best
`
`context of understanding the meaning of those terms.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0017
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2
`
`
`
`29.
`
`I further understand that other claims of the patent in question, both
`
`asserted and unasserted, can be valuable sources of information as to the meaning of
`
`a claim term. Because the claim terms are normally used consistently throughout
`
`the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the
`
`same term in other claims. Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in
`
`understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the prosecution history can further inform the meaning
`
`of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventors understood the invention
`
`and whether the inventors limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making
`
`the claim scope narrower than it otherwise would be. Extrinsic evidence, such as
`
`dictionaries, may also be consulted in construing the claim terms.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that, in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, a claim of
`
`a patent shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be
`
`used to construe the claim in a civil action filed in a U.S. district court (which I
`
`understand is called the “Phillips” claim construction standard), including
`
`construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such
`
`claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`
`pertaining to the patent.
`
`32.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel to apply the “Phillips” claim
`18
`
`
`
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0018
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2
`
`
`construction standard for purposes of interpreting the claims in this proceeding, to
`
`the extent they require an explicit construction. The description of the legal
`
`principles set forth above thus provides my understanding of the “Phillips” standard
`
`as provided to me by counsel.
`
`33. For purposes of my analysis here, I do not believe express claim
`
`constructions are necessary because the prior art renders the claims obvious under
`
`any reasonable construction.
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness (§ 103)
`
`34.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious if, as of the effective filing
`
`date, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`technology (the “art”) to which the claimed subject matter belongs.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that the following factors should be considered in
`
`analyzing obviousness: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`
`art. I also understand that certain other facts known as “secondary considerations”
`
`such as commercial success, unexplained results, long felt but unsolved need,
`
`industry acclaim, simultaneous invention, copying by others, skepticism by experts
`
`in the field, and failure of others may be utilized as indicia of nonobviousness. I
`
`understand, however, that secondary considerations should be connected, or have a
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Meta Exhibit 1002
`Meta v. Mullen - Page 0019
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeremy Cooperstock in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,904,243 B2
`
`
`“nexus,” with the invention claimed in the patent at issue.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that a reference qualifies as prior art for obviousness
`
`purposes when it is analogous to the claimed invention. The test for determining
`
`what art is analogous is: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
`
`regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field
`
`of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
`
`particular problem with which the inventor is involved.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is assumed to have
`
`knowledge of all prior art. I understand that one skilled in the art can combine
`
`various prior art references based on the teachings of those prior art references, the
`
`general knowledge present in the art, or common sense. I understand that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be implicit in the prior art, and there is no
`
`requirement that there be an actual or explicit teaching to combine two references.
`
`Thus,