Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CELLULAR SOUTH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2025-00877
`Patent 11,126,853 B2
`Issue Date: September 21, 2021
`
`Title: VIDEO TO DATA
`
`
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 001
`
`

`

`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................................ 5
`A. Qualifications and Experience ........................................................... 5
`B. Materials Considered ....................................................................... 13
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... 15
`STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................................................. 17
`A.
`Claim Construction .......................................................................... 17
`B.
`Obviousness (§ 103) ........................................................................ 19
`IV. THE ’853 PATENT ................................................................................... 25
`A. Overview of the Specification .......................................................... 25
`B.
`The Challenged Claims .................................................................... 29
`V. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS .................................................................................................... 30
`A.
`Brief Summary and Overview of Prior Art ...................................... 31
`1.
`References Common to All Grounds...................................... 31
`(a)
`Zhao (EX1003) ............................................................ 31
`(b) Kritt (EX1004) ............................................................. 34
`(c)
`Steinberg (EX1005) ..................................................... 37
`(d) Kouzani (EX1006) ....................................................... 39
`Additional References ............................................................ 42
`(a) Yang (EX1007) ............................................................ 42
`(b) Romdhani (EX1008) .................................................... 44
`(c)
`Trivedi (EX1009) ......................................................... 46
`(d)
`Singer (EX1010) .......................................................... 49
`Ground 1: Claims 1-4 Are Obvious Over Zhao in View of
`Kritt, Steinberg, and Kouzani ........................................................... 54
`
`I.
`
`II.
`III.
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`1.
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`Independent Claim 1: “A system for generating data
`from a video, comprising:” (Claim 1[pre]) ............................ 54
`(a)
`“a coordinator communicatively coupled to a
`splitter and to a plurality of demultiplexer nodes,
`wherein the splitter is configured to segment the
`video, wherein the demultiplexer nodes are
`configured to extract audio files from the video
`and to extract still frame images from the video;”
`(Claim 1[a]) ................................................................. 56
`“an image detector configured to detect an image
`of an object in the still frame images, wherein the
`image detector is adjustable to increase detection
`of non-primary images in the video; and” (Claim
`1[b]) ............................................................................. 74
`“an object recognizer configured to compare the
`image of the object to a fractal, wherein the fractal
`includes a representation of the object based on
`landmarks associated with the object, wherein the
`recognizer is further configured to update the
`fractal with the image.” (Claim 1[c])........................... 82
`Claim 2: “The system of claim 1, wherein the
`coordinator is configured to increase the plurality of
`demultiplexer nodes when a threshold of processing
`capacity is reached.” .............................................................. 93
`Claim 3: “The system of claim 1, wherein the recognizer
`is configured to determine distinguishing geometric
`features of the object.” ........................................................... 95
`Claim 4: “The system of claim 3, wherein the
`distinguishing geometric features comprise a contour of
`eye sockets, a nose, and a chin.” ............................................ 96
`Ground 2: Claims 5-7 Are Obvious Over Ground 1 Prior Art in
`Further View of Yang and Romdhani .............................................. 97
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 003
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`9.
`
`E.
`
`Claim 5: “The system of claim 4, wherein the recognizer
`is configured to determine skin textures of the object.” .......... 97
`Claim 6: “The system of claim 5, wherein the
`distinguishing geometric features or the skin textures are
`determined based on a three-dimensional model.” ............... 103
`Claim 7: “The system of claim 6, wherein the three-
`dimensional model is a three-dimensional morphable
`model.” ................................................................................ 105
`D. Ground 3: Claims 8-9 Are Obvious Over Ground 1 Prior Art in
`Further View of Trivedi ................................................................. 105
`8.
`Claim 8: “The system of claim 1, further comprising a
`processor and a camera for capturing the video.” ................. 105
`Claim 9: “The system of claim 8, wherein the processor
`is configured to transform the video into a rectilinear
`format.” ............................................................................... 109
`Ground 4: Claims 10-11 Are Obvious Over Ground 1 Prior Art
`in Further View of Singer .............................................................. 112
`10. Claim 10: “The system of claim 1, wherein the
`coordinator is configured to embed metadata about the
`object into the video, and wherein the metadata
`comprises a timestamp and a coordinate location of the
`object in the still frame images.” .......................................... 112
`11. Claim 11: “The system of claim 1, wherein the
`coordinator is configured to generate a metadata stream
`corresponding to the image, wherein the metadata stream
`includes one or more timestamps corresponding to the
`image, and wherein the coordinator is configured to
`embed the metadata stream in the video.” ............................ 121
`V. NO SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ..... 123
`VI. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 124
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 004
`
`

`

`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`I, Henry Houh, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A. Qualifications and Experience
`
`1. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which is attached as Appendix A. The following
`
`is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional experience.
`
`2.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`
`from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) in 1998. Beforehand, I
`
`received a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`
`in 1991, a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science in 1989, and a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics in 1990, all from MIT.
`
`3.
`
`I am currently self-employed as an independent technical consultant.
`
`From its founding in 2012 until October 2022, I was also president of a company
`
`that provides supplemental science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
`
`(“STEM”) education to children of all ages.
`
`4.
`
`I first entered telecommunications in 1987 when I worked as a summer
`
`intern at AT&T Bell Laboratories as part of a five-year dual degree program at MIT.
`
`I continued to work at AT&T Bell Laboratories as part of this MIT program. While
`
`at MIT, I was a teaching assistant (“TA”) in the Electrical Engineering and Computer
`5
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`Science Department’s core Computer Architectures course. I first was a TA as a
`
`senior for a role typically reserved for graduate students. I later became head TA.
`
`The course covered various topics in computer architectures. As a TA, I helped write
`
`homework assignments, lab assignments, and exams. I also taught in some of the
`
`recitation sections.
`
`5.
`
`Later, as part of my doctoral research at MIT from 1991-1998, I was a
`
`research assistant in the Telemedia Network Systems (“TNS”) group at the
`
`Laboratory for Computer Science. The TNS group built a high-speed gigabit
`
`network and created applications that ran over the network. Example applications
`
`included ones for remote video capture, processing, and display of video on
`
`computer terminals. In addition to working on the design of core network
`
`components, designing and building the high-speed links, and designing and writing
`
`the device drivers for the interface, I also set up the group’s web server. Also, I
`
`helped to maintain, install, and upgrade the networking devices used within the
`
`group, along with other graduate students.
`
`6.
`
`I also helped to build the web pages that initiated the above-mentioned
`
`video sessions via a web interface. Vice President Al Gore visited our group in 1996
`
`and received a demonstration of—and remotely drove—a radio-controlled toy car
`
`with a wireless video camera mounted on it that was built by our group. This toy car
`6
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 006
`
`

`

`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`device received commands transmitted over a network from a remote computer, and
`
`video data from the toy car was transmitted wirelessly then over a computer network
`
`back to the user controller. On occasion, we allowed users visiting our web site to
`
`drive the toy car from their remote computer while they watched the video on their
`
`computer. The video stream was encoded by TNS-designed hardware, streamed over
`
`the TNS-designed network, and displayed using TNS-designed software.
`
`7.
`
`Our video environment included an extensive amount of video
`
`processing. The closed captions were extracted from the analog video broadcasts,
`
`and our group built an extensive toolkit to perform video processing functions on
`
`the live video as it was being captured and optionally recorded. Our system included
`
`features such as motion detection, template matching, model matching, live green
`
`screening, face detection, histogram generation and matching, feature matching,
`
`edge detection, scene change detection, image transformation, filtering, image
`
`segmentation, object motion tracking, and other features.
`
`8.
`
`I defended and submitted my Ph.D. thesis, titled “Designing Networks
`
`for Tomorrow’s Traffic,” in January 1998. As part of my thesis research, I analyzed
`
`local area and wide area flows to show a more efficient method for routing packets
`
`in a network, based on traffic patterns at the time. The traffic flow data included
`
`Ethernet, IP, TCP or UDP, and RTP header information, which I analyzed to come
`7
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 007
`
`

`

`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`to the conclusions in my thesis.
`
`9. While I was in graduate school, I started a company that provided web
`
`site design services and targeted advertising opportunities. We also sold targeted
`
`advertising placements. As the web became popular first at colleges and universities,
`
`we focused initially on building college recruiting web sites and sold advertisements
`
`to companies wishing to target students to recruit at specific colleges. We developed
`
`technology
`
`that utilized
`
`the web user’s college affiliation
`
`to customize
`
`advertisements targeted to students at that college.
`
`10. From 1997 to 1999, I was a Senior Scientist and Engineer at NBX
`
`Corporation, a start-up that made business telephone systems for streaming
`
`packetized audio over data networks instead of using traditional telephone lines.
`
`NBX was later acquired by 3Com Corporation and the phone system is still used
`
`today by numerous businesses.
`
`11. As part of my work at NBX, I designed the core audio reconstruction
`
`algorithms for the telephones, as well as the packet transmission algorithms. I also
`
`designed and validated the core packet transport protocol used by the phone system.
`
`The protocol was used for all signaling in the phone system, including for the setup
`
`of conference calls. The NBX system also featured a computer interface for initiating
`
`phone calls, which could also initiate conference calls. The NBX system also
`8
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 008
`
`

`

`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`supported the Telephony Application Programming Interface (“TAPI”) that allowed
`
`other computer programs to integrate with our system telephony features. We
`
`obtained U.S. Patent No. 6,967,963, entitled “Telecommunication method for
`
`ensuring on-time delivery of packets containing time-sensitive data,” as part of this
`
`work. The first release of the phones had integrated Ethernet repeater hubs
`
`embedded in them, and I worked with the documentation and field support people
`
`to develop sets of guidelines so that customers would not build their networks to
`
`violate the Ethernet specifications, typically by chaining too many hub repeaters and
`
`NBX phones together. The first release of the phones also worked using Ethernet-
`
`layer packets (without the use of IP). I also programmed the first prototype of our
`
`phone which communicated using IP, and I demonstrated our IP phones working
`
`over the Internet when we attended a trade show in California. The phone connected
`
`over the Internet to our headquarters in Andover, MA.
`
`12. From 1999-2004, I was employed by Empirix or its predecessor
`
`company, Teradyne. Teradyne had traditionally made products to test chips and
`
`hardware, but the founder and board chairman, Alex d’Arbeloff wanted to expand
`
`the company’s products to include software systems testing. Teradyne made a
`
`number of acquisitions to achieve this goal, and I was hired to work for Mr.
`
`d’Arbeloff to work with all the acquired software test divisions. These divisions
`9
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 009
`
`

`

`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`were later spun-out of Teradyne into a separate company, Empirix. Empirix was a
`
`leader in test tools for software systems including telecommunications protocols and
`
`systems, providing functional testing tools as well as load testing tools. From 2000-
`
`2001, I conceived and built a test platform for testing Voice-over-IP (VoIP). The
`
`first application on this new test platform was a cloud emulator for simulating the
`
`effects of transmitting VoIP over a busy network. The test platform was based on a
`
`network processor chip, which could be programmed to cut-through packets while
`
`processing packet data such as various protocol later headers including addresses
`
`included therein and even packet data contents. I also designed a protocol analyzer
`
`built on the same platform. The application captured and performed protocol
`
`decoding at various layers in the protocol stacks of captured packets, including
`
`detailed Ethernet header decoding, IP header decoding, TCP header decoding, UDP
`
`header decoding, RTP header decoding, and many other specified protocols. The
`
`application was also designed to reconstruct entire conversations that spanned
`
`multiple packets.
`
`13.
`
`In 2006, as part of my role at BBN Technologies, I helped found
`
`PodZinger Inc., now known as RAMP Inc. PodZinger utilized BBN’s speech
`
`recognition algorithms to search through the spoken words in audio and video
`
`segments. Our speech recognition algorithms were also capable of extracting the
`10
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 0010
`
`

`

`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`emotional prosody of the speech input. While I was Vice President of Operations
`
`and Technology, PodZinger followed its initial prototype with a full streaming audio
`
`and video search solution. The metadata generated from speech recognition process
`
`was used in the search result user interface so that the user could see highlights of
`
`their search term in the audio transcript, the context around their search term, and
`
`the user could select a word in the transcript to jump the video to play from exactly
`
`the point where the selected word was uttered.
`
`14.
`
`I also created a social networking web site, which BBN sold to a
`
`venture-funded startup company. In the process of creating the web site, I designed
`
`and specified the authentication and authorization protocols.
`
`15.
`
`I applied for and received a number of patents in the above areas. In
`
`particular, U.S. Patent No. 9,697,230 describes “an automated method and apparatus
`
`for generating metadata enhanced for audio/video search-driven applications. The
`
`apparatus includes a media indexer that obtains an (sic) media file/stream (e.g.,
`
`audio/video podcasts), applies one or more automated media processing techniques
`
`to the media file/stream, combines the results of the media processing into metadata
`
`enhanced for audio/video search, and stores the enhanced metadata in a searchable
`
`index or other data repository.” (EX1016, 4:31-39.) A media indexer “applies a
`
`predefined set of audio or video processing routines to derive a portion of the
`11
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 0011
`
`

`

`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`enhanced metadata from the media content.” (Id., 5:19-21.) The indexer utilizes
`
`speech recognition, natural language processing, and video frame analyzers, that can
`
`recognize scenes, watermarks, objects, faces, and overlay text. (Id., Fig. 1B, 5:22-
`
`34, 6:43-57.) Related advertising may then be displayed utilizing the results of such
`
`an analysis. (Id., 15:52-16:25.) A partial list of my patents and patent applications
`
`includes:
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,697,231, H. Houh, J. Stern, R. Spina, M. Meteer
`
`[sic], “Methods and apparatus for providing virtual media channels based on media
`
`search,” July 4, 2017.
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,697,230, H. Houh, J. Stern, “Methods and apparatus
`
`for dynamic presentation of advertising, factual, and informational content using
`
`enhanced metadata in search-driven media applications,” July 4, 2017. See also
`
`WO 2007/056485.
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,801,910, H. Houh and J. N. Stern, “Method and
`
`apparatus for timed tagging of media content,” September 21, 2010. See also US
`
`2007/0112837, US 2009/0222442, WO 2007/056535.
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0106685, “Method and
`
`apparatus for updating speech recognition databases and reindexing audio and
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 0012
`
`

`

`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`video content using the same”
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0106660, “Method and
`
`apparatus for using confidence scores of enhanced metadata in search-driven
`
`media applications”
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0118873, “Methods and
`
`apparatus for merging media content”
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0222442, “User-
`
`directed navigation of multimedia search results”
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/395,732, “User-Directed Navigation
`
`of Multimedia Search Results”
`
`16.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner to provide my expert
`
`opinion in connection with the above-captioned proceeding as set forth herein.
`
`B. Materials Considered
`
`17. 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. 11,126,853 B2 (“’853
`
`patent”) (EX1001) and its prosecution history. I have cited to the following
`
`documents in my analysis below:
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 0013
`
`

`

`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2 to Bartlett Wade Smith, IV (filed
`February 8, 2019, issued September 21, 2021) (“’853” or “’853
`patent”)
`1003 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0141940 A1 to Liang Zhao et al. (filed
`December 3, 2008, published June 4, 2009) (“Zhao”)
`1004 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0181668 A1 to Barry A. Kritt et al.
`(filed Dec. 20, 2012, published Jun. 26, 2014) (“Kritt”)
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 7,574,016 B2 to Eran Steinberg et al. (filed June 26,
`2003, issued August 11, 2009) (“Steinberg”)
`1006 Kouzani, A.Z. et al., “Fractal Face Representation and Recognition,” in
`Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man
`and Cybernetics, pp.1609-1613 (1997) (“Kouzani”)
`1007 Yang, Ming-Hsuan et al., “Detecting Faces in Images: A Survey,” in
`IEEE Transactions On Pattern Analysis And Machine Intelligence, Vol.
`24, No. 1 (2002) (“Yang”)
`1008 Romdhani, S. et al., “Face Identification by Fitting a 3D Morphable
`Model using Linear Shape and Texture Error Functions,” European
`Conf. on Computer Vision (2002) (“Romdhani”)
`1009 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0187305 A1 to Mohan M. Trivedi et
`al. (PCT filed July 1, 2003, published August 24, 2006) (“Trivedi”)
`1010 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2011/0305394 A1 to David William Singer
`et al. (filed June 15, 2010, published December 15, 2011) (“Singer”)
`1011 Peter Lubbers et al., Pro HTML5 Programming: Powerful APIs for
`Richer Internet Application Development (2010)
`1012 Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed. 2002)
`1013
`Jura van Vliet et al., Programming Amazon EC2 (2011)
`1014 Xiutao Tang et al., “Facial Image Recognition Based on Fractal Image
`Encoding,” in Bell Labs Technical Journal 15(1) (2010)
`1015 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`14
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 0014
`
`

`

`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1016 U.S. Patent No. 9,697,230 to Henry Houh et al. (filed Mar. 31, 2006,
`issued Jul. 4, 2017)
`1017 Cellular South’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (Document 28) in
`No. 6:24-cv-00245-DAE (W.D. Tex.)
`
`
`
`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`18. The face page of the ’853 patent shows that the earliest patent
`
`application to which the ’853 patent claims priority was filed June 29, 2016.
`
`Therefore, I understand that the claims of the ’853 patent are subject to the patent
`
`laws in effect under the America Invents Act (“AIA”), including sections 102 and
`
`103 regarding invalidity based on prior art, which apply to patent applications having
`
`an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. I understand that under the AIA,
`
`an assessment of claims of a patent should be undertaken from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art is to be made as of the effective filing date of the
`
`patent (i.e., the earliest of the actual filing date of the patent or application, or the
`
`filing date of the earliest application with priority). I note that, for patents subject to
`
`pre-AIA patent laws, such an assessment should be made as of the earliest claimed
`
`priority date (i.e., the “time the invention was made”). For purposes of my analysis,
`
`whether the “effective filing date” or “earliest claimed priority date” applies does
`
`not affect my analysis. This is because I understand that the alleged “effective filing
`15
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 0015
`
`

`

`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`date” and “earliest claimed priority date” are the same in this case—June 29, 2016.
`
`19.
`
`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.
`
`20. The ’853 patent states that it “relates to a method and a system for
`
`generating various and useful data from source media, such as videos and other
`
`digital content.” (’853, 1:12-14; see also id., 1:34-36 (“The present invention is
`
`generally directed to a method to generate data from video content, such as text
`
`and/or image-related information.”).)
`
`21.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of June 2016
`
`would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, or similar field, with two years of experience in developing and
`
`implementing computer software for processing and/or analyzing multimedia
`
`content, such as audio, video, or image data. 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)
`16
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 0016
`
`

`

`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`less formal education and more technical or professional experience.
`
`22. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on, among other things, my experience in the field of computer science, 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, co-workers, and employees, both
`
`past and present.
`
`23. 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 ’853 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of June 2016.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A. Claim Construction
`
`24.
`
`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.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read
`17
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 0017
`
`

`

`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`26.
`
`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.
`
`27.
`
`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.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that, in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, a claim of
`18
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 0018
`
`

`

`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`29.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel to apply the “Phillips” claim
`
`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.
`
`30. 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)
`
`31.
`
`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.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that the following factors should be considered in
`19
`
`
`
`
`Google Exhibit 1002 - Google v. CSI
`IPR2025-00877 - Page 0019
`
`

`

`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853 B2
`
`
`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
`
`“nexus,” with the invention claimed in the patent at issue.
`
`33.
`
`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