Case IPR2013-00601
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2013-00601
`Patent 6,772,215
`Title: Method for Minimizing Feedback Responses in ARQ Protocols
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT AKL, D.Sc.,
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`C. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 3 
`QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION .................................................... 3 
`MATERIALS CONSIDERED ................................................................................ 6 
`THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 7 
`OPINIONS ................................................................................................................ 7 
`A.  Overview of the ‘215 Patent ............................................................... 7 
`B. 
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ............................................... 14 
`“responsive to the receiving step, constructing a message field for
`a second data unit, said message field including a type
`identifier field” ......................................................................... 16 
`“for minimizing feedback responses in an ARQ protocol” ........... 18 
`“means for sending” .......................................................................... 18 
`The Challenged Independent Claims Are Not Anticipated by Seo
` ............................................................................................................. 18 
`1. 
`The Seo NAK_TYPE field does not “identif[y] the message
`type of the feedback response from a number of different
`message types” ......................................................................... 23 
`The Seo NAK_TYPE field does not teach or disclose a
`“message field including a type identifier field” .................. 25 
`Seo does not disclose a “length field” as required by
`independent claim 15 .............................................................. 26 
`The Challenged Dependent Claims Are Not Anticipated by Seo . 27 
`D. 
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 28 
`ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..................................................................................... 29 
`
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION BY ROBERT AKL, D.Sc.,
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`I, Robert Akl, D.Sc., hereby declare, affirm, and state the following:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The facts set forth below are known to me personally and I have
`
`1.
`
`firsthand knowledge of them. I am a U.S. citizen over eighteen years of age. I am
`
`fully competent to testify as to the matters addressed in this Declaration. I
`
`understand that this Declaration is being submitted along with Patent Owner’s
`
`response to the March 10, 2014 institution of Inter Partes Review of US Patent No.
`
`6,772,215 (hereinafter, “the ’215 Patent”) by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in IPR No. 2013-00601.
`
`2.
`
`I was asked to give my opinion on whether claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, 22,
`
`25, 26, 29, 32, 34, 45, 46, 49, 52, and 54 (“challenged claims”) of the ‘215 Patent
`
`are anticipated Seo. As described further below, it is my opinion that Seo does not.
`
`In particular, Seo does not disclose a “type identifier field” that is included within
`
`the “message” itself that “identifies the message type of the feedback response
`
`message from a number of different message types,” as required under the proper
`
`construction of the claims.
`
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`
`3. My resume, including my qualifications, a list of the publications that
`
`I have authored during my technical career, and a list of the cases in which, during
`
`the previous four years, I have testified as an expert at trial or by deposition, is
`
`attached to this declaration as Attachment A.
`
`4.
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, career
`
`history, and other relevant qualifications. A true and accurate copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Attachment A.
`
`5.
`
`I earned my Bachelor of Science degrees in Electrical Engineering
`
`and Computer Science summa cum laude with a ranking of first in my
`
`undergraduate class from Washington University in Saint Louis in 1994. In 1996 I
`
`earned my Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Washington
`
`University in Saint Louis. I earned my Doctorate of Science in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Washington University in Saint Louis in 2000, with my
`
`dissertation on “Cell Design to Maximize Capacity in Cellular Code Division
`
`Multiple Access (CDMA) Networks.”
`
`6.
`
`After obtaining my Doctorate of Science degree, I worked as a Senior
`
`Systems Engineer at Comspace Corporation from October of 2000 to December of
`
`2001. In this position, I designed, coded in MATLAB, and simulated Viterbi
`
`decoding, Turbo coding, trellis coded modulation (TCM), and Reed-Muller codes.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`This work further entailed the optimization of soft decision parameters and
`
`interleavers for additive white Gaussian and Rayleigh faded channels.
`
`7.
`
`In January of 2002, I joined the faculty of the University of New
`
`Orleans in Louisiana as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical
`
`Engineering. While on this faculty, I designed and taught two new courses called
`
`“Computer Systems Design I and II.” I also developed a Computer Engineering
`
`Curriculum with strong hardware-design emphasis, formed a wireless research
`
`group, and advised graduate and undergraduate students.
`
`8.
`
`In September of 2002, I received an appointment as an Assistant
`
`Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the
`
`University of North Texas, in Denton, Texas. In May of 2008, I became a tenured
`
`Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
`
`where I continue to focus my research on wireless communication, including 4G,
`
`LTE, and wireless sensor networks. I also teach communications systems and
`
`wireless communication courses.
`
`9.
`
`I have authored and co-authored approximately 65
`
`journal
`
`publications, conference proceedings, technical articles, technical papers, book
`
`chapters, and technical presentations, in a broad array of communications-related
`
`technology, including networking and wireless communication. I have also
`
`developed and taught over 70 courses related to communications and computer
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`system designs, including a number of courses on wireless communication,
`
`communications systems, computer systems design, and computer architecture.
`
`These courses have included introductory courses on communication systems and
`
`sensor networks, as well as more advanced courses on wireless communications.
`
`A complete list of my publications and the courses I have developed and/or taught
`
`is also contained in my curriculum vitae.
`
`10.
`
`I hereby incorporate into this declaration the entire contents of my
`
`curriculum vitae, attached as Attachment A to this declaration.
`
`11.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $550 per hour for my work in
`
`connection with this matter. My compensation is not dependent in any way on the
`
`contents of this Declaration, the substance of any further opinions or testimony that
`
`I may provide, or the ultimate outcome of this matter.
`
`MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`In forming the opinions expressed herein, I have reviewed and
`
`12.
`
`considered the following materials:
`
`A. Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,215 Under 35
`U.S.C. §312 and 37 C.F.R. §§42.104 (Paper No. 1) (“Petition”);
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 6,772,215 (Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 1001) and its file
`history;
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 6,581,176 to Chang Keun Seo (Petitioner’s Exhibit No.
`1002) (“Seo”);
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Declaration of Harry Bims, Ph.D. (Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 1004) (“Bims
`Dec.”) and exhibits cited to therein;
`
`E. Memorandum Opinion and Order Construing Claim Terms of United States
`Patent Nos. 6,772,215 et al., dated March 8, 2013 (Petitioner’s Exhibit No.
`1005);
`
`F. Rebuttal Expert Report of Scott Nettles, Ph.D. Regarding Validity of U.S.
`Patent Nos., 6,424,625; 6,330,435; 6,519,223; 6,772,215; 6,466,568; and
`6,987,019 (Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 1006); and
`
`G. Decision: Institution of Inter Partes Review—37 C.F.R. §42.108 (IPR2013
`00601, Paper No. 29);
`
`H. Amendment and Reply to Office Action for Application No. 09/537,146
`(January 7, 2004) (Patent Owner’s Exhibit No. 2020)
`
`I. Notice of Allowability for Application No. 09,537,146 (February 24, 2004)
`(Patent Owner’s Exhibit No. 2020)
`
`
`
`THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`13.
`
`It is my opinion, based upon a review of the file history of the ‘215
`
`patent and the other evidence addressed herein, that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art as of the ’215 patent would have had, as of April 1999, a bachelor’s degree
`
`in computer science or a similar technical field and at least two years of experience
`
`in telecommunications and network protocols.
`
`OPINIONS
`A. Overview of the ‘215 Patent
`14. The ’215 Patent describes different mechanisms for minimizing
`
`feedback responses when using an Automatic Repeat Request (ARQ) protocol to
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`request retransmission of lost or erroneous Protocol Data Units (PDUs). (Ex.
`
`1001, ’215 Pat. at 1:27-37). A PDU is a unit of data conveyed between two peer
`
`entities in a telecommunication network. ’215 Pat. at 1:29-30. A PDU comprises
`
`an information element that includes a header having control information and a
`
`payload. An ARQ protocol is a set of rules that provides efficient retransmission
`
`mechanisms between a sender and a receiver peer in a communication system.
`
`’215 Pat. at 1:42-48. These rules specify, for example, how and in what form the
`
`PDUs are to be constructed so that the receiving side can interpret the conveyed
`
`PDUs correctly and respond to them accordingly. Id.
`
`15. Three main types of PDUs can be transferred between ARQ peer
`
`entities: user data, error recovery control data, and common control data. ’215
`
`Pat. at 1:49-51. A user data PDU may include user data and a sequence number.
`
`Id. An error recovery control data PDU may include various control information
`
`needed for error recovery and control functions such as positive and negative
`
`acknowledgments. Id. PDUs that include user data and at least a sequence number
`
`are referred to as Data-PDUs (D-PDUs), and PDUs that include control data used
`
`for error control/recovery are referred to as Status-PDUs (S-PDUs). Id.
`
`16. Prior art ARQ protocols included a format identifier or PDU type field
`
`in the header to distinguish a Data-PDU from a Status-PDU. Id. at 2:52-55. That
`
`field is labeled “PDU_format” in FIGS. 2 and 3 of the ’215 Patent (below):
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`
` 
` 
`17. The value of the PDU format field identifies each information element
`
`as either a D-PDU or a S-PDU. Id. at 2:52-55.
`
`18. The ’215 Patent describes, with respect to an ARQ protocol,
`
`techniques for reducing the number and/or size of feedback responses transmitted
`
`from the receiver to the sender in the peer system. Two types of feedback
`
`responses existed in the prior art: an ARQ peer entity can transmit a positive
`
`acknowledgement that it received one or more D-PDUs, or an ARQ peer entity can
`
`send a negative acknowledgement indicting the retransmission of a D-PDU that
`
`was not received correctly. Id. at 2:38-44.
`
`19. Figures 2-3 of the ’215 patent illustrate two prior art approaches for
`
`requesting retransmission of lost or corrupted D-PDUs. One approach (FIG. 2)
`
`provides a list of first and last sequence numbers for the PDUs requested for
`
`retransmission. Id. at 2:63-3:5. The second approach (FIG. 3) uses a bitmap, in
`
`which each bit corresponds to a D-PDU, to identify the sequence numbers of the
`
`PDUs requested for retransmission. Id. at 3:18-29. In either case, upon receipt of
`
`the S-PDU, the sender peer retransmits the PDUs having the requested sequence
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`numbers.
`
`20. Prior art ARQ protocols used inefficient, fixed length messages to
`
`request retransmission of lost or corrupted PDUs. Id. at 3:46-50. Due to the
`
`required fixed length of an S-PDU, prior art ARQ protocols for creating S-PDUs
`
`wasted bandwidth by unnecessarily transmitting a large amount of overhead
`
`information. Id. at 3:48-50 and Table 2. For example, a significant amount of
`
`unnecessary overhead is introduced when a large number of D-PDUs are
`
`transmitted between two ARQ peer entities as each D-PDU must be acknowledged
`
`or selectively requested for retransmission. Id. at 3:50-54.
`
`21. The ’215 Patent provides for encoding of multiple messages in a
`
`single S-PDU. To do so, the ’215 patent includes messages (BITMAP, LIST,
`
`ACK or NO MORE) in the payload to allow for more flexibility in creating S-
`
`PDUs. (Id. at Table 2.) For example, the receiving peer entity in the prior art
`
`could request only one type of ARQ message (BITMAP or LIST) because the
`
`format identifier of the message was required to be in the header. (Id. at FIGs. 2-
`
`3) The ’215 Patent, on the other hand placed the ARQ message in the payload to
`
`create a flexible system allowing messages to vary in terms of length, location, and
`
`content. (’215 Pat. at FIGs. 4-8, 3:46-50)
`
`22. The ’215 Patent was directed toward addressing the problem of
`
`“determin[ing] how to efficiently represent (encode) in a message the status of an
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`arbitrary amount and distribution of n numbers from a set of m numbers,” where n
`
`is the number of sequence numbers identified in the message and n is the total
`
`number of sequence numbers. ’215 Pat. at 4:31-34.  The claimed method “can be
`
`used to minimize the size of S-PDUs in an ARQ protocol,” id. at 4:33-35, or “can
`
`be used to maximize the number of SNs in an S-PDU with limited size, if it is not
`
`possible to fit all potential SNs into a single S-PDU.” Id. at 4:35-40.
`
`23. As part of the message, the ’215 specification introduces a “type
`
`identifier field” in the payload that indicates the type of ARQ information being
`
`transmitted in the message. For example, the type identifier field could indicate
`
`that the message is a “BITMAP,” a “LIST,” or an “ACK” (acknowledgement)
`
`message. Id. at Table 2. By including the type identifier field in the message the
`
`payload, as opposed to the header, the ’215 Patent supported different “types” of
`
`feedback messages (e.g., “BITMAP’,” and “LIST’,” “ACK,” and “NO MORE”) in
`
`“arbitrary” combinations in a single S-PDU. Id. at 7:61-65; see also FIGS. 9-13.
`
`This flexibility in constructing ARQ messages permits the ’215 Patent to achieve
`
`significant bandwidth savings over the prior art ARQ messages that use a header
`
`field to indicate the type of payload. ’215 Pat. at 9:38-50 (TABLE 3).
`
`24. Figures 4-7 of the ’215 patent (as shown below) depict message types
`
`that are constructed differently from the prior art ARQ messages according to a
`
`“first embodiment of the present invention.” ’215 Pat. at 5:12-24. The first
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`embodiment includes only a single message in the payload. Id. at 5:12 (“FIG. 4 is
`
`a bitmap message….”).
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
`25. FIG. 4 illustrates “a bitmap message” while FIG. 5 shows the “fields
`
`and contents of the LIST” type message. Id. at 5:12-16. To distinguish among
`
`these various types, the ‘215 Patent includes a “type identifier field” (i.e., “Type”
`
`in FIGs. 4-7) in the message itself. Unlike the admitted prior art S-PDU, none of
`
`the header fields such as “PDU_format” are included in the message. Placing the
`
`type identifier in the header reduces the flexibility of the system by creating an
`
`ARQ protocol that is “static in construction (e.g., fixed length messages are used)”
`
`and “leads to a waste of bandwidth resources, because a great deal of overhead
`
`information is transmitted unnecessarily.” ’215 Pat. at 3:46-50.
`
`26. The type identifier field is included in the message to provide a
`
`roadmap for the receiver peer entity to interpret the received message. This
`
`“dynamic interpretation” of an S-PDU provides flexibility in creating S-PDUs by
`
`removing the “one size fits all” S-PDU requirement of the prior art, while
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`conserving bandwidth. Thus, the ’215 patent discloses that the payload of the S-
`
`PDU includes one or more messages.
`
`27. By placing the entire message in the payload, the ’215 Patent permits
`
`multiple messages in a single PDU. FIG. 8 illustrates an example of a single S-
`
`PDU that includes three separate message fields (with annotations added) in a
`
`single payload.
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`“As shown, the resulting S-PDU includes two BITMAP’ messages
`
`28.
`
`and one LIST’ message.” 215 Pat. at 8:41-44. Each of these messages includes a
`
`“Type” field that identifies a type of each message included in the payload along
`
`with the contents of each type of message. As with the single message
`
`embodiment, none of the header fields (e.g., “PDU_format”) are included in the
`
`message.
`
`29. During prosecution of the ’215 Patent, the Examiner rejected the
`
`claims based on a number of prior art references that disclosed ARQ protocols with
`
`different feedback responses. In response to this rejection, the claims of the ’215
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`Patent were amended by requiring that the “type identifier field” be included
`
`within the message field of the second data unit. ((Ex. 2021 (January 7, 2004
`
`Amendment) at 11-12.). The Examiner agreed that this amendment distinguished
`
`over the prior art ARQ messages, including the admitted prior art that included a
`
`PDU_format field in the header. (EX. 2022 (Notice of Allowance) at 1.) Seo is
`
`cumulative of the references already considered and found deficient by the
`
`Examiner because, like the PDU_format field, the alleged type identifier field is
`
`located in the header and not in the message field, as required by all of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`B. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`30.
`I understand that during inter partes review claims are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification of which they are
`
`part. I further understand that a construction that is inconsistent with the
`
`specification is unreasonable and should be rejected.
`
`31. Broadcom petitions for review of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, 22, 25, 26,
`
`32, 45, 46, 49, 52, and 54 of the ‘215 Patent. Pet. at 3. Claims 1, 15, 25, and 45
`
`are independent claims. All of the independent claims are drawn to either a
`
`method or system “for minimizing feedback responses in an ARQ protocol.” The
`
`primary difference between the claims is that certain claims recite “constructing” a
`
`single ARQ “message field including a type identifier field” (i.e., claims 1 and 15),
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`while certain others require “constructing one to several message,” where each
`
`such message also includes “a type identifier field,” (i.e., claims 25 and 45),
`
`according to “the second embodiment of the invention.” Figures 4-6 illustrate
`
`example messages constructed according to the first group, while FIGs. 8, 11, and
`
`13 illustrate example messages constructed according to the “combination method”
`
`of the ‘215 patent. Id. at 8:42-44.
`
`32. Claim 1 is representative of the first group of claims:
`
`1. A method for minimizing feedback responses in an ARQ protocol, comprising
`the steps of:
`
`sending a plurality of first data units over a communication link;
`
`receiving said plurality of first data units; and
`responsive to the receiving step, constructing a message field for a second
`data unit, said message field including a type identifier field and at
`least one of a sequence number field, a length field, and a content field.
`
`As shown in claim 1 above, this claim recites constructing a single message.
`33. Claim 45 is representative of the second group. It reads:
`
`45. A system for minimizing feedback responses in an ARQ protocol, comprising:
`
`a first peer entity;
`
`a second peer entity; and
`
`a communication link coupled between said first peer entity and said
`second peer entity for communicating data therebetween;
`
`said first peer entity including means for sending a plurality of first
`data units over said communication link to said second peer entity;
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`
`said second peer entity including means for receiving said plurality of first
`data units, and constructing one to several message fields for a second
`data unit, said one to several message fields including a type identifier
`field and at least one of a sequence number field, a length field, a content
`field, a plurality of erroneous sequence number fields, and a plurality of
`erroneous sequence number length fields, each of said plurality of
`erroneous sequence number fields associated with a respective one of
`said plurality of erroneous sequence number length fields.
`34. As emphasized above, these claims use the combination method and
`
`require construction of one to several messages, with each message including a
`
`“type identifier field” in the message to identify the type of ARQ message.
`
`“responsive to the receiving step, constructing a message field for a
`second data unit, said message field including a type identifier field”
`
`35. Broadcom proposes that this term means “responsive to the receiving
`
`step, generating a message field including a field that identifies the message type
`
`of the feedback response message from a number of different message types.” Pet.
`
`at 5. The Board disagreed finding that Broadcom’s proposed construction is not
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim term. The Board concluded
`
`that because the antecedent basis for “the feedback response” in the proposed
`
`construction is the “feedback responses” of the preamble of the claim, and that
`
`Broadcom’s proposed construction would render the preamble a limitation of the
`
`invention. I disagree. The Board proposed that this term means “a field of a
`
`message that identifies the type of that message.”
`
`36.
`
`I disagree with the Board’s reasoning and proposed construction of
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`this term for several reasons. In my opinion, the Board’s proposed construction of
`
`this term would cover a mere S-PDU as in the prior art. But I understand that the
`
`specification distinguishes “the present invention” from the prior art S-PDU. (‘215
`
`Pat. at 4:38-40, 43-63.) Therefore, I agree with the Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`construction for this phrase, namely “responsive to the receiving step, generating a
`
`message field including a field that identifies a message type of a feedback
`
`response message from a number of different message types.” And should the
`
`Board prefer to construe only the phrase “type identifier field,” in my opinion, the
`
`reasonable broadest construction for this term is “a field of a message that
`
`identifies a type of a feedback message from a number of different message types.”
`
`37. The Board alternatively argued that the “type identifier field” broadly
`
`covers “any type of data.” I understand from counsel that this is a legal issue for
`
`which I have no opinion.
`
`“means for receiving”
`
`38. Broadcom proposes that the structure of this term be “the receiver of
`
`an entity capable of constructing one or more message fields . . . .” The Board
`
`notes that the recited function requires both receiving and constructing, and that the
`
`sender of a peer entity constructs the message to be sent. I understand that
`
`Ericsson agrees with the Board that the corresponding structure for this means-
`
`plus-function term is “sender and receiver of a peer entity.” I agree with
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`Ericsson’s position regarding the construction of this term.
`
`“for minimizing feedback responses in an ARQ protocol”
`
`39. Broadcom proposes that this term is a means-plus-function term
`
`whose corresponding structure is “a transmitter of an entity capable of sending a
`
`plurality of first data bits over a communication link to a peer entity.” Pet. at 7. In
`
`its decision instituting the IPR, the Board construed the structure to be “the sender
`
`of a peer entity” because the ’215 Patent discloses that a peer entity would have a
`
`sender and a receiver. (Order at 16-17). Because person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would interpret a sender of a peer entity to be a transmitter, Ericsson agrees that
`
`either Broadcom’s or the Board’s construction of this term suffices as the broadest
`
`reasonable construction.
`
` I agree with Ericsson’s position regarding
`
`the
`
`construction of this term.
`
`“means for sending”
`
`40.
`
`I agree with the Board’s construction of this term.
`
`C. The Challenged Independent Claims Are Not Anticipated by Seo
`
`41.
`
`In my opinion, Seo does not anticipate any of the challenged
`
`independent claims 1, 15, 25, and 45. Seo discloses an improvement on the IS-707
`
`standard. Seo at 1:14-19; 3:54-57. In the IS-707 standard, a transmitter
`
`retransmits a lost or erroneous data frame whenever it receives a negative
`
`acknowledgment (“NAK”) control frame. Id. at 1:37-40. The IS-707 standard
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`uses a one-to-one correlation between the number of NAK frames and the number
`
`of retransmitted data frames, regardless of channel conditions, as shown in Seo’s
`
`FIG. 1 (shown below). Id. at 1:44-47. Seo proposes a protocol in which the
`
`number of NAK frame transmissions and D-PDU retransmissions depend on the
`
`channel conditions, as shown in Seo’s FIG. 6 (shown below).
`
`                            
`
`Seo, FIG. 1 and FIG. 6.
`42. FIG. 6 represents a case in which the channel conditions are good
`
` 
`
`from Receiving Station B to Transmitting Station A, and bad from Transmitting
`
`Station A to Receiving Station B. In my opinion, Seo teaches the transmission of
`
`one NAK frame from B to A, and two D-PDU retransmissions from A to B. Seo
`
`never uses the word minimize nor does Seo teach or suggest how to minimize the
`
`size or number of feedback response messages by selecting one type of NAK or
`
`another. All references to reducing the number of NAK control frames refer to the
`
`benefit of sending only one frame when channel conditions are good.
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`
`43. The Seo protocol built on the then existing NAK control frame shown
`
`in FIG. 2 of the ’215 patent below (annotations added):
`
` 
`
` 
`44. The frame is fixed in size and consists of two parts: the header (in red)
`
`and the payload (in blue). The header includes “a sequence number field SEQ”
`
`and “a control field CTL,” which are used to control how to process the message
`
`contents (i.e., payload) and are common across different RLP control frames. Id.
`
`at 1:56-59. SEQ represents the “data frame sequence number field.” Id. at 1:56-
`
`59. A specific value in the first four bits of the control field CTL (i.e., “1100”)
`
`“represents that the RLP control frame is the NAK frame and it requests to
`
`retransmit data frames.” Id. at 1:65-66. Different values in the control field
`
`represent different types of synchronization, including synchronization without or
`
`without encryption and/or acknowledgement. Id. at 2:1-9.
`
`45. The remaining fields make up the NAK-specific message. Included
`
`within that message is the “field FIRST,” which “presents the 8 bit sequence of a
`
`first data frame for which retransmission is requested.” Id. at 2:10-11. Seo makes
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`clear that this field is “used only in case of an NAK.” Id. at 2:12-13. The same is
`
`true of the “field LAST,” which “indicates the 8 bit sequence number of a last data
`
`frame for which retransmission is requested.” Id. at 2:12-16 (“used only in case of
`
`an NAK”). The “field FCS is a frame check sequence” is essentially a checksum
`
`to ensure that the contents of the message were transmitted correctly. Id. at 2:17-
`
`19. Because the S-PDU has a fixed-length, the remainder of the message is filled
`
`with “padding bits and is required to fill the remainder of the frame.” Id. at 2:20-
`
`22.
`
`46. Seo’s S-PDU format is shown in FIG. 4:
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Seo, Fig. 4 (annotations added).
`
` 
`
`47. The PDU shown in Fig. 4 includes a fixed length header (shown in
`
`red) and a fixed length message field (shown in blue above). The header includes
`
`the standard IS-707 fields such as, “SEQ” and “CTL,” which are used for routing
`
`and processing of the S-PDU, much like an address on an envelope. Id. at 1:56-67-
`
`2:1-9 and FIG. 2. In addition, Seo adds a number of different fields, including
`
`RE_NUM, NAK_TYPE, NAK_SEQ, and L_SEQ_HI to the standard IS-707
`
`header. Id. at 5:44-46 and FIG. 4. The fixed-length message in the payload spans
`
`from the FIRST field to the NAK_MAP field. Id. The blank row between the
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`L_SEQ_HI field and the FIRST field delineates between the header and the
`
`payload, which includes the message. Id.
`
`48. Broadcom contends Seo anticipates
`
`the challenged claims.
`
`Specifically, Broadcom contends that the NAK_TYPE field anticipates the claimed
`
`“type identifier field.” Pet. at 2. I disagree. First, unlike the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of this term, the NAK_TYPE field in Seo does not “identif[y] the
`
`message type of a feedback response message from a number of different message
`
`types” because Seo merely discloses a single message type. Second, the
`
`NAK_TYPE field is not included in the “message field” as required by all of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`1. The Seo NAK_TYPE field does not “identif[y] the message type of the
`feedback response from a number of different message types”
`
`49. The Seo NAK_TYPE field does not “identif[y] the message type of
`
`the feedback response message from a number of different message types,” as
`
`required by the proper broadest reasonable construction of the term “type identifier
`
`field.” Seo discloses only one message type, namely a redundant NAK control
`
`frame that contains both bitmaps and lists. Id. at 5:28-30. Seo’s NAK frame has a
`
`constant size and format, containing both a bitmap and a list, regardless of the
`
`NAK_TYPE. Id. at 5:28-30, FIG. 4, claim 10. The NAK frame disclosed by Seo
`
`always contains the same fields whose content varies with the contents of the
`
`NAK_TYPE field. Id.
`
`23
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00601
`
`
`50. Seo’s NAK_TYPE field merely indicates which fields within the
`
`message field will contain zero values and which fields will contain non-zero
`
`values. Id. at 5:47-6:22. For example, “if NAK_TYPE is ‘00,’” the contents of the
`
`FIRST, LAST, and FCS fields are populated with non-zero values and the
`
`remainder of the message is padded with zeroes. Id. at 5:63-6:6 (“the remainder of
`
`the frame of “variable length is padding bits and is required to fill the remainder of
`
`frames. These bits shall be set to ‘0.’”) Similarly, if the NAK_TYPE is “01” and
`
`NAK_MAP_Count has a non zero value, then the fields NAK-MAP_SEQ and
`
`NAK_MAP will also have non-zero values. Id. at 6:19-22. Because Seo does not
`
`disclose a field that identifies one of “a number of different messages types,” Seo
`
`does not anticipate the challenged claims, each of which include that requirement.
`
`51. Petitioner relies upon the claims in Seo to suggest that the message
`
`type changes from one NAK_TYPE to another. Pet. at 35-36. Petitioner’s reliance
`
`is misplaced. Claim 10 recites “said NAK control frame further comprises: (d) a
`
`field with a length of 2 bits which indicates an NAK type,” and claim 11 recites
`
`“said (g), (h), (i) and (j) fields exist when a value of said (d) field is ‘00’, said (k)
`
`field exists when the value of said (d) field is ‘01’.” Broadcom interprets this to
`
`mean that the fields relating to a list (i.e., (g)-(j)) are overwritten by the fields
`
`relating to a bitmap (i.e., (k)-(m)) and vice-versa, depending on the value of