UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`Title: Multi-Rate Radiocommunication System and Terminals
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT AKL, D.Sc.,
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`Title: Multi-Rate Radiocommunication System and Terminals
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT AKL, D.Sc.,
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`D.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 4
`QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION .................................................... 5
`MATERIALS CONSIDERED ................................................................................ 7
`THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 8
`OPINIONS ................................................................................................................ 8
`A. Overview of the ‘568 Patent ............................................................... 8
`B.
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ............................................... 13
`C.
`The Challenged Claims Are Not Anticipated by Morley .............. 19
`1.
`Overview of Morley ................................................................ 19
`2. Morley does not disclose a service type identifier ................ 23
`3. Morley does not disclose an identifier identifying a type of
`information conveyed in the payload .................................... 26
`4. Morley does not anticipate claims 2-6 of the ’568 Patent ... 28
`The Challenged Claims Are Not Rendered Obvious by Adams ... 28
`1.
`Overview of Adams ................................................................. 29
`2.
`Adams Does Not Disclose a “service type identifier” .......... 31
`3.
`Adams Does Not Disclose an “identifier which identifies a
`type of payload information provided in said at least one
`first field” ................................................................................. 33
`Adams Does Not Teach or Suggest a transmitter for
`transmitting information.” ..................................................... 34
`Adams does not disclose a “base station” or a “mobile
`station” as required by claims 5-6 of the ’568 Patent .......... 35
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`6.
`
`Adams does not render obvious claims 2-4 of the ’568
`Patent ........................................................................................ 37
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 37
`ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..................................................................................... 38
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`6,466,568 (hereinafter, “the ’568 Patent”) by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in IPR No. 2013-00602.
`
`2.
`
`I was asked to give my opinion on whether claims 1-6 (“challenged
`
`claims”) of the ‘568 Patent are anticipated by Adams or rendered obvious by
`
`Morley. As described further below, it is my opinion that Adams does not
`
`anticipate the challenged claims, nor does Morley render obvious the challenged
`
`claims. In particular, neither Adams nor Morley teaches or suggests (1) a “service
`
`type identifier” and (2) an “identifier which identifies a type of payload
`
`information provided in said at least one first field.” Furthermore, Adams does not
`
`teach or suggest a transmitter for transmitting information.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`decoding, Turbo coding, trellis coded modulation (TCM), and Reed-Muller codes.
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`developed and taught over 70 courses related to communications and computer
`
`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. 6,466,568 Under 35
`U.S.C. §312 and 37 C.F.R. §§42.104 (Paper No. 2) (“Petition”);
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568 (Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 1001) and its file
`history;
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 5,488,610 to Stephen Morley (Petitioner’s Exhibit No.
`1002) (“Morley”);
`
`D. U.S. Patent No. 5,541,662 to Robert Adams, David M. Williams, John
`Richardson, and Burt Perry (Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 1006) (“Adams”);
`
`E. Declaration of Harry Bims, Ph.D. (Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 1009) (“Bims
`Dec.”) and exhibits cited to therein;
`
`F. 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.
`1011);
`
`G. Redacted 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. 1010); and
`
`H. Decision: Institution of Inter Partes Review—37 C.F.R. §42.108 (IPR2013
`00602, Paper No. 27).
`
`
`THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`13.
`
`It is my opinion, based upon a review of the file history of the ’568
`
`Patent and the other evidence addressed herein, that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art as of the ’568 Patent would have had, as of October 1996, 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 ‘568 Patent
`14. The ’568 Patent discloses methods and apparatuses for efficiently
`
`transmitting different types of data. The patent emanated from Ericsson’s work on
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`the North American Time Division Multiple Access (NA-TDMA) standards. The
`
`inventors realized
`
`that
`
`transmission characteristics of different
`
`types of
`
`information, such as voice, video, facsimile, packet data, video, and/or hybrid
`
`voice, data and video may differ. ’568 Pat. at 2:17-37. In one embodiment, the
`
`’568 Patent uses available bandwidth such as unused fields to communicate
`
`transmission characteristics to a receiver as part of information communication,
`
`otherwise known as services, between devices to more efficiently communicate
`
`information between receivers and transmitters. Id. at 2:17-55.
`
`15. One exemplary cellular telephone system for use with the ’568
`
`invention is shown in Fig. 1. This system includes a base station 110 and a mobile
`
`station 120.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`Information is transferred or communicated between the base station and mobile
`
`station via a service.
`
`16. The ’568 Patent “provide[s] techniques for transmitting information
`
`between remote stations and the system in radiocommunication networks that
`
`provide sufficient
`
`flexibility
`
`for
`
`the anticipated variety of
`
`information
`
`communication services.” Id. at 2:56-63. In some embodiments, a fast out-of-
`
`band channel (FOC) is used to provide information relating to the type and
`
`characteristics of a particular payload. “The FOC may provide information
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`relating to the same connection as the payload or data field in that time slot, e.g., a
`
`service type identifier which informs the mobile or base station of the type of
`
`information (e.g., voice, video or data) being conveyed in the payload.” Id. at
`
`3:11-16. This information “is used by the receiving equipment to aid in processing
`
`the information conveyed in the payload, e.g., by knowing the channel coding
`
`rate.” Id. at 3:16-19.
`
`17. Fig. 6 of the ’568 Patent illustrates one approach for implementing a
`
`service type identifier in a FOC field. Here, the FOC field can be populated with
`
`“information regarding the type of service which the associated payload is
`
`currently supporting, the channel coding and/or interleaving associated therewith.”
`
`Id. at 9:29-32. In each case, the FOC field provides transmission characteristics
`
`for the communication of the information between the base and mobile stations.
`
`For example, information regarding the type of service necessarily reduces to
`
`transmission characteristics. So too do channel coding and interleaving. The ’568
`
`Patent therefore consistently uses the service type identifier to identify the type of
`
`service, including transmission characteristics.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`18. Different types of information can be efficiently communicated by
`
`exploiting the communication characteristics of the service type. But if a receiver
`
`is unable to determine the service type(s) of the payload(s) of each data packet, the
`
`receiver would not know how to efficiently process the data streams. For example,
`
`efficient communication of various types of data may involve different channel
`
`coding, different interleaving, or error correction. Id. at 2:28-50; 9:27-32.
`
`Moreover, different data types may have different tolerances for delay. Id. at 2:50-
`
`55. The service type identifier of the ’586 patent identifies the type of information
`
`communication, and in some cases, the type of data in the payload so that different
`
`types of information can be efficiently communicated.
`
`19. The ’568 Patent recognized that advancement and evolution of radio
`
`communication systems would also allow new types of information with different
`
`transmission characteristics to be exchanged. Rather than attempt to predict all
`
`these future changes, the ’568 Patent proposes using a service type identifier to
`
`describe, among others, the transmission characteristics of a data payload. Id. at
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`2:56-2:63. The transmission characteristics can thereafter be easily changed to
`
`accommodate a variety of different services. Id. For example, the time-sensitive
`
`nature of voice information requires a high degree of error coding so that the voice
`
`packets are received error-free in the correct order. On the other hand, fax
`
`transmission is more tolerant of error so a fax service typically would require a
`
`much lower error protection than voice information. Id. at 2:44-50. To alert a
`
`receiver to these differences in transmission characteristics, each packet could
`
`contain a service type identifier which informs the receiver to use, for example,
`
`voice error protection or fax error protection when processing that packet. Id. at
`
`2:56-63.
`
`B. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`20.
`Independent claim 1 of the ’658 patent reads as follows:
`
`A communication station comprising:
`
`a processor for arranging information for transmission
`including providing at least one first field in which payload
`information is disposed and providing at least one second field,
`separate from said first field, which includes a service type
`identifier which identifies a type of payload information
`provided in said at least one first field; and
`
`a transmitter for transmitting information received from said
`processor including said at least one first field and said at least
`one second field.
`
`21.
`
` I understand from communications with counsel that during inter
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`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.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that Broadcom argues that the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of “a service type identifier which identifies a type of payload
`
`information” is “an identifier that identifies the type of information conveyed in
`
`the payload. Examples of types of information include, but are not limited to,
`
`video, voice, data, and multimedia.” Pet. at 7. I further understand that the Board
`
`essentially adopted Broadcom’s construction.1 In my opinion, this proposed
`
`construction is inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence, gives no meaning to
`
`“service type,” and is therefore unreasonable.
`
`23.
`
`In my opinion, the broadest reasonable construction of the term
`
`“service type identifier which identifies a type of payload information” is “an
`
`identifier that identifies a transmission characteristic of the service and the type of
`
`information conveyed in the payload.” As a starting point, the claim language
`
`requires two things of the “identifier”: it must be of a “service type” and it must
`
`“identif[y] a type of payload information.” ’568 Pat. at cl. 1. While Broadcom’s
`
`construction addresses the latter requirement, it reads the former out of the claim.
`
`
`1 Although the Board adopted the Petitioner’s construction, it nonetheless applied
`the petitioner’s construction to a shorter phrase, viz., “service type identifier.”
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`24. The phrase “service type” is central to the recited claims. The ’568
`
`Patent is not merely directed toward only identifying the type of information in a
`
`payload. Rather, it establishes a system protocol whereby the “information can be
`
`used by the receiving equipment to aid in processing the information conveyed in
`
`the payload.” ’568 Pat. at 3:16-19. The ’568 Patent is directed toward supporting
`
`various types of information communication—services—having differing optimal
`
`transmission characteristics. Id. at 2:28-30. These claimed systems and methods
`
`can be applied to “multimedia communications where the type of payload may
`
`vary rapidly, e.g., on a slot-by-slot basis, or even within each slot.” Id. at 3:20-22.
`
`Merely knowing a type of data conveyed in a payload in such a system is
`
`insufficient for a receiver to properly process the received data. Rather the receiver
`
`must also know about “a transmission characteristic” of the payload information.
`
`When properly construed, the “service type identifier” does both.
`
`25. The ’568 Patent makes clear that the invention was designed for use in
`
`systems where many service types may be used in the transmission of many
`
`different types of payloads. Id. at 2:56-60. The inventors realized that many more
`
`types of payloads and service types for use in transmitting those payloads were
`
`possible in addition to those discussed in the patents. See Id. at 2:26-28 (“video or
`
`hybrid voice, data, and video to support Internet connections[] will likely be
`
`supported in the future”). To accommodate different services, the ‘568 Patent
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`provides a “service type identifier” identifying different “services” (i.e., different
`
`types of “information communication”) that “will likely have different optimal
`
`transmission characteristics.” See Id. at 2:29-2:31. Indeed, each of the various
`
`example services disclosed in the ‘568 Patent (e.g., voice, video, fax, and Internet
`
`data) may require different amounts of bandwidth, error protection, and/or have a
`
`different ability to tolerate delay. Id.
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, Ericsson’s proposed construction of “service type
`
`identifier” recognizes that this term identifies transmission characteristics to aid in
`
`processing different types of data. I disagree with Broadcom’s and Board’s
`
`proposed construction because it would not permit differentiation between, for
`
`example, a service related to fax data and another service related to Internet data.
`
`Broadcom’s construction merely identifies the type of information in the payload,
`
`but ignores the transmission characteristics of the communication of that
`
`information. Because Ericsson’s construction gives meaning to all of the words of
`
`the claim and is supported by the specification, in my opinion it should be adopted
`
`as the broadest reasonable construction. Broadcom’s construction should be
`
`rejected because it reads out the words “service type.”
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a district court uses a different claim construction
`
`standard and methodology than the one used by the Board to arrive at its
`
`construction. I understand that a district court may place more weight on
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`statements made during prosecution than does the Board. In my opinion, the
`
`district court placed undue weight on a statement made by the inventor during the
`
`prosecution history to reach its conclusion. Ex. 1011, p. 19, 13-17. Accordingly,
`
`in my opinion, Broadcom’s reliance on the district court’s construction is
`
`misplaced. Pet. at 7. When put in context, none of the statements made by
`
`Ericsson during prosecution in the file history undermine Ericsson’s proposed
`
`construction under the broadest reasonable construction.
`
`28. The patent distinguishes between “information” and “services,” and
`
`nowhere does the ’568 Patent refer to services as merely information. “Services”
`
`refer to the “various types of information transmission.” ’568 Pat. at 2:28-29. The
`
`type of information transmission (including the characteristics of transmitting that
`
`information)—and not merely the information itself—is central to a “service.”
`
`29.
`
`I understand that both Broadcom and the Board relied, in part, on
`
`statements made by the patentee during the prosecution history of the ’568 Patent
`
`to support their construction. In particular, both rely on the statement made by the
`
`applicantthat “it may not be possible to identify the type of payload information
`
`upon an indication of channel coding since the type of channel coding identified
`
`may be employed for different types of information” (Ex. 1016 (’568 Prosecution
`
`History, Amendment of May 10, 2002)). In my opinion, the applicant meant that
`
`the prior art only identified the type of coding; it did not identify both (1) the type
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`of service, and (2) the information conveyed in the payload. And since channel
`
`coding does not necessarily uniquely identify a service type, channel coding by
`
`itself cannot be a service type identifier. Instead, the service type identifier must
`
`also identify the information conveyed in the payload just as recited by claim 1 of
`
`the ’568 Patent. Accordingly, in my opinion, this statement supports Ericsson
`
`proposed construction for this term.
`
`30.
`
`In my opinion, the statements made during the prosecution simply
`
`recognized that the disclosure of a “type of channel coding” was not sufficient to
`
`teach or suggest the recitation of “identif[ying] a type of payload information.”
`
`Ex. 1016, p. 5, lines 14-20. This statement says nothing about whether the “service
`
`type” identifies “transmission characteristics” of the service.
`
`31.
`
`In my opinion, Broadcom’s proposed construction for this term is not
`
`the broadest reasonable construction because it ignores the purpose and plain
`
`meaning of the “service type identifier” by replacing it with one thing identified by
`
`the “service type identifier.” Such an interpretation would rewrite the claim to
`
`recite “a payload type identifier” or just “an identifier” and is not supported by the
`
`specification and prosecution history. In my opinion, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation for “a service type identifier which identifies a type of payload
`
`information provided in said at least one first field” consistent with the totality of
`
`the written description is “an identifier that identifies a transmission characteristic
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`of the service and identifies type of payload information.”
`
`C. The Challenged Claims Are Not Anticipated by Morley
`
`32.
`
`In my opinion, Morley does not anticipate claims 1-6 of the ’568
`
`Patent for two reasons. First, Morley does not disclose a “service type identifier”
`
`using the proper construction for that term. Second, Morley does not disclose an
`
`“identifier which identifies a type of payload information.” Morley teaches or
`
`suggests the communication of only one type of information, a composite voice
`
`frame and data, regardless of whether either one is present, and therefore the
`
`header does not identify a service. Additionally, the header in Morley does not
`
`identify transmission characteristics. Morley discloses transmitting a combined
`
`voice frame and data over a telephone network. The header, rather than identifying
`
`the type of information in the payload, identifies the format of the frame for the
`
`receiver to process the received information. Finally, Morley does not address
`
`optimally communicating each of these types of information as separate services.
`
`1. Overview of Morley
`
`33. Morley is directed toward “transmitting and receiving a composite
`
`signal on a single communications channel.” Morley at 1:3-5. Morley discloses a
`
`system for handling a composite voice and data signal, allowing remote users to
`
`communicate with each other across a telephone network via an analog telephone
`
`modem. Id. at 1:7-10; 4:42-45. The Morley system is depicted in Fig. 2 below.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`
`34. Users of Morley communicate with each other using the telephone
`
`handsets 16 and exchange visual data from a graphics tablet 12. Id. at 3:11-15. A
`
`voice coder/decoder 24 digitizes voice signals into outgoing voice frames. Id. at
`
`43-49. Via a multiplexer, a voice frame is combined with any available data from
`
`the tablet to “form mux frames including both voice and image data.” Id. at 4:38-
`
`41. The multiplex frame is then converted into an analog signal by a modem 26
`
`and sent to the other user through the telephone connection. Id. at 4:42-44.
`
`35. The purpose of Morley is to ensure synchronization of the combined
`
`voice frame, thereby eliminating transmission errors caused by clock errors.
`
`“Morley provides a multiplexer enabling voice frames, or other framed data, to be
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`transmitted without degradation due to timing errors whilst maintaining efficient
`
`use of bandwidth.” Id. at 1:52-55. Morley recognized that using separate clocks
`
`for voice and data information during transmission introduces errors that may
`
`propagate and produce a loss of synchronization. Id. at 1:28-34. To address this
`
`issue, Morley embedded a signal in the header for use as a clock for both the
`
`transmitted voice frame and data. Id. at 5:39-44, 7:34-35.
`
`36. The header of the mux frame serves two purposes. First, the header
`
`identifies the “frame type.” The receiver sorts received information to the
`
`appropriate voice or data hardware based on the frame type: “the header of a
`
`received frame is checked and status, voice and non voice fields are written to the
`
`voice and data buffers 70 and 72 as appropriate.” Id. at 10:19-22. Second, the
`
`receiver compares the header value to one of the 16 unique header values shown in
`
`the table below for error determination purposes:
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`
`
`37. The formats of some example header types are shown in Figs. 5a-g:
`
`
`
`38.
`
`If the header value matches one of these predetermined header values,
`
`the receiver knows the frame should contain no errors. On the other hand, if the
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`header does not match a predetermined header value, the receiver checks the frame
`
`for errors, which if present, causes the transmitter and receiver to resynchronize.
`
`Id. at 7:64-8:10.
`
`2. Morley does not disclose a service type identifier
`
`39. Broadcom cites the header value of Morley shown in the table
`
`reproduced above as disclosing, teaching or suggesting the claimed “service type
`
`identifier” because the header value can be used to indicate which of a voice
`
`channel, one of three different data channels, or a combination of these channels is
`
`included in the multiplex frame. Id. at 7:1-17; Figs. 5a-5g. I disagree. To reach
`
`its erroneous conclusion, Broadcom mischaracterizes Morley in two important
`
`respects.
`
`40. First, the header is not a “service type identifier” because Morley only
`
`communicates a composite frame of voice and data. Morley is concerned with a
`
`system that combines “at least two types of data and send[s] a composite signal
`
`over a single physical channel.” Id. at 1:57-59. The multiplex frame in Morley
`
`can include voice only, data only, or a combination of a voice frame and data. Id.
`
`at 5:52-53; 6:33-53; 7:1-17. But just because a mux frame may take one of various
`
`forms does not deem the communication of each type of mux frame a separate
`
`service. Separate voice and data services for the mux frame require that the voice
`
`frame and data each be independently communicated, rather than communicated as
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`a single composite unit. In other words, the ’568 Patent requires a separate service
`
`type identifier for each service, rather than redundant service type identifiers for
`
`one service.
`
`41. Morley treats each mux frame as a composite unit, rather than as an
`
`independent communication of each type of information in the composite frame.
`
`Although a mux frame consists of a voice frame (if any) and a data frame (if any),
`
`communication of the mux frame is not optimized for separate communication of
`
`the voice and data. Rather, a received mux frame is deconstructed into its
`
`constituent parts (voice, if any, and data, if any) after transmission. Because
`
`Morley describes only one type of information communication, it cannot disclose a
`
`service type identifier. In my opinion such an identifier would be meaningless in
`
`the context of communicating only one type of information.
`
`42. Second, the header is not a service type identifier because, when
`
`properly construed, a “service
`
`type
`
`identifier”
`
`identifies
`
`transmission
`
`characteristics of the service, but the header in Morley does not identify any
`
`transmission characteristics of the composite mux frame. The header provides
`
`synchronization information, not transmission characteristics: “Synchronization
`
`between two multiplexers is achieved and maintained by searching for the mux
`
`frame headers.” Id. at 7:34-35. The header values do not allow devices in the
`
`system to account for different transmission characteristics of different service
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`types, let alone identify any transmission characteristics of the information
`
`conveyed in the payload.
`
`43.
`
`Indeed, the transmission characteristics of the voice frame and data
`
`cannot be part of the header value. To the extent that they exist, the transmission
`
`characteristics are separately embedded into the voice frames and data by the codec
`
`and processor, respectively. “Error correction may be added to the data channels
`
`by the multiplexer.” Id. at 5:15-16. Specifically, the “multiplexer may perform
`
`error correction on data channels, thus ensuring error free data to the protocol and
`
`application layers.” Id. at 8:34-36. Moreover, the voice codec may provide error
`
`correction information to the receiver. Id. at 8:24-28 (“Some voice coders
`
`incorporate forward error correction (FEC) and some send a checksum. Both
`
`schemes increase the bandwidth required by the voice channel, the additional
`
`information is used for error correction/detection at the voice decoder.”)
`
`44. The multiplexer and the voice coder, not the header, add error
`
`correction to the voice frames and data. Id. at 5:15-16; 8:22-33. A single header
`
`type could relate to the same type of voice frame or data with entirely different
`
`error correction characteristics. Merely adding error correction to the voice frames
`
`or data before creating a composite mux frame does not create a new service.
`
`Because one header type can refer to different types of data, each having a unique
`
`error correction procedure, the header type cannot be a service type. In reality, one
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`
`service type exists in Morley, and that service is the communication of composite
`
`voice and data information. In my opinion
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
