`____________________
`
`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