`
`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 Systems and Terminals
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT AKL, D.Sc.,
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`Broadcom v. Ericsson
`IPR2013-00602
`Exhibit 2021
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION BY ROBERT AKL, D.Sc.,
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`I, Robert Akl, D.Sc., hereby declare, affirm, and state the following:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`The facts set forth below are known to me personally and I have
`
`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
`
`Motion to Amend the ’568 Patent in 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 the proposed substitute
`
`claims 8-13 of the ’568 Patent valid over the known prior art. As described further
`
`below, it is my opinion that substitute claims 8-13 are valid over the known prior
`
`art. It is my further opinion that claims 8-13 are not anticipated or obvious in view
`
`of the known prior art.
`
`
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION
`
`2
`
`

`

`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.
`
`3
`
`

`

`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
`
`4
`
`

`

`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
`
`12.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed herein, I have reviewed and
`
`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;
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 5,488,610 to Stephen Morley (Petitioner’s Exhibit No.
`1002) (“Morley”);
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`D. Sharma et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,500,859, entitled “Voice and Data
`Transmission System” (Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 1004) (“Sharma”);
`
`E. Menand et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,548,532, entitled “Apparatus and Method for
`Formulating an Interactive TV Signal” (Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 1005)
`(“Menand”);
`
`F. U.S. Patent No. 5,541,662 to Robert Adams, David M. Williams, John
`Richardson, and Burt Perry (Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 1006) (“Adams”);
`
`G. Padovani et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,659,569, entitled “Data Burst Randomizer”
`(Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 1007) (Padovani);
`
`H. Mouly and Pautet, “The GSM System for Mobile Communications,” 1992
`(selected pages) (Petitioner’s Exhibit No. 1008) (“GSM”);
`
`I. Zehavi and Viterbi, U.S. Pat. No. 5,581,575, entitled “Method and Aparatus
`for Transmission of Variable Rate Digital Data” (Petitioner’s Exhibit No.
`1017) (“Zehavi”);
`
`J. Application No. 08/725,643, filed on Oct. 15, 1996 (Exhibit 2022) (“the
`’019 App.”);
`
`K. Raychaudhuri & Wilson, entitled “ATM-Based Transport Architecture for
`Multiservices Wireless Personal Communication Networks,” IEEE Journal
`on Selected Areas in Communications, Vol. 12, No. 9, October 1992
`(Exhibit 2023) (“Raychauduri”);
`
`L. Wagner et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,761,292, entitled “Simultaneous Transfer of
`Control Information with Voice and Data Over a Public Switched Telephone
`Network Line” (Exhibit 2024) (“Wagner”); and
`
`M. 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
`
`6
`
`

`

`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. Proposed Substitute Claim
`
`14.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner is proposing claims 8-13 as
`
`substitutes for Original Claims 1-6 of the ’568 Patent in the event that the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board determines that Original Claims 1-6 of the ’568 Patent are
`
`invalid. It is my opinion that Original Claims 1-6 of the ’568 Patent are valid, and
`
`my opinion is unaffected by the proposed substitute claims 8-13.
`
`Proposed Claims
`
`8. (Proposed Substitute for Original Claim 1) 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 transmission characteristics of a
`service and 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.
`
`9. (Proposed Substitute for Original Claim 2) The communication station of claim
`18, wherein said processor is also for changing said type of payload information
`from a first type to a second type during a connection involving said
`
`7
`
`

`

`communication station and adjusting a value of said service type identifier to
`correspond to the second type of information.
`
`10. (Proposed Substitute for Original Claim 3) The communication station of
`claim 29, wherein said first type of information is one of video, voice and data and
`said second type of information is different one of video, voice and data.
`
`11. (Proposed Substitute for Original Claim 4) The communication station of
`claim 18, wherein said information is multimedia information.
`
`12. (Proposed Substitute for Original Claim 5) The communication station of
`claim 18, wherein said communication station is a base station.
`
`13. (Proposed Substitute for Original Claim 6) The communication station of
`claim 18, wherein said communication station is a mobile station.
`
`15.
`
`I have read the file history of the ’568 Patent, including Application
`
`No. 08/725,642 (“the ’019 App.”), which was the application to which the ’568
`
`Patent claims priority. It is my opinion that the proposed substitute claims 8-13
`
`have written description support in both the ’019 App. and the ’568 Patent. In my
`
`opinion, the proposed amendments do not seek to enlarge the scope of claims 1-6
`
`of the ’568 Patent or introduce new subject matter. Proposed Substitute claims 8-
`
`13 merely adds features to claims 1-6 and do not remove any limitations therefrom.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that proposed substitute claims 8-13 are contingent
`
`substitute claims to replace original claims 1-6, respectively. Claim 8 adds an
`
`additional limitation to claim 1: “service type identifier which identifies
`
`transmission characteristics of a service and a type of payload information.” As I
`
`discuss further below, such a service type identifier is neither anticipated by or
`
`8
`
`

`

`obvious in view of the prior art known to the patent owner. Claims 9-13
`
`correspond to original claims 2-6 and recite the same subject matter, respectively,
`
`with the exception that claims 9-13 depend from claim 8 rather than claim 1. Each
`
`of claims 8-13 is introduced only in the event that the corresponding original claim
`
`is determined to be unpatentable. By submitted this proposed amendment, I
`
`understand that Patent Owner does not waive its right, and expressly reserves its
`
`right, to appeal the Board’s patentability determination with respect to the original
`
`claims 1-6.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that proposed substitute claim 8 introduces the term
`
`“transmission characteristics.” In my opinion, the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as would be understood by one of skill in the art in the context of the
`
`entire disclosure of this term is: characteristics of the payload during transmission.
`
`This meaning is supported by the ’568 Patent, which uses the term “transmission
`
`characteristics” broadly to refer to several different characteristics of the payload
`
`when transmitted such as “bandwidth” (Ex. 1001 at 2:32), transmission “rate” (id.
`
`at 2:36-37), “error protection” (id. at 2:43), “channel coding” (id. at 2:44), and
`
`“ability to tolerate delay” (id. at 2:50-51). (Id.) The ’568 specification refers to
`
`all of these individually and collectively as “transmission characteristics.” (Id. at
`
`2:41-42
`
`(“In addition
`
`to bandwidth considerations, other
`
`transmission
`
`characteristics may also be impacted.”); 2:52-55 (“All of these differences in
`
`9
`
`

`

`transmission characteristics should be considered together when determining an
`
`optimal specification for the air interface.”)). Because the specification uses the
`
`term broadly, I understand that the term should be given the full scope of its
`
`ordinary and customary meaning, i.e., “characteristics of the transmission of the
`
`payload.”
`
`18.
`
`It is my opinion that the proposed substitute claims find support in the
`
`original patent disclosure. The ’568 Patent is a divisional of application No.
`
`08/725,643 (“the ’019 App.”), filed on Oct. 15, 1996, now Pat. No. 5,987,019.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 1:5-6). The specification of the ’568 patent is identical to that of the
`
`’019 patent. The following chart shows where the descriptive support for each
`
`element of each proposed claim can be found in the ’019 App.
`
` Proposed Claim
`
`Descriptive Support (Ex. 2022 (’019 App.) and
`
`Ex. 1001 (’568 Pat.))
`
`8. A communication station
`
`Figures 1 and 5 disclose a “communication
`
`comprising:
`
`station” in the form of a “base station” and a
`
`“mobile station.”
`
`(’019 App. at 6:24-7:4, FIGs. 1, 5; ’568 Pat. at
`
`4:20-32, FIGs., 1, 5).
`
`a processor for arranging
`
`The “base station” in Fig. 1 includes a processor
`
`information for transmission
`
`in the form of “a control and processing unit 130”
`
`10
`
`

`

`including
`
`while “mobile station” includes a “processing unit
`
`180.” (’019 App. at 6:24-7:4, 7:29-8:7, FIG. 1;
`
`’568 Pat. at 4:20-32, 4:64-5:8, FIG. 1) The
`
`processor arranges the information for
`
`transmission. (’019 App. at 7:5-7; ’568 Pat. at
`
`4:33-35 (“The base station 110 handles a plurality
`
`of traffic channels through a traffic channel
`
`transceiver 150, which is controlled by the control
`
`and processing unit 130.”)).
`
`providing at least one first field
`
`The processor maps the data to be transmitted in
`
`in which payload information is
`
`different fields, as shown in FIG 3. The two
`
`disposed and
`
`“DATA fields” shown in FIG. 3 “are used to
`
`transmit the ‘payload’ of the slot….” (’019 App.
`
`at FIGs. 3, 6, 7A-7B, 8A-8C, 9:2-4, ; ’568 Pat. at
`
`FIGs. 3, 6, 7A-7B, 8A-8C, 5:38-41).
`
`providing at least one second
`
`The ’568 specification also describes a “fast-out-
`
`field, separate from said first
`
`of-band channel (FOC)” field that is separate
`
`field,
`
`from the “DATA field.” (’019 App. at FIGs. 3, 6,
`
`7A-7B, 8A-8C, 11:9-12, 12:9-12, 15:21-29; ’568
`
`Pat. at FIGs. 3, 6, 7A-7B, 8A-8C, 6:56-61, 7:29-
`
`11
`
`

`

`33, 9:27-38).
`
`which includes a service type
`
`The ’568 specification teaches that the “FOC may
`
`identifier which identifies
`
`provide information relating to the same
`
`transmission characteristics of a
`
`connection as the payload or data field in that
`
`service and a type of payload
`
`time slot, e.g., a service type identifier which
`
`information provided in said at
`
`informs the mobile or base station of the type of
`
`least one first field; and
`
`information (e.g., voice, video or data) being
`
`conveyed in the payload. This information can be
`
`used by the receiving equipment to aid in
`
`processing the information conveyed in the
`
`payload, e.g., by knowing the channel coding
`
`rate.” (’019 App. at 4:23-28; ’568 Pat. at 3:11-
`
`19). Moreover, “the FOC fields may also serve
`
`the purpose of service type identifier. In this
`
`embodiment, the FOC can provide information
`
`regarding the type of service which the associated
`
`payload is currently supporting, the channel
`
`coding and/or interleaving associated therewith.”
`
`(’019 App. at 15:21-29; ’568 Pat. at 9:27-38).
`
`a transmitter for transmitting
`
`Both the “base station” and “mobile station”
`
`12
`
`

`

`information received from said
`
`include a “transceiver” that is connected to the
`
`processor including said at least
`
`associated processor for transmitting the
`
`one first field and said at least
`
`information received from the processor including
`
`one second field.
`
`the first and second fields. (’019 App. at FIGs.
`
`1,5, 7:5-15, 8:2-7; ’568 Pat. at FIGs. 1, 5, 4:33-
`
`46, 5:2-8).
`
`9. The communication station
`
`The ’568 specification teaches that “the present
`
`of claim 8, wherein said
`
`invention finds application [] in multimedia
`
`processor is also for changing
`
`communication. As described above, it is
`
`said type of payload information
`
`anticipated that future radio communications will
`
`from a first type to a second type
`
`need to support intermingled voice, data and
`
`during a connection involving
`
`video service, wherein the type of information to
`
`said communication station and
`
`be transmitted may vary rapidly, e.g., time slot by
`
`adjusting a value of said service
`
`time slot and wherein the different services may
`
`type identifier to correspond to
`
`require different levels of channel coding.” (’019
`
`the second type of information.
`
`App. at 4:21-5:2, 15:4-11, 15:21-29, 30:19-22;
`
`10. The communication station
`
`(See claim 9 above; ’019 App at 30:23-25; ’568
`
`’568 Pat. at 3:9-22, 9:5-15, 9:27-38, 14:1-6).
`
`of claim 9, wherein said first
`
`Pat. at 14:7-10)
`
`type of information is one of
`
`13
`
`

`

`video, voice and data and said
`
`second type of information is
`
`different one of video, voice and
`
`data.
`
`11. The communication station
`
`(See claim 9 above; ’016 App. at 31:1-2; ’568
`
`of claim 8, wherein said
`
`Pat. at 14:11-12)
`
`information is multimedia
`
`information.
`
`12. The communication station
`
`Figures 1 and 5 disclose a “communication
`
`of claim 8, wherein said
`
`station” in the form of a “base station.” (’019
`
`communication station is a base
`
`App. at FIGs. 1, 5, 6:24-7:4, 31:3-4; ’568 Pat. at
`
`station.
`
`FIG. 1, 5, 4:20-32, 14:13-14).
`
`13. The communication station
`
`Figures 1 and 5 disclose a “communication
`
`of claim 8, wherein said
`
`station” in the form of a “mobile station.” (’019
`
`communication station is a
`
`App. at FIGs. 1, 5, 6:24-7:4, 31:5-6; ’568 Pat. at
`
`mobile station.
`
`FIG. 1, 5, 4:20-32, 14:15-16).
`
`
`
`19.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`conclude that the inventors were in possession of the invention claimed in
`
`substitute claims 8-13. As shown above, the original disclosure of the application
`
`14
`
`

`

`relied upon reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the
`
`inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that on September 20, 2013, Broadcom Corporation
`
`(“Petitioner”) filed a petition under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`et seq. requesting inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568, proposing five
`
`grounds of rejection. On March 10, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued
`
`a decision instituting an inter partes review with respect two of the grounds of
`
`rejection proposed, namely that U.S. Patent 5,488,601 (“Morley”) allegedly
`
`anticipates claims 1-6 and U.S. Patent 5,541,662 (“Adams”) allegedly renders
`
`obvious claims 1-6 of the ’568 patent.
`
`21.
`
`It is my opinion that substitute independent claim 8 is patentable over
`
`both Adams and Morley because neither reference teaches or suggests a “service
`
`type identifier which identifies transmission characteristics of a service and
`
`identifies a type of payload information.” Morley discloses a multiplexer that
`
`supports one voice channel and up to three data channels (Morley, 6:31-32) and
`
`creates a composite signal for
`
`transmission and reception on a single
`
`communications channel (Id. at 1:3-5). Morley discloses that the “format of the
`
`mux frame may need to change according to the particular characteristics of a
`
`call.” (Id. at 7:27-29.) Morley is silent as to the meaning of “the particular
`
`characteristics of a call” contemplates transmission characteristics, is related to the
`
`15
`
`

`

`voice and data that are being exchanged during a call, or related to something else
`
`entirely. Even assuming that changing the mux frame format relates to
`
`transmission characteristics (which it does not), Morley teaches away from
`
`transmission characteristics. Any change in format in Morley is related only to
`
`header type 0, and header type zero does not identify any “information conveyed in
`
`the payload.” (Morley, 7:1-30) Because the “protocol negotiates which data
`
`channels (if any) use error correction,” (Morley, 8:37-38), rather than the alleged
`
`header determining the error correction, the error correction disclosed in Morley is
`
`not associated with any alleged service type identifier (e.g., the header type).
`
`(Morley, 8:18-40)
`
` Adams discloses a single service—satellite television
`
`transmission—conforming to the MPEG video transport standard. (Adams, 4:5-
`
`13) Because Adams only discloses MPEG encoding of satellite television
`
`transmission, Adams does not teach or suggest a service type identifier identifying
`
`transmission characteristics to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`22.
`
`In my opinion, the remaining art identified by petitioner— Ex. 1004
`
`(U.S. Pat. No. 5,500,859) (“Sharma”), Ex. 1005 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,548,532)
`
`(“Menand”), Ex. 1007 (U.S. Pat. 5,659,569) (“Padovani”), Ex. 1017 (U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,581,575) (“Zehavi”), and Ex. 1018 (“GSM”)—also fail to teach or disclose a
`
`service type identifier which identifies transmission characteristics of a service.
`
`Although Menand, which Patent Owner believes to be the closest prior art,
`
`16
`
`

`

`discloses a service identifier for audio packets and video packets (Menand,
`
`Abstract), Menand only discloses a single service—transmission of a satellite
`
`broadcast signal that includes video, audio, and interactive signals (Menand, 1:5-
`
`9). Menand does not disclose a “service type identifier” because the transmission
`
`of only one service does not teach or suggest a service type identifier to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. The disclosed MPEG protocol for compressing the video
`
`and audio information in Menand is not a transmission characteristic identified by
`
`a service type identifier because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`MPEG compression to be an inherent property of the encoded satellite signal
`
`disclosed in Menand. Nor does Menand teach or suggest that MPEG is associated
`
`with an identifier that also identifies payload information. Accordingly, Menand
`
`does not teach or disclose amended claim 8.
`
`23. Rather than teaching transmission characteristics, Sharma teaches a
`
`single connection speed for data transfer of DATA, VOICE, or QUALIFIED
`
`packets, and consequently does not teach or suggest amended claim 8. (Sharma,
`
`19:28-32, Table 1;) Like Sharma, Padovani teaches a single connection for the
`
`transmission of voice data (primary data), non-voice data (second data), and
`
`control data (signalling traffic (Padovani at Figs. 2a-2e, 4:24-30)). Padovani
`
`further teaches the use of pseudorandom codes to encode (or randomize) data
`
`before transmission for privacy and security purposes (Padovani at 14:14-19), and
`
`17
`
`

`

`therefore does not teach or suggest transmission characteristics.
`
`24. Zehavi discloses a system for transmitting variable rate data such as
`
`speech, video, facsimile, modem, or other digital data at a constant data rate
`
`through the inclusion of variable replication count so that the data is transmitted at
`
`a constant data rate. (Zehavi, Abstract, 4:30-54, 5:27-30) Zehavi relates to
`
`transmitting at a constant rate data having a variable rate, and thus does not teach
`
`or suggest transmission characteristics of information in the payload as required by
`
`amended claim 9. Zehavi addresses the generation of various bit rates, but it does
`
`not teach or suggest formatting a frame or linking transmission characteristics to a
`
`service type identifier. Linking various data rates to an identifier of transmission
`
`characteristics would thwart the purpose of Zehavi. Zehavi is directed toward a
`
`system that modifies the bit rate based on the current analysis of the data to be
`
`transmitted, and the receiver in Zehavi would not need to receive an identifier of
`
`transmission characteristics. Zehavi does not teach or suggest how a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would link various data rates to an identifier of
`
`transmission characteristics as claimed by substitute independent claim 8. GSM
`
`only discloses GSM radio communication in general, and therefore does not teach
`
`or suggest a service type identifier or the remaining limitations of amended claim
`
`8.
`
`25. The substitute claims are patentable over the prior art, including
`
`18
`
`

`

`Menand, which I agree is the closest known prior art. The prior art does not teach
`
`or suggest a service type as claimed in substitute claim 8. Ex. 2023, Raychaudhuri
`
`(IEEE J. on Selected Areas in Comm., Vol. 12, No. 8, Oct. 1992) discloses a
`
`service type field that identifies transmission characteristics (“Service Type” in
`
`Table 1; Fig. 7; p. 1407), but does not identify information conveyed in the
`
`payload (Table 1). Rather, Raychaudhuri discloses various applications (which
`
`may have various data types), each of which are associated with multiple service
`
`types. (Raychaudhuri at Table 1). Ex. 2024 Wagner (U.S. Pat. No. 5,761,292)
`
`discloses performing different modulations on two different channels (Figs. 2, 3,
`
`2:33-40, 5:45-50) using a transmit switch (9:9-16), but does not disclose any
`
`transmission characteristics or service type identifiers.
`
`26.
`
` It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`combine the service type field in Raychaudhuri with a header or identifier field in
`
`Menand, Adams, or Morley, because the service type field in Raychaudhuri is
`
`associated with more than one type of data, but the header or identifier fields in
`
`Menand, Adams, or Morley are associated with only one type of data. (Menand at
`
`Abstract, 1:5-8; Morley at 7:1-17; Adams at Fig. 5;) The service type fields in
`
`Raychaudhuri are associated with multiple types of data to reduce the number of
`
`such identifiers. Merging a unique identifier in Menand/Morley/Adams with non-
`
`unique identifier of Raychaudhuri would thwart the purposes of all three prior art
`
`19
`
`

`

`references.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that Dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent
`
`claim from which they depend is nonobvious. It is my opinion that new dependent
`
`claims 9-13 are dependent upon independent claim 8 which defines an unobvious
`
`apparatus which is patentable over the prior art. Thus, the proposed new dependent
`
`claims are likewise patentable over the prior art.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`28.
`
`It is my opinion that substitute claims 8-13 are patentable over the
`
`known prior art, including the closest known prior art (Manand). Because the ’568
`
`patent was the first invention to conceive of “a service type identifier which
`
`identifies transmission characteristics of a service and a type of payload
`
`information,” a person of ordinary skill in the art would not expect the prior art to
`
`teach or suggest substitute claims 8-13.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00602
`
`
`ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
`I further declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true,
`
`and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that willful false
`
`statements or the like may jeopardize the validity of the patent or any patent
`
`issuing thereon.
`
`FURTHER, DECLARANT SAYETH NOT,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signed in Denton, Texas on June ___, 2014
`
`
`By _______________________________
` Dr. Robert Akl, D.Sc.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`ATTACHMENT “A”
`
`ATTACHMENT “A”
`
`

`

`Robert Akl, D.Sc.
`
`
`
`Professional Summary
`
`Dr. Akl has over 20 years of industry and academic experience. He is currently a Tenured
`Associate Professor at the University of North Texas and a Senior Member of IEEE. He has
`designed, implemented, and optimized both hardware and software aspects of several wireless
`communication systems for CDMA, WiFi, and sensor networks. He has broad expertise in
`wireless communication, Bluetooth, CDMA/WCDMA network optimization, GSM, LTE,
`VoIP, computer architecture, and computer networks. He is a very active researcher and is
`well published and cited. He has given depositions, trial testimony, and has prepared expert
`reports on claim construction, claim invalidity, infringement, and non-infringement. He has
`handled both ITC and district court cases. Dr. Akl was the 2008 recipient of the IEEE
`Professionalism Award and winner of the 2010 Tech Titan of the Future Award.
`
`Areas of Expertise
`
`Wireless Communication, 2G, 3G, 4G, CDMA/WCDMA, GSM, UMTS, LTE, Wireless
`Sensors, VoIP, Multi-cell Network Optimization, Call Admission Control, Channel Coding,
`Ad-hoc Networks, Computer Architecture.
`
`Employment History
`
`From:
`To:
`
`
`
`University of North Texas
`5/2008
`Present Denton, TX
`Position: Associate Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering
`
`Conducting research on cellular networks and wireless sensor
`networks. Teaching wireless communication courses. Advising
`graduate and undergraduate students.
`
`
`From:
`To:
`
`
`
`
`From:
`To:
`
`
`
`University of North Texas
`9/2002
`Denton, TX
`5/2008
`Position: Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering
`
`Conducting research on WCDMA/UMTS wireless networks. Teaching
`wireless communication and computer architecture courses. Advising
`graduate and undergraduate students.
`
`University of New Orleans
`1/2002
`New Orleans, LA
`8/2002
`Position: Assistant Professor Department of Electrical Engineering
`
`Designed and taught two new courses “Computer Systems Design I
`and II”. Developed a Computer Engineering Curriculum with strong
`hardware-design emphasis. Formed a wireless research group. Advised
`graduate and undergraduate students.
`
`CV of Robert Akl, D.Sc.
`Printed: 06/11/14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`From:
`To:
`
`
`
`
`From:
`To:
`
`
`
`
`From:
`To:
`
`
`
`10/2000 Comspace Corporation
`12/2001 Coppell, TX
`Position: Senior Systems Engineer
`
`Designed, coded (in Matlab), and simulated Viterbi decoding, Turbo
`coding, trellis coded modulation (TCM), and Reed-Muller codes.
`Optimized soft decision parameters and interleavers for additive white
`Gaussian and Rayleigh faded channels. Extended the control and trunking
`of push-to-talk Logic Trunked Radio (LTR) to include one-to-one and one-
`to-many voice and data messaging.
`
`8/1996 MinMax Corporation
`8/2000
`Saint Louis, MO
`Position: Research Associate
`
`Designed software packages that provide the tools to flexibly allocate
`capacity in a CDMA network and maximize the number of subscribers.
`Validated, simulated (logical and timing), and developed the hardware
`architecture for an ATM switch capable of channel group switching.
`
`8/1994 Washington University
`8/2000
`Saint Louis, MO
`Position: Research and Teaching Assistant
`
`Taught, consulted, and graded Circuit Analysis at the undergraduate
`level and Network Design at the graduate level.
`
`
`Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
`
`Date:
`
`
`2014
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2014
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Date:
`
`
`2014
`Case:
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Project:
`
`Sidley Austin LLP
`Adaptix, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies Co., et al.
`Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 6:13-cv-00438, 439, 440 and 441
`Patent infringement, subcarrier selection in LTE
`Non-infringement consulting
`
`Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP
`Cell and Network Selection LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., et al.
`Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 6:13-cv-00404-LED-JDL
`Patent infringement, base station selection in LTE
`Non-infringement consulting
`
`Lott & Fischer
`Zenith Electronics, LLC, et al. v. Craig Electronics, Inc.
`Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:13-cv-80567-DMM/DLB
`Patent infringement, HDTV