`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT:
`
`6,466,568
`
`INVENTOR:
`
`RAITH ET AL.
`
`FILED:
`
`September 21» 1999
`
`ISSUED:
`
`October 15, 2002
`
`TITLE:
`
`MULTl-RATE RADIOCOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS AND
`
`TERMINALS
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US. Patent & Trademark Office
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`DECLARATION OF HARRY BIMS, PH.D.
`
`1, Harry Bims, declare as follows:
`
`General Back round
`
`1.
`
`My name is Harry Bims. l have been asked to offer opinions
`
`regarding whether the claims of US. Patent No. 6,466,568 (the ‘568 patent) are
`
`anticipated or would have been obvious in View of the prior art; and to review a
`
`petition requesting Inter Panes Review of the ‘568 patent (“Petition”), which I
`
`understand is being submitted at the same time as this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I received my BS. in computer and systems engineering from
`
`Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1985, my MS in electrical engineering from
`
`ActiveUS 116131815v_l
`
`_ 1 _
`
`BROADCOM 1009
`
`
`
`Stanford University in 1988, and my PhD. in electrical engineering from Stanford
`
`University in 1993. Since receiving my doctorate, I have worked on a number of
`
`wireless and mobile technologies, including wireless pagers, wireless home LAN
`
`protocols, cellular products including 2.56 and 3G products, wireless network
`
`infrastructures based on the 802.1 1 wireless specification, and wireless networks in
`
`the 4G technology known as WiMAX, an implementation of 802.16.
`
`3.
`
`I have been actively involved in the development of the 802.16
`
`standards, which is a series of wireless broadband standards written by the Institute
`
`of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), including as a vice-chair of the
`
`802.16 working group, and chair of two task groups. Previously, I was the vice—
`
`chair and secretary of the IEEE 802.16h License Exempt Task Group.
`
`4.
`
`I am currently working as both a technology consultant in the industry
`
`and an expert consultant for litigation matters.
`
`5.
`
`I began my technical career in 1992 just before completing my Ph.D.
`
`as one of the first employees at Glenayre Technologies, where I worked until 1998.
`
`While at Glenayre, I designed and built a 4—channel wireless pager demonstration
`
`based on the ReFLEX wireless protocol developed by Motorola, which led to an
`
`award for Narrowband Personal Communications Service (PCS) development.
`
`I
`
`invented, designed, and built a two—way pager test system for the ReFLEX
`
`protocol that was deployed around the country for testing pagers. Additionally, I
`
`Active118116131815v.1
`
`
`
`co-developed a wireless application protocol for sending and receiving encrypted
`
`email messages over the paging channel, which was ultimately deployed for
`
`government agencies.
`
`6.
`
`In 1999 I was a member of the technical staff at T-SPAN Systems
`
`Corporation LLC, where I designed a wireless home LAN protocol.
`
`In 1999 I also
`
`served as a technical leader to Gigabit Wireless, Inc., where I lead the Wireless
`
`Media Access Control (MAC) design group. My work at Gigabit Wireless
`
`involved analyzing competing wireless MAC protocol standards, creation of a
`
`proprietary MAC protocol specification document, simulation of the protocol, and
`
`ultimate implementation of the protocol in a prototype.
`
`I also participated in
`
`meetings for the 802.16 standards starting at about that time.
`
`7.
`
`From 1999 to 2001 I served as the director of software architecture at
`
`Symmetry Communications Systems LLC, where I was responsible for the
`
`software architecture for their core products for the GPRS market.
`
`In 2001 I also
`
`worked as an entrepreneur in residence at the venture capital firm Bay Partners
`
`LLC, where I served as a technology expert to the partners of the firm on a range
`
`of wireless and networking subjects.
`
`8.
`
`From 2001 to 2004 I founded my own company, AirFlow Networks,
`
`Inc. LLC, where I served as CEO and CTO. AirFlow Networks was involved with
`
`a wireless network infrastructure based on the 802.11 wireless specification.
`
`ActiveUS 116131815v.l
`
`
`
`9.
`
`From 2007 to 2009 I worked as a technology consultant to Apple,
`
`Inc, including participating in IEEE 802.16 standards meetings.
`
`10.
`
`I am a named inventor on eighteen US. Patents that involve various
`
`aspects of wireless and mobile communications. Examples of my patents include
`
`US Patent No. 6,788,658 entitled “Wireless communication system architecture
`
`having split MAC layer,” which issued on September 7, 2004; and US. Patent No.
`
`6,557,134 entitled “ARQ method for wireless communication,” which issued on
`
`April 29, 2003. Additionally, I have authored or co-authored a number of articles
`
`in the fields of electrical engineering and computer science.
`
`1 1.
`
`I have been a member or vice—chair of numerous associations,
`
`including the chair of the Silicon Valley Chapter of the IEEE Engineering
`
`Management Society, and vice-chair of the 802.16 Working Group of the IEEE
`
`802 Standards Development Committee.
`
`12.
`
`A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (CV) is attached as Appendix A.
`
`13.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate for my work.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the substance of my
`
`statements in this Declaration.
`
`14.
`
`I have no financial interest in Petitioner.
`
`I have been informed that
`
`Ericsson purports to own the “568 patent for which review is requested.
`
`I have no
`
`financial interest in Ericsson-
`
`ActiveUS 116131815v.l
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568
`
`15.
`
`I have reviewed and understand the specification, claims, and file
`
`history of the ‘568 patent.
`
`I have been informed that the ‘568 patent claims
`
`priority to a prior U.S. Patent No. 5,987,019, filed October 16, 1996.
`
`I understand
`
`this means the ‘568 patent is considered to have been filed on October 16, 1996 for
`
`the purposes of detenmining whether a reference will qualify as prior art.
`
`16.
`
`I am providing certain opinions based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art for the
`
`‘568 patent would be a person with a bachelor's or graduate degree in a relevant
`
`field, such as electrical or computer engineering or computer science, with some
`
`amount of work experience in communications.
`
`17.
`
`I have reviewed and understand the overview of the ‘568 patent set
`
`out in Section IV of the Petition for Inter Partes Review.
`
`In my opinion, the
`
`overview accurately describes the ‘568 patent.
`
`ActiveUS ilfilRlSlSvJ
`
`
`
`Technical Basis Underlying the Grounds of Rejections Set Forth in the
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ‘568 Patent
`
`W
`
`18.
`
`I understand that the claims in an inter partes review should be given
`
`their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification” as commonly
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a federal district court construed the phrase “a
`
`service type identifier which identifies a type of payload information” to mean “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.”
`
`20.
`
`I agree with this construction and with the reasons set out in Section
`
`III of the Petition, including my understanding of how a person of ordinary skill
`
`would understand the phrase. The file history fuither confirms this construction.
`
`21.
`
`The Court also determined that the phrase “separate from said first
`
`field” required no construction.
`
`22.
`
`I agree that the broadest reasonable construction of this phrase does
`
`not require construction. This view is consistent with the Patent Owner’s
`
`statement in claim construction briefs that “the limitation merely clarifies that the
`
`ActiveUS 116131815vfil
`
`
`
`claim requires two distinct fields, i.e., the field with the payload information is not
`
`the same field as the service type identifier field.” (See Petition Ex. 1012 at 17).
`
`Prior Art
`
`23.
`
`Based on my review, I believe at least five different pieces of prior art
`
`that were not before the Examiner during examination of the ‘568 patent (Morley,
`
`Shanna, Menand, Adams, and Padovani, Petition Exs. 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006 and
`
`1007, respectively), each separately taught use of a “service type identifier” to
`
`identify the type of payload information, and each either anticipates or renders
`
`obvious the claims of the ‘568 patent.
`
`I review each piece of prior art below, and
`
`also attach charts with citations to portions of the prior art, and in some case, cites
`
`in addition to what is specifically mentioned here.
`
`24.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘568 patent reads as follows:
`
`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 a type of payload information provided in said at
`
`least one first field; and
`
`ActiveUS il6131815v.l
`
`
`
`a transmitter for transmitting information received from said
`
`processor including said at least one first field and said at least one
`
`second field.
`
`Ground 1: Morley Anticipates Challenged Claims 1-6
`
`25.
`
`I have reviewed Morley, US. Patent No. 5,488,610, entitled
`
`“Communication System,” filed Jul. 12, 1994, which claimed priority to European
`
`Patent Application No. 93306797, filed August 26, 1993 (“‘Morley”, Ex. 1002).
`
`I
`
`understand Morley and it is my opinion that it enables the invention it describes.
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, Morley discloses the limitations of claims 1-6, and
`
`therefore anticipates claims 1-6 of the “568 patent.
`
`27. Morley generally relates to a system that transmits more than one type
`
`of data, such as voice and data, using a multiplexer. (Morley, Abstract, Ex. 1002).
`
`The system can be a wired telephone system (1d. at Fig. 2), or a wireless system,
`
`such as a cellular GSM system (16!. at 99:40-46). The composite voice and data
`
`signal generated by the multiplexer is organized into frames, each containing a
`
`header and one or more voice frames andr'or non-voice data. (Id. at 5:39-59) The
`
`frames are transmitted on an R8232 link between the mux and the modern- (Id)
`
`Some possible mux frames are shown in Morley’s Figures 5a-5g and described at
`
`6:4-63.
`
`ActiveUSil6131815v.l
`
`
`
`2
`
`1
`
`23
`
`FIG.53
`
`framiypaO.5yne
`
`2
`1o
`1
`5
`
`FIG.5bI H I
`hum-amounting
`
`v
`
`:|
`
`F,
`
`FIG.50—
`frametypoflbataonly
`2
`1
`n
`2141
`
`FIG.5d H
`n
`F
`mmtypoatlmmly
`2
`16
`1
`4
`FIG-5e III—nan
`hmmfimmbata
`2
`18
`
`4-n
`
`1
`
`1
`
`l1
`
`FIG.5f _—annfl
`mm‘ffldeamdnata
`
`2
`20
`20
`‘l
`1
`n
`“a
`Fl(3-59 n—_ann F
`
`_
`
`28.
`
`These frames have a header that is used to identify the frame type, as
`
`shown in the table below:
`
`
`
`
`
` Header Type Frame Type Header Value
`
`
`
`0 x 19133
`Sync
`0
`0 x OOTf
`Extend
`I
`0 x 4ce6
`Voice Only
`2
`0 x 0000
`Not Defined
`3
`0 x 34e9
`Data 0
`4
`0 x 3366
`Data 0‘
`5
`0 x 23115
`Voice + Data 0
`6
`0 x 1e3e
`Voice + Data 0*
`7
`0 x 4b69
`Data 1
`8
`0 x 52da
`Data 1*
`9
`0 x 552a
`Voice + Datal
`10
`0x 61:3
`Voiee+Data 1’
`11
`0 x 6640
`Data 2
`12
`O x 7870
`Data 2“
`13
`0x (”81“
`Voioe+DaIa2
`14
`
`
`Voice + Data 2“IS 0 x 4b16
`
`(Id. at 721-17; see also 6:22-23.) This header value is a service type identifier field
`
`that indicates whether the payload of the frame contains voice only, one of three
`
`different types of data (Data 0, Data 1, or Data 2), or some combination of these
`
`services.
`
`(1d. at 6:64-7:22) The receiving system uses this service type identifier
`
`ActiveUS llfil3lSlSv.l
`
`
`
`field to identify the type of payload information in the frame and to write the
`
`information to an appropriate buffer.
`
`(1d. at 10:19-22.)
`
`29. Morley discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Morley discloses a
`
`communication station, such as PC 18 in Figure 2, for handling a composite voice
`
`and data signal. (Figure 2, PC 18, 3:33-38). Morley discloses a processor (e.g.,
`
`processor 19, mux/demux 22, storage 20, and voice coder/decoder 24 in Figure 2;
`
`and NEC V40 microprocessor 52, and RAM 54 in Figure 9) that arranges data for
`
`transmission by forming mux frames that include voice and/or data in a payload.
`
`(Id. at 6:18-63.)
`
`30. Morley discloses providing and transmitting “at least one first field”
`
`with a payload and “at least one second field” with the service type identifier that
`
`identifies the type of payload. The structure of possible mux frames, as shown in
`
`Figures Sa-Sg, include voice only, three different types of data (Data 0, Data 1, or
`
`Data 2), or various combination of these services. (Morley, Figures Sa-Sg; 6:4—
`
`7:30, Ex. 1002) Morley discloses that the mux frames include a header with a
`
`“frame type” that constitutes a service type identifier field that indicates whether
`
`the payload of the frame contains voice only, one of three different types of data
`
`(Data 0, Data 1, or Data 2), or some combination of these. (Id) Voice and data
`
`are identified in the ‘568 patent as examples of service types.
`
`ActiveUS 116131815v1
`
`_ 10 _
`
`
`
`31.
`
`Further, Morley discloses a high speed modem 26 as a transmitter for
`
`transmitting the first and second fields, e.g., with a V32 or V32bis full duplex
`
`modem, or using GSM. (Id. at Fig. 2, 3:58—61; 99:40—46).
`
`32. Morley discloses that the invention described therein can have
`
`applications in radio communications, including GSM. (Morley, 99:40-46, Ex.
`
`1002.) GSM is a well-known 2G cellular system that was implemented first in
`
`Europe and later elsewhere, including the United States. GSM inherently has a
`
`network of base stations and mobile stations that implement the GSM
`
`specifications in processors that are programmed to implement the protocols and
`
`mobile applications that reside on top of the protocols. The disclosure of GSM
`
`also inherently means transmitting at RF frequencies, e.g., at 800MHz, using a
`
`transmitter and a receiver. Thus, a mobile station would inherently include a
`
`processor and a transmitter for implementing GSM communications. 1d.
`
`33.
`
`Dependent claims 2—4 of the ‘568 patent recite:
`
`2. The communication station of claim 1, 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 communication station and
`
`adjusting a value of said service type identifier to
`
`correspond to the second type of information.
`
`ActiveUS 116131815vl
`
`_ 11 _
`
`
`
`3. The communication station of claim 2, 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.
`
`4. The communication station of claim 1, wherein said
`
`information is multimedia information.
`
`34.
`
`These claims thus disclose that the payload information can thus
`
`include multimedia information (claim 4); and that the packet types (and therefore
`
`the contents of the payload and the associated type identifier field) can be changed
`
`during a connection from one of voice, video, and data to another of voice, video
`
`and data (claims 2 and 3)- Morley discloses that the “frame type transmitted by the
`
`multiplexer can change from frame to frame” (Id. at 99:32-34; see also Figures 5a-
`
`Sg), and further discloses switching between voice and data frame buffers during a
`
`connection (Id. at 9:43-10z9), and therefore anticipates dependent claims 2-3.
`
`Morley further discloses transmitting voice and visual data, including textual input,
`
`drawings, stored images, or a mixture thereof, as claimed in dependent claims 3-4
`
`of the ‘568 patent. Further, the voice and visual data can “remain in
`
`synchronization as perceived by the user” to provide a combined audio and visual
`
`experience (See id. at Figures Sa-Sg, 1:3-8; 3:10-23, 6:4-7:l7, Ex. 1002).
`
`ActiveUS 116131815v.l
`
`_ 12 _
`
`
`
`35.
`
`Dependent claim 5 recites that the communication station is a base
`
`station. As noted above, Morley discloses that the invention has “applications in
`
`radio communications,” including GSM.
`
`(1d. at 99:40—46.)
`
`36.
`
`It is inherent that GSM radio communications systems include base
`
`stations, and it is also known that base stations can receive data from mobile
`
`stations and retransmit data to other mobile stations. It is also inherent that GSM
`
`radio communications systems include mobile stations. Base stations and mobile
`
`stations in a GSM cellular system, or in other cellular systems, each have a
`
`processor for processing data to be sent, and a transmitter for sending data. That
`
`processor sends data that has been arranged in frames defined by the GSM
`
`protocol. (See, e.g., Mouly and Pautet, GSM, Ex. 1008, pp. 89-99).
`
`37.
`
`Dependent claim 6 recites that the communication station is a mobile
`
`station. Morley discloses implementing its claimed “communication station” using
`
`GSM, which “is a mobile data service that offers 9600 bps asynchronous data at
`
`the DTE port of the GSM mobile.” (1d. at 99:40-45.) Morley further discloses that
`
`its multiplexing scheme has “applications in radio communications.” (1d,) Morley
`
`thus discloses that the communication station can be a mobile station.
`
`Patent Owner’s Prior Report Regarding Morley
`
`38.
`
`I have reviewed portions of a rebuttal expert report that I understood
`
`was submitted by the Patent Owner (Ericsson) in the course of a litigation
`
`ActiveUS 116131815v.1
`
`_ 13 _
`
`
`
`(“Report”, Ex. 1010). The Report was supposed to rebut the assertion that Morley
`
`anticipated claims 1-5.
`
`I understood claim 6 was not at issue. The sole point of
`
`difference I see in the Patent Owner’s Report is a statement in the Report that
`
`Morley does not disclose “a service type identifier which identifies a type of
`
`payload information” because the headers in Morley “merely specify whether data
`
`should be sent to the voice or data buffer.” (Report, 1] 61, Ex. 1010) I disagree.
`
`As the Report itself states, Morley’s “header identifies the ‘frame type,” which
`
`can include voice only, three different types of data (Data 0, Data 1, or Data 2), or
`
`some combination of these. Morley also describes the transmission of frames
`
`whose type alternates between voice frames and data frames.
`
`(Id. at 9143—109)
`
`The Morley reference discloses that the header type identifies the type of payload
`
`information (e.g., voice, data, or some combination of voice and data).
`
`39.
`
`The Report argues that Morley teaches away from the ‘568 patent by
`
`requiring the receiver to contain specialized subsystems for receiving voice, audio,
`
`and data. (Report at 1i 62, Ex. 1010) The Report suggests that this is a meaningful
`
`difference, but I see nothing in claim 1 that would require that the station cannot
`
`contain specialized subsystems for receiving voice, audio, and data. For example,
`
`claim 1 recites generally a “communication station,” a “processor" and a
`
`“transmitter.”
`
`ActiveUS 116131815v.1
`
`_ 14 _
`
`
`
`40.
`
`Further, I believe that the one portion of the ‘568 patent (Report at 1i
`
`62, fn.36, Ex. 1010) that is cited in the Report as teaching away from using
`
`specialized subsystems does not actually support that proposition.
`
`It reads:
`
`Accordingly, it would be desirable to provide 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 described above, while also providing
`
`sufficient compatibility with existing technology so that equipment used by
`
`the existing consumer base will not become obsolete.
`
`(‘568 patent at 2:56—64, Ex. 1001.)
`
`41.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the alt would not understand
`
`this section to exclude specialized subsystems for receiving voice, audio, and data,
`
`but would instead understand the cited language to simply address communicating
`
`different payloads at different data rates, such that when the type of payload is
`
`switched, the data rate is changed to reflect the new type of payload.
`
`42.
`
`The Report does not separately identify any additional differences
`
`between Morley and any of claims 2-5. (Report at ‘H 62, Ex. 1010).
`
`ActiveUS ilfilRlSlSvl
`
`_ 15 _
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Morley Renders Claims 5-6 Obvious
`
`43.
`
`Dependent claim 5 requires that the communication station be a base
`
`station, and dependent claim 6 requires that the communication station be a mobile
`
`station. If one were to disagree that the disclosure of GSM inherently includes a
`
`base station, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to provide the
`
`protocol of Morley in a base station, as required by claim 5. Morley discloses the
`
`desirability of sending frames having multiple different types of data, such as voice
`
`and visual data. Morley further discloses that it is useful to have frame headers for
`
`identifying the data to the recipient. Morley then discloses that the invention can
`
`have applications in radio communications, including GSM. (Morley, 99:40-46,
`
`Ex. 1002) Transmission to and from a base station are inherent in GSM
`
`communications.
`
`It was also generally well-known in the art that radio
`
`communications devices include base stations, and that such communications
`
`would be sent via base stations. Base stations have processors for assembling data
`
`including populating fields, and transmitters for sending data. (See Mouly and
`
`Pautet, pp. 89-99, Ex. 1008). Thus, in my opinion, it would have been obvious to
`
`multiplex data in the manner of Morley, e.g., at Figures Sa-Sg, and to transmit that
`
`data from a base station. Such transmission would be the application of the
`
`multiplexing technology of Morley with the suggestion of using GSM as disclosed
`
`by Morley, to a known use of base stations in a cellular system (an example of
`
`ActiveUS 116131815vl
`
`_ 16 _
`
`
`
`which is the Padovani patent, Ex. 1007, which shows sending different types of
`
`data from mobile station to base station and base station to mobile station). One
`
`would have provided such a protocol in order to indicate to a recipient what type of
`
`data was being sent.
`
`44.
`
`A person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to implement
`
`the protocol of Morley in a mobile station. Morley discloses using GSM, which
`
`“is a mobile data service that offers 9600 bps asynchronous data at the DTE port of
`
`the GSM mobile.” (Morley, 99:40-46, Ex. 1002) Morley further discloses that its
`
`multiplexing scheme has “applications in radio communications.” (161.) It would
`
`therefore have been obvious to one of skill in the art to use the techniques
`
`disclosed in Morley in a mobile station. Furthermore, Morley discloses the use of a
`
`PC, and it would have been obvious to provide as a mobile laptop.
`
`It would have
`
`been obvious to implement the protocol for multiplexing different types of data in
`
`a mobile device and providing an identifier, as is already suggested by Morley, and
`
`doing so would have been an obvious application of the technology of Morley with
`
`predictable results of allowing a mobile device to communicate different types of
`
`data while notifying a recipient of the type of data being sent.
`
`Ground 3: Sharma Anticipates Challenged Claims 1-4 and 6
`
`45.
`
`Ihave reviewed Sharma, US. Patent No. 5,500,859, entitled “Voice
`
`and Data Transmission System,” filed Aug. 1 l, 1994 as a divisional of US. Patent
`
`ActiveUS 116131815v1
`
`_ 17 _
`
`
`
`No. 5,452,289 filed on Jan. 8, 1993 (“‘Sharma”, Petition Ex. 1014.) Ibelieve Shanna
`
`enables the invention it describes.
`
`I believe Sharma discloses the limitations of claims
`
`1-4 and 6, and therefore anticipates claims 1-4 and 6.
`
`46.
`
`Sharma generally relates to computer assisted digital communications
`
`including data, fax, and digitized voice. (Id. at 1:10—12.) These are examples of the
`
`types of “services” identified in the ‘568 patent (see ‘568 patent, 2: 17-29, Ex.
`
`1001). Sharma discloses a packet protocol for communication over an RS232 link
`
`between a hardware component 20 and a personal computer (PC) 10 (Sharma,
`
`Figures 1 and 3, 5:63—6:22, 8:1-9:14, Ex. 1014). The protocol is used for
`
`transferring different types of information between the two devices such as the
`
`transfer of DATA, VOICE, and QUALIFIED information.
`
`(Id. at 18:46—22:30.)
`
`Each packet includes a synchronization character followed by an lD/Ll character
`
`that specifies the packet type (e.g., DATA, VOICE and QUALIFIED) and the
`
`packet length, which is followed by the information to be sent.
`
`(Id. at 19:9—66.)
`
`Table 3 (below) illustrates the data packet byte structure:
`
`TABLE 3
`
`Data Packet Byte Structure
`
`byte 1
`byte 2
`bytes 3-127
`
`=
`=
`=
`
`011) (sync byte)
`IDILI (ID byleflcngth indicator)
`data (depending on LI)
`
`
`
`(Id. at 19:66 — 20:14.)
`
`ActiveUS llfilRlSlSvJ
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`Table 7 (below) shows the voice packet byte structure:
`
`TABLE 7
`
`Voice Packet Byte Structure
`
`LI (length indicator) a 0
`23 bytes of data
`
`01
`
`III-W ..... l-l
`
`"""
`
`(Idat 20:45-65.)
`
`Table 9 (below) shows the byte structure of the qualified packet:
`
`TABLE 9
`
`Qualifier Packet Byte 5mm
`
`l-l-I-Illlfil :1 l-
`
`(Id. at 21 :8-32.)
`
`47.
`
`Table 11 fiirther identifies service type identifiers for video and also
`
`streaming audio, video, and data. (Id. at 21:59-22:l 1).
`
`48.
`
`Sharma discloses the limitations of claim 1. Sharma discloses a
`
`communication station.
`
`(Id. at Figures 1 and 3, 5:63—6:22, 811—9114, Ex. 1004)
`
`Shanna further discloses a personal computer 10 that inherently includes a
`
`processor to execute software and that constructs the packets with data that can
`
`contain data, voice, or qualified data. (Id. at 18:42—22:30) Each packet includes a
`
`synchronization character followed by an lD/LI (a service type identifier) that
`
`specifies the packet (service) type (e.g., DATA, VOICE and QUALIFIED) and the
`
`packet length, which is followed by the information to be sent (i.e., the payload)-
`
`ActiveUS 116131815v1
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`(Id.) Sharma discloses an R3232 interface, and therefore one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have also understood Shanna to inherently disclose a transmitter for
`
`transmitting “at least one first field” and “at least one second field” on the R3232
`
`serial interface. (See id. at Figure 3, 8:1—9:l4).
`
`49.
`
`Sharma’s hardware component 20 includes DSPs 306 and 311 and
`
`other processing hardware.
`
`(Id. at Fig. 3; 2:5 1 -5 6). The hardware component 20
`
`and PC 10 operate in both directions, so operation of either of these devices would
`
`anticipate the claims.
`
`(Id. at 18:46-57).
`
`50.
`
`Dependent claims 2-4, as set out above, recite that the payload
`
`information can include one of video, voice, data; multimedia information; and that
`
`the packet types (and therefore the contents of the payload and the associated type
`
`identifier field) can be changed during a connection. Shanna discloses the
`
`limitations of dependent claims 2-4 because Sharma discloses transmitting data,
`
`voice or qualified packets, as well as future extensions for video data or voice
`
`compression algorithm packets such as Codebook Excited Linear Predictive
`
`Coding (CELP) algorithm, GSM, RPE, VSELP, etc. (Id. at 18:43—22:30). Sharma
`
`discloses that the protocol allows mixing of different types of information into the
`
`data stream without having to physically switch modes of operation.
`
`(Id. at 18:58-
`
`64) Sharma therefore discloses changing the service type identifier to reflect the
`
`type of payload information during transmission.
`
`ActiveUS 116131815v.1
`
`_ 20 _
`
`
`
`51.
`
`Shanna discloses the subject matter of claim 4 (multi—media
`
`information). Sharma also discloses a “multi-media mail” function and a “show-
`
`and—tell” function, each of which allows multiple types of media to be sent, e.g.,
`
`voice and graphics in a “combined package” or in a coordinated manner
`
`simultaneously. (Shanna, 2:21-26; 7:26-47; 11:23-35; 11:54-12:22).
`
`52. Dependent claim 6 recites that the communication station is a mobile
`
`station. Sharma discloses that its system can be used with cellular technology, and
`
`that it provides a user with a “complete range of telecommunications functions of a
`
`modern office, be it stationary or mobile.” (Sharma, 3:46-57.) These references to
`
`cellular technology thus disclose the Sharma system in mobile devices.
`
`Ground 4: Sharma Renders Claims 5-6 Obvious
`
`53.
`
`Dependent claim 5 recites that the communication station is a base
`
`station, and claim 6 recites that the communication system is a mobile station. A
`
`person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to implement a protocol such
`
`as that in Sharma (Sharma, 18:42-22:57, Ex. 1004), with different types of data in
`
`payload fields and a field such as lD/Ll for identifying the service type, in either a
`
`base station and/or a mobile station. Both base stations and mobile stations can
`
`have a need to send different types of data, and providing data with a protocol that
`
`has a payload and an identifier of that type of payload would be an obvious use of
`
`ActiveUS 116131815v.l
`
`_ 21 _
`
`
`
`the technology in a mobile or base station. and would produce the predictable result
`
`of providing service type information to a recipient of the data.
`
`54.
`
`Sharma discloses that the system could be used with cellular or
`
`satellite systems, and could be used as a mobile office (Id. at 3:32—57; 22:32-56),
`
`and therefore base stations could also receive and transmit such data. Further,
`
`Shanna discloses allowing for additional types of packets such as GSM packets.
`
`(Id. at 3:37—57; 19: 9—17; 22: 32—57). It was well—known that such GSM radio
`
`communications devices include base stations and mobile stations; Padovani (Ex.
`
`1007) provides one example of how data of different types is sent from mobile
`
`station to base station, and from base station to mobile station. It therefore would
`
`have been obvious to one of skill in the art provide Sharma’s communication
`
`protocol in a base station or in a mobile station, and doing so would have been
`
`nothing more than the use of a known element yielding predictable results.
`
`Ground 5: Menand Anticipates Challenged Claims 1-6
`
`55.
`
`l have reviewed Menand et al., US. Patent No. 5,548,532, entitled
`
`“Apparatus and Method for Formulating an Interactive TV Signal,” filed Apr. 28,
`
`1994 (“Menand”, Petition Ex. 1004.)
`
`I believe that Menard enables the invention
`
`it describes.
`
`I believe that Menand discloses the limitations of claims 1-6, and
`
`therefore it anticipates claims 1—6.
`
`ActiveUS 116131815v.l
`
`_ 22 _
`
`
`
`56. Menand is generally related to formatting executable codes and data,
`
`defining interactive applications, with video and audio program material. (Menand
`
`Abstract, Ex. 1004.) The audio and video (AN) programs are segmented into
`
`transmission or transport packets, with audio transport packets identified by a first
`
`service identifier SCIDM, video transport packets identified by a second service
`
`identifier SCIDVi, and code/data transport packets identified by a third service
`
`identifier SCIDDi.
`
`(Id. at 1:32—45.) Figure 11 (below) illustrates an exemplary
`
`form of the AVI packets:
`
`PAKET
`PREFIX
`
`TRANSPORT BLOCK - 128 BYTES
`
`:
`2 BYTES
`' i .............
`EIII— "
`
`Menand discloses that the packet prefix includes a twelve—bit field for the SCID.
`
`(Id. at 6:51-53.) The program controller of Menand assigns “respective SCID’s
`
`for respective audio, video and interactive components of respective programs.”
`
`(Id. at 2:49-51.)
`
`57. Menand discloses the limitations of claim 1. Menand discloses a
`
`communication station composing a signal to be transmitted that includes, for
`
`example, video, audio, and interactive signals components. (Menand, Figure 1,
`
`2:28—4:38, 7:35—53, Ex. 1005)
`
`ActiveUS 116131815v1
`
`_ 23 _
`
`
`
`58. Menand discloses a processor in the form of a program controller
`
`(e.g., including program control 5, data packet former 14, video packet former 19,
`
`audio packet former 22, audio packet former 25, packet mux 16, Figure 1) that
`
`constructs AVI packets with a transport block that can contain audio, video, or
`
`interactive components (i.e., payload). (Id) A program controller 20 is shown in
`
`Figure l as a laptop. Each AVI packet includes a packet prefix with an SCID (a
`
`service type identifier) that can be used to indicate whether the transport block of
`
`the AV! packet contains audio, video, or interactive components (payload).
`
`(Id. at
`
`Figures 1, 3, 4, and 10-1 1, 1:28-52, 2:28-67). Menand thus discloses transmitting
`
`“at least one first field” with a payload and “at least one second field” with a
`
`service type identifier for identifying the type of payload as claimed. Menard
`
`discloses a transmitter (modem) for transmitting these fields.
`
`(Id. at Figure l,
`
`2:28—45).
`
`59.
`
`Dependent claims 2—4, as set out above, recite that the payload
`
`information can include video, voice, data, and multimedia information, and that
`
`the packet types (and therefore the contents of the