`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`DOCKET NO: 0111168-00241
`
`
`PATENT:
`
`
`
`6,466,568
`
`Alex Krister Raith,
`INVENTOR:
`James Ragsdale and John Diachina
`FILED:
`
`September 21, 1999
`
`
`
`
`
`ISSUED: October 15, 2002
`
`MULTI-RATE RADIOCOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS AND
`TERMINALS
`
`TITLE:
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`OPPOSITION DECLARATION OF HARRY BIMS, PH.D.
`
`
`
`I, Harry Bims, declare as follows:
`
`General Background
`
`1. My name is Harry Bims. I previously submitted a Declaration of
`
`Harry Bims, PhD, which I understand was filed with a Petition for Inter Parties
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568 as Exhibit 1009. My background is
`
`described in that Declaration.
`
`2.
`
` I have been asked for my opinions on certain issues relating to a
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568 Under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.121, which I have reviewed.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Broadcom v. Ericsson
`IPR2013-00602
`Broadcom 1026
`
`
`
`
`
`The ‘568 Patent
`
`3.
`
`Even if the ‘568 patent were to disclose a service type identifier that
`
`identifies more than just the “type of information” as alleged in Owner’s Motion to
`
`Amend, it only discloses identifying channel coding, not the broader “transmission
`
`characteristics of a service” as advocated by Owner. During prosecution, Owner
`
`cited to the following passage:
`
`[T]he 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. (’568 at
`9:27-32; Ex. 1001).
`Referring to this passage, Owner argued that “it is clear that the FOC field
`
`can provide information regarding three different aspects of the transmission,
`
`namely, 1) type of service, 2) channel coding, and 3) interleaving. These different
`
`aspects can be alternatives or they can all be indicated by the FOC field.” (Ex.
`
`1016 at 5). Interleaving is not a transmission characteristic, but just a way of
`
`rearranging data prior to transmission. Therefore the ‘568 patent only supports
`
`identifying channel coding in addition to the contents of the payload.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Morley Anticipates Amended Claims 8-13
`
`4.
`
`In my original Declaration I explained why Morley anticipated claims
`
`1-6 of the ‘568 patent. Below I provide an additional discussion of Morley in
`
`opposition to Patent Owner’s Amended Claims 8-13.
`
`5.
`
`Owner’s proposed claims 8-13 are invalid over Morley, which
`
`discloses an identifier that identifies a type of data in the payload and a
`
`transmission characteristic of the data. Morley discloses using a header to identify
`
`the type of information conveyed in the payload for the reasons set forth in my
`
`original Declaration. (Ex. 1009). In addition, Morley discloses identifying a
`
`transmission characteristic of the service because Morley discloses using the
`
`header to determine the rate – a transmission characteristic – at which to process
`
`the received data.
`
`Morley in view of Raith Renders Obvious Claims 8-13
`
`6. Morley discloses that the “format of the mux frame may need to
`
`change according to the particular characteristics of a call.” (Morley at 7:27-29;
`
`Ex. 1002). Morley discloses optimizing the structure of the multiplexer frames
`
`“according to ‘long term’ requirements of the application and protocol layers,”
`
`such as voice coder data rate and frame rate, and data bandwidth requirements.
`
`(Morley at 5:60-64; Ex. 1002). The ‘568 patent explains that bandwidth
`
`considerations are transmission characteristics. (‘568 patent at 2:41-42; Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Morley
`
`contemplates changing the format of the mux frame based on transmission
`
`characteristics, such as the voice coder data rate and frame rate, and data
`
`bandwidth requirements.
`
`7.
`
`Raith discloses using a field to identify the type of channel coding to
`
`support a variable channel coding rate. (Raith at 12:15-20; Ex. 1024). Raith
`
`discloses that if errors are detected for a transmission rate and the detected errors
`
`exceed a predetermined threshold level, the degree of channel coding can be
`
`changed for the transmission rate to achieve optimal channel coding. (Raith at
`
`11:54-59; Ex. 1024). To synchronize the base station and mobile station to
`
`changes in the type of channel coding, Raith discloses providing an indication of
`
`the type of channel coding that is being used. (Raith at 12:6-16; Ex. 1024).
`
`8.
`
`Therefore, Morley discloses using the header to identify the contents
`
`of a frame (voice and/or different types of data), and using different types of error
`
`protection for voice and data channels, and in view of Raith’s disclosure of
`
`supporting variable channel coding for different transmission rates it would have
`
`been obvious to modify the header in Morley to indicate different types of channel
`
`coding for the different voice and data channels.
`
`9.
`
`Raith discloses using a variable channel coding rate (Raith at 12:15-
`
`20; Ex. 1024) to transmit different services, such as voice channels, traffic
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`channels, paging/access channels and control channels (Raith at 2:28-31; Ex.
`
`1024). Morley discloses using frame types to indicate whether the contents of a
`
`frame include data from voice and/or different data channels. Morley also
`
`discloses a “Not Defined” frame type 3 that is “reserved for future expansion
`
`where more frame types may be required” (Morley at 7:23-25), and discloses
`
`optimizing the structure of the multiplexer frames “according to ‘long term’
`
`requirements of the application and protocol layers” (Morley at 5:60-64).
`
`10.
`
`It would have therefore been obvious to a person of skill in the art to
`
`use the frame types in Morley to indicate different channel coding rates in addition
`
`to the contents of the frame. Morley discloses using error protection to “ensure
`
`error free data to the protocol and application layers.” (Morley at 8:34-36; Ex.
`
`1002). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Morley with
`
`Raith to achieve the predictable result of improving error protection for Morley’s
`
`packet transmissions. Raith discloses that its variable channel coding technique “is
`
`useful in obtaining an optimal degree of channel coding by weighing the trade-offs
`
`between the amount of channel coding and the number of retransmissions to
`
`achieve the highest throughput.” (Raith at 11:60-65; Ex. 1024). Raith further
`
`discloses that “while the amount of information data is decreased, there is a higher
`
`probability that the information data is being correctly received.” (Raith at 12:1-5;
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1024). Therefore a person of skill in the art would have used Raith’s variable
`
`channel coding to improve error correction in Morley.
`
`11. Further, to the extent that the language “of a service” in claim 8 is
`
`interpreted to require identifying different transmission characteristics for different
`
`services, and Morley’s voice and data channels are not considered to be separate
`
`services, Raith discloses using a variable channel coding rate for different services.
`
`Raith discloses using a variable channel coding rate for services such as circuit-
`
`switched systems (e.g., TIA/EIA/IS-54-B and TIA/EIA/IS-136 systems),
`
`connection-oriented packet-switched systems (e.g., X.25 systems) and
`
`connectionless packet-switched systems (e.g., Internet Protocol systems). (Raith at
`
`6:44-45 and 55-58; Ex. 1024).. Raith further discloses using a variable channel
`
`coding rate for a number of different types of cellular systems such as TDMA
`
`cellular systems (e.g., GSM and Cellular Digital Packet Data (CDPD)), including
`
`those that route voice and/or data packets to a mobile station. (Raith 8:10-12; see
`
`also 7:55-58, 8:32-42 and 8:57-64; Ex. 1024). It would also have been obvious to
`
`a person of skill in the art to apply the known techniques in Morley to identify
`
`different types of known services.
`
`Tiernan Invalidates New Claims 8-13
`
`12. Tiernan discloses a packet-based communication system that includes
`
`an encoder (a processor) that generates an output stream and transmits it over the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`transmission path to a decoder. (Id. at 5:58-59 and 5:62-64; Ex. 1025). Tiernan
`
`discloses that the syntax of messages in the stream can vary depending on the type
`
`of elementary stream (e.g., video, audio, or VBI elementary streams). (Tiernan at
`
`5:42-43; Ex. 1025).. Tiernan therefore discloses a Message Type that identifies the
`
`type of message, such as:
`
`
`
`(Tiernan at 13:39-58; Ex. 1025). Tiernan discloses that the Message Type “acts as
`
`a selector for the Presentation Layer Entity needed to process the message (e.g.
`
`video, audio, VBI).” (Tiernan at 5:45-47; see also 13:29-32; Ex. 1025).
`
`13. Tiernan discloses that in addition to indicating the contents of the
`
`message (e.g., video, audio), the Message Type indicates presentation layer
`
`processing required for the message, such as MPEG2, ATM, or other transport
`
`services:
`
`To the extent that a message type is present in a Message,
`the Message is self-descriptive regarding the presentation
`layer processing that is required. Since it is possible in
`the future that PESs may be processed by transport
`services having a non-MPEG2 structure, such as ATM,
`and may even be processed in isolation from other
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`elementary streams, Messages should be self-descriptive
`With respect to presentation layer parameters, Where
`possible.
` (Tiernan at 5:48-55 (emphasis added); Ex. 1025).
`
`14. Tiernan therefore discloses an encoder (a processor) that generates
`
`and transmits messages that include a Message Type to identify the contents of the
`
`message (e.g., video, audio, or VBI) in addition to using such information to
`
`identify the transport service, such as MPEG2 or ATM, and/or other processing
`
`required for the message (i.e., “transmission characteristics”).
`
`15. Tiernan also discloses that different Message Types are used for
`
`different services. Generally, Tiernan defines “a universal messaging syntax
`
`applicable to all types of information, including Internet data streams, VBI data
`
`streams, other types of data streams, as well as MPEG2 video, audio, and control.”
`
`(Tiernan, Abstract; Ex. 1025). Tiernan discloses that the contents of a Message
`
`depend on the type of elementary stream, and that each message is therefore
`
`assigned a Message Type identifying the message syntax. (Tiernan at 5:42-45; Ex.
`
`).Ex. 1025). Tiernan discloses that each elementary stream can consist of “video
`
`and audio, as well as other data.” (Tiernan at 1:22-24; Ex. 1025). Tiernan
`
`discloses that each of the elementary streams may belong to “a single ‘Program’”
`
`or “many programs.” (Tiernan at 1:47-59; Ex. 1025). Tiernan further discloses
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`that each element stream is associated with a unique Data Channel that identifies
`
`an association between the source and a decoder. (Tiernan at 5:24-31; Ex. 1025).
`
`16. Dependent claim 12 recites that the communication station is a base
`
`station, and claim 13 recites that the communication station is a mobile station.
`
`(‘568 at 14:13-16; Ex. 1001). Tiernan discloses a packet-based communication
`
`system, and discloses that the transmission path between the encoder and decoder
`
`shown in FIG. 1 “can be any transmission facility, such as a fiber optic link or a
`
`satellite transmission uplink/downlink.” As set forth in my original declaration, it
`
`is well-known in the art that such satellite communications devices include base
`
`stations. (Bims Decl. at ¶ 76; Ex. 1009). It was known for computer systems to
`
`format, arrange, and send audio, video, and data, and known that such systems
`
`could be mobile, such as with laptop computers. (Bims Decl. at ¶ 77; Ex. 1009).
`
`17.
`
`It would have been obvious to provide a protocol for sending voice,
`
`video, and data to a mobile station, as a mobile station could create multiple types
`
`of content to be sent, and therefore it would have been obvious to provide the
`
`ability to identify what type of data was included in a packet to allow the packet to
`
`be processed appropriately. As I explained in my original declaration, this would
`
`be the use of a known technique (of providing payloads and identifiers) applied to
`
`a known type of device (mobile) to yield the predictable result of allowing the
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`mobile to send content and identify the packets that make up the content. (Bims
`
`Decl. at ¶ 77; Ex. 1009).
`
`Availability for Cross-Examination
`
`18.
`
`In signing this declaration, I recognize that the declaration will be
`
`filed as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I also recognize that I may be
`
`subject to cross examination in the case and that cross examination will take place
`
`within the United States. If cross examination is required of me, I will appear for
`
`cross examination within the United States during the time allotted for cross
`
`examination.
`
`Right to Supplement
`
`19.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement my opinions in the future to respond
`
`to any arguments that Patentee raises and to take into account new information as it
`
`becomes available to me.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Jurat
`
`20.
`
`I 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.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 1, 2014
`
`_________________________________
`Harry Bims
`
`
`
`11
`
`