UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`v.
`WI-FI ONE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`Case IPR2013-00602
`U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568
`___________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION
`
`TO MOTION TO AMEND U.S. PATENT NO. 6,466,568
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`v.
`WI-FI ONE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`Case IPR2013-00602
`U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568
`___________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION
`
`TO MOTION TO AMEND U.S. PATENT NO. 6,466,568
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Exhibits for IPR2013-00602 for U.S. Pat. No. 6,466,568
`
`NO.
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
`
`Exhibit 2001 PO’s for Production
`Exhibit 2002 Texas D-Link Complaint
`Exhibit 2003 Texas D-Link Amended Complaint
`
`Exhibit 2004 Texas D-Link Docket
`Exhibit 2005 Form 10-Q SEC Filing
`Exhibit 2006 Texas D-Link Intervention
`Exhibit 2007 E-mail String 06-04-10
`Exhibit 2008 E-mail String 12-09-13
`Exhibit 2009 EC Complaint
`Exhibit 2010 Letter from Ayers to Massa 11-15-13
`Exhibit 2011 Letter from Massa to Ayers 11-25-13
`Exhibit 2012 E-mail String 11-12-13
`Exhibit 2013 E-mail String 11-13-13
`Exhibit 2014 Texas D-Link Docket December 2013
`Exhibit 2015 Texas D-Link Amended Disclosures
`Exhibit 2016 Texas D-Link Order
`Motion of Broadcom for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Ericsson v.
`D-Link
`Exhibit 2017
`Exhibit 2018 Final Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 54(b)
`Exhibit 2019 Blacks Law Dictionary 9th Ed. (definition of privity)
`Declaration of Robert Akl D.Sc. in support of Patent Owner’s
`Response
`
`Exhibit 2020
`
`ii
`
`
`
`NO.
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
`
`Declaration of Robert Akl D.Sc. in support of Patent Owner’s
`Motion to Amend
`Exhibit 2021
`Exhibit 2022 Application No. 8/725,643 filed on Oct. 15, 1996
`Exhibit 2023 Raychaudhuri Article
`Exhibit 2024 Wagner, et al. US Patent No. 5,761,292
`Exhibit 2025 Deposition Transcript of Harry Bims, Ph.D. (October 17, 2014)
`Reply Declaration of Robert Akl, D.Sc., in Support of
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend
`
`Exhibit 2026
`
`iii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`The proposed amendment “service type identifier which identifies
`transmission characteristics of a service and a type of payload
`information” is supported by the ’568 patent.
`
` “[T]he 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 pat. at 9:29-32.) Even Broadcom admits
`
`that the ’568 patent “supports identifying channel coding in addition to the
`
`contents of the payload.” (Paper No. 47 at 5.) Both interleaving and channel
`
`coding are transmission characteristics. (Akl Dec. (Ex. 2026) ¶ 10; Akl Tr. (Ex.
`
`1022) at 42:19-24; 50:15-18; 65:3-11;’568 pat. at 9:64-10:3.) Undoubtedly, the
`
`FOC field can convey both information type and transmission characteristics and
`
`can be used for processing by knowing transmission characteristics such as the
`
`channel coding rate:
`
`FOC may provide information 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. The
`information can be used by the receiving equipment to aid in the
`processing the information conveyed in the payload, e.g., by knowing
`the channel coding rate.
`(’568 pat. at 3:11-22.) Because the information conveyed does not reflect channel
`
`coding rate (’568 pat. at 9:5-26; Akl Dec., ¶ 11), the service type identifier
`
`1
`
`
`
`identifies both transmission characteristics and a type of payload information just
`
`as in the proposed amendment.
`
`II. Morley does not anticipate claims 8-13 of the ’568 patent.
`
`Morley (Ex. 1002) discloses a header field that identifies the format of a
`
`multiplex frame to be transmitted. (Paper No. 38 at 10-11.) The format of the
`
`multiplex frame defines the amount, if any, of data and video frames included in
`
`the multiplex frame. (Akl Dec. ¶ 12.) Data in the multiplex frame is processed at
`
`14400 bps, the rate defined by the modem data rate (Morley, at 10:32-33), while
`
`voice data frames in the multiplex frame are processed at 6800 bps, the rate of the
`
`voice decoder (Morley, at 10:23-25 and 10:33-34.) The Morley header does not
`
`determine, nor affect, the rate of processing the data (Bims Tr. (Ex. 2025) at 89:5-
`
`17) or the voice frames (id. at 88:14-89:4) of a multiplex frame. (Akl Dec. ¶ 12.)
`
`Contrary to Broadcom’s contention (Paper No. 47 at 7), Morley does not
`
`disclose separate voice and data channels as different services. Morley “aims to
`
`provide an improved communication system for combining at least two types of data
`
`and sending a composite signal over a single physical channel.” (Morley 1:56-59.)
`
`The data and video of a multiplex frame are transmitted together as a single
`
`service, whose video and data processing rates are defined by the receiver, not the
`
`header in Morley. (Morley 4:38-44, 5:4-6, 39-51; Akl Dec. ¶ 13.) Morley
`
`discloses transmitting the voice and data as individual frames only as a multiplex
`
`2
`
`
`
`frame because the Morley header merely defines the format of the transmitted
`
`multiplex frame. (Akl Dec. ¶ 13.)
`
`III. Claims 8-13 of the ’568 patent are not rendered obvious by Morley in
`view of Raith.
`
`Broadcom erroneously contends that “Morley contemplates changing the
`
`format of the mux frame based on transmission characteristics.” (Paper No. 47 at
`
`8.) Morley discloses optimizing the structure of the multiplex frames according to
`
`“‘long term’ requirements of the application and protocol layers” and the structure
`
`“may change during the call.” (Morley at 5:60-65.) Both the fixed, invariant
`
`processing requirements of the transmitter and receiver, and the amount of data
`
`relative to voice frames to be transmitted – neither of which are transmission
`
`characteristics – are analyzed to determine the optimized structure of the multiplex
`
`frame to be transmitted. (Akl Dec. ¶ 14.)
`
` “[E]nsuring error free data” is critical in Morley. (Morley at 8:35.) “Due to
`
`the synchronous nature of voice, an error correction scheme using block
`
`retransmissions cannot be used.” (Morley at 8:18-21.) Broadcom concedes that
`
`“Morley does not expressly disclose using the header to separately indicate the
`
`type of error correction.” (Paper No. 47 at 8.)
`
`Raith (Ex. 1024) discloses modifying the channel coding based on error
`
`detection during transmission to obtain an optimal level of channel coding to
`
`reduce the “number of retransmissions to achieve the highest throughput.” (Raith
`
`3
`
`
`
`at 11:54-65.) Raith teaches that channel coding affects retransmissions, namely
`
`“when the degree of channel coding is increased, less retransmission is performed,
`
`but each slot carries less information data.” (Id. at 11:66-12:1.) To change the
`
`coding rate, Raith discloses an “out of band [] indication [that] is provided outside
`
`the field within which the variable channel coding type will be used.” (Id. at
`
`12:17-19.)
`
` In other words, Raith balances channel coding against
`
`the
`
`retransmissions of data to optimize throughput. (Akl Dec. ¶ 16.)
`
`Raith does not disclose a variable channel coding rate for different services.
`
`(Akl Dec. ¶ 17.) Assuming that Raith discloses embodiments for circuit-switched
`
`systems, connection packet-switched systems and connectionless packet-switched
`
`systems – which it does not – Raith does not disclose a variable channel rate for
`
`each of these different services. Rather, Raith optimizes the rate of retransmission
`
`of data against the error rate for data transmission. (Akl Dec. ¶X (citing 11:54-65).)
`
`The combination of Morley and Raith does not render obvious amended
`
`claims 8-13 for another reason. Broadcom cannot show a motivation to combine
`
`Raith with Morley. Morley does not disclose a programmable channel coding rate
`
`based on a received header. Additionally, Morley is directed toward an error-free
`
`data transmission. (Morley at 8:35.) Morley uses forward error correction or
`
`checksum features of voice coders and error correction of the multiplexer to
`
`transmit data error free. (Morley at 8:24-25; 8:34-36.) “Due to the synchronous
`
`4
`
`
`
`nature of voice, an error correction scheme using block transmissions cannot be
`
`used.” (Morley at 8:22-23.) Morley teaches away from combining with it any
`
`reference that requires retransmissions of data. Even an approach that reduces the
`
`number of retransmissions based on error correction cannot be combined with
`
`Morley because Morley precludes retransmissions of block data. (Morley 8:22-23;
`
`Akl Dec. ¶ 18.) Because Raith teaches balancing data retransmissions with
`
`channel coding to yield high throughput (Raith 11:54-65), there is no motivation to
`
`combine the retransmission feature of Raith with Morley. (Akl Dec. ¶ 18.)
`
`IV. Tiernan does not anticipate claims 8-13 of the ’568 patent.
`
`Tiernan discloses a message header to identify the type, but not the
`
`processing, of a message. “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; 13:43-50.)
`
` To
`
`the extent
`
`that Tiernan discloses
`
`transmission
`
`characteristics, it does so as part of the message and not the header. The “message
`
`is self-descriptive regarding the presentation layer processing that is required.”
`
`(Tiernan at 5:48-50.) Tiernan discloses a message having a header identifying a
`
`type of message and a message including embedded (or self-described)
`
`transmission characteristics. (Akl Dec., ¶X.) Because Tiernan does not disclose a
`
`field identifying both the type of information in the payload and transmission
`
`characteristics, Tiernan cannot anticipate proposed amended claim 8.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`LEE & HAYES PLLC
`
`
` /Peter J. Ayers/
`Peter J. Ayers, Reg. No. 38,374
`John Shumaker, Reg. No. 52,223
`LEE & HAYES, PLLC
`13809 Research Blvd., Suite 405
`Austin, TX 78750
`Phone: (512) 605-8162
`Fax: (509) 944-4693
`peter@leehayes.com
`jshumaker@leehayes.com
`
`J. Christopher Lynch, Reg. No. 34,216
`LEE & HAYES, PLLC
`601 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 1400
`Spokane, WA 99201
`Telephone: 509.324.9256
`Fax: 509.323.8979
`chris@leehayes.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Dated: November 3, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on November 3, 2014 the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
`
`AMEND U.S. Patent No. 6,466,568 was served on Lead and Back-up Counsel for
`
`Broadcom Corporation by sending the same via electronic mail to the address
`
`provided by Broadcom:
`
`Dominic E. Massa, Lead Counsel
`Michael A. Diener, Back-up Counsel
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`LEE & HAYES PLLC
`
` /Peter J. Ayers/
`Peter J. Ayers
`Reg. No. 38,374
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
