`
`____________________
`
`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