DOCKET NO: 0111168-0241
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT:
`
`
`
`6,424,625
`
`INVENTOR:
`FILED:
`
`
`Larsson, P. et al.
`October 29, 1998
`
`
`
`
`
`ISSUED:
`
`July 23, 2002
`
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DISCARDING PACKETS
`TITLE:
`IN A DATA NETWORK HAVING AUTOMATIC REPEAT REQUEST
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`REPLY 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. 6,424,625 as Exhibit 1004. My background is
`
`described in that Declaration.
`
`2.
`
` I have been asked for my opinions on certain issues relating to a
`
`Patent Owner’s Response by Ericsson Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, which I have
`
`reviewed.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Broadcom v. Ericsson
`IPR2013-00636
`Broadcom 1022
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT:
`
`
`
`6,424,625
`
`INVENTOR:
`FILED:
`
`
`Larsson, P. et al.
`October 29, 1998
`
`
`
`
`
`ISSUED:
`
`July 23, 2002
`
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DISCARDING PACKETS
`TITLE:
`IN A DATA NETWORK HAVING AUTOMATIC REPEAT REQUEST
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`REPLY 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. 6,424,625 as Exhibit 1004. My background is
`
`described in that Declaration.
`
`2.
`
` I have been asked for my opinions on certain issues relating to a
`
`Patent Owner’s Response by Ericsson Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.120, which I have
`
`reviewed.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Broadcom v. Ericsson
`IPR2013-00636
`Broadcom 1022
`
`
`
`
`
`Garrabrant Anticipates Claim 1 of the ‘625 Patent
`
`3.
`
`In my original declaration, I explained why Garrabrant anticipates
`
`claim 1 of the ‘625 patent. Below I provide an additional discussion of Garrabrant
`
`in reply to Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`4.
`
`Owner argues that none of the commands listed in Garrabrant relate to
`
`commanding to receive. Response at 26. The list of commands are general types,
`
`such as “RR” for flow and “RNR” for control. A transmitter could use, for
`
`example, a control message (RNR) to send a “lost” message that commands the
`
`receiver to receive the next packet and move the receive window.
`
`Hettich Anticipates Claim 1 of the ‘625 Patent
`
`5.
`
`In my original declaration, I explained why Hettich anticipates claim
`
`1 of the ‘625 patent. Below I provide an additional discussion of Hettich in reply
`
`to Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`6.
`
`The DELAY N command tells the receiver to release any expectation
`
`of receiving unacknowledged packet N (and any of N-1, N-2, etc)., and to start
`
`receiving packets beginning with N+1. Therefore it would make sense for the
`
`transmitter to send the DELAY N command and then send packet N+1. At a
`
`minimum, Hettich implicitly discloses (and certainly does not preclude) sending
`
`N+1 as the next packet and thus discloses the method step of claim 1. I believe a
`
`person of ordinary skill would understand that Hettich implicitly teaches various
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`combinations of scenarios of missing packets, such as one discarded packet,
`
`multiple discarded packets, and packets sent in different orders.
`
`7.
`
`Hettich discloses “discarding” as claimed in claim 1 of the ‘625
`
`patent. In the example of Figure 12 of the ‘625 patent, all packets between DSN
`
`and BSN are discarded, and a subsequent packet with RBEP=TRUE tells the
`
`receiver to move its window forward. (See ‘625 patent, Fig. 10B; Ex. 1001). In
`
`like manner, Hettich discloses that the transmitter discards cells (packets) because
`
`a timer in the transmitter has expired. (Hettich at §5.2.3; Ex. 1007) Then Hettich
`
`sends a DELAY PDU to inform the receiver that cells have been discarded.
`
`(Hettich, §5.2.4; Ex. 1007). After this discarding of cells has occurred, A DELAY
`
`PDU command with RN = BSN or BSN-1 (to use the terminology of the ‘625
`
`patent) is sent from the transmitter to the receiver, causing the receiver to “stop
`
`waiting for cells where the following applies for the number: N <= RN. It then
`
`shifts the window and issues a corresponding acknowledgement.” (Hettich, p. 35;
`
`Ex. 1007). This step anticipates the “commanding” step as required by claim 1 of
`
`the ‘625 patent.
`
`8. While it is possible that the transmitter may contain non-discarded
`
`cells having sequence numbers between the DELAY SN and the next received
`
`packet, Hettich implicitly discloses that the transmitter can send DELAY N in
`
`order to start sending the next packet at N+1. Furthermore, as long as the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`transmitter discards packets meeting the claimed conditions (“all packets for which
`
`acknowledgement has not been received, and which have sequence numbers prior
`
`to the at least one packet”), the discarding step of claim 1 is met whether or not the
`
`transmitter discards or does not discard other packets as well. Hettich states that
`
`sending a DELAY command with SN means “SN is the highest number of all the
`
`discarded cells.”
`
`Walke Renders Claim 1 of the ‘625 Patent Obvious
`
`9.
`
`In my original declaration, I explained why Walke renders claim 1 of
`
`the ‘625 patent obvious. Below I provide an additional discussion of Walke in
`
`reply to Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`10. Walke’s Delay command is not just a command to “ignore.” Delay
`
`(n, m) commands the receiver to receive packet #n and to ignore packet #m (i.e., it
`
`“releases expectations” of receiving #m).
`
`11. Walke is not limited to “releasing expectations” only for packets with
`
`the specific numbers in the example in Walke where the transmitter sends Delay
`
`(4, 1). Walke would also release expectations where the release causes a next
`
`packet to be sent just after the released one, and therefore non-consecutive with a
`
`previously received packet. For example, if packet #3 was discarded and the next
`
`packet to be sent was #4, Walke could send Delay (4,3), and the packet
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`commanded to be received (#4) would be non-consecutive with a previously
`
`received packet (e.g., #2).
`
`12. Patent Owner says that “Broadcom’s DELAY (n, n-1) scenario
`
`applied to claim 9 would reduce the throughput of the system, and therefore would
`
`not be suggested by Walke.” Response at 51. This statement seems to suggest that
`
`the delay (n, n-1) scenario means that Walke must be made to operate always in a
`
`manner where the next packet was one sequence number after the previously
`
`received one. This misses the point, which is that a person of ordinary skill
`
`reading Walke would understand that it discloses this possibility, along with any
`
`other possibilities. The ‘625 patent also envisions scenarios in which there are no
`
`packets waiting to be sent. For example, dependent claim 8 of the ‘625 patent
`
`assumes there will be such cases. I believe a person of ordinary skill would
`
`similarly assume that Walke could operate in situations with no packets are waiting
`
`to be sent, one packet, or multiple packets waiting to be sent.
`
`13. Furthermore, the principles taught by Walke could be used in a Stop-
`
`and-Wait type of system, in which packets are sent and acknowledged one at a
`
`time. While Stop-and-Wait systems are not as efficient, they were well-known in
`
`the art, as indicated in the background of the ‘625 patent (‘625 patent at 1:23, Ex.
`
`1001), and in Hettich at Section 5.1.1. While this Stop-and-Wait approach is less
`
`efficient than selective reject, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`in the art that the concept of Walke of allowing cells to be discarded in an ARQ
`
`system could be applied to Stop-and-Wait. Even the ‘625 patent acknowledges at
`9:64-67 (Ex. 1001):
`
`Those skilled in the art will also recognize that the
`principles described above with respect to the various
`embodiments of the invention can be applied to Stop-
`and-Wait ARQ schemes.
`
`The “principles described above” refer to the ability to discard in an ARQ system.
`
`Similarly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know, given the teaching of a
`
`discard scheme in Walke, how to apply that teaching to Stop-and-Wait. In such a
`
`case, it could therefore include a Delay (n, n-1) type of message to tell the receiver
`
`to not expect a discarded packet #(n-1), and to receive packet #n.
`
`
`
`Availability for Cross-Examination
`
`14.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Right to Supplement
`
`15.
`
`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.
`
`Jurat
`
`16.
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
