EXHIBIT 2028EXHIBIT 2028
`
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLCBroadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`
`IPR2013-00636IPR2013-00636
`
`Exhibit 2028Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLCBroadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`
`IPR2013-00636IPR2013-00636
`
`Exhibit 2028Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`Volume I
`
`Pages 1 to 169
`Exhibits (See Index)
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE
`
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`Case IPR 2013-00601
`Case IPR 2013-00602
`Case IPR 2013-00636
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L.M. ERICSSON,
`Patent Owner.
`
`DEPOSITION OF HARRY V. BIMS, a witness called by
`
`counsel for the Patent Owner,
`
`taken pursuant to the
`
`applicable rules, before Diane L. McElwee, RPR, CM,
`
`Certified shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and
`
`for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at the Offices
`
`of WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP,
`
`60 State Street, Boston, Massachusetts, on Thursday,
`
`May 29, 2014, commencing at 9:10 AM.
`
`(617) 423-5841
`COPLEY COURT REPORTING
`
`0R|G|NAL
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`REDIRECT
`CROSS
`DIRECT
`WITNESS:
`
`
`RECROSS
`
`HARRY V. BIMS
`
`by Mr. Shumaker
`
`E X H I B I T S
`
`No.
`
`1001-636
`
`1002-636
`1006-636
`
`Paper 3-636
`
`Copy of the 625 patent
`Copy of Garrabrant patent
`Bims Declaration
`Petition for Inter Partes
`
`1007-636
`
`1008-636
`
`Paper 3-601
`
`1001-601
`
`1002-601
`1004-601
`
`1001-602
`1002-602
`1006-602
`1009-602
`
`Paper 2-602
`
`Review from Broadcom
`English translation of Hettich
`diploma paper
`German to English translation of
`the Walke reference
`Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of US Patent 6,772,215
`
`Copy of 215 patent with Bela
`Rathonyi as first inventor
`Copy of Seo U.S. Patent 6,581,176
`Bims Declaration
`
`Copy of Raith 568 patent
`Copy of Morley 610 patent
`Copy of Adams 662 patent
`Bims Declaration
`Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of US Patent 6,466,568
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`PRESENT:
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP
`60 State St.
`
`Boston, MA 02109
`by Dominic E. Massa, Esq.
`and Michael A. Diener,
`Esq.
`for the Petitioner
`
`LEE & HAYES, PLLC
`13809 Research Blvd.,
`
`Austin, TX 78750
`by John Shumaker, Esq.
`for the Patent Owner
`
`Suite 405
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`HARRY V. BIMS, a witness identified and sworn,
`
`was examined and testified as follows:
`
`DIRECT EXAMINATION
`
`BY MR. SHUMAKER:
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`record.
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Good morning.
`
`Good morning.
`
`Could you please state your name for the
`
`Harry Bims.
`
`Doctor Bims, how much have you been
`
`compensated for your time in this case?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`650 per hour.
`
`About how many hours have you worked on the
`
`case so far?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Roughly 120 hours.
`
`What is your normal consulting rate?
`
`650 per hour.
`
`How many times have you been deposed?
`
`Maybe 20 times.
`
`So since you have been deposed a few times,
`
`you probably remember the rules of a deposition, but
`
`I will ask the questions and you answer
`just, one,
`
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`the questions. Your attorney will object of course
`
`when needed.
`
`If the question doesn't make any sense,
`
`I will try to fill in the gaps, and hopefully the
`
`questions thereafter will make sense.
`
`If they don't,
`
`your attorney will object and we will work through
`
`that.
`
`The other thing is, you can take a
`
`break whenever you want.
`
`Just don't take a break in
`
`the middle of a question unless of course the
`
`question involves attorney—client privilege
`
`information that you need to discuss with your
`
`attorney.
`
`First,
`
`I would like to start off with
`
`discussing the 625 patent. Let me give you some
`
`exhibits to make this simpler. Here is a copy of the
`
`625 patent.
`
`The 625 patent will be referred to as
`
`Exhibit 1 of the 636 case.
`
`I am sorry.
`
`I meant to
`
`say 1001 of the 636 case, not Exhibit 1.
`
`(Exhibit 1001-636 marked for
`
`identification)
`
`MR. SHUMAKER: And here is 1002 of
`
`the 636 case.
`
`(Exhibit 1002-636 marked for
`
`identification)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`Q
`
`Doctor Bims,
`
`throughout this deposition when
`
`I refer to the Garrabrant patent,
`
`I am referring to
`
`Exhibit 1002 of the 636 patent, but to make things
`
`simpler,
`
`I will just refer to that patent as the
`
`Garrabrant patent through this deposition,
`
`is that
`
`okay?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes.
`
`Likewise, with the Larsson patent,
`
`the 625
`
`patent, which is Exhibit 1001 of the 636 case,
`
`I will
`
`refer to that patent as the Larsson patent or the 625
`
`patent,
`
`is that okay?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes.
`
`Doctor Bims,
`
`I would like to direct your
`
`attention to the Garrabrant patent.
`
`Do you contend
`
`that the Garrabrant patent discloses a command to
`
`cause a receiver to receive an out-of—order packet?
`
`A
`
`With respect to the Garrabrant patent,
`
`I
`
`believe in my declaration I have listed various
`
`opinions regarding the anticipation of the 625 patent
`
`by Garrabrant.
`
`MR. SHUMAKER:
`
`1006 exhibit.
`
`(Exhibit 1006-636 marked for
`
`identification)
`
`Doctor Bims, when you refer to your expert
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`declaration,
`
`I am handing you Exhibit 1006 of the 636
`
`case.
`
`Is this your declaration you referred to?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes.
`
`And throughout this deposition when I refer
`
`to the Bims declaration, Exhibit 1006 of the 636
`
`case,
`
`I will refer to that either as the Bims
`
`declaration in the 636 case or the Bims declaration
`
`for the 625 patent,
`
`is that okay?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes.
`
`So, Doctor Bims,
`
`looking at your report, do
`
`you contend that Garrabrant discloses a command to
`
`cause a receiver to receive an out—of—order packet?
`
`(Pause)
`
`A
`
`So as I have said in my declaration,
`
`Garrabrant discloses commanding a receiver in the
`
`data network to receive at least one packet having a
`
`sequence number that is not consecutive with a
`
`sequence number of a previously-received packet and
`
`release any expectation of receiving outstanding
`
`packets having sequence numbers prior to the at least
`
`one packet.
`
`Q
`
`What part of your declaration are you
`
`referring to?
`
`A
`
`This is the section relating to
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`
`
`Ground No. 2.
`
`Q
`
`What paragraph numbers in your declaration
`
`for Ground No. 2?
`
`MR. MASSA:
`
`Just to clarify
`
`something, counselor, when you marked 1006 I think
`
`you said it was his declaration.
`
`The copy of 1006
`
`you gave me is the petition.
`
`MR. SHUMAKER: Oh, okay.
`
`I
`
`apologize. Let's renumber.
`
`I apologize.
`
`Thank you
`
`for pointing that out.
`
`Doctor Bims, could I have that exhibit
`
`back, which is actually the petition. We will
`
`renumber that.
`
`This is actually Paper No.
`
`3 of 636.
`
`(Exhibit Paper 3-636 marked for
`
`identification)
`
`Q
`
`I am handing you a copy of the document
`
`that's a petition from Broadcom labeled Paper No.
`
`3
`
`of the 636 case, and now I hand you the declaration.
`
`I apologize.
`
`And so This is Exhibit 1006 of the 636
`
`(Exhibit 1006-636 remarked for
`
`identification)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`Q
`
`Doctor Bims,
`
`I am handing you Exhibit 1006
`
`for the 636 case, which is declaration of Harry Bims.
`
`Is Exhibit 1006 of the 636 case your declaration that
`
`you filed in the 636 case?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes.
`
`Now directing your attention to Bims
`
`declaration Exhibit 1006, which paragraph numbers of
`
`your declaration do you contend disclose or opine
`
`that Garrabrant discloses a command to cause a
`
`receiver to receive an out—of—order packet?
`
`A
`
`So on pages 18 through at least 23,
`
`I
`
`discuss Garrabrant and its anticipation of the 625
`
`patent, and within that section I talk about Claim 1
`
`in particular, and with respect to the Claim 1
`
`limitation of commanding a receiver in the data
`
`network to, A, receive at least one packet having a
`
`sequence number that is not consecutive with a
`
`sequence number of a previously received packet and,
`
`B, release any expectation of receiving outstanding
`
`packets having sequence numbers prior to the at least
`
`one packet.
`
`I go on to describe in Paragraphs 54
`
`through 57 Garrabrant anticipating that claim
`
`limitation.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`10
`
`Q
`
`And looking at Paragraphs 54 through 57 of
`
`the Bims declaration for the 625 patent in the 636
`
`case, where do you opine -— another question.
`
`Regarding that declaration, what is the
`
`command that you identify in Garrabrant that causes
`
`the receiver to receive at least one packet?
`
`A
`
`In the Garrabrant patent Garrabrant
`
`discusses a lost message.
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`What is a lost message?
`
`A lost message within Garrabrant is a
`
`message which causes the receiver to receive a
`
`nonconsecutive packet and to release expectations of
`
`receiving a discarded packet.
`
`Q
`
`Is a lost message received by the receiver
`
`in Garrabrant?
`
`A
`
`Yes, a lost message can be received by the
`
`receiver.
`
`Q
`
`And a lost message that you point to for
`
`Claim 1 limitation,
`
`is that lost message received by
`
`the receiver in Garrabrant?
`
`A
`
`Garrabrant does disclose that the lost
`
`message can be received by the receiver.
`
`Q
`
`If the lost message is not received by the
`
`receiver, would the lost message be considered a
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`ll
`
`
` A
`
`message commands the receiver upon receipt of the
`
`next received packet to do something?
`
`
`
`So what that means in this example is that
`
`the lost message commands the receiver to receive
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`command?
`
`A
`
`I have not considered that possibility.
`
`In
`
`my declaration I considered the possibility of the
`
`lost message being received by the receiver.
`
`Q
`
`I would like to direct your attention to
`
`Paragraph 50 of your declaration of the 636 case,
`
`the
`
`Bims declaration in the 636 case.
`
`So Paragraph 50 of
`
`the Bims declaration,
`
`I would like to direct your
`
`attention to the very last sentence which states
`
`that, The lost message is a command that commands the
`
`receiver that upon receipt of the next received
`
`packet,
`
`open paren,
`
`which is nonconsecutive with
`
`previously received Packet No. 1, closed paren, it
`
`should move its rejection window forward and not
`
`expect to receive Packets 2 through 6.
`
`Do you see that?
`
`Yes.
`
`Is that statement correct?
`
`Yes.
`
`What do you mean when you say that the lost
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`12
`
`Packet No. 7.
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`In your example what is the lost message?
`
`So the lost message is a message that
`
`contains the lost command.
`
`Q
`
`In your example is the lost message Packet
`
`No. 7?
`
`A
`
`In my example or in this example from
`
`Garrabrant the lost message is attached to Packet No.
`
`7.
`
`Q
`
`What is the form of the lost message
`
`attached to Packet No.
`
`7 in Garrabrant?
`
`A
`
`So Garrabrant simply discloses that the lost
`
`message is part of Packet No. 7.
`
`Q
`
`In your opinion does Garrabrant disclose
`
`anything else about the lost message other than the
`
`lost message is part of Packet No. 7?
`
`A
`
`There is a description in Column 10 of the
`
`Garrabrant patent which describes the lost message
`
`and how it's used in one embodiment.
`
`Q
`
`Does Garrabrant disclose the form of the
`
`lost message?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`What do you mean by "form"?
`
`How is the lost message a part of Packet No.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`13
`
`A
`
`The lost message is simply part of Packet --
`
`not necessarily part of Packet No.
`
`7 but
`
`included
`
`along with Packet No.
`
`7 in the transition from the
`
`source unit to the destination unit.
`
`Q
`
`So is the lost message included with Packet
`
`No. 7, or is it part of Packet No. 7?
`
`A
`
`It's included in the transmission from the
`
`source unit to the destination unit of Packet No. 7.
`
`Included in that transmission is also a lost message.
`
`Q
`
`What do you mean "included in that
`
`transmission"?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`NO. 7?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`They arrive together at the receiver.
`
`"They" meaning the lost message and Packet
`
`Yes.
`
`How does the receiver discriminate between a
`
`lost message and Packet No. 7?
`
`A
`
`Garrabrant does not go into details about
`
`how to discriminate between the two, but it would be
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill how to do that.
`
`Q
`
`How would one of ordinary skill in your
`
`opinion discriminate between a lost message and
`
`Packet No. 7?
`
`A
`
`Well, since the lost message is included in
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`14
`
`the transmission along with Packet No. 7,
`
`the
`
`receiver would be able to distinguish Packet No.
`
`7
`
`and the lost message separately in the transmission.
`
`Q
`
`How would the receiver be able to
`
`distinguish the message from Packet No. 7?
`
`A Well,
`
`that could happen in a number of ways.
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`Is that disclosed in Garrabrant?
`
`Garrabrant doesn't have to go into those
`
`details.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand how to do that.
`
`Q
`
`so what would a lost message look like to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art?
`
`A
`
`So a lost message would look like what's
`
`described in Column 10 of the Garrabrant patent.
`
`Q
`
`What described Column 10 would describe a
`
`lost message in the Garrabrant patent?
`
`A
`
`So in Column 10 it says that the rejection
`
`window is updated in response to the receipt of a
`
`lost message.
`
`Q
`
`What does that sentence tell you about the
`
`structure or form of the lost message?
`
`A
`
`What that says is that the lost message is
`
`understood by the receiver as a lost message and that
`
`the receiver in response to understanding a lost
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`15
`
`message makes an adjustment to its rejection window.
`
`Q
`
`When a receiver accepts a packet in
`
`Garrabrant with sequence numbers in a valid window,
`
`does the receiver always update its valid and
`
`rejection windows?
`
`A
`
`In this Column 10 portion of the
`
`specification that we have been discussing,
`
`the
`
`rejection window is updated in response to the
`
`receiver receiving a lost message.
`
`Q
`
`I would like you to turn to the petition,
`
`the 625 patent of this case, which is Paper No.
`
`3 of
`
`the 636 case.
`
`I would like you to turn to page 31 of
`
`that document, please.
`
`The first sentence on page 31 states,
`
`Garrabrant sends a lost message, open paren, a
`
`command, closed paren,
`
`followed by a new Packet
`
`No. 7, see that?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes.
`
`As a result of the receiver in Garrabrant
`
`receiving a lost message,
`
`in your opinion does the
`
`receiver update its receipt window?
`
`A
`
`As I have stated earlier,
`
`from the reading
`
`of Column 10 in the Garrabrant packet,
`
`the rejection
`
`window is updated in response to the receipt of a
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`16
`
`lost message.
`
`Q
`
`So looking in the first sentence of page 31
`
`of the petition for the 625 patent, when the receiver
`
`receives a lost message,
`
`the receiver would update
`
`its valid rejection windows;
`
`is that right?
`
`A
`
`The rejection window is updated upon receipt
`
`of the lost message, that's correct.
`
`Q
`
`And is the rejection window further updated
`
`in the receipt of new Packet No. 7?
`
`A
`
`If Packet No.
`
`7 is properly received,
`
`then
`
`the rejection window would advance if —— yes,
`
`the
`
`rejection window may not necessarily advance.
`
`Q
`
`So upon receipt of Packet No. 7,
`
`the
`
`rejection window may not advance;
`
`is that correct?
`
`A
`
`Upon receipt of Packet No. 7, it may or may
`
`not cause the rejection window to advance.
`
`Q
`
`In what situation would the rejection window
`
`advance?
`
`A
`
`So Column 10 of Garrabrant says,
`
`"When
`
`Packet 7 eventually arrives at the destination unit,
`
`it falls within the valid window 164 and is accepted
`
`by the destination unit.
`
`The destination unit then
`
`sets its internal sequence count to 8 as shown in
`
`Figure 8B and slides its valid window 164 to the
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`17
`
`position of valid window 174 shown in Figure 8B to
`
`
`
`allow Packets 8 through 23."
`
`
`
`Q
`
`And in what situations would the receipt of
`
`Packet No.
`
`7 in Garrabrant not cause the rejection
`
`window to move?
`
`A
`
`In Garrabrant Column 10,
`
`the Packet No.
`
`7
`
`has to arrive at the destination unit, fall within
`
`the valid window, and be accepted by the destination
`
`unit.
`
`If the destination unit does not accept Packet
`
`NO. 7,
`
`then in this reading of Column No.
`
`10 the
`
`condition for moving the rejection window would not
`
`be satisfied.
`
`Q
`
`But Garrabrant only discloses the acceptance
`
`of Packet No. 7,
`
`correct,
`
`in that example?
`
`A
`
`It discloses Packet No.
`
`7 arriving at the
`
`destination unit, falling within the valid window,
`
`and being accepted by the destination unit.
`
`Q
`
`Does Garrabrant also describe the lost
`
`message moving the rejection window separate and
`
`apart from the receipt and acceptance of Packet No.
`
`7
`
`moving the rejection window?
`
`A
`
`I don't recall the Garrabrant patent saying
`
`anything about Packet No.
`
`7 moving the rejection
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`window.
`
`
`In Column 10 Garrabrant does disclose the
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`18
`
`lost message,
`
`the receipt of the lost message causing
`
`an update to the rejection window.
`
`Q
`
`So is it your understanding that Garrabrant
`
`discloses that the receipt of the lost message
`
`updates the rejection window, but the receipt of
`
`Packet No.
`
`7 does not update the rejection window?
`
`A
`
`So in Column 10 the rejection window is
`
`updated by the response to the receipt of the lost
`
`message. When Packet No.
`
`7 arrives, falls within the
`
`valid window, and is accepted by the destination
`
`unit,
`
`then the valid window slides from the position
`
`in 164 to the position in 174.
`
`Q
`
`Does the receipt of Packet No.
`
`7 have any
`
`effect on the rejection window of the receiver?
`
`(Pause)
`
`A
`
`So what was the question again?
`
`(Record read)
`
`A
`
`In this Column 10 embodiment, what is stated
`
`about Packet No.
`
`7 is that the valid window 164
`
`slides to Position 174.
`
`Q
`
`When the lost packet is received in
`
`Garrabrant, how much does the valid window slide?
`
`A
`
`When the lost message is received as
`
`described in Column 10 of Garrabrant,
`
`the rejection
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`19
`
`window is updated.
`
`Q
`
`And how is that rejection window updated in
`
`response to the receipt of the lost message in
`
`Garrabrant?
`
`A
`
`So Figure 8B shows a schematic diagram of a
`
`rejection window at the destination unit after the
`
`rejection window is updated in response to the
`
`receipt of a lost message.
`
`Q
`
`Does Figure 8B show the updating of a
`
`rejection window in response to receipt of Packet
`
`No. 7?
`
`A
`
`Figure 8B shows the position of valid window
`
`174 after Packet No.
`
`7 has arrived at the destination
`
`unit, falls within valid window 164, and is accepted
`
`at the destination unit.
`
`Q
`
`Does Figure 8B also show the rejection
`
`window 170?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Figure 8B does show rejection window 170.
`
`When the valid window 174 moves, does the
`
`rejection window 170 also move accordingly?
`
`A
`
`In Figure 8A the valid window and rejection
`
`window are shown.
`
`In Figure 8B the valid window and
`
`rejection window are shown after the receipt of the
`
`lost message and Packet No. 7. And what Figure 8B
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`shows relative to Figure 8A is that the rejection
`
`window and the valid window have been updated to a
`
`new position.
`
`Q
`
`In Garrabrant can the valid window be
`
`updated without updating the rejection window?
`
`A
`
`Whether or not that's possible,
`
`I don't
`
`know. What Column 10 describes is what happens
`
`when
`
`a lost message and Packet No.
`
`7 are received at the
`
`receiver, what happens to both of the windows.
`
`Q
`
`Does Figure 8B show the result and the
`
`valid
`
`and rejection windows upon receipt of Packet No.
`
`7 o
`
`r
`
`upon receipt of the lost message?
`
`MR. MASSA: Object to the form.
`
`MR. SHUMAKER: What's the basis?
`
`MR. MASSA:
`
`Compound question.
`
`Q
`
`Does Figure 8B show the updating of the
`
`valid window and a rejection window after receipt of
`
`Packet No. 7?
`
`A
`
`Figure 8B shows what happens to the valid
`
`window after receipt of —— after Packet No.
`
`7 has
`
`both arrived at the destination unit, falls within
`
`the valid window shown in Figure 8A, and is accepted
`
`by the destination unit.
`
`Upon receipt of the lost message by the
`Q
`
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`21
`
`Garrabrant receiver, an example we have been
`
`discussing, would the valid window shown in 174 of
`
`Figure 8B differ?
`
`A What's shown in Figure 8B is what happens to
`
`the rejection window when it is updated based on the
`
`reception of the lost message in this example and
`
`what happens to the valid window when it slides as a
`
`result of Packet No. 7.
`
`Q
`
`So are you saying that the receipt of the
`
`lost message in your opinion moves the rejection
`
`window only and the receipt of Packet No.
`
`7 only
`
`moves the valid window?
`
`A
`
`I am saying what is disclosed in Column 10
`
`is that the rejection window is updated in response
`
`to the lost message and the Packet No.
`
`7 causes the
`
`valid window to slide.
`
`The lost message could
`
`additionally affect the valid window, although that's
`
`not explicitly stated in Column 10 because the set of
`
`sequence numbers associated with the valid window are
`
`those that are not associated with the rejection
`
`window.
`
`Q
`
`So in your opinion does Garrabrant disclose
`
`that the receipt of the lost message only affects the
`
`rejection window?
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`22
`
`A
`
`So in my opinion,
`
`reading Column 10,
`
`the
`
`receipt of the lost message causes the rejection
`
`window to move, meaning that the rejection window has
`
`an updated set of sequence numbers contained within
`
`it, and the valid window as disclosed in Garrabrant
`
`contains the sequence numbers that are not contained
`
`in the rejection window;
`
`thus the updating of the
`
`rejection window by the lost message has an effect on
`
`the Valid window.
`
`Q
`
`In Garrabrant, upon receipt of the lost
`
`message, what is the updated set of sequence numbers
`
`in the rejection window?
`
`A
`
`So as I have said in my declaration,
`
`the
`
`lost message is a command that commands the receiver
`
`that upon receipt of the next received packet, which
`
`is nonconsecutive with the previously received Packet
`
`No. 1, should move its rejection window forward and
`
`not expect to receive Packet Nos.
`
`2 through 6.
`
`Q
`
`So upon the receipt of the lost message in
`
`your opinion the rejection window tells the receiver
`
`not to expect to receive Packets 2 through 6?
`
`A
`
`So in my opinion, which is again stated in
`
`the sentence that I quoted just now,
`
`the lost message
`
`is a command to the receiver that it should move its
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`23
`
`rejection window forward and that it should not
`
`expect to receive Packet Nos.
`
`2 through 6.
`
`Q
`
`Does the lost message have a sequence
`
`A
`
`Garrabrant doesn't disclose a sequence
`
`number specific to the lost message.
`
`Q
`
`In your opinion in Garrabrant does the lost
`
`message have a sequence number?
`
`A
`
`In my opinion the lost message could have a
`
`sequence number, although Garrabrant does not say
`
`whether or not the lost message has a sequence
`
`number.
`
`Q
`
`So in your opinion a lost message may not
`
`have a sequence number?
`
`A
`
`According to Garrabrant, it mentions a lost
`
`message but does not mention a sequence number unique
`
`to the lost message.
`
`Q
`
`In your opinion, one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art before reading Garrabrant, would such a
`
`person understand a lost message to have a sequence
`
`number or not have a sequence number?
`
`A
`
`In my opinion Garrabrant does not say
`
`whether or not a lost message has a sequence number.
`
`Q
`
`So when you read Garrabrant, you just don't
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`24
`
`know whether the lost message has a sequence number
`
`or not?
`
`A
`
`In reading Garrabrant, a lost message may or
`
`may not have a sequence number.
`
`Q
`
`If a lost message does not have a sequence
`
`number, how does a receiver know whether to receive
`
`or reject the lost message?
`
`A
`
`The receiver using can use standard
`
`reception techniques that are understood by persons
`
`of ordinary skill in the art to receive the lost
`
`message even if the lost message does not contain a
`
`sequence number.
`
`Q
`
`What standard reception techniques would a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art understand a
`
`receiver to use when it receives a lost message that
`
`does not have a sequence number?
`
`A
`
`So those would be standard receiver
`
`technology for physical layer reception of the
`
`message, as well as MAC layer reception of the lost
`
`message.
`
`Q
`
`Give some example of physical layer and MAC
`
`layer reception of lost messages.
`
`A
`
`So in the Garrabrant patent,
`
`the invention
`
`relates to communication systems and more
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`25
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`particularly to a method and apparatus for
`
`controlling packet radio communication systems.
`
`Within the context of a packet radio communication
`
`system, physical layer techniques are used in the
`
`receiver for receiving transmissions in a packet
`
`radio communications system performing the necessary
`
`signal processing functions to convert those
`
`transmissions into a form in which the medium access
`
`control layer of the packet radio communications
`
`system can decode messages such as the lost message.
`
`Q
`
`I would like to direct your attention to
`
`Column 6 of the Garrabrant patent.
`
`See the tables in
`
`the middle of Column 6 in the Garrabrant patent?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes.
`
`And do you see the first table has a column
`
`labeled "Command"?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes.
`
`And likewise the third table has a column
`
`labeled "Command"?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Yes.
`
`Is the lost message disclosed as a command
`
`within the tables shown in Column 6 of Garrabrant?
`
`A
`
`These tables refer to the contents of
`
`control field 80, and these tables which are showing
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`26
`
`those commands and responses in control field 80 do
`
`not list the lost message.
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`Is a lost message transmitted as a packet?
`
`Garrabrant does not say whether or not the
`
`lost message is transmitted as a packet.
`
`Q
`
`In your opinion as a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is the lost message in Garrabrant
`
`transmitted as a packet?
`
`A
`
`In my opinion a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would understand that a lost message could be
`
`transmitted as a packet but not necessarily
`
`transmitted as a packet.
`
`Q
`
`So in your opinion Garrabrant doesn't
`
`require the lost message to be transmitted as a
`
`packet?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`Correct.
`
`Is it true that a packet that falls outside
`
`a valid window in Garrabrant is rejected by the
`
`receiver?
`
`A
`
`What Garrabrant discloses is when a packet
`
`arrives at the destination unit and falls within a
`
`valid window and is accepted by the destination unit
`
`that the valid window position slides.
`
`Q
`
`What happens to a packet that falls outside
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`27
`
`of the valid window in Garrabrant?
`
`A
`
`In Column 9 the Garrabrant patent says, A
`
`message received by a unit in a packet radio
`
`communication system of the present invention will be
`
`rejected unless the number stored in the sequence
`
`number field 92 is in the valid window 142.
`
`Q
`
`So a packet whose sequence number falls
`
`outside of the sequence numbers in the valid window
`
`in Garrabrant is rejected;
`
`is that right?
`
`A
`
`so a message that's received at the receiver
`
`whose number stored in sequence number field 92 that
`
`is not in the valid window is rejected.
`
`Q
`
`Does Garrabrant disclose that repeated
`
`copies of a packet can be forwarded or retransmitted
`
`within the system?
`
`A
`
`Q
`
`A
`
`I guess I don't understand your question.
`
`Does Garrabrant
`
`include repeaters?
`
`Garrabrant does disclose at least first and
`
`second repeaters 104 and 108.
`
`Q
`
`Do the repeaters transmit repeated copies of
`
`packets?
`
`MR. MASSA:
`
`I object to the question
`
`as outside the scope of his declaration which might
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`28
`
`be some reason for the delay here in answering your
`
`question.
`
`I am sure you may try to tie it up
`
`somehow, but
`
`I don't think he has opined on this
`
`topic.
`
`(Pause)
`
`A
`
`So what Garrabrant says in Column 7 is that
`
`those skilled in the art will recognize that Figure 5
`
`also implies that transmissions from the BRU 112 to
`
`the source 100 will be relayed back through the first
`
`and second repeaters 104 and 108.
`
`This passage in Column 7 extending to
`
`the top of column eight does not use the word
`
`"packets."
`
`Q
`
`I would like to direct your attention to
`
`Column 8,
`
`the last full paragraph beginning around
`
`line 51.
`
`The sentence states, Each time the message
`
`is decremented by one before being transmitted. When
`
`a repeater receives a message having a frame 90 in
`
`which the repeat count field 96 has been decremented
`
`to zero,
`
`the repeater will not transmit the frame
`
`corresponding to the message.
`
`See that?
`
`I think you skipped a line.
`
`Oh, which line did I skip?
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Broadcom v. V\fi-Fi, LLC
`|PR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`Broadcom v. Wi-Fi, LLC
`IPR2013-00636
`Exhibit 2028
`
`
`
`29
`
`A
`
`So starting at line 51, it says,
`
`"Each time
`
`that the message is repeated by the repeater,
`
`the
`
`repeat count field 96 of the message is decremented
`
`by one before being transmitted. When a repeater
`
`receives a message having a frame 90 in which the
`
`repeat count field 96 has been decremented to zero,
`
`the repeater will not transmit the frame
`
`corresponding to the message."
`
`Q
`
`Okay.
`
`So the first sentence I would like to
`
`focus on regarding the repeater,
`
`is it your
`
`understanding that the repeater will retransmit a
`
`frame unless the repeat count for a particular frame
`
`is zero?
`
`A
`
`So what these two sentences say is that the
`
`repeater receives messages and those messages have a
`
`frame 90 and which has a repeat count field 96.
`
`Q
`
`And does the repeater transmit the frames
`
`unless the repeat count field 96 has been decremented
`
`to zero?
`
`A
`
`So Column 8 of the Garrabrant patent says
`
`that when the repeater receives a message having a
`
`frame 9
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
