`
`
`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