throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`PATENT TRIAL & APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Patent of: Scott C. Harris
`U.S. Patent No.: 8,312,286
`Issue Date:
` November 13, 2012
`Appl. No.:
`
`12/345,565
`
`Filing Date:
` December 29, 2008
`Title:
`Wireless Network Having Multiple Communication
`Allowances
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR BRUCE McNAIR
`
`
`I, Prof. Bruce McNair, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`(1.) My name is Bruce McNair. I am a Distinguished Service Professor of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering at Stevens Institute of Technology in
`
`Hoboken, NJ. I have studied and practiced in the fields of electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, and computer science for over 40 years, and have been a
`
`professor of electrical and computer engineering since 2002.
`
`(2.)
`
`I received my Masters of Engineering (M.E.) degree in the field of
`
`Electrical Engineering from Stevens Institute of Technology in 1974 and my
`
`Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) degree in Electrical Engineering in 1971 from
`
`Stevens as well.
`
`(3.)
`
`I am the Founder and Chief Technology Officer of Novidesic
`
`Communications, LLC, a technology consulting company. Prior to starting
`

`
`1
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 1
`
`

`

`Novidesic and joining the faculty at Stevens in 2002, I spent 24 years at AT&T
`
`Bell Laboratories. My most recent work there included research into next
`
`generation (4G and beyond) wireless data communications systems, including
`
`high-speed, high mobility wide area networks as well as range and speed
`
`extensions to 802.11(a & b) wireless LANs. Before that, my activities included
`
`development of encryption hardware, secure voice architecture studies, high-speed
`
`voice-band modems, and public data network protocols.
`
`(4.) Before joining Bell Labs, I spent seven years developing military
`
`communications systems for the US Army Electronics Command and ITT Defense
`
`Communications Division. My responsibilities included cryptographic and ECCM
`
`techniques for portable radio systems, TEMPEST technology, and state-of-the-art
`
`speech compression techniques.
`
`(5.) Since becoming a faculty member in 2002 (and even before) I have
`
`published over 20 technical publications in scientific journals or conferences in the
`
`fields of wireless communications and security. I have 24 U.S. patents in related
`
`fields, as well as 16 associated international patents. As part of my research as a
`
`professor and previously at Bell Labs, I have developed and implemented many
`
`different wireless networks with differentiated classes of service, similar to the
`
`goal of U.S. Patent No. 8,312,286 (“the ‘286 patent”) and which I explain in more
`
`detail below. My graduate teaching at Stevens Institute of Technology has
`

`
`2
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 2
`
`

`

`included courses in Wireless Systems Security and Information Systems Security,
`
`which include treatment of quality of service and mechanisms to differentiate
`
`access. An exemplary list of publications relevant to this topic, which also
`
`highlight my familiarity with the concept of providing differentiated classes of
`
`service across a network (i.e., the basic concept claimed in the ‘286 patent) is
`
`provided below:
`
` Cimini, L., Leung, K., McNair, B., Winters, J. "Outdoor IEEE 802.11b Cellular
`Networks: MAC Protocol Design and Performance," Proc. ICC 2002, New
`York, NY, April 2002.
`
` Clark, M., Leung, K., McNair, B., Kostic, Z., "Outdoor IEEE 802.11b Cellular
`Networks: Radio Link Performance", Proc. ICC 2002, New York, NY, April
`2002.
`
` McNair, B., "Future Directions for Wireless Communications,"
`Supercomm2001, Atlanta, GA, June, 2001.
`
` “Method and apparatus for user identification and verification of data packets in
`a wireless communications network,” EP Patent #0,689,316, December 27,
`1995.
`
` Secure Telecommunications," US Patent #5,392,357, February 21, 1995.
`
` "System and Method for Granting Access to a Resource," US Patent
`#5,375,244, December 20, 1994.
`
` D'Angelo, D.M., McNair, B., Wilkes, J.E., "Security in Electronic Messaging
`Systems," AT&T Technical Journal, Volume 73, Number 3, 1994.
`
` "Centralized Security Control System," US Patent # 5,276,444, January 4, 1994.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 3
`
`

`

`(6.)
`
` I am personally familiar with the ORiNOCO AP-1000 product
`
`described in Exh. 1006. While I worked for AT&T Laboratories, specifically in
`
`the 1999-2000 timeframe, this access point was the device that was employed to
`
`provide in-house wireless network access in the AT&T Laboratories facility in
`
`Middletown, NJ. Contemporaneously, I used this model access point to conduct
`
`some of my personal research in IEEE 802.11 wireless networks. Finally, in about
`
`the same time frame, but certainly before leaving AT&T Laboratories in 2002, I
`
`personally owned an AP-1000 that I installed in my home wireless network. Using
`
`the two wireless network interface cards contained within the AP-1000, I operated
`
`my home network with a secure sub-network as well as an open sub-network for
`
`guests, as described in the documentation for the device.1
`
`(7.)
`
`I am a Senior Member of the IEEE and belong to the Communications
`
`and Signal Processing Societies. I have served as the Secretary of the IEEE
`
`Communications Society Communications Security Committee.
`
`(8.) A copy of my latest curriculum vitae (C.V.) is attached to this
`
`declaration as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`                                                       
`1 See, e.g., Exh. 1006 at §§ 7-1 – 7-24.
`

`
`4
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 4
`
`

`

`II. Description of the Relevant Field and the Relevant Timeframe
`
`(9.)
`
`I have carefully reviewed the ‘286 patent as well as the patents and
`
`applications references in the section of the ‘286 patent entitled “Related U.S.
`
`Application Data.”
`
`(10.) For convenience, all of the information that I considered in arriving at
`
`my opinions is listed in Appendix B. Based on my review of these materials, I
`
`believe that the relevant field for purposes of the ‘286 patent is basic wireless
`
`network system architecture and cryptography. I have been informed that the
`
`relevant timeframe is on or before March 16, 2003.
`
`(11.) As described in Section I above and as shown in by CV, I have
`
`extensive experience in electrical engineering and computer science. Based on my
`
`experience, I have a good understanding of the relevant field in the relevant
`
`timeframe.
`
`III. The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Field in the Relevant
`Timeframe
`
`
`
`(12.) I have been informed that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`field” is a hypothetical person to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign
`
`a routine task with reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully
`
`carried out. I have been informed that the level of skill in the art is evidenced by
`
`prior art references. The prior art discussed herein demonstrates that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the field, at the time the ‘286 patent was effectively filed, was
`5
`

`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 5
`
`

`

`aware of standard wireless and wired network communication infrastructures,
`
`provisioning network services and resources, and access control methodologies
`
`including standard cryptography.
`
`(13.) Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. I have supervised and directed
`
`many such persons over the course of my career. Further, I had those capabilities
`
`myself at the time the patent was effectively filed.
`
`IV. The ‘286 Patent
`
`(14.) The ‘286 patent describes the basic concept of providing
`
`differentiated classes of wireless network services2, which has existed for many
`
`years in wired networks. As shown in the one and only figure of the ‘286 patent,
`
`the classes of services differentiate between the access rights provided to
`
`individual users. Thus, “USER 1” may be provided “full file access,” which is
`
`accessed using NIC 100; “USER 2” may be provided “print & internet only”
`
`service, which is accessed using NIC 110; and “USER 3” may be provided with
`
`“commercial only” access to the internet, which is accessed using NIC 120.3 The
`
`‘286 patent discloses that a single NIC (network interface card) may be used rather
`
`                                                       
`2 See Exh. 1001 at Abstract.
`3 Id. at 1:55-65, 2:4-14, 2:23-38.
`

`
`6
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 6
`
`

`

`than three individual NICs.4 NICs are interfaces to well-known wireless networks
`
`and implement the IEEE 802.11 protocol governing wireless communication.
`
`
`
`To access a class of services, the ‘286 patent describes that the user must have the
`
`appropriate credentials for the service, for example, an encryption key.5
`
`V.
`
`Scientific Principles Underlying the ‘286 Patent
`
`(15.) The ‘286 patent represents a simple combination of several well-
`
`known computer science principles: differentiating between classes of services
`
`and access to resources; providing credentials (such as a password or a key) to
`
`limit access to the classes; and placing the services and resources on networks
`
`accessible via different NICs. In short, providing scalable networks that allow for
`
`                                                       
`4 Id. at 2:42-45.
`5 Id. at 1:10-17, 1:41-44, 2:15-18.
`

`
`7
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 7
`
`

`

`different levels of access, while ensuring that each level is only accessed by
`
`authorized individuals. A brief description of these concepts is provided below.
`
`(16.) The most basic and well understood concept underlying the ‘286
`
`patent is that not all services have the same requirements. For instance, some
`
`services, like text-based e-mail, have very little requirement for transmission delay
`
`or bandwidth, while others, for instance interactive voice communications (voice
`
`over IP), have stringent delay requirements, while still others, for instance
`
`streaming video or interactive video communications (video over IP), have
`
`significant bandwidth demands. These various levels of differentiated service have
`
`led to the development of different networking strategies, e.g., circuit switching
`
`versus packet switching, and have created entirely new network architectures to
`
`support their needs, e.g., asynchronous transfer mode networks. One recurring
`
`term in this field is “quality of service,” a measure of a network’s performance
`
`guarantees to ensure that the network is capable of supporting the special needs of
`
`different services.
`
`(17.) Differentiated access has existed for many years in wired networks –
`
`the International Telecommunication Union first standardized on the concepts of
`
`quality of service in 1994 in Recommendation E.800. Quality of service has been
`
`used to addresses service assurances such as minimum data rate, maximum
`
`transmission, maximum error rate, and minimum likelihood of being able to
`

`
`8
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 8
`
`

`

`establish a connection in the presence of competing traffic. Naturally, as
`
`practitioners worked to replace wired networks with wireless systems, the concept
`
`of differentiated access carried over into the wireless world. In essence, wireless
`
`systems simply convey the same kinds of information as wired networks and to the
`
`same users, just without the encumbrance of wires. Since the earliest days of
`
`cellular wireless voice service in the mid-1970s, it has been recognized that it was
`
`essential to provide minimum service guarantees, e.g., assuring users that calls
`
`could actually be initiated when desired.
`
`(18.) Implicit in the provision of any service of value is that someone must
`
`pay for the value. Translating this concept into practice requires some sort of
`
`mechanism to establish who is using the service, what services they will be
`
`allowed to use, and how they will be billed for its usage. In essence, access to a
`
`service or resource must be controlled. Access control lists, i.e., lists that indicate
`
`which user may access which resources, have been a mainstay of computer
`
`security almost as long as computer systems have existed.
`
`(19.) Access control is based on identifying a user or process and
`
`authenticating that user or process to ensure their identity claim is valid. The
`
`information provided by a user or a process to authenticate their identity is referred
`
`to as a credential. A credential may be, for example, a password, a cryptographic
`
`key, or a network name. Credential-based services (most commonly key-based
`

`
`9
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 9
`
`

`

`services) are selectively provided to credentialed users or classes of users based on
`
`their ability to demonstrate their right to access. Passwords and keys have
`
`traditionally been used to authenticate a user to an authority, e.g. the use of a
`
`password associated with a user ID assures the authority that one who presents the
`
`user ID is its authorized user. Exposure of passwords or keys can lead to illicit
`
`access to protected services or resources.
`
`(20.)
`
`The ‘286 patent claims also relate to keys used in cryptographic
`
`communications. There are a number of prior art key distribution methods in
`
`which the keys are encrypted with another key before distribution. Stallings, in
`
`his 1995 textbook (Network and Internetwork Security), describes four
`
`conventional solutions to the key distribution problem (which I’ve paraphrased
`
`below using a hypothetical key exchange between “Alice” and “Bob”):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Alice can generate a key and physically deliver it to Bob;
`A third party Addie can generate a key and physically deliver it to
`Alice and Bob;
`If Alice and Bob already have a key, one party can generate a new key
`and transmit it to the other, encrypted by using the old key; and
`If Alice and Bob each have an encrypted connection to a third party
`Addie, Addie can deliver a key on the encrypted links to Alice and
`Bob.6
`
`                                                       
`6 See Exh. 1013 at p. 88.
`

`
`10
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 10
`
`

`

`An encryption key can also be used to encrypt clear text codes for allowing access,
`
`for example, a password or a network name.
`
`VI. Claim Interpretation
`
`(21.) In proceedings before the USPTO, I understand that the claims of an
`
`unexpired patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of
`
`the specification from the perspective of one skilled in the art. I have been
`
`informed that the ‘286 patent has not expired. In comparing the claims of the ‘286
`
`patent to the known prior art, I have carefully considered the ‘286 patent and the
`
`‘286 patent file history based upon my experience and knowledge in the relevant
`
`field. In my opinion, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms of
`
`the ‘286 patent is generally consistent with the term’s ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as one skilled in the relevant field would understand them. For purposes
`
`of this proceeding, I have applied the following constructions when analyzing the
`
`prior art and the claims. Further, in conducting this analysis, I have considered the
`
`District Court’s proposed claim constructions.
`
`(22.) Networking Device: a component for transmitting and receiving
`
`network transmissions. This term is left undefined by the ‘286 patent, and its
`
`specific meaning in view of the ‘286 patent’s claims is unclear. The applied
`

`
`11
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 11
`
`

`

`construction is consistent with the Patentee’s position in the underlying litigation
`
`and the proposed construction provided by the District Court.7
`
`(23.) Key: an encryption code or a code that allows access. This
`
`construction is consistent with the ‘286 patent’s specification that a key
`
`corresponds to providing access,8 the position asserted by the Patentee in the
`
`concurrent litigation,9 and the proposed construction provided by the District
`
`Court.10
`
`(24.) Transmitting a [an unencrypted] second wireless network stream from
`
`an area overlapping in the same space as the first networking device and
`
`transmitting, from an area overlapping in the same space as the first networking
`
`device: transmitting from any area within the transmission area of the first
`
`networking device. The amount of overlap required by the claims is not specified.
`
`I have construed the term to require any amount of overlap, which is consistent
`
`with the Patentee’s claim construction position11, the proposed construction
`
`provided by the district court12, and the related discussion in the ‘286 patent.13
`
`
`
`                                                       
`7 Exh. 1009 at p. 17; Exh. 1014 at p. 3.
`8 See, e.g., Exh. 1001 at Abstract, 1:37-44, 1:58-60, 2:6-11.
`9 Exh. 1014 at pp. 18-22.
`10 Exh. 1016 at 1 (code used to control access via encoding or decoding).
`11 Exh. 1009 at pp. 26-27.
`12 Exh. 1014 at p. 2.
`13 Exh. 1011 at 2:42-50.
`

`
`12
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 12
`
`

`

`VII. Discussion of Relevant Patents and Articles
`
`(25.) I have been asked to consider the teachings of the prior art cited in the
`
`concurrently filed petition in view of the knowledge held by one of ordinary skill,
`
`and whether the skilled practitioner would have combined the references as applied
`
`in the petition.
`
`A. Grounds of unpatentability in view of Liu
`
`(26.) U.S. Patent No. 7,177,637 to Liu (“Liu”) describes a differentiated
`
`access system in which users may connect to both “private” and “public” resources
`
`through a wireless local area network (WLAN).14 Liu discloses that access to the
`
`“private” and “public” resources may be through an Access Point (“AP”) with a
`
`single communication port supporting both modes of access, or through multiple
`
`communication ports (within a single housing) individually supporting each
`
`mode.15 The network interfaces transmit communication streams over “an area
`
`overlapping in the same space,” as recited in ‘286 patent claims 1, 11, and 12,
`
`because they transmit from a common access point, and therefore, each has a
`
`coverage area that is centered at and originates from the access point. For this
`
`reason, the network interfaces necessarily have overlapping coverage areas.
`
`(27.) Access to the private mode resources, which includes “full network
`
`access / functionality” and, therefore, would also include access to the files
`                                                       
`14 Exh. 1003 at 3:20-24.
`15 Id. at 4:61 – 5:10.
`

`
`13
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 13
`
`

`

`residing on that network (including read, write, and delete permissions), is
`
`described as being limited to only authenticated users that have possession of a
`
`secret key.16 Liu defines network services as “generally refer[ing] to access to
`
`various data, information, applications, and/or communication interfaces provided
`
`by a network” and “may refer to services provided by a wireless and/or wired
`
`network.”17 The network services described in Liu could include, for example,
`
`access to encrypted files stored on, for example, a server in the network.
`
`(28.) In contrast, access to the public mode resources may be provided to
`
`non-authorized users and include free and/or pay-per-use access to certain
`
`services.18 Liu describes that free services may include certain public domain
`
`services relevant to the enterprise hosting the WLAN, whereas the pay-per-use
`
`services generally includes a level of access to the internet.19
`
`(29.) Although Liu states that access to the public resources is provided to
`
`non-authorized users, the AP restricts access to the internet until the system
`
`validates a form of payment.20 In this manner, valid payment credentials are
`
`required before internet access is provided and, thus, Liu’s public mode provides
`
`two levels of network resources – a first requiring a type of key based credential
`
`                                                       
`16 Id. at 3:8-19, 3:25-31.
`17 Id. at 2:63-67.
`18 Id. at 3:45-53.
`19 Id. at 4:4-8, FIG. 2.
`20 Id. at 5:37-52.
`

`
`14
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 14
`
`

`

`available to anyone and everyone that pays for the service, e.g., a payment key, and
`
`a second providing open access without the payment key. Moreover, as would
`
`have been well understood to one of ordinary skill in the art, access to the paid-for
`
`internet services of Liu could be controlled via a simple password.21
`
`(30.) Thus, the system described by Liu teaches all material aspects of the
`
`‘286 patent – namely, providing differentiated classes of wireless network services
`
`to users based on the credentials or access rights of the individual users. The
`
`specific language and details recited in the claims represents nothing more than
`
`various matters of design choice that one of ordinary skill would have utilized in
`
`designing and implementing a real-world differentiated access system, as shown by
`
`the references described below.
`
`1. PAWNs
`
`(31.) The 2002 article published in IEEE’s Wireless Communications
`
`journal entitled “PAWNs: Satisfying the Need for Ubiquitous Secure Connectivity
`
`and Location Services” (“PAWNs”) discloses a public area wireless network
`
`providing differentiated access to network systems based upon user credentials.
`
`Just as in Liu, PAWNs describes providing a basic service model in which access
`
`to resources is limited to local intranet services and the hosting organization(s)
`
`webpages, and an enhanced service model in which full internet access and other
`                                                       
`21 Id. at 2:6-10 (describing the use of a password as a means for providing access
`control).
`

`
`15
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 15
`
`

`

`services are paid for by the user.22 Being limited to local intranet and internet
`
`based services over a public area wireless network, access to information or files
`
`on the hosting server would not be provide for. Further, PAWNs freely accessible
`
`local intranet services, e.g., a local Web server, could also be located on the
`
`internet.
`
`(32.) The authors of PAWNs also envisioned providing for differentiated
`
`bandwidth allocation within the paid-for tier of service such that users may
`
`purchase a desired data rate.23 In particular, PAWNs notes that “bandwidth
`
`allocation could be handled through service policies that may have been
`
`prenegotiated between the host organization and other companies, effectively
`
`dividing users into various service classes.24” Packet based monitoring was
`
`employed to allow the system to monitor actual usage and ensure that any
`
`individual user did not consumes more than their allotted share of bandwidth and,
`
`thus, unnecessarily burden the system.25 Note that one of ordinary skill would
`
`have understood bandwidth to be synonymous with speed of performance – access
`
`speed is controlled by how much bandwidth one is allotted. Bandwidth is the
`
`amount of data that can be sent over a period of time, usually seconds. The speed
`
`                                                       
`22 Exh. 1004 at pp. 41 and 47.
`23 Id. at p. 44.
`24 Id. at p. 41.
`25 Id.
`

`
`16
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 16
`
`

`

`at which access is provided (e.g., 1 megabits of data per second or 5 megabits of
`
`data per second) is, thus, a function of bandwidth.
`
`(33.) PAWNs also supported multiple levels of security provisioning,
`
`ranging from minimum encryption of security tokens, which is a value tagged to
`
`every packet of data, to full key encryption of the entire data packet transmitted
`
`between the user and the network.26 Although PAWNs envisioned that its
`
`enhances services would be encrypted, one of ordinary skill would have realized
`
`that, if desired, these same services could be offered through an unencrypted data
`
`stream, as the decision to encrypt data is a matter of design choice. All that a paid-
`
`for internet service requires, as taught by PAWNs, is authentication27, which would
`
`be achieved by a payment key (or password) as taught by Liu28. Based upon the
`
`deployment scenario, such as a wireless network within a large public building,
`
`user demand may dictate that internet access should be open, or unencrypted, and
`
`multiple streams or broadcasts provided.
`
`(34.) Thus, we see that both Liu and PAWNs describe credential based
`
`services wherein internet access is restricted until the user’s demonstrates their
`
`right to access such service by way of a payment key, password, or other
`
`authentication mechanism. Once authenticated as a user having access rights to
`
`                                                       
`26 Id.
`27 Id. at p. 47.
`28 Exh. 1003 at 3:42-53, 4:35-27; 2:6-10.
`17
`

`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 17
`
`

`

`certain services, PAWNs teaches the desirability of providing differentiated
`
`bandwidth allocation wherein users may pay for a specific data rate to fit their
`
`individualized needs.29 As such, it would have been obvious to provide a first set
`
`of users with a greater speed of network access on a first network stream than a
`
`second set of users on a second network stream.30 Further, as a simple system
`
`implementation detail, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine
`
`PAWNs technique of bandwidth allocation based upon a paid-for level of service
`
`with the differentiated service model disclosed in Liu.
`
`(35.) Further still, and as addressed above in paragraph 18, one of ordinary
`
`skill would have known that effective implementation of a differentiated access
`
`system requires consideration of who is using the services, what services they will
`
`be allowed to use, and how they will be billed for its usage. While Liu addresses
`
`what services the user will be allowed to use, the answer to the question of how the
`
`user will be billed for its usage is provided by PAWNs – namely, billing based
`
`upon a desired level of bandwidth allocation.31 One of ordinary skill would have
`
`been explicitly motivated to combine PAWNs teachings with those of Liu as the
`
`techniques described by PAWNs represent the real-world solutions that a skilled
`
`                                                       
`29 Exh. 1004 at p. 44.
`30 Id. at p. 41 and 44.
`31 Id.
`

`
`18
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 18
`
`

`

`practitioner would have used to effectively implement Liu’s public network
`
`services.
`
`(36.) Regarding the question of what services the user will be allowed to
`
`use, both Liu and PAWNs provide for certain basic public services, which are free,
`
`and enhanced internet services, which must be paid for.32 As I noted above, the
`
`most basic and well understood concept underlying the ‘286 patent is that not all
`
`services have the same requirements. For instance, some services, like text-based
`
`e-mail, have very little requirement for transmission delay or bandwidth, while
`
`others, for instance interactive voice communications, have stringent delay
`
`requirements. While still others, for instance streaming video or interactive video
`
`communications, have significant bandwidth demands. Thus, not only would one
`
`of ordinary skill have desired to provide for a provisioning between free and paid-
`
`for services, in view of PAWNs teaching of differentiated bandwidth allocation,
`
`the skilled practitioner would have also realized that levels of access to the internet
`
`should also be differentiated.
`
`(37.) For example, because interactive voice or video communication
`
`services have stringent delay requirements and consume significant amounts of
`
`bandwidth, one of ordinary skill designing a system as suggested by Liu and
`
`PAWNs would have found it obvious and been motivated to separate available
`
`                                                       
`32 Exh. 1003 at 3:42-53, FIG. 2; Exh. 1004 at pp. 44 and 47.
`19
`

`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 19
`
`

`

`internet services between different paid-for tiers of service. A first tier of internet
`
`service, with a lower bandwidth allocation, may only provide access to simple text-
`
`based webpages, whereas a second tier of internet service, with a high bandwidth
`
`allocation, may provide access to delay-sensitive internet application such as
`
`interactive voice communications or high bandwidth demand applications such as
`
`streaming video or interactive video communications. The decision to design a
`
`real-world system in this fashion rests upon well-known and simple matters of
`
`design choice based upon the basic principles underlying differentiated access
`
`systems, which would have been well known and understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill.
`
`(38.) Similarly, based upon the specific real-world implementation of a
`
`differentiated access system, such as a mall or other shopping complex, PAWNs
`
`teaches that there may be a need for a greater number of free access services than
`
`those disclosed by Liu, such as “local intranet services and resources like the
`
`organization’s Web portal page with links to resident businesses and services like
`
`an indoor navigation system that directs the user through the building.33” In such a
`
`scenario, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to add a third, public
`
`network to the system of Liu providing for such services. Again, the decision to
`
`design a real-world system in this fashion would be based upon the anticipated
`
`                                                       
`33 Exh. 1004 at p. 47.
`

`
`20
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 20
`
`

`

`deployment scenario and is a simple matter of design choice – all of the options to
`
`build such a system were part of the skilled practitioners design tool chest and, as
`
`evidence by the references applied in this case, were well documented in the
`
`relevant prior art literature.
`
`2. Hagen
`
`(39.) As with Liu, Hagen describes a system for providing public network
`
`access to mobile devices using private wireless network resources.34 The system
`
`includes a network access server (“NAS”) that, among other things, “restricts
`
`access by mobile terminals to the private network, meters network usage by the
`
`mobile terminals, and controls use of bandwidth by the mobile terminal,35” just as
`
`taught by PAWNs. Similarly, the NAS supports video and voice over IP services,
`
`but offers such services based upon bandwidth allocation policies that are “based
`
`on the offered service plans, the degree of protection to be given individual users, a
`
`determination whether to prioritize network originating traffic or public access
`
`revenue traffic, and the need to provide at least minimal QOS delay sensitive
`
`applications such as VoIP.36”
`
`(40.) Hagen, therefore, provides yet another explicit disclosure of what I
`
`have described as the basic and well-understood concept underlying the ‘286
`
`                                                       
`34 Exh. 1005 at Abstract.
`35 Id.
`36 Id. at [0051], [0112].
`

`
`21
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 21
`
`

`

`patent – namely, that not all services have the same delay and/or bandwidth
`
`requirements, leading to the utilization of differentiated access systems long before
`
`the ‘286 patent was filed. In particular, Hagen specifically describes the
`
`provisioning of interactive video or voice communication services onto different
`
`bandwidth allocation tiers. Below, I discuss and rely on Hagen’s teachings as
`
`illustrative of this well-known design choice/concept; however, designing a
`
`differentiated access system in this fashion certainly would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in view of Liu and PAWNs teachings.
`
`(41.) Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would have been explicitly
`
`motivated to provide for delay sensitive applications, for instance voice over IP, or
`
`bandwidth intensive applications, for instance video over IP, on the access level
`
`that provides for the greatest amount of bandwidth allocation. Further, and as
`
`stated above in paragraphs 34-38, in view of PAWNs disclosure of providing tiered
`
`paid-for internet access based upon differentiated bandwidth allocation policies37,
`
`it would have been entirely obvious to one of ordinary skill to provision the access
`
`rights across the access levels differently, and offer services that are delay sensitive
`
`(voice over IP) or bandwidth intensive (video streaming or video over IP) on
`
`certain access levels, but not on others wherein the bandwidth allotment may be
`
`less.
`
`                                                       
`37 Exh. 1004 at p. 44.
`

`
`22
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1007, page 22
`
`

`

`(42.) Moreover, Hagen describ

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket