`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