Motorola Mobility LLC (Petitioner) v.
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC (Patent Owner)
`
`Case IPR2014-00501 (U.S. Patent No. 7,136,392)
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits (Exhibit 1021)
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1021-1
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC (Patent Owner)
`
`Case IPR2014-00501 (U.S. Patent No. 7,136,392)
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits (Exhibit 1021)
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit 1021-1
`
`
`
`INSTITUTED GROUNDS
`
`• Anticipation by Ayyagari ‘508: Claims 1 – 21
`
`• Anticipation by Ayyagari White Paper: Claims 1-9,
`11-21
`
`• Obvious over Ayyagari White Paper and IEEE
`802.11 1999: Claim 10
`
`Exhibit 1021-2
`
`
`
`ISSUES
`
`Not Disputed
`• Ayyagari References disclose all features of Claims 1
`and 3
`
`• Motivation to combine Ayyagari White Paper and
`802.11 1999 renders Claim 10 obvious
`
`Exhibit 1021-3
`
`
`
`ISSUES
`
`Disputed – Whether
`• Ayyagari references teach all features of remaining
`claims of the ’392 Patent
`
`• Group A: Claims 4-6, 8, 13-15 & 19-21:
`“Attempting to transmit/as if” element
`• Group B: Claims 16-21: “Means for Sensing”
`• Group C: Claims 9-15: Sensing a Transmission
`Opportunity
`• Group D: Claims 2, 7, 11 & 17: Transmission at a
`Particular Opportunity
`
`• Ayyagari references are prior art
`
`Exhibit 1021-4
`
`
`
`OVERVIEW
`
`OVERVIEW
`
`Ex. 1001 at 11 :45-59 (cited in Revised Petition at 19-21, 40-42)
`
`sensing the communication medium for an opportunity to
`transmit message data units without interference from
`message data units transmitted by a second station,
`Ex. 1001 at 11:45-59 (cited in Revised Petition at 19-21, 40-42)
`according to sets of rules that vary by tmflic classifi-
`cation yet are common to the first station and the
`second station.
`
`1. A method comprising:
`directing to a first output queue at a first station of a
`communication network, message data units to be
`transmitted over a communication medium and having
`a first trafiic classification;
`
`directing to a second output queue at the first station,
`message data units to be transmitted over the commu-
`nication medium and having a second traflic classifi-
`cation; and
`
`Exhibit 1021-5
`
`
`
`OVERVIEW – 802.11 1999
`
`“The fundamental access method of the IEEE 802.11 MAC is a DCF
`known as carrier sense multiple access with collision avoidance
`(CSMA/CA). . . .
`
`it shall sense the medium to
`For a STA to transmit,
`determine if another station is transmitting. If the medium is not
`determined to be busy, the transmission may proceed. . . . If the
`medium is determined to be busy, the STA shall defer until the end of
`the current
`transmission. After deferral, or prior to attempting to
`transmit again immediately after a successful transmission, the STA
`shall select a random backoff
`interval and shall decrement
`the
`backoff interval counter while the medium is idle.”
`
`Ex. 1009 at 70 (cited in Revised Petition at 15))
`
`Exhibit 1021-6
`
`
`
`OVERVIEW – 802.11 1999
`
`Ex. 1002 at 132 (cited in Revised Petition at 13 )
`
`Exhibit 1021-7
`
`
`
`OVERVIEW – ’392 PATENT
`
`OVERVIEW — ’392 PATENT
`
`SUNMARY OF THE IN IF«.r’El‘JTICIM
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:65 - 2:12
`
`The aforementioned need is addressed, and an advance is
`made in the art, by a communication network having a
`plurality of stations that share a conununication medium or
`channel. Each station of the network has a plurality of
`internal queues for accumulating and transmitting data mes-
`sages over the shared conununication channel. Each internal
`queue of a station individually accumulates and releases, for
`transmission during an appropriate transmission opportu-
`nity, data messages that have a specific trafic classification
`and, hence, a diflhrent level of priority than those accumu-
`lated and released by other internal queues of that station. At
`both the local (Len, within each station] and the network-
`wide (i.e., among all stations) level, preferential access to
`the shared conununication chaimel is given to data messages
`Ex. 1001 at 1:65 - 2:12
`having higher levels of uricritv over those having lower
`
`levels of priority.
`
`Exhibit 1021-8
`
`
`
`OVERVIEW – ’392 PATENT
`
`OVERVIEW — ’392 PATENT
`
`The
`
`eeheduljug ftmetieu ef the illuetretive etuheditueut further
`specifies a eeuteutjuu wiuduw C‘Wtuiu from wlueh e reucleul
`heek efl ie eetuputed fer eeeh queuet In eeeerdauee with en
`i]]uetretive etuheditueut ef the present iuveutieu, the em-
`Ex. 1001 at 6:55 – 62 (cited in Response at 22)
`teutieu windew ie uet fitted hut, rather, is a variable wiudew,
`
`Exhibit 1021 -9
`
`eeeieued te eeeh ueue en the basis: et‘treflie eleeeifieetieu.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 6:55 — 62 (cited in Response at 22)
`
`Exhibit 1021-9
`
`
`
`OVERVIEW – AYYAGARI WHITE PAPER
`
`Ex. 1005 at 6 (cited in Revised Petition at 37-38)
`
`Exhibit 1021-10
`
`
`
`OVERVIEW – AYYAGARI ‘508
`
`OVERVIEW — AYYAGARI ‘508
`
`Exhibit 1021-11
`
`number of prior failed transmission attempts for the paeket.
`Ex. 1003 at 12:60-13:2 (cited in Revised Petition at 19)
`In an embodiment of the int-*ention, hi her irioritv 1aekets
`have delavs generated within smaller intervals in com 1ari-
`son witi raver pnorrtv pae 'ets
`avmg tie same num 1er o
`pl‘lfll’ 13.1 IUIES.
`
`Ex. 1003 at 5:30-33 (cited in Revised Petition at 18)
`Furthermore,
`' level are Lueued to tether to ensure earlier
`
`similar iriori
`
`transmission of higher priority packets than packets having
`lower priority.
`
`Ex. 1003 at 5:30-33 (cited in Revised Petition at 18)
`Ex. 1003 at 2:60-63 (cited in Revised Petition at 18)
`
`CSMA/CA, in accordance with the IEEE 802.11 standard,
`allows for a backofl‘ mode for a node that is otherwise ready
`for transmit a packet.
`
`Ex. 1003 at 2:60-63 (cited in Revised Petition at 18)
`
`Next, during step tiZtJ a random delay within a time
`interval, also termed a contention window, is generated. In
`an embodiment of the invention where all priorities have a
`same delav the time interval size ("referred to as CW herein
`
`below is a funetionofthe .rioritv level of the .aeket and the
`
`Exhibit 1021-11
`
`
`
`GROUP A: CLAIMS 4-6, 8, 13-15, AND 19-21
`THE “ATTEMPTING TO TRANSMIT / AS IF” LIMITATION
`
`GROUP A: CLAIMS 4-6, 8, 13-15, AND 19-21
`THE “ATTEMPTING TO TRANSMIT / AS IF” LIMITATION
`
`Exhibit 1021-12
`
`4. The niethnd nf claim 3? further including, atteniggtin tn
`initiallsr transmit a first message data unit train the seennd
`nntput queue nt‘ the first statinn, in aeenrdanee with the set
`nfni]es enrrespnnding tn the traflie e]assifieatinn therenf, a_s
`if an tnisneeessful attein t tn transmit the first message data
`
`unit had already been made dnrin _, a
`restinns transniissinn
`Ex. 1001 at 12:3-9 (cited in Revised Petition at 23 & 45)
`
`n J in rtnnitsn
`
`Ex. 1001 at 12:3-9 (cited in Revised Petition at 23 & 45)
`
`Exhibit 1021-12
`
`
`
`GROUP A: CLAIMS 4-6, 8, 13-15, AND 19-21
`THE “ATTEMPTING TO TRANSMIT / AS IF” LIMITATION
`
`GROUP A: CLAIMS 4-6, 8, 13-15, AND 19-21
`THE “ATTEMPTING TO TRANSMIT / AS IF” LIMITATION
`
`collision on the wireless medium.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 7:4-12 (cited in Response at 22)
`
`To both acconnnodate QoS services and ensure a fair
`allocation of transmission opportunities to all stations hav-
`ing traflic of the same priority level
`to transmit,
`lower
`priority queues defer to higher priority queues within the
`Ex. 1001 at 7:4-12 (cited in Response at 22)
`same station, collisions between competing queues within a
`station are resolved within the station such that the higher
`priority queue receives the TxtJP, and the lower Jrioritv
`collidin1 tueue s" behave as if there were an external
`
`Exhibit 1021-13
`
`Alternatively, during
`decision block 1 0-4, it may be determined that another queue
`within the same station may contain a message data unit of
`a lllfl‘lfil‘ priority trafllc classification. That is, the back oflw
`counter in each of two or more queues might have decre-
`Ex. 1001 at 11:12-20 (cited in Response at 7)
`mented to zero sirnultruteous1y.
`In that case the higher
`riorit ' uene receives the transmission 0
`ortnnitv and the
`
`othertueue” "
`
`roceed to the ret
`
`r .mcedure asif an attern t
`
`o
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 1021-13
`
`
`
`WHETHER THE AYYAGARI REFERENCES TEACH
`ATTEMPTING TO TRANSMIT/AS IF LIMITATION
`
`Patent Owner’s Allegations
`• The Ayyagari references
`do not teach attempting to
`initially transmit as if a
`failed transmission attempt
`had occurred
`
`Deficiency of Patent Owner’s Position
`• When both queues contend for the
`transmission opportunity, the limitation
`contemplates delaying a lower priority
`message in favor of the higher priority
`message
`
`• Ayyagari 508’s reference
`to delaying a lower
`priority message is only
`a “possibility”
`
`• Ayyagari 508’s delayed lower priority
`message occurs when both queues
`contend for the same transmission
`opportunity
`
`Exhibit 1021-14
`
`
`
`GROUP A: CLAIMS 4-6, 8, 13-15, AND 19-21
`THE “ATTEMPTING TO TRANSMIT / AS IF” LIMITATION
`Ayyagari ‘508
`
`• External collisions cause packets to enter into a backoff
`state (Ex. 1003 at 12:45-49 (cited in Reply at 7-8))
`
`•
`
`“[A] packet with higher priority than a packet waiting
`during step 640 may be transmitted if the higher priority
`packet has a shorter wait time even if it results in the
`superseded packet being forced into another backoff
`state.” (Id. at 13:61-65 (cited in Reply at 8))
`
`Exhibit 1021-15
`
`
`
`GROUP A: CLAIMS 4-6, 8, 13-15, AND 19-21
`THE “ATTEMPTING TO TRANSMIT / AS IF” LIMITATION
`
`Dr. Roy’s Declaration Testimony Regarding Ayyagari ‘508
`
`Ex. 1019 at ¶ 21 (cited in Reply at 8)
`
`Exhibit 1021-16
`
`
`
`GROUP A: CLAIMS 4-6, 8, 13-15, AND 19-21
`THE “ATTEMPTING TO TRANSMIT / AS IF” LIMITATION
`Ayyagari White Paper
`
`• Modification of the 802.11 MAC protocol, which
`includes using a backoff process in response to
`external collisions (Ex. 1005 at 6 (cited in Reply at 8))
`
`•
`
`“The network devices transmit the frames based on the
`non-gated head-of-line priority scheme where
`transmission of the frame with the highest priority in the
`simple first in first out (FIFO) priority queue is
`scheduled ahead of the rest of the queued frames.” (Id.
`at 5 (cited in Reply at 8))
`
`Exhibit 1021-17
`
`
`
`GROUP A: CLAIMS 4-6, 8, 13-15, AND 19-21
`THE “ATTEMPTING TO TRANSMIT / AS IF” LIMITATION
`
`Dr. Roy’s Declaration Testimony Regarding Ayyagari White Paper
`
`Ex. 1019 at ¶ 22 (cited in Reply at 8)
`
`Exhibit 1021-18
`
`
`
`GROUP A: CLAIMS 4-6, 8, 13-15, AND 19-21
`THE “ATTEMPTING TO TRANSMIT / AS IF” LIMITATION
`
`• Patent Owner’s “possibility” argument ignores the claim
`language and conditions under which the element is
`practiced.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 11:65 - 12:9 (cited in Revised Petition at 22-23, 44-45)
`Exhibit 1021-19
`
`
`
`GROUP B: CLAIMS 16-21
`“MEANS FOR SENSING”
`
`GROUP B: CLAIMS 16-21
`
`“MEANS FOR SENSING”
`
`111eans fer sensing the eelnnnlnieatien 111edi11111 fhr an
`
`eppertnnity te trans1nit message data units withent
`
`interference frenl message data units transmitted by a
`
`Exhibit 1021 -20
`
`seeend statien, aeeerding te sets ef rules that any by
`Ex. 1001 at 14:5-11 (cited in Revised Petition at 22-23, 44-45)
`traflie elassifieatien yet are eennnen tn the first statien
`and the seeend statien.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 14:5-11 (cited in Revised Petition at 22-23, 44-45)
`
`Exhibit 1021-20
`
`
`
`WHETHER THE AYYAGARI REFERENCES TEACH
`MEANS FOR SENSING
`
`Patent Owner’s Allegations
`• The means for sensing
`limitation requires multiple
`schedulers, one for each
`queue
`
`• The Ayyagari references
`do not disclose multiple
`schedulers
`
`Deficiency of Patent Owner’s Position
`• There is a single transceiver that senses
`the opportunity to transmit via the
`CSMA/CA mechanism and a single
`coordinated scheduling function that
`schedules transmission attempts
`
`• The Ayyagari references use the same
`CSMA/CA sensing mechanism and
`coordinated scheduling function
`disclosed
`
`Exhibit 1021-21
`
`
`
`GROUP B: CLAIMS 16-21
`“MEANS FOR SENSING”
`
`• Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response made no
`argument that the disclosed algorithm for “means
`for sensing” required use of multiple schedulers
`
`Paper 13 at 10
`
`Ex. 1001 at 6:20-34 (cited in Preliminary Response at 18)
`
`Exhibit 1021-22
`
`
`
`GROUP B: CLAIMS 16-21
`“MEANS FOR SENSING”
`
`Ayyagari ‘508
`
`• Structure
`• General purpose computing device that includes
`memory, a control processor unit and a transceiver
`(Ex. 1003, 6:39-54; 8:46-64 (cited in Reply at 9))
`
`• Algorithm
`• Reply at 10-11
`• Ex. 1019 at 13-31
`
`Exhibit 1021-23
`
`
`
`GROUP B: CLAIMS 16-21
`“MEANS FOR SENSING”
`
`GROUP B: CLAIMS 16-21
`
`“MEANS FOR SENSING”
`
`(12) United States Patent
`Ayyagari et al.
`
`(10) Patent N0.:
`(45) Date of Patent:
`
`US 7,079,508 B2
`Jul. 18, 2006
`
`Many wireless devices use carrier sense multiple access
`with collision avoidance (“CSMAXCA”)
`technology.
`In
`accordance with CSlviA each node monitors the carrier, e.g.,
`Ex. 1003 at 1:32-37 (cited in Reply at 10)
`a radio channel of interest, to detect if any other node is
`transmitting prior to attempting a transmission since CSMAJ
`CA is based on the “listen before talk”
`.1. Carrier
`
`Ex. 1003 at 1:32-37 (cited in Reply at 10)
`
`is based on default k
`
`Ex. 1003 Fig. 6 (cited in Reply at 10)
`Is The Channel Available For
`Transmission?
`
`Exhibit 1021-24
`
`EX- 1003 Fig- 6 (cited in Reply at 10)
`
`using a stochastic scheme described in FIG. 6. During step
`600 a node ready to transmit the packet
`listens first to
`Ex. 1003 at 12:25-29 (cited in Reply at 10)
`.
`.
`,
`-
`determine whether the medium 1s free for a predetermined
`
`interval The predetermined interval
`
`values and
`
`.
`
`Ex. 1003 at 12:25-29 (cited in Reply at 10)
`
`
`
`GROUP B: CLAIMS 16-21
`“MEANS FOR SENSING”
`
`Ayyagari White Paper
`
`• Structure
`• Stations employ known DCF algorithm, as modified,
`to provide expedited transmission of higher priority
`backlogged frames (Ex. 1005.5-7 (cited in Reply at
`10))
`
`Algorithm
`Reply at 10-11
`Ex. 1019 at 31-56
`
`Exhibit 1021-25
`
`
`
`GROUP B: CLAIMS 16-21
`“MEANS FOR SENSING”
`
`GROUP B: CLAIMS 16-21
`
`“MEANS FOR SENSING”
`
`February 2000
`
`doc.: IEEE 802.11-00f028
`
`
`
`IEEE P802.ll
`
`Wireless LANS
`
`IEEE 802.11 Quality of Service — White Paper
`
`February 1 5, 2000
`
`Alum Ayyagan'. Yoram Benlet- 'l'im Moore
`Microsoft C inoration
`One Microsoft \Vay. Redmond, \VA 98052-6390
`Phone: (425) 936-8080
`Fax: (425) 936-?329
`’ ..
`..J.-:..'.-.'.l
`
`Date:
`
`Author(s):
`
`DCF Access Approach
`
`IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol consists ofa fundamental access method based on CSMA/CA called
`DCF that is used in both ad hoc and infrastructure network modes. An STA upon determining
`that the shared wireless network is busy defers transmissions until the medium is determined to
`Ex. 1005 at 6 (cited in Reply at 10)
`be idle for a period of time (DCF interframe space — DIFS or extended interframe space — EIFS)
`as defined by the IEEE 802.11 standard. After the idle period, the STA generates a random
`Exhibit 1021-26
`backoff period before initiating the backlogged frame transmission. This additional deferral is
`intended to minimize collisions during contention between multiple STAs. '
`
`
`
`GROUP B: CLAIMS 16-21
`“MEANS FOR SENSING”
`
`GROUP B: CLAIMS 16-21
`
`“MEANS FOR SENSING”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:28-30 (cited in Ex. 1019 at ¶ 8)
`FIG 3 is a block diagram depicting, in greater detail, the
`software implementation of media access control in accor-
`dance with the illustrative embodiment of FIGS. 1 and 2.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:28-30 (cited in Ex. 1019 at 1] 8)
`
`Ex. 1001 at 6:14-19 (cited in Reply at 12-13)
`
`placed within one of the queues, the data message units are
`released in accordance with a coordination function (CF)
`implemented in a scheduler 52 which prioritizes the trans-
`Ex. 1001 at 6:14-19 (cited in Reply at 12-13)
`mission of data message units from each queue in accor-
`dance with a defined access control algorithm
`
`Once
`
`Exhibit 1021-27
`
`
`
`GROUP B: CLAIMS 16-21
`“MEANS FOR SENSING”
`
`Dr. Roy’s Declaration Testimony Regarding “Means for Sensing”
`
`Ex. 1019 at ¶10 (cited in Reply at 12)
`
`Exhibit 1021-28
`
`
`
`GROUP B: CLAIMS 16-21
`“MEANS FOR SENSING”
`
`Dr. Roy’s Deposition Testimony Regarding “Means for Sensing”
`
`Ex. 2007 at 11:10 - 19)
`
`Exhibit 1021-29
`
`
`
`GROUP B: CLAIMS 16-21
`“MEANS FOR SENSING”
`
`Dr. Roy’s Deposition Testimony Regarding “Means for Sensing”
`
`Ex. 2007 at 13:9-12
`
`Exhibit 1021-30
`
`
`
`GROUP B: CLAIMS 16-21
`“MEANS FOR SENSING”
`
`Dr. Roy’s Deposition Testimony Regarding “Means for Sensing” cont.
`
`Ex. 2007 at 13:14 – 14:3
`
`Exhibit 1021-31
`
`
`
`GROUP C: CLAIMS 9-15
`SENSING A TRANSMISSION OPPORTUNITY
`
`GROUP C: CLAIMS 9-15
`
`SENSING A TRANSMISSION OPPORTUNITY
`
`fl
`
`tlflflSE-‘fii‘iffl"
`
`fl JEIHIIEI'ET II}
`
`51311.5(?
`
`Ill-‘3 Cflfllfllllfljflfltiflfl
`
`Exhibit 1021 -32
`
`mediiun fer an nEEnrtuuity tn transmit the message data
`units frem eaeii ef the first and seennd nutput queues,
`witheut interferenee freni message data units transmit-
`ted by a seeend statinn, and tn transmit the message
`Ex. 1001 at 13:1-7 (cited in Revised Petition at 29-30, 53)
`data units t'rem eaeh Ed said first and seenud taitput
`queues aeeerding te said first and seennd sets ef rules.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 13:1-7 (cited in Revised Petition at 29-30, 53)
`
`Exhibit 1021-32
`
`
`
`WHETHER THE AYYAGARI REFERENCES TEACH
`SENSING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRANSMIT
`
`Patent Owner’s Allegations
`• The “system” requires
`sensing an opportunity to
`transmit for each queue
`
`• The Ayyagari references
`do not disclose sensing for
`each of the queues
`
`Deficiency of Patent Owner’s Position
`• One transceiver senses the opportunity
`to transmit and a single coordinated
`scheduling function then schedules
`transmission attempts
`
`• By using the CSMA/CA mechanism to
`sense for the opportunity to transmit, the
`Ayyagari references disclose a
`transceiver that senses the transmission
`opportunity for each queue
`
`Exhibit 1021-33
`
`
`
`GROUP C: CLAIMS 9-15
`SENSING A TRANSMISSION OPPORTUNITY
`
`GROUP C: CLAIMS 9-15
`
`SENSING A TRANSMISSION OPPORTUNITY
`
`Exhibit 1021 -34
`
`6. If ne medium activityr is indicated fer the duratien ef a
`particular back eff slet, then the back efl" precedure fer each
`queue decrements its back efl" time by a slet time peried. If
`the medium is determined te be busy at ansr time during. a
`Ex. 1001 at 9:38-48 (cited in Reply at 14)
`back efl" slet, then the back efi precedure is suspended that
`is, the back efl‘ timers de net decrement tier that slet.
`
`A statien perferming the back efl‘ procedure uses the
`carrier sense mechanism te determine whether there is
`
`activity during each back eff slet. The back eff and centen-
`tien scheme ef the illustrative embediment is shewn in FIG.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 9:38-48 (cited in Reply at 14)
`
`Exhibit 1021-34
`
`
`
`GROUP C: CLAIMS 9-15
`SENSING A TRANSMISSION OPPORTUNITY
`
`GROUP C: CLAIMS 9-15
`
`SENSING A TRANSMISSION OPPORTUNITY
`
`Transceiver
`
`As will be explained in greater detail later, the
`CSMAICA distributed algorithm employed by the illustra-
`tive embodiment of the present invention specifies that
`Ex. 1001 at 6:27-34 & Fig. 2 (cited in Reply at 13-14)
`sequences of data messages be separated by a gap having an
`established minimum duration.
`011115r when a station has
`determined that the medium has been idle for this required
`duration may it attempt to transmit any of the data messages
`within its data bufiers 34.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 6:27-34 & Fig. 2 (cited in Reply at 13-14)
`
`Data Buffers
`
`(Gueuesl 3
`
`l _
`
`Media Control Modules
`{Coordination
`Scheduling
`
`NIC Control
`PI'OCBSSDT
`U nit
`
`Exhibit 1021-35
`
`
`
`GROUP C: CLAIMS 9-15
`SENSING A TRANSMISSION OPPORTUNITY
`Ayyagari White Paper
`
`• Modification of the 802.11 MAC protocol (Id.at 6 (cited in Reply
`at 14))
`• System assesses the priority level of the frame to be
`transmitted and separately queues messages based on priority
`level. (Id. at 7 (cited in Reply at 14))
`• Defines distinct set of contention resolution parameters for each
`priority level (Id. (cited in Reply at 14))
`• Defines a “non-gated, head of line priority scheme to schedule
`frame transmissions.” (Id. (cited in Reply at 14))
`
`Exhibit 1021-36
`
`
`
`GROUP C: CLAIMS 9-15
`SENSING A TRANSMISSION OPPORTUNITY
`Ayyagari ‘508
`
`• Node listens to the communication medium for a predetermined
`interval, which is based in part on the assigned priority or
`quality of service associated with the packet (Id. at 12:25-29
`(cited in Reply at 14))
`If available, node transmits current packet designated to receive
`transmission opportunity. (Id. at 12:37-38 (cited in Revised
`Petition at 29))
`• Contention resolution scheme coupled with a scheme for
`queueing packets (Id. at 13:58-59 (cited in Reply at 14))
`
`•
`
`Exhibit 1021-37
`
`
`
`GROUP C: CLAIMS 9-15
`SENSING A TRANSMISSION OPPORTUNITY
`
`GROUP C: CLAIMS 9-15
`
`SENSING A TRANSMISSION OPPORTUNITY
`
`Exhibit 1021 -38
`
`transceiver operative to sense the communication
`meditun for an opportunity to transmit the message data
`units from each of the first and second output queues,
`without interference front message data units transmit-
`Ex. 1001 at 12:53-13:9; 13:11-19 (cited in Revised Petition at 28 – 31, 52, and 54)
`ted by a second station, and to transmit the message
`data units from each of said first and second mitput
`ueues accordin to said first and second sets ofrules.
`
`9. A system for exchanging message data units over a
`conmiunication medium shared by other systems in a local
`area network, comprising:
`a first output queue adapted to receive message data units
`having a first
`traffic classification, said first output
`queue being operable to release message data units for
`transmission over a conununication medium in accor-
`
`dance with a first set of rules corresponding to the first
`trafiic classification;
`a second output queue adapted to receive message data
`units having a second traflic classification, said second
`output queue being operable to release message data
`units for transmission over a conununication medium
`
`in accordance with a second set of rules corresponding
`to the second traflic classification; and
`
`11. The system of claim 9, further including:
`a processor conununicativelv coupled to the transceiver,
`the first output queue, and the second output queue, the
`processor configured to allow only one of the first and
`second output queues to transmit through the trans-
`ceiver if the first and second output queues each contain
`message data units scheduled to be transmitted during
`a particular opportunity to transmit, according to said
`sets of rules,
`
`Exhibit 1021-38
`
`
`
`GROUP D: CLAIMS 2, 7, 11 & 17
`TRANSMISSION AT A PARTICULAR OPPORTUNITY
`
`GROUP D: CLAIMS 2, 7,11 & 17
`TRANSMISSION AT A PARTICULAR OPPORTUNITY
`
`Exhibit 1021 -39
`
`2. The methcd cf claim 1, further including allcwing, crnl}F
`cne cf the first and seccnd cutput queues te transmit, if the
`first and seccnd cutput queues each ccntain message data
`units scheduled. he be transmitted during a particular apper-
`Ex. 1001 at 11:12-23 (cited in Revised Petition at 21-22, 43-44)
`tum'tjif te transmit, accerding tc said sets cf rules.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 11 :12—23 (cited in Revised Petition at 21-22, 43-44)
`
`Exhibit 1021-39
`
`
`
`WHETHER THE AYYAGARI REFERENCES TEACH
`TRANSMISSION AT A PARTICULAR OPPORTUNITY
`
`Patent Owner’s Allegations
`• The Ayyagari references
`disclose a system that
`schedules only one
`message in one queue to
`be transmitted during a
`particular transmission
`opportunity.
`
`Deficiency of Patent Owner’s Position
`• The Ayyagari references disclose
`multiple queues, each for different
`priority messages.
`
`• The Ayyagari references will, for a
`particular transmission opportunity,
`transmit from the higher priority queue
`and defer the lower priority queue
`
`Exhibit 1021-40
`
`
`
`GROUP D: CLAIMS 2, 7, 11 & 17
`TRANSMISSION AT A PARTICULAR OPPORTUNITY
`
`GROUP D: CLAIMS 2, 7,11 & 17
`TRANSMISSION AT A PARTICULAR OPPORTUNITY
`
`.-‘t]teruutit-'te.'_. during
`deeitu'eu Meet: 1114. it 111:1}! he detenuiued that euether queue
`within the. same t-i-lttlItttl may eeuutelhl a [ltetteuge flute |.|[1II el”
`11 higher prierhy treflie e]:zleeil'1e:1tieu1.
`'t'hau h: the heel-1 eJJ'
`etmmer iu eueh n.11'1e-1': er mere queues might |1-.=u-'e decre—
`I'nented ten Hem Htlt'lLtIIfll'JEl'rUE-LI}'.
`In that eat-1e.
`the higher
`pn' eritjs queue reeeieee the trtumuieeieu trapper-enmity um'l the
`ether queuetie] pmeeet] te the retry pmeetlure :15 item attempt
`Ex. 1001 at 11:12-23 (cited in Response at 7)
`heel been made tn transmit
`them.
`
`Exhibit 1021 -41
`
`Ex. 1001 at 11 :12—23 (cited in Response at 7)
`
`Exhibit 1021-41
`
`
`
`GROUP D: CLAIMS 2, 7, 11 & 17
`TRANSMISSION AT A PARTICULAR OPPORTUNITY
`
`GROUP D: CLAIMS 2, 7,11 & 17
`TRANSMISSION AT A PARTICULAR OPPORTUNITY
`
`(12) United States Patent
`Ayyagari et al.
`
`(10) Patent No.:
`(45) Date of Patent:
`
`US 7,079,508 B2
`Jul. 18,, 2006
`
`Exhibit 1021 -42
`
`coupled with a scheme for queuing packets waiting to be
`transmitted by a particular station. Embodiments of the
`invention employ a variety ofbuflier management strategies
`while a packet is waiting to be transmitted. For instance, a
`packet with higher priority than a packet waiting during step
`640 may be transmitted. if the higher priority packet has a
`shorter wait time even if it results in the superseded packet
`being forced into another backofl' state.
`Ex. 1003 at 13:57-65 (cited in Reply at 15)
`
`The above described contention resolution scheme is
`
`Exhibit 1021-42
`
`
`
`GROUP D: CLAIMS 2, 7, 11 & 17
`TRANSMISSION AT A PARTICULAR OPPORTUNITY
`
`Ayyagari White Paper
`
`Ex. 1005 at 5-6 (cited in Revised Petition at 43 )
`
`Exhibit 1021-43
`
`
`
`GROUP D: CLAIMS 2, 7, 11 & 17
`TRANSMISSION AT A PARTICULAR OPPORTUNITY
`
`• Dr. Roy explained that the Ayyagari references disclose multiple
`queues, but allow only one of those queues to receive the
`particular transmission opportunity
`
`Ex. 1019 ¶ 39
`
`Exhibit 1021-44
`
`
`
`WHETHER THE AYYAGARI REFERENCES
`ARE PRIOR ART
`
`Patent Owner’s Allegations
`• Ayyagari White Paper is
`not prior art
`• Ayyagari ‘508 is not
`prior art because the
`Wentink declaration
`antedates or shows an
`actual reduction to
`practice
`
`Deficiency of Patent Owner’s Position
`• Ayyagari is prior art based on its
`face and additional confirming
`evidence
`• Gaps in activity confirm absence of
`diligence, Patent Owner has failed to
`corroborate the claimed reduction to
`practice and, in any event, Ayyagari
`‘508 is entitled to its provisional filing
`date
`
`Exhibit 1021-45
`
`
`
`THE AYYAGARI REFERENCES ARE PRIOR ART
`
`Exhibit 1021-46
`
`
`
`THE WENTINK DECLARATION
`DOES NOT ANTEDATE AYYAGARI ‘508
`
`The Board has already determined the Wentink Declaration is insufficient
`
`“We have reviewed the Wentink
`Declaration and the prosecution
`record, and, on the record
`before us at this time, we are
`not persuaded by Patent
`Owner’s arguments that the
`invention date is prior to
`November 3, 2000 . . . .”
`(Decision on Institution at 12.)
`
`Exhibit 1021-47
`
`
`
`THE WENTINK DECLARATION
`DOES NOT ANTEDATE AYYAGARI ‘508
`Even a short period of unexplained inactivity is sufficient to
`defeat a claim of diligence. Microsoft Corp. v. Surfcast,
`Inc., 2014 WL 5337868, *11 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd. Oct 14,
`2014) (cited in Reply at 4)
`
`• Microsoft: “an entire week of inactivity” as well as
`“numerous gaps [ranging from 1-5 days in duration]” and
`“seventeen days [that] involved activity of 45 minutes or
`less.” See Microsoft *11-*12.
`
`Exhibit 1021-48
`
`
`
`THE WENTINK DECLARATION
`DOES NOT ANTEDATE AYYAGARI ‘508
`
`Exhibit 1002.156 (Ex. C)
`
`Exhibit 1002.135 (Ex. A)
`Exhibit 1002.147 (Ex. B)
`
`Exhibit 1021-49
`
`
`
`THE WENTINK DECLARATION
`DOES NOT ANTEDATE AYYAGARI ‘508
`
`Exhibit 1002.175 (Ex. D)
`
`Exhibit 1002.216 (Ex. E)
`
`Exhibit 1021-50
`
`
`
`THE WENTINK DECLARATION
`DOES NOT ANTEDATE AYYAGARI ‘508
`
`Exhibit 1021-51
`
`
`
`THE WENTINK DECLARATION
`DOES NOT ANTEDATE AYYAGARI ‘508
`
`Exhibit 1002.266 (Ex. F)
`
`Exhibit 1021-52
`
`
`
`THE WENTINK DECLARATION
`DOES NOT ANTEDATE AYYAGARI ‘508
`
`• To show an actual reduction to practice in an IPR, a party must
`establish “1) construction of an embodiment or performance of
`a process that met all the claim limitations, 2) determination that
`the invention would work for its intended purpose, and 3) the
`existence of sufficient evidence to corroborate inventor
`testimony regarding these events.” K-40 Elecs., LLC v. Escort,
`Inc, IPR2013-00203, 2014 WL 4273883 at *7 (P.T.A.B. Aug.
`27, 2014) (citation omitted) (cited in Reply at 3)
`
`• The patent owner bears the burden of production in antedating
`a reference, although the burden of persuasion to prove
`unpatentability remains with the petitioner. Butamax Advanced
`Biofuels LLC, v. Gevo, Inc., IPR2013-00539, 2015 WL
`1263027, *7+ (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2015) (citation omitted)
`
`Exhibit 1021-53
`
`
`
`THE WENTINK DECLARATION
`DOES NOT ANTEDATE AYYAGARI ‘508
`Dr. Tewfik’s declaration cannot remedy the deficiencies of the Wentink
`Declaration
`
`• Failure to provide an inventor
`for cross-examination
`requires that the declaration
`be given little to no weight.
`• Amneal Pharms., LLC v.
`Endo Pharms. Inc., Case
`IPR2014-00360, Paper 39
`at 4 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2014)
`(cited in Reply at 5)
`
`Exhibit 1021-54
`
`
`
`THE WENTINK DECLARATION
`DOES NOT ANTEDATE AYYAGARI ‘508
`Dr. Tewfik’s declaration cannot remedy the deficiencies of the Wentink
`Declaration
`
`•
`
`Incorrect understanding of
`the legal standard for actual
`reduction to practice
`• Failure to apply the board’s
`claim constructions to his
`analysis
`• Provides no evidence of
`diligence
`• No corroboration regarding
`the software simulation in
`Exhibit F
`
`Exhibit 1021-55
`
`
`
`THE WENTINK DECLARATION
`DOES NOT ANTEDATE AYYAGARI ‘508
`
`• Patent owner provided no evidence or analysis of the
`basis or operation of the January 2001 Exhibit F
`simulations.
`
`Ex. 1018 at 13:12-21 (cited in Reply at 4)
`
`Exhibit 1021-56
`
`
`
`THE WENTINK DECLARATION
`DOES NOT ANTEDATE AYYAGARI ‘508
`
`• Dr. Tewfik did not demonstrate that the simulations of
`Exhibit F implemented all claim elements.
`
`Ex. 2004 at ¶ 76
`
`Exhibit 1021-57
`
`
`
`AYYAGARI ‘508 ENTITLED TO
`PROVISIONAL FILING DATE
`
`• Ayyagari ‘508 disclosures charted in petition pp.
`19-36
`• Ayyagari Provisional disclosures charted in
`petition pp. 40-59
`• Relevant disclosures in Ayyagari Provisional
`provide sufficient written description support for
`the relevant disclosures in Ayyagari ‘508
`• See Apple Inc. v. International Trade Comm’n,
`725 F.3d 1356, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Ex
`parte Yamaguchi, 2007-4412, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d
`1606, 2008 WL 4233306 at *9-11 (B.P.A.I. Aug.
`29, 2008) (cited in Reply at 2)
`
`Exhibit 1021-58
`
`
`
`AYYAGARI WHITE PAPER IS PRIOR ART
`
`AYYAGARI WHITE PAPER IS PRIOR ART
`
`EX. 1005 at 1
`
`Aron Ayyagari, Yoram Beruet, T1111 Moore
`Microsoft Comoration
`One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052-63 99
`Phone: (425) 936-8080
`Ex. 1005 at 1
`Fax: (425) 936-7329
`
`February 2000
`
`doc: IEEE 802.11—00/028
`
`IEEE P802.11
`
`W’ireless LANE
`
`IEEE 802.11 Quality of Service — W’hite Paper
`
`February 15: 2000
`
`Date:
`
`Author(s):
`
`Exhibit 1021-59
`
`
`
`AYYAGARI WHITE PAPER IS PRIOR ART
`
`• Testimony of Dr. Timothy Moore, co-author of the
`Ayyagari White paper
`
`Ex. 1013, 78:14 – 79:3 (cited in Reply at 6)
`
`Exhibit 1021-60
`
`
`
`AYYAGARI WHITE PAPER IS PRIOR ART
`
`AYYAGARI WHITE PAPER IS PRIOR ART
`
`
`EE Standards Association - Documents
`
`'
`
`2000
`
`TGe (inactive)
`
`|:|O~
`06-Feb-2014 18:52:37 ET
`
`1
`
`Ex. 1006 at 1, 7 (cited in Revised Petition at 4)
`
`
`| 1ins:.-"'.-"'mentoi‘. iee e. org". .. 1..-"do 01u11e11ts'.’n=3 & is_dc11=DC‘NQ*02C9-bl OTirle Elia-2- C 9452 0 Aurho 1%: 0 01%: OAffili ation&i>3_g1‘oup=000 ed": is_year=2— 0 0 0[-.‘-.-"6.-"20 14 3 :53 :05 PM]
`
`11-Jul-2007 2000
`
`28
`
`0 TGe
`
`[EEEBUE-llQua'iwof
`Semee __ Wh'te Paper
`
`iéigni‘éé’ifiéikii'ii‘ifiéi‘ii? 25-Feb-2000 07:56:48
`Tim Moore (Microsoft)
`
`Ex. 1006 at 1, 7 (cited in Revised Petition at 4)
`
`Petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC - Exhibit 1006 - Page 7
`
`Exhibit 1021-61
`
`
`
`AYYAGARI WHITE PAPER IS PRIOR ART
`
`• Testimony of Michael Fischer (Editor of Task Group e)
`
`Ex. 1014 at 44:3-22 (cited in Reply at 6)
`
`Exhibit 1021-62
`
`
`
`AYYAGARI WHITE PAPER IS PRIOR ART
`
`• Testimony of Harry Worstell, Vice Chair of IEEE 802.11
`Working Group from 2000 to 2008
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“During the 2000 to 2001 time frame, all submissions to the Working Group
`were kept in a database maintained by the IEEE. . . . With the exception of
`draft standards, all submissions uploaded to the IEEE’s database were
`publicly available via an FTP site or website maintained by the IEEE, and
`any member of the public . . . could access those submissions at the FTP
`or website.” (Ex. 1010 at 4 (cited in Reply at 5-6))
`
`“The last entry in Appendix A [Exhibit 1006] indicates that document 028 of
`. . . entitled ‘IEEE 802.11 Quality of Service – White Paper’ by Arun
`Ayyagari, et al. (of Microsoft) was originally uploaded to the database on
`February 25, 2000 at 7:56:48 AM (Eastern Time). . . . In the normal course
`of business of the Working Group, this database entry and the
`corresponding document would have been publicly available as of the
`upload date and time (or within a few days thereafter.)” (Ex. 1010 at 6
`(cited in Reply at 6))
`
`Exhibit 1021-63
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
