Opposition To Petition
`For Inter Partes Review Of
`Patent 8,023,580
`Case Nos.
`IPR2014-00518
`IPR2014-00519
`
`April 24, 2015
`
`Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP
`
`

`
`Dr. Koopman, for Patent Owner
`
`Dr. Goodman, for Petitioner
`
`Goodman Deposition Transcript
`518/Ex. 2211 at 97:10-14
`519/Ex. 2308 at 97:10-14
`
`Goodman Deposition Transcript
`518/Ex. 2211 at 98:15-21
`519/Ex. 2308 at 98:15-21
`
`Koopman Decl.
`(518/Ex. 2208 at ¶86; 519/Ex.
`2302 at ¶86).
`
`2
`
`

`
`• U.S. Patent No.
`8,023,580
`• Gordon E. Bremer
`• Filed: August 19, 2009
`• Priority Date:
`December 7, 1997
`
`3
`
`

`
`USl]l]8023 53032
`
`US 8,023,580 B2
`Sep. 20. 2011
`
`¢.D9l.-122
`4.135.-164
`4,181,546
`4.461.767
`A.5u‘l.545
`1.5139. [TI
`4.5IE2 [6
`4.525.346
`4.525.341?
`1.S3Z.54D
`4,610,236
`4.6-iS.3'u‘I
`
`J-Jvxvmvrrxvzavmvrrrmvrrr
`
`(10) Patent No.:
`(45) Date of Patent:
`SHTN Anne:
`blI9K2 Amuuungen]
`-a-‘um Amnllvong
`8'|9M Brelmr
`M985 Brtlmreial.
`-tII9K5 Bmmraal.
`5-‘um iuummqz,
`EJWB5 Brelmrelal.
`EJWB5 Brelmr
`7II9I5 Bmvnraal.
`I1"I9M Belll
`1"I981 Brelvnnial.
`1'|9B'7 Brelmr
`511937 Bflllfll
`EH93? Bellsual
`I I."l9fl Copchlll. Ill
`(Cdutiumd)
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`'\'_'omalralI Enmgenuy Rail» Nolnllcimn System Ben M 195I".
`u-wvuIIod:IoIadio|IIswIln.n1~g..-xccaaaedonbec. S.20I0. 2 pages.
`(fmntimiedl
`
`Primary Emrmiwr — Dec H:
`{74} Amvlwy Agvw. ar Firm — Cumin Ronda LLP
`{57}
`ABSTRACT
`Adsviae may be capableufcnnuunnicalilgusing at least Iwu
`type Iypes ufmoduialinn meIJ.1ndI.The device may include a
`u-unwciva clpubleofaclillg as a nusnu-aumrding In a mas-
`her:/slwe mlnliunsllip inwllicb communication from :I sluvelu
`.1 mnsmocuurs in responselo oumnunniummn fmm llamas-
`ver lo the slave. The Jnaewr lrensoeiwel may send transmis-
`sions diswemramuflssiom slrucmredwitha firstportiauand
`I payload ponian. Infnmlatinu in Line firs! pcrlinu may he
`mudulm-.d awarding on a first mudillntiou lugllml nndin1I.i-
`cale an impending change In a se-mud modnluuiun membod.
`which is uyed for unnsmilljng [M pug/land pOI'(i\‘Jn. The die-
`cme Imnsmisnians may be addressed fix-an in.I-ended desti-
`nation oflhe payload portion.
`
`T9 Clalls. 8 Drawing Slims
`
`{I2} United States Patent
`B|‘€l|'lE|'
`
`(54) SYSTEM AND METHOD OF
`COMMUNICATION IJSINGAT LEAST TWO
`MODULATION METHODS
`inwmnrr Gordon F. llnmer. Cleavwaler. FL {US}
`Noliocz
`Suhinm In IuydJ'scIaiu:I:Ltl:I:I:rm oI'I]\i5
`paint is mauled or adjusted under 15
`U.s.c. 1540:) by Odays.
`App! No.2 izrmmu
`Flifidi
`Aug. 19. 21109
`PI-lnr Puhlltltlnn Dill
`USIOICI/lJl83055Al
`JuL22.2l)|lII
`Related U-5- Appllcatlan Data
`Cuntinualiun of appliratinn Na. 1lJ":"N,ED3. filcd on
`in]. 9. 2300?. um» Pal. Nu.
`'.".675.965. wluicli
`is :1
`wnlimnlion of Ipplicnlinn Nu. 1ClI'-l|3.S?8. filed on
`Apr. I4. 2003. now Pal. No. 7.248.626. which is a
`ounlinimiun-in-pail of application No. CI9J2ll5.205.
`liled on Dec. 4. I993. IDDW PEI. No. fi,EII.3J3.
`Prmfninna] applicatinn No. 60.NJ€-7,5|SZ filed on Dec.
`5. 190?
`Int.C|.
`(20D6.0|]
`H04]. 511'}
`3'l‘5l'3§I',-I55u'lD2: 332fI0$'.3'32a'l]9:
`US. (1.
`332F1S|
`run all Cluslflurllnn Seantll
`3153269. 235. 222. 298. 302‘ 305, 308; 455iI'IO2.
`#551110: 132F103. II9. |2D.15|
`Seeupnlimiun lile for complain search biliary.
`Inference! Clted
`US. PATENT DOCUMENFS
`3335.52! A
`5Fi9‘.'.'l Achlerul.
`3.361.340 A
`91913 Enema:
`3.970.926 A
`'."'J9'.'6 R.Igby¢Ial.
`
`4
`
`Trib 2
`Type 8
`
`Master
`Type A + B
`60
`
`

`
`the first information for said at least one group of
`transmission sequences comprises a first sequence,
`in the first portion and modulated according to the
`first modulation method, wherein the first sequence
`indicates an impending change from the first
`modulation method to the second modulation
`method, and
`
`the second information for said at least one
`group of transmission sequences comprises a
`second sequence that is modulated according to the
`second modulation method, wherein the second
`sequence is transmitted after the first sequence.
`
`•
`
`Claim 1
`A communication device capable of
`communicating according to a master/slave
`relationship in which a slave communication from a
`slave to a master occurs in response to a master
`communication from the master to the slave, the device
`comprising:
`a transceiver, in the role of the master
`according to the master/slave relationship, for sending
`at least transmissions modulated using at least two
`types of modulation methods, wherein the at least two
`types of modulation methods comprise a first
`modulation method and a second modulation method,
`wherein the second modulation method is of a
`different type than the first modulation method,
`wherein each transmission comprises a group of
`transmission sequences, wherein each group of
`transmission sequences is structured with at least a first
`portion and a payload portion wherein first information
`in the first portion indicates at least which of the first
`modulation method and the second modulation method
`is used for modulating second information in the
`payload portion, wherein at least one group of
`transmission sequences is addressed for an intended
`destination of the payload portion, and wherein for the
`at least one group of transmission sequences:
`
`5
`
`

`
`• Master/Slave
`− a multipoint communication
`system including a master
`transceiver and a plurality of
`tributary transceivers.
`• U.S. Patent 5,706,428 (“Boer”)
`− Wireless LAN system built on
`Carrier Sense Multiple Access
`(“CSMA”) Protocol
`
`6
`
`See Amended Petition (518/Paper 4 at 14-15; 518/Paper 4 at 37-38);
`See also Koopman Decl. (518/Ex. 2208 at ¶52; 518/Ex. 2302 at ¶52).
`
`

`
`See Amended Petition
`(518/Paper 4 at 18;
`518/Paper 4 at 41).
`
`Goodman Decl.
`(518/Ex. 1218 at ¶96;
`519/Ex. 1318 at ¶169-
`170).
`
`7
`
`

`
`8
`
`

`
`Goodman Deposition Transcript
`518/Ex. 2211 at 97:10-14
`519/Ex. 2308 at 97:10-14
`
`Goodman Deposition Transcript
`518/Ex. 2211 at 98:15-21
`519/Ex. 2308 at 98:15-21
`
`9
`
`Goodman Declaration (518/Ex. 1220 at ¶ 267; 519/Ex. 1320 at¶ 179).
`
`

`
`Goodman Litigation Deposition Transcript,
`November 18, 2014
`518/Ex. 2212 at 19-21
`519/Ex. 2309 at 19-21
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent Owner Response (518/Paper 25 at 41);
`(519/Paper 25 at 18).
`
`518/Ex. 2209 at 476; 519/Ex. 2303 at 476
`
`11
`
`

`
`• Wireless LAN system built on
`Carrier Sense Multiple Access
`(“CSMA”) Protocol
`
`12
`
`

`
`13
`
`Patent Owner Response (518/Paper 25 at 41); see also (519/Paper 25 at 18).
`
`

`
`14
`
`Patent Owner Response (519/Paper 25 at 21)
`See also Koopman Decl. (518/Ex. 2208, ¶100-101); (519/Ex. 2302, ¶100-101).
`
`

`
`15
`
`Koopman Decl. (518/Ex. 2208 at ¶95; 519/Ex. 2302 at ¶95).
`
`

`
`Koopman Decl. (518/Ex. 2208 at
`¶78; 519/Ex. 2302 at ¶78).
`
`16
`
`

`
`Boer (CSMA)
`
`Boer at 4:25-40
`
`17
`
`Boer at 4:58-5:3
`See Patent Owner Response (518/Paper 25 at 41-44; 519/Paper 25 at 18-21).
`
`

`
`“[A] master controls the initiation of its own
`transmission to the tribs and permits transmission
`from a trib only when that trib has been selected.”
`‘580 Patent, 4:7-9
`
`“…any unilateral transmission by a trib that has not
`been addressed by the master transceiver will violate
`the multipoint protocol.”
`
`‘580 Patent, 5:4-6
`
`“At the end of trailing sequence 38, trib 26a transmits
`training sequence 42 to initiate a communication
`session with master transceiver 24. Because master
`transceiver 24 selected trib 26a for communication as
`part of training sequence 34, trib 26a is the only
`modem that will return a transmission. Thus, trib 26a
`transmits data 44 destined for master transceiver 24
`followed by trailing sequence 46 to terminate the
`communication session.”
`
`‘580 Patent, 4:27-34
`
`18
`
`Master/Slave
`
`“In this protocol [Master/slave polling], a centrally
`assigned master periodically sends a polling message
`to the slave nodes, giving them explicit permission to
`transmit on the network.”
`
`“This protocol is ideal for a centralized data-
`acquisition system where peer-to-peer communication
`and global prioritization are not required. However,
`the single point-of-failure from the master node (or
`the cost of installing redundant master hardware) is
`often unacceptable. Additionally, the polling process
`consumes considerable bandwidth regardless of
`network load (poor efficiency).”
`Upender Koopman (518/1218 at 50;
`519/1317 at 50)
`See Patent Owner Response (518/Paper 25 at 16-19)
`(519/Paper 25 at 9-12)
`
`

`
`Boer (CSMA)
`
`Master/Slave
`
`19
`
`

`
`Boer (CSMA)
`
`Goodman Deposition Transcript
`518/Ex. 2211 at 83:7-20
`519/Ex. 2211 at 83:7-20
`
`20
`
`See Patent Owner Response (518/Paper 25 at 44; 519/Paper 25 at 21).
`
`

`
`Boer (CSMA)
`
`Goodman Deposition Transcript
`518/Ex. 2211 at 83:7-20
`519/Ex. 2211 at 83:7-20
`
`21
`
`See Patent Owner Response (518/Paper 25 at 44; 519/Paper 25 at 21).
`
`

`
`Master/Slave
`
`Goodman Deposition Transcript
`518/Ex. 2211 at 83:7-20
`519/Ex. 2211 at 83:7-20
`
`22
`
`See Patent Owner Response (518/Paper 25 at 44; 519/Paper 25 at 21).
`
`

`
`Master/Slave
`
`Goodman Deposition Transcript
`518/Ex. 2211 at 83:7-20
`519/Ex. 2211 at 83:7-20
`
`23
`
`See Patent Owner Response (518/Paper 25 at 44; 519/Paper 25 at 21).
`
`

`
`Boer (CSMA)
`
`Master/Slave
`
`24
`
`See Patent Owner Response (518/Paper 25 at 44; 519/Paper 25 at 21).
`
`

`
`25
`
`Patent Owner Response (519/Paper 25 at 21)
`See also Koopman Decl. (518/Ex. 2208, ¶100-101; 519/Ex. 2302, ¶100-101).
`
`

`
`IIIII 1
`Media access nudeofik.
`
`Upender/
`Koopman:
`
`Emg
`
`26
`
`

`
`• Amendment to claims:
`− “at least two types of modulation methods,
`. . . wherein the second modulation
`method is of a different type than the first
`modulation method . . . .”
`− Patentee’s express definition
`
`27
`
`See ‘580 Prosecution History (518/Ex. 1209 at 20/23; 519/1309 at 20/23).
`
`

`
`•
`
`•
`
`“The law in an inter partes review is clear: a “claim term will not receive its
`ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set
`forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or
`prosecution history.” Cisco Systems, Inc. v. AIP Acquisition, LLC, 2014 WL
`2364452, at *6 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd., May 27, 2014) (emphasis added) quoting
`CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002); accord Advanced Fiber Techs.
`Trust v. J&L Fiber Servs., 674 F.3d 1365, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Macronix Int’l¸
`IPR2014-00106 (Paper 13 at 6, Apr. 24, 2014). Thus, the patentee’s definition in
`either the specification or prosecution history governs.”
`
`“Further, in Abbott Labs. v. Novopharm Ltd., 323 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the
`Federal Circuit held that a patent specification’s use of the letters “i.e.” (Latin for
`“that is”) in conjunction with a claim term typically connotes a binding
`definition. 323 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).”
`
`28
`
`Patent Owner Response (518/Paper 25 at 13-14).
`
`

`
`Jones Decl.
`(518/Ex. 2214 at
`¶ 60).
`
`518/Ex. 2228
`
`29
`
`

`
`57.
`
`In my opinion, DBPSK and DQPSK are not different types of
`
`modula1:ion methods. Rather, DBPSK and DQPSK are both in the phase family of
`
`modulation methods. This is so because in both DBPSK and DQPSK the
`
`characteristic of the earlier wave that is modulated is its phase. Moreover, as noted
`
`30
`
`See Jones Decl. (518/Ex. 2214 at ¶ 57).
`
`

`
`Jones Decl.
`(518/Ex. 2214 at ¶ 58)
`
`31
`
`Boer at 4:41-57
`
`Goodman Deposition Transcript
`518/Ex. 2211 at 23:18-21
`519/Ex. 2308 at 23:18-21
`
`

`
`Claim Term
`
`First Modulation
`Method (Claims
`1, 13, 21, 22,
`54, 58, 70, 76,
`78, 79)
`
`Second
`Modulation
`Method (Claims
`1, 13, 20, 22,
`54, 58, 70, 77,
`79)
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`“a first method for
`varying one or more
`characteristics of a
`carrier in accordance
`with information to be
`communicated”
`“a second method for
`varying one or more
`characteristics of a
`carrier in accordance
`with information to be
`communicated”
`
`Petitioner’s
`Construction
`“a process of varying
`characteristic(s) of a
`carrier wave that is
`different from a second
`modulation method”
`
`“a process of varying
`characteristic(s) of a
`carrier wave that is
`different from a first
`modulation method”
`
`32
`
`See Patent Owner Response (518/Paper 25 at 8) (emphasis added).
`
`

`
`Conclusion
`
`• Petition fails to show that the
`alleged combination renders the
`claims obvious:
`− Dr. Goodman’s failure to read
`and fully understand the art
`upon which he relies
`− No motivation to combine
`Master/Slave with Boer
`− One of skill in the art would
`not combine a master/slave
`protocol with Boer
`
`• Alleged combination fails to
`disclose every element of the
`claims:
`− As properly construed, Boer
`does not disclose “two types
`of modulation methods”
`− DBPSK and DQPSK are not
`different “types” of
`modulation
`− PPM is an encoding
`technique, not a modulation
`technique that varies the
`carrier wave
`
`33