IPR2014-00519
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,5 80
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.;
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC; AND
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC; AND
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC;
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC;
`PETITIONER
`PETITIONER
`
`V.
`
`V.
`
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP
`PATENT OWNER
`PATENT OWNER
`___________________
`
`CASE NO. IPR2014-00519
`
`CASE NO. IPR2014-00519
`PATENT 8,023,580
`PATENT 8,023,580
`______________________________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. PHILIP KOOPMAN, PH.D.
`DECLARATION OF DR. PHILIP KOOPMAN, PH.D.
`
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,5 80
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.;
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC; AND
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC; AND
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC;
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC;
`PETITIONER
`PETITIONER
`
`V.
`
`V.
`
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP
`PATENT OWNER
`PATENT OWNER
`___________________
`
`CASE NO. IPR2014-00519
`
`CASE NO. IPR2014-00519
`PATENT 8,023,580
`PATENT 8,023,580
`______________________________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. PHILIP KOOPMAN, PH.D.
`DECLARATION OF DR. PHILIP KOOPMAN, PH.D.
`
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 1
`
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................ 5
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. BACKGROUND OF THE PROCEEDING ................................................... 9
`
`IV. DEFINITION OF THE PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART ......................... 9
`
`V.
`
`THE STATE OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................ 11
`
`VI. THE ’580 PATENT ...................................................................................... 14
`
`VII. OPINION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERMS
`“MASTER” and “SLAVE” .......................................................................... 16
`
`VIII. THE PRIOR ART OF THE INSTITUTED GROUNDS ............................. 21
`
`IX. THE PRIOR ART COMBINATION DOes NOT RENDER THE ‘580
`CLAIMS OBVIOUS .................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Patent Owner, Rembrandt
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`I.
`
`Wireless Technologies, LP (“Patentee”) to provide opinions in connection with
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00519 of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580 (Ex.
`
`1301, “the ‘580 patent”). I have been asked to render an opinion of whether
`
`certain grounds on which a trial was instituted in this proceeding render the
`
`claims at issue invalid. Specifically, I have been asked to render an opinion as to
`
`whether one of skill in the art would be motivated to combine the alleged
`
`Admitted Prior Art (“APA”) with U.S. Patent No. 5,706,428 based on the alleged
`
`APA’s disclosure of master/slave communication systems.1
`
`2.
`
`I am a tenured Associate Professor in the Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering Department at Carnegie Mellon University. I have a B.S. (1982),
`
`M.Eng. (1982) and Ph.D. (1989) in Computer Engineering. I have been a
`
`professor at Carnegie Mellon since 1996. Prior to that time, I spent several years
`
`in the military and in industry working as a computer engineer and an embedded
`
`system engineer, including significant experience in the area of embedded
`
`networks. I am a named inventor on twenty-six patents, and an author or co-
`
`
`1 The scope of my opinions expressed in this Declaration address the obviousness
`combination only as it relates to master/slave configurations. I understand Patentee relies on the
`opinions in the Declaration of Christopher Jones, submitted herewith, relating to additional
`aspects of the alleged obviousness grounds.
`
`-1-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`author of over 100 non-patent publications in a wide variety of fields within
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`electrical engineering and computer science, including many in the technological
`
`area of embedded system networks. I have been working in computer
`
`engineering since approximately 1980. A current copy of my curriculum vitae is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`3.
`
`I have extensive experience in the field of embedded communication
`
`networks. For example, I have been the instructor of the course “Distributed
`
`Embedded Systems,” taught to Carnegie Mellon seniors and graduate students
`
`almost every year since the Fall semester of 1999. This course includes several
`
`lectures dedicated to embedded network operation and performance, including a
`
`lecture derived from the tutorial based on the 1993 and 1994 articles I co-
`
`authored with Bharghav Upender. Additional lectures in that course cover more
`
`generalized embedded networking topics, including real-time scheduling,
`
`reliability, and system safety
`
`4.
`
`I am also the instructor of the course “Embedded System
`
`Engineering” which covers a number of embedded network protocols, including
`
`various master slave polling arrangements.
`
`5.
`
`I have supervised a number of student independent projects and thesis
`
`projects involving embedded networks. As part of this work, my lab has owned
`
`-2-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`and operated increasingly sophisticated hardware Controller Area Network
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`(CAN) test-beds since approximately 1997.
`
`6. Starting in 1999, I have been an external reviewer for more than 100
`
`design reviews of products for industry clients, many of which have included
`
`review of the use of embedded network protocols. I have further been involved
`
`in the network protocol selection process and related system architecture
`
`selection process for several companies in which network protocols were
`
`considered. I taught seminars on protocol selection to attendees of the Embedded
`
`Systems Conference in 1993 and 1994.
`
`7.
`
` I served as the Guest Editor of a special edition of the magazine IEEE
`
`Micro titled “Critical Embedded Automotive Networks” in July-August 2002,
`
`which included embedded network content.
`
`8.
`
`I have industry experience in network protocol use and selection,
`
`specifically including embedded networks in elevators (Otis Elevator, circa 1991-
`
`1995), and jet aircraft engines (Pratt & Whitney, circa 1992-1995), as well as in
`
`heating/ventilation/cooling systems (Carrier, circa 1995).
`
`9.
`
`I have extensive experience in evaluating, selecting and using
`
`embedded network protocols in safety-critical systems. For example, I am a co-
`
`author of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Data Network Evaluation
`
`Criteria Handbook, (Driscoll, K., Hall, B., Koopman, P., Ray, J., DeWalt, M.,
`
`-3-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`Data Network Evaluation Criteria Handbook, AR-09/24, FAA, 2009) which sets
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`forth evaluation criteria for embedded networks to be used in safety-critical flight
`
`control applications. The “Distributed Embedded Systems” course I previously
`
`mentioned teaches students how to select an embedded network for a particular
`
`embedded system application.
`
`10. I am a named inventor on twenty-six patents, several of which
`
`specifically address embedded control networks.
`
`11. I was the General Chair for the Dependable Systems and Networks
`
`Conference in 2008 (a first-ranked international academic conference on
`
`dependability, fault tolerance, and related topics including networked embedded
`
`system dependability). I was also Program Chair for the Dependable Computing
`
`and Communications Symposium (DCCS) of this same conference in 2012. I am
`
`a member of International Federation of Information Processing Working Group
`
`10.4, an invitation-only organization of international researchers on the topic of
`
`Dependable Computing and Fault Tolerance that holds periodic workshops.
`
`These proceedings routinely address the topic of achieving safe and reliable
`
`operation of distributed embedded networks and systems using such networks. I
`
`am a senior member of both the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
`
`and the Association for Computing Machinery.
`
`-4-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`12. In connection with forming my opinions, I reviewed the documents
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`listed in Exhibit B. Particularly, I analyzed the ‘580 patent and the art on which
`
`the trial was instituted. I also reviewed the March 19, 2014, Declaration of David
`
`Goodman (“Goodman Declaration”) and the Institution Decision dated
`
`September 23, 2014 (“the Institution Decision”) as they relate to the grounds
`
`instituted by the Board. In addition, I also reviewed Dr. Goodman’s November
`
`7, 2014, deposition transcript. My opinions are set forth below. I make these
`
`statements based upon facts and matters within my own knowledge or on
`
`information provided to me by others. All such facts and matters are true to the
`
`best of my knowledge and belief.
`
`13. I am being compensated at my standard expert consulting rate of
`
`$580/hour. My compensation is not contingent upon the substance of my advice,
`
`the opinions I render, or the testimony that I may give.
`
`
`
`II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`14. My understanding of the relevant legal standards is based on
`
`information given by Patent Owner’s counsel. I understand from counsel that in
`
`the inter partes review proceeding, such as this one, the claims of a patent are
`
`construed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`-5-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`claimed invention and are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`with the specification.
`
`15. I understand that the ‘580 patent was filed on August 19, 2009 and
`
`claims priority to a provisional application (Serial No. 60/067,562) filed on
`
`December 5, 1997. Therefore, for the purposes of my opinions contained in this
`
`Declaration, I presume the relevant time for both claim construction and any
`
`invalidity analysis is December 5, 1997. Based on my education, qualifications
`
`and experience, I believe that I am qualified to provide opinions about how one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in December 1997 would have understood the prior art
`
`and the ‘580 patent.
`
`16. It is my understanding that an invention is unpatentable if the
`
`differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter of the invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. I further
`
`understand that obviousness is determined by evaluating: (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claim, (3)
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-
`
`obviousness. To establish obviousness based on a combination of the elements
`
`disclosed in the prior art, it is my understanding that a petitioner must identify a
`
`specific combination that teaches all limitations and establish that a person of
`
`-6-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`obvious to make that combination.
`
`17. To guard against hindsight and an unwarranted finding of
`
`obviousness, I understand that an important component of any obviousness
`
`inquiry is whether the petitioner has identified any teaching, suggestion or
`
`motivation that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to make
`
`the claimed combination and have a reasonable expectation of success in doing
`
`so. I understand that this test should not be rigidly applied, but can be an
`
`important tool to avoid the use of hindsight in the determination of obviousness.
`
`18. I further understand that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation may
`
`be found explicitly or implicitly: (1) in the prior art; (2) in the knowledge of those
`
`of ordinary skill in the art that certain references, or disclosures in those
`
`references, are of special interest or importance in the field; or (3) from the nature
`
`of the problem to be solved. Additionally, I understand that the legal
`
`determination of the motivation to combine references allows recourse to logic,
`
`judgment, and common sense. In order to resist the temptation to read into prior
`
`art the teachings of the invention in issue, however, it should be apparent that
`
`“common sense” should not be conflated with what appears obvious in hindsight.
`
`19. I understand that if the teachings of a prior art reference would lead a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art to make a modification that would render
`
`-7-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`another prior art device inoperable, then such a modification would generally not
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`be obvious. I also understand that if a proposed modification would render the
`
`prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then
`
`there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification.
`
`20. I understand that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I understand that a reference may
`
`be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, upon
`
`reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in
`
`the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
`
`taken by the applicant. In general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that
`
`the line of development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be
`
`productive of the result sought by the patentee. I understand that a reference
`
`teaches away, for example, if (1) the combination would produce a seemingly
`
`inoperative device, or (2) the references leave the impression that the product
`
`would not have the property sought by the patentee. I also understand, however,
`
`that a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference
`
`for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise
`
`discourage investigation into the invention claimed. Finally, I understand that
`
`dependent claims contain all of the limitations of the claims from which they
`
`depend.
`
`-8-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`III. BACKGROUND OF THE PROCEEDING
`21. I understand that, in this proceeding, Petitioner has challenged Claims
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`1, 2, 4-5, 10, 13, 19-22, 49, 52-54, 57-59, 61, 62, 66, 70, and 76-79 of the ’580
`
`Patent, of which Claims 1, 49, 54, and 58 are independent.
`
`22. I further understand that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the
`
`Board”) has instituted the inter partes review only for claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 13, 20-
`
`22, 54, 57, 58, 61, 62, 66, 70 and 76-79 on the alleged obviousness ground based
`
`on admitted prior art (“APA”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,706,428 to Boer et al.
`
`IV. DEFINITION OF THE PERSON OF SKILL IN THE ART
`23. I understand that the Patentee proposed a definition of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as having a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering
`
`that included coursework in communications systems and networking, and two
`
`years of work experience in electronic communications.
`
`24. In determining who would be one of such ordinary skill, I considered
`
`at least the following criteria: (a) the type of problems encountered in the art; (b)
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; (c) the rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made; (d) the sophistication of the technology; and (e) the education level of
`
`active workers in the field.
`
`25. I understand Petitioner alleges that a hypothetical person of ordinary
`
`skill in the field of the ‘580 Patent would have had “a Master’s Degree in
`
`-9-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`Electrical Engineering that included coursework in communications systems and
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`networking, and at least five years of experience designing network
`
`communication systems.” Paper 4 at 9. I find Petitioner’s proposed definition to
`
`be conclusory and unsupported by any evidence.
`
`26. I find Petitioner provides no rationale for its definition, including why
`
`a Master’s degree in electrical engineering is necessary or why “at least five
`
`years of experience” is needed to qualify as one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed definition is arbitrary and unsubstantiated. .
`
`27. I also disagree with Petitioner’s definition because its use of the open-
`
`ended term “at least,” without a ceiling, would include persons who are far over-
`
`qualified to be considered of “ordinary skill” in the art. Someone with the
`
`proposed Master’s degree and more than 15 years of practical experience, for
`
`example, is not “a person of ordinary skill in the art” because that person would
`
`possess a much higher level of understanding of the technology disclosed in the
`
`‘580 patent than a similar person with the five years of experience, yet such a
`
`person would meet Petitioner’s unbounded definition.
`
`28. In my own experience running industry tutorials and teaching at a
`
`university, it is apparent that a graduate-level degree is not required to attain
`
`ordinary skill in the art for the technology disclosed in the ’580 patent. For
`
`example, my joint publications and tutorials with Bhargav Updender that predate
`
`-10-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`the ‘580 patent had an intended audience that included freshly graduated
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`bachelor’s degree students who wanted to work in the area of electronic
`
`communications. From my experience in industry, I would expect that a newly
`
`graduated student is fluent in the specifics of technology relevant to their area of
`
`working specialization within about two years after graduation.
`
`29. For those reasons, it is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would be someone having a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering that
`
`included coursework in communications systems and networking, and two years
`
`of work experience in electronic communications.
`
`30. At the time of the invention, I was, at least, a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`V. THE STATE OF THE PRIOR ART
`31. I understand that the invalidity analysis starts at the relevant date of
`
`the technology at issue. As stated above, the relevant date for purposes of the
`
`‘580 patent is the filing date of the earliest priority application, which is
`
`December 5, 1997.
`
`32. By that time, the basic principles of network protocol technology were
`
`relatively well understood for local area networks (LANs) used for desktop and
`
`enterprise computing. The emphasis in these systems was on aspects such as
`
`flexibility to add and remove network stations, efficient use of available data
`
`-11-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`bandwidth, and scalability to large numbers of stations on a single network. For
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`example, the well-known textbook by Andrew Tanenbaum (Computer Networks,
`
`3rd Ed., 1996) was already on its third edition. Excerpts are attached hereto as
`
`Ex. 2304. Such networks were seen as comprising many interconnected general
`
`purpose computers used for business purpose and the emerging World Wide Web
`
`(e.g., “Throughout this book we will use the term ‘computer network’ to mean an
`
`interconnected collection of autonomous computers.” See Ex. 2304 at 2
`
`(emphasis per original). In fact, Tanenbaum specifically excludes master/slave
`
`systems from consideration within the term “computer network” by saying “By
`
`requiring the computers to be autonomous, we wish to exclude from our
`
`definition systems in which there is a clear master/slave relation. If one computer
`
`can forcibly start, stop, or control another one, the computers are not
`
`autonomous. A system with one control unit and many slaves is not a network;
`
`nor is a large computer with remote printers and terminals.” Id. (emphasis
`
`added). Even when Tanenbaum discusses networks in aircraft, for example, the
`
`discussion is limited to the passengers’ data needs, and not flight controls. Id. at
`
`p. 15. Thus master/slave systems were not preferred by a typical practitioner of
`
`networked communication.
`
`33. At about the same time, the area of embedded control systems was
`
`seeing a trend toward including network technology within embedded system
`
`-12-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`projects, especially vehicles such as cars. The Controller Area Network (Bosch,
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`1991) became very well known in the 1990s, as well as other network
`
`technologies to go beyond the traditional master/slave polling that had been used
`
`in the earliest embedded system applications. As part of this trend, I co-authored
`
`papers and presented tutorials with Bhargav Upender on protocol tradeoffs for
`
`embedded systems at the Embedded Systems Conference and in Embedded
`
`System Programming magazine. In sharp contrast to desktop and enterprise
`
`networking, embedded systems often used master/slave protocols in large part
`
`because they had fixed configurations and needed both simplicity and
`
`determinacy to meet stringent cost and safety requirements (neither of which
`
`typically applied to non-embedded systems). However, master/slave polling was
`
`well known to have problems such as inefficiency and lack of prioritization, so
`
`given the availability of more capable inexpensive microcontrollers that could
`
`implement more complex protocols, practitioners were actively searching for
`
`alternatives. A primary purpose of those publications and presentations was to
`
`ensure that practitioners of ordinary skill understood that protocol selection had
`
`to be done with care and involved fundamental tradeoffs.
`
`-13-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`VI. THE ’580 PATENT
`34. I understand that Petitioner challenges Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 10, 13, 19-22,
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`49, 52-54, 57-59, 61, 62, 66, 70, and 76-79 of the ’580 Patent, of which Claims 1,
`
`49, 54, and 58 are independent.
`
`35. The ‘580 patent issued to inventor Gordon Bremer claims priority to a
`
`provisional application filed on December 5, 1997. The ‘580 patent discloses a
`
`system in which network devices may communicate with other network devices
`
`according to a master/slave relationship using different types of modulation
`
`methods. Ex. 1301, Abstract.
`
`36. The use of multiple types of modulation methods in a master-slave
`
`system as taught by the ‘580 Patent can, for example, permit selection of the
`
`modulation type best suited for a particular application. Ex. 1301, 1:66-2:33.
`
`Annotated Figure 4 shows an embodiment of the patented technology where
`
`some devices in the network communicate using one type of modulation method
`
`(e.g., amplitude modulation), while other devices communicate using a different
`
`type of modulation method (e.g., frequency modulation):
`
`-14-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`
`
`IPPR2014-000519
`
`
`UU.S. PATEENT 8,0233,580
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of one of tthe embod
`
`
`iments
`
`
`
`37. As diiscussed laater, a salieent feature
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`disclosed in the specification is that tthe master//slave poll
`
`
`
`
`
`ing transacction startss
`
`
`
`
`
`and odulation, atype of moing a first tmation usieader informsending hewith thhe master s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`then ooptionally sswitches too a second type of moodulation ddepending
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`exampple, the cappabilities oof the particcular tributtary transcceiver that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on, for
`
`
`
`is under thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`controol of the maaster for a particular message eexchange. TThis approoach can
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`permitt more advvanced trib
`
`
`
`
`
`utary transsceivers to
`
`send data
`
`
`
`at much hhigher data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ive lly expensirt potentialrates wwithout reqquiring all tributary trransceiverss to suppor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`bilities. high-sspeed data rate capab
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`VII. OPINION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERMS
`“MASTER” AND “SLAVE”
`38. I understand that in an inter partes review, claim terms in an
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`unexpired patent are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.
`
`39. I understand that Petitioner and the Patentee have proposed
`
`construction of the following terms:
`
`(1)
`
` “master” (Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 49, 54, 58, 59,
`66, 68, 69); and
`
`(2)
`
` “slave” (Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 58, 59, 66, 68).
`
`Claim Term Patentee’s Construction
`
`
`
`Master
`
`Slave
`
`
`
`“a device which controls all
`communications with other devices
`(i.e., slaves) in a network”
`“a device whose network
`communications are controlled by a
`master”
`
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`“a device which controls or
`polls other transceivers”
`
`“a device controlled by
`commands from a master”
`
`40. For the following reasons, I agree with Patentee’s construction of the
`
`terms “master” and “slave”. I find the Patentee’s proposed construction to
`
`comport with the broadest reasonable interpretation based on its use in the
`
`claims, specification and file history. I note, however, that my analysis and
`
`-16-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`ultimate conclusions set forth in this Declaration would not change if the Board
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`were to adopt Petitioner’s construction of “master” and “slave.”
`
`41. Petitioner takes the position that the terms “master” and “slave”
`
`should be given their plain and ordinary meanings. Paper 4 at 13-14. Petitioner
`
`ignores the relevant content of the claims and specification of the ‘580 patent and
`
`relies solely on extrinsic evidence from the Dictionary of Communications
`
`Technology. Id. It is my understanding that a disputed claim term cannot be
`
`viewed in a vacuum, but rather must be interpreted in the context of the patent,
`
`including the claims and the specification. I find Petitioner’s proposed
`
`constructions for “master” and “slave” to have been created in a vacuum,
`
`divorced from the claims and specification of the ‘580 patent, and therefore to be
`
`incorrect.
`
`42. The ‘580 patent is replete with usage of the terms “master” and
`
`“slave” in the context of the master/slave relationship. For example, the device
`
`disclosed in the ‘580 patent includes “a transceiver capable of acting as a master
`
`according to a master/slave relationship in which communication from a slave to
`
`a master occurs in response to communication from the master to the slave.” Ex.
`
`1301, Abstract. “[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.”
`
`-17-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`Id. at 4:7-9. Similarly, in the Summary of the Invention section of the ‘580
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`patent, it states that:
`
`a device may be capable of communicating according to a
`master/slave relationship in which a communication from a
`slave to a master occurs in response to a communication
`from the master to the slave. The device may include a
`transceiver in the role of the master for sending transmissions
`modulated using at least two types of modulation methods, for
`example a first modulation method and a second modulation
`method
`
`
`Id. at 2:24-29. (emphasis added).
`
`43. Furthermore, independent claims 1 and 58 of the ‘580 patent are
`
`directed to communication devices capable of communicating according to a
`
`master/slave relationship. The preambles of those claims state that in a
`
`master/slave relationship, “a slave communication from a slave to a master
`
`occurs in response to a master communication from the master to the slave”
`
`(Claim 1) and “a slave message from a slave to a master occurs in response to a
`
`master message from the master to the slave” (Claim 58). Id.
`
`44. Consistent with the usage of master/slave in the ‘580 patent, the
`
`Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical Engineering, likewise, defines “master”
`
`as “the system component responsible for controlling a number of others (called
`
`-18-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`slaves).” Ex. 2306 at 397 (emphasis added). The Modern Dictionary defines
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`““slave” as a “component in a system that does not act independently, but only
`
`under the control of another similar component.” Ex. 2305 at 932 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`45. By contrast, Petitioner’s proposed construction of “master” would be
`
`satisfied by a device that merely performed polling, even if it failed to control
`
`communications with a slave. Additionally, Petitioner’s proposed construction of
`
`“master” would be satisfied by a device that controlled the data flow of a slaved
`
`node, even if it failed to poll that slave node. I find such a construction to be
`
`inconsistent with the specification, which uses both polling and control of data
`
`flows in a preferred multipoint embodiment.
`
`46. The specification requires at least polling: “any unilateral transmission
`
`by a trib that has not been addressed by the master transceiver will violate the
`
`multipoint protocol.” Ex. 1301, 5:4-6)
`
`47. Furthermore, the master is the recipient of all data from the slave:
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`Ex. 1301, 4:27-34. This makes it clear that not only does the master select a slave
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`(a trib) for transmission, but also the trib communicates data back to the master.
`
`Thus, the master is in complete control of slave communications. If the master
`
`performed only polling without controlling the communications, then the trib
`
`would have to be able to transmit to other tribs, and not just the master.
`
`48. Regarding the definition of “slave,” I can find no support in the ‘580
`
`patent that requires that all aspects of the slave’s functionality be controlled by the
`
`master. Rather, the control the master exerts is over the slave’s network
`
`communication behavior. For example, the ‘580 patent discloses that “…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.” Ex. 1301, 4:7-9.
`
`49. Therefore, I find Petitioner’s proposed constructions for “master” and
`
`“slave” incorrect because they are not consistent with the usage of these terms in
`
`the ‘580 patent.
`
`50. Consistent with the specification of the ‘580 patent, it is my opinion
`
`that the term “master” means “a device which controls all communications with
`
`other devices (i.e., slaves) in a network.”
`
`51. It is also my opinion that, consistent with the specification of the ‘580
`
`patent, the term “slave” means “a device whose network communications are
`
`controlled by a master.”
`
`-20-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`VIII. THE PRIOR ART OF THE INSTITUTED GROUNDS
`52. I understand Petitioner has alleged the combination of Admitted Prior
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`Art in combination with U.S. Patent No. 5,706,428 to Boer et al. Below, I
`
`provide a brief summary of the relied-upon art.
`
`A. The Alleged Admitted Prior Art (“APA”)
`53. Petitioner alleges that the ’580 describes certain prior art systems
`
`including a multipoint communication system including a master transceiver and
`
`a plurality of tributary transceivers. Petitioner alleges that the description of a
`
`system having a master modem and plurality of identical tributary modems all
`
`communicating via a common modulation method constitutes prior art. See
`
`Paper 4 at 14-15.
`
`54. The petitioner relies on the described system as evidence of the
`
`existence of common modulation master/slave systems prior to in the invention
`
`of the ’580 claimed subject matter.
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 5.706,428 to Boer et al.
`55. Boer is directed to a wireless LAN (local area network ) that “includes
`
`first stations adapted to operate at a 1 or a 2 Mbps [Megabit per second] data rate
`
`and second stations adapted to operate at a 1, 2, 5, or 8 Mbps data rate.” Ex.
`
`1304, Abstract.
`
`-21-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2302
`
`
`
`56. Figure 1 of Boer, which is reproduced below, depicts a wireless LAN
`
`IPR2014-00519
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`10 that includes an access point 12, which serves as a base station, and includes
`
`antennas 16 and 17 for transmitting and receiving messages over a wireless
`
`communication channel. Id. at 2:5-15. The LAN 10 further includes mobile
`
`stations 18 (18-1 and 18-2), which are “capable of transmitting and receiving
`
`messages selectively at a data rate of 1 Mbps (M
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
