Filed on behalf of: IPR LICENSING, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: January 6, 2015
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`Jonathan D. Link
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 11th Street, NW, Ste. 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-1304
`Telephone: (202) 637-2200
`Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
`E-mail: jonathan.link@lw.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ZTE CORPORATION AND ZTE (USA) INC.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`IPR LICENSING, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`Patent 8,380,244
`_____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WAYNE E. STARK
`
`
` 2005
`
`
`
` Ex. 2005-0001
`
`IPR Licensing, Inc.
`Exhibit .
`ZTE Corp v. IPR Licensing, Inc.
`IPR2014-00525 
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 2
`
`III.
`
`SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT .......................................................................... 4
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 4
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 5
`
`A. Anticipation ........................................................................................... 5
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 6
`
`VI. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,380,244, THE DUAL-MODE PATENT ..................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Background and Overview of the ’244 Patent ...................................... 8
`
`Relevant Prosecution History and Cited Prior Art .............................. 16
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 20
`
`D. Date of Invention ................................................................................. 21
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 21
`
`Validity of the ’244 Patent in View of the Asserted Prior Art ............ 25
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Jawanda, in Combination with GPRS, Fails to Disclose a
`“Plurality of Assigned Physical Channels” .............................. 28
`
`Jawanda, through its mention of CDMA, CDPD, and
`GPRS, does not inherently disclose “a plurality of
`assigned physical channels” ...................................................... 40
`
`Jawanda, alone or in combination with GPRS, does not
`disclose maintaining a “logical connection” with the
`cellular network ......................................................................... 45
`
`i
`
` Ex. 2005-0002
`
`

`
`4.
`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`
`Patent 8,380,244
`
`The asserted GPRS documents do not teach maintaining
`a PDP context in an absence of assigned physical
`channels. .................................................................................... 49
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................ 52
`
`Lack of Motivation to Combine .......................................................... 53
`
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ................................. 55
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Licensing by others/industry acquiescence ............................... 55
`
`Skepticism, failure of others, and long felt but unsolved
`need ........................................................................................... 56
`
`Commercial success .................................................................. 57
`
`Unexpected results .................................................................... 58
`
`Teaching away .......................................................................... 59
`
`Lack of simultaneous invention ................................................ 59
`
`J.
`
`Supplementation .................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 2005-0003
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`Patent 8,380,244
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Dr. Wayne E. Stark. I have been retained by InterDigital
`
`Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc.,
`
`and InterDigital Holdings, Inc. (collectively, “InterDigital”) and have been asked
`
`to prepare this declaration (the “Declaration”) in connection with the Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,380,244 (this “IPR”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to investigate and opine on issues relating to the
`
`validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,380,244 (the “’244 Patent”), including the Petition
`
`filed by ZTE and the Declaration of Dr. Harry Bims in support of that Petition.
`
`3.
`
`I expect to be available for deposition and available to testify at the
`
`evidentiary hearing in this IPR. I expressly reserve the right to offer opinions at
`
`the evidentiary hearing and/or in one or more supplemental reports on subjects
`
`raised in my deposition, as well as on subjects raised in the deposition of ZTE’s
`
`expert or by ZTE’s expert at the evidentiary hearing.
`
`4.
`
`This Declaration is based on information currently available to me. I
`
`reserve the right to continue my investigation and study—including but not limited
`
`to reviewing documents and information produced or identified subsequent to this
`
`Declaration. I further reserve the right to expand, modify, and/or supplement my
`
`opinions as my investigation and study continues in response to any additional
`
`information that becomes available to me, any matters raised by ZTE, and/or
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 2005-0004
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`
`
`Patent 8,380,244
`
`
`opinions provided by ZTE’s expert(s), or in light of any relevant orders from the
`
`PTAB, or any other individual or authoritative body.
`
`5.
`
`Throughout this Declaration, I may cite to certain documents or
`
`testimony that support my opinions. These citations are non-exhaustive examples.
`
`Citation to documents or testimony is not intended to signify that my conclusions
`
`or opinions are limited by or based solely on the cited sources.
`
`6.
`
`I reserve the right to use animations, demonstratives, demonstrations,
`
`enlargements of real exhibits, physical evidence, and other devices at the
`
`evidentiary hearing in this Investigation.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`7.
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1978, a Master of Science
`
`in 1979 and a Ph.D. in 1982, all in Electrical Engineering, and all from the
`
`University of Illinois. Since that time I have been at the University of Michigan
`
`where I am a Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.
`
`8.
`
`I received the Presidential Young Investigator Award in 1985 from
`
`the National Science Foundation.
`
`9.
`
`I was named a Fellow of the IEEE in 1997 for contributions to coding
`
`and modulation for spread-spectrum systems. I received the 2002 Military
`
`Communications Conference (MILCOM) Technical Achievement Award.
`
`2
`
` Ex. 2005-0005
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`
`Patent 8,380,244
`
`In 2009, I received the best paper award from MILCOM and in 2010 I
`
`10.
`
`received the best paper award from the Journal of Communications and Networks.
`
`11.
`
`I have received research funding from
`
`the National Science
`
`Foundation, the Army Research Office, and the Defense Advanced Research
`
`Projects Agency. Many of the funded research projects were related to the use of
`
`error control coding in wireless communication systems. I have consulted with a
`
`number of companies and have been awarded eight patents. A list of my patents
`
`appears in my curriculum vitae attached as Appendix 1.
`
`12. During the course of my professional career, I have authored or
`
`coauthored more than 200 publications in the field of wireless communications,
`
`including publications addressing various aspects of wireless communication
`
`protocols and error control coding as applied to spread-spectrum systems. A
`
`complete list of my publications appears in my curriculum vitae attached as
`
`Appendix 1.
`
`13.
`
`I have served as an expert on patent litigation cases involving issues
`
`relating to CDMA technology. A list of litigations in which I have been deposed
`
`or testified during the last four years appears in my curriculum vitae attached as
`
`Appendix 1, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
`
`3
`
` Ex. 2005-0006
`
`

`
`
`
`III. SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT
`14.
`I am providing this Declaration in response to opinions provided in
`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`Patent 8,380,244
`
`
`
`
`the March 21, 2014, declaration of Dr. Harry Bims (ZTE Ex. 1002), who I
`
`understand was retained as an expert by ZTE. I am providing my own independent
`
`analysis of the references relied on by Dr. Bims.
`
`15.
`
`I have been asked to compare the subject matter recited in the ’244
`
`Patent’s challenged claims to the references that form the basis for this IPR (the
`
`“Asserted References”). In particular, I have been asked to express my opinion as
`
`to whether the claims would have been obvious at the time of invention to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in that art in light of these Asserted References.
`
`16.
`
`In performing my analysis, I have reviewed the materials identified in
`
`this Declaration. In addition, I have also relied on my personal knowledge and
`
`extensive experience, including my experience in the design, development, and
`
`operation of relevant systems.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`17.
`It is my opinion and conclusion that each and every challenged claim
`
`of the ’244 Patent is valid. In particular, it is my opinion that the Asserted
`
`References do not render the challenged claims of the ’244 Patent obvious under
`
`the parties’ proposed constructions. I disagree with the contrary opinions and
`
`conclusions offered by Dr. Bims.
`
`4
`
` Ex. 2005-0007
`
`

`
`
`
`V. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`18.
`I am not an attorney and I will offer no opinions on the law. I am,
`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`Patent 8,380,244
`
`
`
`
`however, informed by InterDigital’s counsel of the legal standards regarding claim
`
`construction and validity which I have used in arriving at my stated conclusions in
`
`this Declaration. I have applied these legal standards to the facts, circumstances,
`
`and materials considered, along with my experience, in reaching the conclusions
`
`and opinions expressed in this Declaration.
`
`A. Anticipation
`19.
`I understand that a prior art reference anticipates a patent claim only if
`
`the reference discloses all elements of the claim arranged as in the claim, and
`
`enables one skilled in the art to practice the claimed invention. I understand this
`
`means that every limitation of a claim must appear in a single prior art reference
`
`for the reference to anticipate a claim.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a reference inherently discloses an element if that
`
`element is necessarily present in the disclosure of the reference. I further
`
`understand that the possibility that an element may result from a certain set of
`
`circumstances – that is, an element might be present – is not sufficient to establish
`
`inherency.
`
`5
`
` Ex. 2005-0008
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`Patent 8,380,244
`
`B. Obviousness
`21.
`I have been informed by InterDigital’s counsel that a patent claim is
`
`invalid as obvious if, at the time the invention was made, it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the teachings of the relevant
`
`prior art. I have been informed that the analysis of obviousness involves
`
`determining the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the
`
`prior art and the claimed invention, the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention, and whether the differences are such that the claimed invention as
`
`a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that, in seeking to determine whether an
`
`invention that is a combination of known elements would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, one must consider
`
`the references in their entirety to ascertain whether the disclosures in those
`
`references would have rendered the combination obvious to skilled artisans.
`
`23.
`
`In addition, it is my understanding that an invention may be obvious
`
`where a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
`
`the pieces of prior art to achieve the claimed invention. It is not enough that the
`
`references can be combined; there must be a motivation to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to arrive at the claimed invention. It is not appropriate to pick and choose
`
`6
`
` Ex. 2005-0009
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`
`
`Patent 8,380,244
`
`
`among the individual elements of assorted prior art references to recreate the
`
`claimed invention, but rather, there must be some motivation to combine. The
`
`motivation to combine prior art references may be found in the prior art references
`
`themselves, in the prior art as a whole, in the nature of the problem to be solved, in
`
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, or from common sense. I
`
`understand that the motivation does not need to be explicitly articulated in the prior
`
`art. But I also understand that motivation may not be gleaned from impermissible
`
`hindsight reasoning. That is, the reason to combine the prior art to arrive at the
`
`claimed invention cannot be based in whole or in part on the inventor’s own
`
`disclosure.
`
`24. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness: It is also my
`
`understanding
`
`that an obviousness/non-obviousness analysis must address
`
`secondary considerations, including the following:
`
` whether the claimed invention satisfied a long-felt need;
`
` whether the claimed invention was preceded by a history of failures by
`
`others to solve a problem or problems solved by such invention;
`
` whether the claimed invention achieved a surprising result;
`
` whether the claimed invention exhibited performance superior to prior art
`
`devices and/or methods;
`
` evidence of industry acquiescence;
`
`7
`
` Ex. 2005-0010
`
`

`
`
`
`
` licenses;
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`Patent 8,380,244
`
` whether the claimed invention has been copied;
`
` whether the claimed invention was commercially successful where there
`
`is a nexus or connection between the commercial success and the claimed
`
`invention;
`
` whether the claimed invention was the subject of skepticism by the
`
`industry; and
`
` whether the prior art taught away from the claimed invention.
`
`VI. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,380,244, THE DUAL-MODE PATENT
`A. Background and Overview of the ’244 Patent
`25. The ’244 Patent, entitled “Dual-Mode Unit for Short Range, High
`
`Rate and Long Range, Lower Rate Data Communications,” describes and claims
`
`key improvements to dual-mode devices. See generally ZTE Ex. 1001 (’244
`
`Patent). Here, “dual-mode devices” refers to devices that can communicate over
`
`two different kinds of networks, such as cellular and wireless local area networks
`
`(“wireless LAN,” “WLAN,” or “Wi-Fi”).
`
`26. Wireless LANs use unlicensed frequency bands and operate with a
`
`bandwidth of about 20 MHz or more. This is much larger than the bandwidth
`
`typically allocated for cellular transmissions, which use licensed bands and
`
`typically operate with a bandwidth of about 5 MHz. In addition, the distance
`
`8
`
` Ex. 2005-0011
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`
`
`Patent 8,380,244
`
`
`between a Wi-Fi enabled device and an access point is typically much smaller than
`
`the distance between a subscriber unit and a base station. Typically, the higher
`
`bandwidth and shorter distance allow for higher data rates using Wi-Fi (when
`
`available) compared to cellular. In addition, because the frequency bands for Wi-
`
`Fi are unlicensed, there is typically no cost when using Wi-Fi except to purchase a
`
`low cost access point. The downside of Wi-Fi is that the coverage of available
`
`access points is limited and often there are significant geographic areas that are not
`
`covered by access points whereas cellular generally has much wider coverage.
`
`27. As of the September 21, 1999 initial filing of the application that led
`
`to the ’244 Patent, very few phones had the ability to transfer data, and those that
`
`did were very slow, typically 10 kbps. On the other hand WiFi that was being
`
`standardized at the time had data rates closer to 1 Mbps. The ’244 Patent
`
`described and claimed key improvements that enabled dual mode devices to
`
`transfer data more quickly.
`
`28. One key improvement described and claimed in the ’244 Patent is that
`
`the subscriber unit, rather than the base station (more specifically, the cellular
`
`network, via the base station) selects the physical channels that the subscriber unit
`
`uses to transfer data. See, e.g., ZTE Ex. 1001 (’244 Patent) at 9:64-66; see also id.
`
`at Figure 6, 9:27-28, 10:33-36. In prior art cellular standards, such as IS-95 and
`
`GPRS, the base station/network, not the subscriber unit, selects the physical
`
`9
`
` Ex. 2005-0012
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`
`
`Patent 8,380,244
`
`
`channels. When the subscriber unit has data to transfer, it sends the base station a
`
`request for physical channels. In response, the base station tells the subscriber unit
`
`which channels it can use for the data transfer. This approach is relatively slow.
`
`29.
`
`In General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), the base station selects
`
`physical channels for use by the subscriber unit. Not only is this approach required
`
`by GPRS, it would be impractical to allow selection of physical channels by the
`
`subscriber unit. This is because the GPRS standard uses a combination of FDMA
`
`and TDMA, whereby a base station selects a frequency band and time slot(s) over
`
`which each individual mobile station will transmit data. The selection of time
`
`slot(s), which represent physical channels, is not done by the individual mobile
`
`station because the mobile stations have no way of knowing that the selected time
`
`slot is not already in use or will not be used by another mobile station. Instead, a
`
`mobile station makes a request to the base station, and the base station allocates or
`
`deallocates either one or multiple time slots uniquely.
`
`30.
`
`In the IS-95 cellular standard, the base station, as opposed to the
`
`subscriber unit, selects the traffic channel used by the mobile station. In particular,
`
`when the subscriber unit sends an access request Page Response Message, the base
`
`station responds with a Channel Assignment Message directing the subscriber unit
`
`to the traffic channel. Furthermore, in IS-95, there is only one channel that the
`
`subscriber unit can use to communicate user data with the base station – the
`
`10
`
` Ex. 2005-0013
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`
`
`Patent 8,380,244
`
`
`Reverse Traffic Channel. Therefore, IS-95 does not include “a cellular transceiver
`
`configured to communicate with a cellular wireless network via a plurality of
`
`assigned physical channels,” as required by the ’244 Patent’s claims. See, e.g.,
`
`ZTE Ex. 1001 (’244 Patent) at 11:7-9.
`
`31. The ’244 Patent describes and claims a faster approach to selecting
`
`the cellular physical channels that the device will use to transfer data. In the ’244
`
`Patent, the subscriber unit, rather than the base station, selects the cellular physical
`
`channels that the subscriber unit then uses to transfer data. As the patent explains,
`
`describing “a subscriber unit 101 incorporating the features of the present
`
`invention,” “wireless bandwidth is allocated only when there is actual data
`
`present.” ZTE Ex. 1001 (’244 Patent) at Figure 6, 9:27-28, 10:33-36. This allows
`
`the subscriber unit to select channels as needed to send data. It also avoids the
`
`delay of the subscriber unit requesting channels from the base station, and then
`
`waiting for the base station to respond. It is therefore more efficient and faster
`
`than the prior art approach.
`
`32. Specifically, challenged claim 1, and its dependent claims, each
`
`require “a plurality of assigned physical channels” that can be used by the
`
`subscriber unit to communicate with a cellular wireless network. See id. at 11:7-9.
`
`A District Court judge has concluded, and Dr. Bims and I both agree, that these
`
`“assigned physical channels” are cellular physical channels that are available for
`
`11
`
` Ex. 2005-0014
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`
`
`Patent 8,380,244
`
`
`the subscriber unit to select for use. See ZTE Ex. 1002 (Bims Decl.) at ¶¶ 95-100;
`
`Pet. at 9-10.
`
`33.
`
`In other words, in the claimed subscriber unit, the cellular physical
`
`channels are selected for use by the subscriber unit, not the base station/network.
`
`In InterDigital Communications, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., Civ. Action No. 1:13-cv-0009-
`
`RGA (the “District Court Case”) the District Court judge found that the “assigned
`
`physical channels” are “physical channels available for the subscriber unit to select
`
`for use.” Ex. 2009 (Markman Op.) at 14-15. As the District Court noted, the
`
`defendants, including ZTE, specifically argued that channels are made available
`
`for use, and “a subset of those available channels are selected for use” by the
`
`subscriber unit. Id. at 15. The District Court therefore construed the claims to
`
`require “physical channels available for the subscriber unit to select for use.” Id. at
`
`14. This is the opposite of the slower approach used in the prior art, as described
`
`above, in which the network, via the base station, would receive a request from the
`
`subscriber unit for cellular physical channels for the transfer of data. In response,
`
`the network would select, and identify to the subscriber unit, the cellular physical
`
`channels that the subscriber unit would then use to transfer data.
`
`34. Notably, the specification teaches that a “subscriber unit 101
`
`incorporating the features of the present invention” is shown in Figure 6. This
`
`subscriber unit of “the present invention” includes the “bandwidth management
`
`12
`
` Ex. 2005-0015
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`
`
`Patent 8,380,244
`
`
`function 134 [that] is responsible for allocating [i.e., selecting] … CDMA radio
`
`channels 160 as required.” See ZTE Ex. 1001 (’244 Patent) at 9:64-66. In other
`
`words, the specification makes clear that the subscriber unit, through the
`
`bandwidth management function selects physical channels for use.
`
`35. A second key improvement described and claimed in the ’244 Patent
`
`is maintaining a communication session with the cellular wireless network, in an
`
`absence of the plurality of assigned physical channels. As the District Court found,
`
`and as ZTE and Dr. Bims agree, this term is properly construed as “maintain a
`
`logical connection with the cellular wireless network when none of the plurality of
`
`assigned physical channels are in use by the subscriber unit.” See ZTE Ex. 1002
`
`(Bims Decl.) at ¶¶ 101-02; Pet. at 13-15. Note that the claims require that while
`
`this logical connection is maintained, and the cellular physical connections are
`
`absent, the subscriber unit communicates packet data using the IEEE 802.11
`
`WLAN.
`
`36. This feature, maintaining a logical connection with the cellular
`
`wireless network when the cellular physical channels are not in use, enables the
`
`cellular connection to be re-established more quickly. As the patent explains, this
`
`avoids “the overhead associated with having to set up an end to end connection
`
`every time that data needs to be transferred.” ZTE Ex. 1001 (’244 Patent) at 4:19-
`
`22. In other words, the communication parameters need not be re-negotiated each
`
`13
`
` Ex. 2005-0016
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`
`
`Patent 8,380,244
`
`
`time the cellular connection is to be used – instead, after the initial negotiation, the
`
`parameters are preserved in the form of a logical connection.
`
`37. The feature of maintaining a logical connection with the cellular
`
`wireless network when the cellular physical channels are not in use was not present
`
`in the existing dual-mode prior art at the time of the invention. For example, in the
`
`Jawanda patent relied on by ZTE, there is no disclosure of such a logical
`
`connection. In Jawanda, if the WLAN connection was being used, the cellular
`
`connection was either terminated in its entirety, or maintained in its entirety. For
`
`example, in Figure 4, block 122, Jawanda describes a “seamless handoff” of the
`
`transfer of datagrams from the WWAN cellular connection to the WLAN
`
`connection. ZTE Ex. 1003 (Jawanda) at Fig. 4. This simply means that the
`
`WWAN cellular connection stops sending the datagrams, and the WWAN cellular
`
`connection is terminated, while the WLAN connection takes over sending the
`
`datagrams.
`
`38. Block 122 also refers to “optionally maintaining” the cellular WWAN
`
`connection. See id. Here, “optionally maintaining” the WWAN cellular
`
`connection refers to maintaining the entire connection such that the physical
`
`channels remain active, i.e., in use. This is apparent from the rest of the block
`
`diagram: block 130 indicates to “establish” a connection with the WWAN cellular
`
`14
`
` Ex. 2005-0017
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`
`
`Patent 8,380,244
`
`
`network “if data connection is not already active.”1 Id. An “active” connection is
`
`one that is in use. See, e.g., Ex. 2015 (Delaware Trial Tr.) at 1120:11-24. And the
`
`WWAN cellular connection will be “active” in block 130 only if, in block 122, it
`
`was “optionally maintained.” ZTE Ex. 1003 (Jawanda) at Fig. 4. Thus, the
`
`“optionally maintained” WWAN connection in block 122 is an active connection –
`
`one that is in use. This is further confirmed by block 110, which indicates that if
`
`the session is terminated, the device will “close all active data connections” –
`
`confirming that there may be more than one active data connection. Id. In other
`
`words, both the WLAN and the WWAN may be active, or in use, at the same time.
`
`39.
`
`In short, block 122 indicates only that the WWAN connection may
`
`optionally remain active, or in use, while the WLAN connection is being used to
`
`transfer datagrams. Block 122 says nothing about maintaining only the logical
`
`connection, while not using the physical connection. In fact, there is no suggestion
`
`anywhere in Jawanda of distinguishing between a cellular logical connection and a
`
`cellular physical connection.
`
`40. This feature, maintaining a logical connection when the cellular
`
`connection is not in use, was not present in the then-existing cellular standards,
`
`such as GPRS. At the time of the invention, in the then-existing GPRS standards,
`
`the PDP context was not maintained when the physical channels were not in use.
`
`1
`Emphasis added throughout, unless otherwise indicated.
`
`15
`
` Ex. 2005-0018
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`
`
`Patent 8,380,244
`
`
`The document that ZTE and Dr. Bims rely on is marked “Draft,” confirming that it
`
`is not part of a final approved specification. See ZTE Ex. 1005.03 (GSM 3.60 v.
`
`6.1.1) at 1. Indeed, this document, GSM 3.60 v. 6.1.1, was not part of Release 97,
`
`but instead underwent multiple subsequent revisions before being finalized in the
`
`standard. See Ex. 2019 (Release Version Matrix) at 8; Ex. 2020 (GSM 3.60 v.
`
`6.11.0) at 1. Thus, there would be no motivation to combine it with Jawanda
`
`because this document is not part of the GPRS standard referenced in Jawanda, but
`
`is instead a draft. As noted below, Jawanda teaches that “wireless signals can be
`
`transmitted according to any currently available or future” GPRS standard. See
`
`ZTE Ex. 1003 (Jawanda) at 3:6-8. Therefore, combining GSM 3.60 v. 6.1.1 with
`
`Jawanda would run contrary to the express teachings of Jawanda. See infra §
`
`VI.G.
`
`B. Relevant Prosecution History and Cited Prior Art
`41.
`Jawanda and versions of the various GPRS documents relied on by
`
`Dr. Bims were before the patent examiner during prosecution. ZTE Ex. 1001
`
`(’244 Patent), Cited References (listing U.S. Patent No. 6,243,581 to Jawanda,
`
`GSM 2.60 v. 7.0.0, GSM 3.60 v. 6.4.0, GSM 3.64 v. 7.0.0, GSM 4.07 v. 6.1.0,
`
`GSM 4.08 v. 5.13.0, GSM 4.60 v. 7.5.0, GSM 5.01 v. 6.1.1). In fact, the ’244
`
`Patent issued after a series of Office Actions and Interviews in which Jawanda was
`
`explicitly discussed and overcome.
`
`16
`
` Ex. 2005-0019
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00525
`
`Patent 8,380,244
`
`42. The ’244 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 12/615,098 (“the
`
`’098 application”) filed on November 9, 2009. See ZTE Ex. 1001 (’244 Patent) at
`
`cover.
`
`43. The Examiner originally rejected the ’098 application’s pending
`
`claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). ZTE Ex.
`
`1018 (ZTE Sections Prosecution History) at 64 (Office Action, July 28, 2010).
`
`The Examiner was unable to find support for the “processor coupled to the first
`
`transceiver and second transceiver, and configured to maintain a communication
`
`session, above a physical layer, with the wireless network in the absence of the
`
`plurality of assigned physical layer channels” limitation of pending claim 1. See
`
`id. at 64-67. In addition, the Examiner rejected the pending claims in view of
`
`Sainton (2008/0274767) in combination with Kumaki (2002/0191562) and
`
`Lemiläinen (U.S. Patent No. 7,502,626). See id. at 67-76.
`
`44. Following an interview with the Examiner, the applicant (InterDigital)
`
`amended the pending claims, and responded to the initial Office Action. See id. at
`
`51-54 (Response to Office Action, January 28, 2011). The applicant explained that
`
`the pending claims “are fully supported and enabled by the present specification”
`
`because,