CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`Before the Honorable David P. Shaw
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`In The Matter Of
`CERTAIN WIRELESS DEVICES WITH
`3G CAPABILITIES AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-800
`
`
`
`DIRECT WITNESS STATEMENT OF
`
`DR. HARRY V. BIMS
`
`JANUARY 7, 2013
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
` 2016
`
` Ex. 2016-0001
`
`RX-3519C
`
`IPR Licensing, Inc.
`Exhibit .
`ZTE Corp v. IPR Licensing, Inc.
`IPR2014-00525 
`
`

`
`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`
`631. Q.
`Dr. Stark says that GPRS does not inherently disclose “multiple physical
`layer channels are available for assignment” because class 1 of GPRS only has 1
`uplink and 1 downlink channel. What is your response to this?
`
`
`
`A.
`Dr. Stark points out that even class 1 of GPRS has two channels available for
`assignment, one uplink and one downlink. So it does inherently teach a plurality of
`channels available for assignment. Moreover, even in GPRS did not inherently disclose
`this limitation, it certainly would have been obvious to refer to combine Jawanda with the
`teachings of the GPRS standard which teaches the assignment of multiple physical layer
`channels, including multiple uplink channels, in various classes of operation.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 1f – “communication session above the physical layer”
`
`632. Q.
`Let’s look at the sixth and final limitation of claim 1 of the ’970 Patent, which
`reads as follows: “a communication session above the physical layer is maintained
`when all assigned physical layer channels have been released.” Let’s turn back to
`the Joint Proposed Claim Construction Statement (RX-0724). Did InterDigital
`propose a claim construction for the limitation “a communication session above the
`physical layer is maintained when all assigned physical layer channels have been
`released” as used in the ’970 Patent?
`
`BIMS INVALIDITY
`WITNESS STATEMENT
`
`– 158 –
`
` Ex. 2016-0002
`
`

`
`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`A.
`Yes, they did. InterDigital proposed a construction for “a communication session
`above the physical layer is maintained when all assigned physical layer channels have
`been released,” and their proposed construction is “a connection above the physical layer
`is maintained when the assigned physical layer channels are no longer in use by the
`subscriber unit.” This proposed construction is shown in RX-0724 (Joint Claim
`Construction Statement).
`
`633. Q.
`
`Do you agree with InterDigital’s proposed construction?
`
`A.
`
`No, I do not.
`
`634. Q.
`
`Did the Respondents propose a construction for this claim limitation?
`
`A.
`Yes, they did. If you look at the Joint Proposed Claim Construction Statement
`(Joint Claim Construction Statement), the Respondents proposed constructions can be
`found right alongside InterDigital’s proposed construction.
`
`635. Q.
`
`And what is the Respondents’ proposed construction?
`
`A.
`The Respondents’ proposed construction is “the appearance to higher layers in the
`cellular layered communications protocol of an active physical layer connection is
`maintained when all physical layer channels have been released.” This proposed
`construction is shown in RX-0724 (Joint Claim Construction Statement) as well.
`
`636. Q. What construction for the limitation “a communication session above the
`physical layer is maintained when all assigned physical layer channels have been
`released” did you use in your analysis of the Jawanda ’581 Patent?
`
`A)
`
`I used InterDigital’s proposed construction.
`
`637. Q.
`Have you formed an opinion with respect to whether the Jawanda ’581
`Patent discloses or renders obvious the limitation “a communication session above
`the physical layer is maintained when all assigned physical layer channels have been
`released” recited in claim 1 of the ’970 Patent?
`
`A.
`Yes, I have. It is my opinion that the Jawanda ’581 Patent discloses this claim
`limitation or renders it obvious. And furthermore, it would have been obvious to
`combine the teachings of Jawanda with any of the then known cell phone standards
`including GPRS, IS-95 and IS-657, CDPD, and the draft UMTS Standards, all of which
`teach render this limitation obvious.
`
`638. Q.
`
`How does the Jawanda ’581 Patent disclose this limitation?
`
`A.
`It does it in two ways. First, it discloses maintaining a communication session by
`seamlessly handing off between multiple concurrent wireless data connections while
`maintaining an application-level session. Also, it inherently discloses this limitation by
`
`BIMS INVALIDITY
`WITNESS STATEMENT
`
`– 159 –
`
` Ex. 2016-0003
`
`

`
`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`referencing the GPRS and CDMA wireless systems. These wireless standards inherently
`disclose “a communication session above the physical layer is maintained when all
`assigned physical layer channels have been released” under InterDigital’s construction
`and infringement theories.
`
`639. Q. Where does the Jawanda ’581 Patent disclose maintaining a communication
`session by seamlessly handing off between multiple concurrent wireless data
`connections?
`
`A.
` That is one of the fundamental concepts described in the Jawanda ’581 Patent
`and it is shown in Figure 4, and the corresponding portion of the specification describing
`that figure in column 4, line 20 to column 6, line 20.
`
`640. Q.
`How does the GPRS standards disclose this limitation under InterDigital’s
`claim construction and infringement theories?
`
`A.
`I will discuss this in more detail when we talk about the specific standards in
`greater length later, and I incorporate that discussion here. But at a high level, among
`other things, the GPRS standards disclose the same functionality that InterDigital accuses
`of infringement, preserving a PDP context even when assigned traffic channels have been
`released. In fact, the WCDMA standards that InterDigital accuse of infringement
`borrowed this feature from their prior art predecessor, GPRS.
`
`641. Q.
`How does the CDMA wireless system referenced in the Jawanda ’581 Patent
`disclose this limitation?
`
`A.
`I will discuss this in more detail when we talk about the specific standards in
`greater length later, and I incorporate that discussion here. At a high level the CDMA
`wireless cellular system does it for the same reasons adopted by the Examiner and a three
`ALJ patent reviewing the Gorsuch 332 Reexamination—IS-657 discloses this element. I
`will discuss this in more detail when discussing IS-95/IS-657.
`
`642. Q.
`How do the draft UMTS Standards disclose this limitation under
`InterDigital’s constructions?
`
`A.
`I intend to show this in detail when discussing the Draft UMTS Standard later,
`and I incorporate that discussion here. But at a high level, the Draft UMTS Standards
`disclose the same functionality that InterDigital accuses of infringement, preserving a
`PDP context even when assigned traffic channels have been released. In fact, the Draft
`UMTS Standards show that this feature was adopted by 3GPP before the priority date of
`the 970 Patent.
`
`
`643. Q.
`Dr. Stark says that Jawanda ’581 Patent does not teach ““a communication
`session above the physical layer is maintained when all assigned physical layer
`channels have been released” or the similar requirement of claim 10, because the
`
`BIMS INVALIDITY
`WITNESS STATEMENT
`
`– 160 –
`
` Ex. 2016-0004
`
`

`
`
`
`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`’970 requires maintaining a session between the base station and the subscriber
`unit, while Jawanda teaches maintaining a session between two applications on two
`user devices. What is your response to this?
`
`A.
`Claim 1 does not require the communication session to be between the subscriber
`unit and the base station. Indeed, the base station is not even mentioned in claim 1.
`InterDigital’s proposed claim construction does not limit a communication session to a
`session between the subscriber unit and the base station. Any such narrowing would
`have no support in the ’970 patent. The ’970 clearly contemplates that a communication
`session involves a “peer to peer” connection as described at column 3 line 60 through
`column 4 line 11. A person of ordinary skill understands a “peer to peer” connection to
`include and “end to end” connection between, for example, two terminals. So Dr. Stark’s
`observation about the type of communication session maintained in Jawanda ’581 Patent
`is irrelevant to the claim limitation and does not distinguish Jawanda ’581 Patent from the
`claimed system.
`
`644. Q.
`Dr. Stark says that Jawanda ’581 Patent does not teach the release of all
`physical layer channels when maintaining a communication session. What is your
`response to this?
`
`A.
`As I have just explained, Jawanda teaches that the communication session
`between the two terminal can be maintained after handing off the wireless connection
`from the cellular to the WLAN connection. It then teaches that the cellular connection
`can optionally be maintained which means it can optionally be terminated. When
`terminated, all the cellular physical layer channels will have been released and are
`unused. Furthermore, Jawanda teaches that the cellular connection can be a GPRS
`system. As I have demonstrated, GPRS releases all data communication channels while
`maintaining a PDP Context.
`
`
`B.
`
`Claims Dependent on Claim 1
`
`1.
`
`Claim 2 – “transmit TCP/IP data”
`
`645. Q.
`Let’s look at claim 2 of the ’970 Patent, which reads as follows: “[t]he
`subscriber unit of claim 1, wherein the IEEE 802 transceiver is configured to
`transmit TCP/IP data when the communication session is maintained and all
`assigned physical layer channels have been released.” Let’s turn back to the Joint
`Proposed Claim Construction Statement (RX-0724). Did InterDigital propose a
`claim construction, or constructions, for the limitations of claim 2 of the ’970
`Patent?
`
`A.
`Yes, they did. I believe that we have discussed those constructions in conjunction
`with claim 1, from which claim 2 depends.
`
`646. Q. What constructions did you use in your analysis of the Jawanda ’581 Patent
`with respect to claim 2 of the ’970 Patent?
`
`BIMS INVALIDITY
`WITNESS STATEMENT
`
`– 161 –
`
` Ex. 2016-0005
`
`

`
`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Are your answers to these questions true and correct to the best of your
`1760. Q.
`knowledge and belief?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`1761. Q.
`
`Does this witness statement contain your answers to questions from counsel?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`J
`7
`2013
`Dated:________________
`
`By:
`
`BIMS INVALIDITY
`WITNESS STATEMENT
`
`– 419 –
`
` Ex. 2016-0006