UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2014-00746
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF STUART LIPOFF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000027
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction and Qualifications ....................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Educational Background ....................................................................... 2
`
`Career History and Relevant Industry Participation ............................. 2
`
`II.
`
`Scope of Assignment, Compensation .............................................................. 5
`
`III. Legal Principles Used in My Analysis ............................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 6
`
`Prior Art ................................................................................................. 8
`
`Anticipation ........................................................................................... 8
`
`D. Obviousness ........................................................................................... 9
`
`IV. Summary of My Opinions ............................................................................. 11
`
`V.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 12
`
`VI. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 13
`
`VII. The ’883 Patent .............................................................................................. 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Background of the ’883 Patent ............................................................ 16
`
`Overview of the ’883 Patent – The Alleged Invention ....................... 18
`
`Overview of Claims 1, 3, 4, and 14 of the ’883 Patent ....................... 23
`
`VIII. Prior Art Overview ........................................................................................ 26
`
`A. Multiple Access Schemes .................................................................... 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Frequency Division Multiple Access ........................................ 28
`
`Time Division Multiple Access ................................................ 31
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`CATV Data Systems: History and Technology .................................. 32
`
`Signalling Data vs. Bearer Traffic in Multiple Access Systems ......... 41
`
`i
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000028
`
`

`

`
`
`IX.
`
`Invalidity over The McNamara Patent .......................................................... 46
`
`A. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 4,533,948 to McNarama and the
`MetroNet Paper ................................................................................... 46
`
`B.
`
`Claim 1 Would Have been Obvious Over The McNamara Patent
`In View of The Rocci Patent and the MetroNet Paper ....................... 79
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Preamble: “In a multiple access communication system
`comprising a central controller, a shared transmission
`means for signalling data and user information, and a
`plurality of remote terminals, a method of allocating
`signalling data channels between said central controller
`and said plurality of remote terminals from a plurality of
`communication channels and of assigning remote
`terminals . . .” ............................................................................ 79
`
`Limitation [A]: “establishing communications between
`said central controller and said plurality of remote
`terminals via a plurality of signalling data channels, each
`of said remote terminals being initially assigned to a pair
`of predetermined signalling data channels” .............................. 89
`
`Limitation [B]: “monitoring the status of a plurality of
`signalling data channels in use between said central
`controller and said plurality of remote terminals for the
`usability of said signalling data channels” ................................ 92
`
`Limitation [C]: “determining whether one of said plurality
`of remote terminals needs to be reassigned to a different
`signalling data channel other than said predetermined
`signalling data channel” ............................................................ 98
`
`Limitation [D]: “determining whether a different and
`suitable signalling data channel is available other than said
`predetermined channel.” ......................................................... 101
`
`Limitation [E]: “reassigning by said central controller said
`remote terminal to a different and suitable signalling data
`channel for communication henceforward.” ........................... 104
`
`ii
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000029
`
`

`

`
`
`C.
`
`Claim 3 Would Have Been Obvious Over the Combined
`Teachings of the McNamara Patent In View of the Rocci Patent
`and the MetroNet Paper, and Further In View of the Zudnek
`Patent, the Dufresne Patent, and the Nagasawa Patent ..................... 109
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Preamble: “In a multiple access communication system
`according to claim 1, said step of monitoring the status of a
`plurality of the signaling data channels in use between said
`central controller and said plurality of remote terminals for
`usability of said signaling data channels” ............................... 110
`
`Limitation [A]: “calculating the aggregate traffic load
`requirements of said plurality of signalling data channels
`in use”...................................................................................... 110
`
`Limitation [B]: “monitoring the past collision count of said
`plurality of signalling data channels in use” ........................... 113
`
`Limitation [C]: “monitoring the transmission error count of
`said plurality of signalling data channels in use” ................... 119
`
`Limitation [D]: “sensing the status of said plurality of
`signalling data channels in use for failure” ............................. 121
`
`It would have Been Obvious to Modify McNamara to
`Provide for the “Monitoring” of the Claimed Parameters
`and “Sensing” For Failures Because Such an Arrangement
`Would Improve the “Load Leveling” and Robustness of
`the McNamara System ............................................................ 123
`
`D.
`
`Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious Over the Rocci Patent and
`the MetroNet Paper ........................................................................... 125
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Preamble: “In a multiple access communication system
`according to claim 1, said step of determining whether one
`of said plurality of remote terminals needs to be reassigned
`to a different signalling data channel other than said
`predetermined signalling data channel” .................................. 125
`
`Limitation [A]: “sensing the status of said predetermined
`signalling data channel which said terminal has been
`assigned to for overloading to determine whether said
`
`iii
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000030
`
`

`

`
`
`terminal needs to be reassigned to a different signalling
`data channel because of overloading” .................................... 125
`
`3.
`
`Limitation [B]: “sensing the status of said predetermined
`signalling data channel which said terminal has been
`assigned to for failure to determine whether said terminal
`needs to be reassigned to a different signalling data
`channel” .................................................................................. 127
`
`X.
`
`Invalidity of Claim 14 Over The thompson Patent in View of the
`Motorola 68360 Spec Sheet and Fultz ......................................................... 129
`
`A. Overview of The Thompson Patent .................................................. 129
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Background of T1 and DS1 Signals From Telephony Networks ..... 134
`
`Application of the Prior Art to Claim 14 .......................................... 138
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Preamble: “In a multiple access communication system
`having a plurality of communication channels for
`communicating with a plurality of remote terminals, a
`central controller” ................................................................... 138
`
`Limitation [A]: “system controlling means for controlling
`the communication system comprising a micro-processor
`and associated EPROM and RAM” ........................................ 139
`
`Limitation [B]: “transmitting means for transmitting user
`traffic or signalling data on said communication channels” ... 141
`
`Limitation [C]: “receiving means for receiving user traffic
`or signalling data on said communication channels” ............. 142
`
`Limitation [D]: “modulating means for modulating
`signalling data” ....................................................................... 143
`
`Limitation [E]: “demodulating means for demodulating
`signalling data” ....................................................................... 145
`
`Limitation [F]: “interfacing means for interfacing to a wide
`area network” .......................................................................... 146
`
`iv
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000031
`
`

`

`
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Limitation [G]: “switching means for making dynamic
`connections to switch signals among said transmitting
`means, said receiving means, said modulating means, said
`demodulating means, and said interfacing means” ................. 147
`
`Limitation [H]: “forward communication controlling
`means for selecting a forward signalling data channel via a
`dynamic connection between said transmitting means and
`said modulating means” .......................................................... 148
`
`XI. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 149
`
`v
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000032
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibits Referenced in This Declaration
`
`ARRIS EX. NO.
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`
`1001
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883 to Cheng
`Curriculum Vitae of Stuart Lipoff
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order from C-
`Cation Techs., LLC v. Comcast Corp., et. al., 2:11-CV-
`30-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 222 (Jul. 3, 2013)
`Excerpts from Newton’s Telecom Dictionary: The
`Official Dictionary of Computer Telephony,
`Telecommunications, Networking, Data
`Communications, Voice Processing and the Internet
`(1994)
`William Stallings, Local and Metropolitan Area
`Networks (4th Ed. MacMillan Publishing Co. (1993))
`U.S. Patent No. 4,533,948 to McNamara et al.
`R.P. McNamara, et al., “MetroNet: An Overview of a
`CATV Regional Data Network,” NCTA 31st Annual
`Convention & Exposition, pp. 22-31 (May 3-5, 1982).
`NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY (8th ed. 1994)
`(excerpts)
`Interactive Television: Prospects for Two-Way Services
`on Cable, RAND Report No. R-888-MF (Nov. 1971)
`Gordon E. Moore, Cramming more components onto
`integrated circuits, ELECTRONICS, Vol. 38, No. 8 (Apr.
`19, 1965).
`John Graham, The Facts on File: Dictionary of
`Telecommunications (1983) (excerpts)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,870,408 to Zudnek
`U.S. Patent No. 4,920,533 to Dufresne et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,584,684 to Nagasawa et al.
`
`vi
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000033
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`ARRIS EX. NO.
`1016
`1017
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`U.S. Patent No. 4,494,111 to Rocci et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,594,726 to Thompson, et al.
`David Charles Feldmeier, A CATV-Based High-Speed
`Packet-Switching Network Design, MIT Thesis (Apr.
`1986)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,255,086 to McMullan, Jr. et al.
`James Harry Green, The Irwin Handbook of
`Telecommunications, 4th Ed. (2000)
`Motorola Semiconductor Product Information for
`MC68360 (1993)
`K.E. Fultz and D.B. Penick, The T1 Carrier System, Bell
`Systems T.J. at 1405-51 (Sept. 1965).
`EP 0 214 718 to Alliant Computer Systems (Mar. 18,
`1987).
`
`vii
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000034
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1.
`
`I Stuart Lipoff hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`2. My name is Stuart Lipoff. I am currently the president of IP Action
`
`Partners Inc. and have over 40 years of experience in a wide variety of
`
`technologies and industries relating to data communications, including data
`
`communications over cable systems networks.
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained by ARRIS Group, Inc. (“ARRIS”) in connection
`
`with its request for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883 (“the ’883
`
`Patent”). A copy of the ’883 Patent has been designated Ex. 1001. I have
`
`reviewed and am familiar with the ’883 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding the validity of
`
`certain claims of the ’883 Patent. This Declaration includes a detailed discussion
`
`of my background and qualifications, the background of the technologies involved
`
`in and related to the ’883 Patent that would have been understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the ’883 Patent, various prior art
`
`references that disclose—either alone or in combination with each other—all of the
`
`relevant features of ’883 Patent claims 1, 3, 4, and 14. The bases and reasons for
`
`my opinions are set forth in this Declaration.
`
`
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000035
`
`

`

`
`
`A. Educational Background
`I am currently the president of IP Action Partners Inc., which is a
`5.
`
`consulting practice serving the telecommunications, information technology,
`
`media, electronics, and e-business industries.
`
`6.
`
`I earned a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering in 1968 from Lehigh
`
`University and a second B.S. degree in Engineering Physics in 1969, also from
`
`Lehigh University. I also earned a M.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from
`
`Northwestern University in 1974 and a MBA degree from Suffolk University in
`
`1983.
`
`B. Career History and Relevant Industry Participation
`I hold a Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) General
`7.
`
`Radiotelephone License and a Certificate in Data Processing (“CDP”) from the
`
`Association for Computing Machinery (“ACM”)-supported Institute for the
`
`Certification of Computing Professionals (“ICCP”), and I am a registered
`
`professional engineer (by examination) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
`
`8.
`
`I am a fellow of the IEEE Consumer Electronics, Communications,
`
`Computer, Circuits, and Vehicular Technology Groups. I am also a member of the
`
`IEEE Consumer Electronics Society National Administration Committee, and was
`
`the Boston Chapter Chairman of the IEEE Vehicular Technology Society. I
`
`previously served as 1996-1997 President of the IEEE Consumer Electronics
`
`2
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000036
`
`

`

`
`
`Society, have served as Chairman of the Society’s Technical Activities and
`
`Standards Committee, and am now VP of Publications for the Society. I have also
`
`served as an Ibuka Award committee member.
`
`9.
`
`I have also presented papers at many IEEE and other meetings. A
`
`listing of my publications is included as part of my curriculum vitae (“CV”), which
`
`is attached as Exhibit 1003. For example, in Fall 2000, I served as general
`
`program chair for the IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference on advanced
`
`wireless communications technology, and I have organized sessions at The
`
`International Conference on Consumer Electronics and was the 1984 program
`
`chairman. I also conducted an eight-week IEEE sponsored short course on Fiber
`
`Optics System Design. In 1984, I was awarded IEEE’s Centennial Medal and in
`
`2000, I was awarded the IEEE’s Millennium Medal.
`
`10. As Vice President and Standards Group Chairman of the Association
`
`of Computer Users (“ACU”), I served as the ACU representative to the ANSI X3
`
`Standards Group. For the FCC’s Citizens advisory committee on Citizen’s Band
`
`(“CB”) radio (“PURAC”), I served as Chairman of the task group on user rule
`
`compliance. I have been elected to membership in the Society of Cable Television
`
`Engineers (“SCTE”), the ACM, and The Society of Motion Picture and Television
`
`Engineers (“SMPTE”). I also served as a member of the USA advisory board to
`
`the National Science Museum of Israel, presented a short course on international
`
`3
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000037
`
`

`

`
`
`product development strategies as a faculty member of Technion Institute of
`
`Management in Israel, and served as a member of the board of directors of The
`
`Massachusetts Future Problem Solving Program.
`
`11.
`
`I am a named inventor on seven United States patents and have
`
`several publications on data communications topics in Electronics Design,
`
`Microwaves, EDN, The Proceedings of the Frequency Control Symposium,
`
`Optical Spectra, and IEEE publications.
`
`12. For 25 years, I worked for Arthur D. Little, Inc. (“ADL”), where I
`
`became Vice President and Director of Communications, Information Technology,
`
`and Electronics (“CIE”). Prior to my time at ADL, I served as a Section Manager
`
`for Bell & Howell Communications Company for four years, and prior to that, as a
`
`Project Engineer for Motorola’s Communications Division for three years.
`
`13. At ADL, I was responsible for the firm’s global CIE practice in
`
`laboratory-based contract engineering, product development, and technology-based
`
`consulting. At both Bell & Howell and Motorola, I had project design
`
`responsibility for wireless communication and paging products.
`
`14. While employed at ADL, I served as the leader of a project that
`
`developed a series of specifications for residential cable modems known as Data
`
`over Cable Service Interface Specification, or “DOCSIS.” The scope of work for
`
`this project included developing a roadmap and strategic framework for evolving
`
`4
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000038
`
`

`

`
`
`the business from internet services to broadband services combining voice, data,
`
`and secure electronic content delivery. This project was performed by ADL under
`
`contract to the Multimedia Cable Network System (“MCNS”) consortium and the
`
`specifications resulting from that project have since been adopted by the United
`
`Nations as a global telecommunications specification.
`
`15. Following my time at ADL, I managed a project (through IP Action
`
`Partners) for Next Generation Network Architecture, LLC (“NGNA”) that
`
`produced a five-year planning horizon for services and technology in the cable
`
`industry. The services and vision were then mapped to overall architectures
`
`impacting network elements in the back office, head-end, outside plant, and
`
`customer premises, and documented in next generation network recommendations.
`
`The project involved coordination with senior technical staff of several multiple
`
`service operators (“MSOs”) as well as interactions with over one hundred suppliers
`
`and vendors of systems, software, and products in the cable industry.
`
`16. Additional information regarding my background, qualifications,
`
`publications, and presentations is provided in my CV, which is included as Exhibit
`
`1003.
`
`II.
`
`SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT, COMPENSATION
`
`17.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding the validity of
`
`claims 1, 3, 4, and 14 of the ’883 Patent. I have been asked to focus my analysis
`
`5
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000039
`
`

`

`
`
`on certain prior art materials, and provide a detailed technical overview reflecting
`
`what I believe would have been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time that the ’883 Patent was filed in July 1994.
`
`18. While I have been asked to focus on certain items of prior art in
`
`connection with this declaration, and to focus my analysis on certain bases for
`
`invalidity (e.g., anticipation vs. obviousness), I do in fact believe other prior art
`
`would also render claims 1, 3, 4, and 14 invalid on other bases and therefore, the
`
`discussion herein reflects only some reasons why I believe that claims 1, 3, 4, and
`
`14 should not have been allowed to issue in a patent.
`
`19.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard hourly consulting rate of $375
`
`per hour. My compensation is in no way contingent on the substance of my
`
`opinions or the outcome of this matter.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN MY ANALYSIS
`I am not a patent attorney, nor have I independently researched the
`20.
`
`law of patent validity. Attorneys have explained certain legal principles to me that
`
`I have relied on in forming my opinions set forth in this Declaration.
`
`A.
`21.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I understand that the ’883 Patent was filed on July 18, 1994. For the
`
`purposes of my analysis, and in the absence of any information to the contrary, I
`
`6
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000040
`
`

`

`
`
`have used the July 18, 1994 date as the relevant date for my analysis of the prior
`
`art.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that assessment of the validity of the claims of the ’883
`
`Patent must be undertaken from the perspective of what would have been known
`
`and understood by someone of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest priority
`
`date of the ’883 Patent. Based on my knowledge and expertise and the prior art
`
`cited in the ’883 Patent, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the field
`
`of the ’883 Patent would typically hold an undergraduate degree in electrical
`
`engineering or have an equivalent educational experience, and three or more years
`
`working in a relevant field employing digital communications technology to
`
`deliver telecommunication services, or alternatively a relevant field involving the
`
`manufacture of telecommunication products.
`
`23. To further elaborate, relevant industry segments and product
`
`categories include, for example, wireless communications systems, products, and
`
`services such as cellular radio and private/public safety two-way radio systems
`
`(e.g., police and fire two-way radio), and cable television systems, products, and
`
`services relating to the delivery and consumption of cable television services.
`
`While there may be some obvious differences between wireless and wire line
`
`communications, the fundamental technologies are very much interrelated, and by
`
`July 18, 1994, were increasingly converging.
`
`7
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000041
`
`

`

`
`
`24.
`
`I also base my opinion regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`on the types of problems encountered in the art a the time of the invention, the
`
`prior art references discussed herein, and the sophistication of telecommunication
`
`technologies in the cable and related industries as of July 18, 1994. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1012 at 7 (“Telecommunications principles are becoming increasingly important in
`
`education at undergraduate and graduate levels.”). In fact, by this date, I too had
`
`personal hands-on experience that I believe further informs my opinion on the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art, as I have summarized above and as reflected by
`
`my CV, Exhibit 1003.
`
`B.
`25.
`
`Prior Art
`
`I have been informed that the law provides certain categories of
`
`information (known as prior art) that may be used to anticipate or render obvious
`
`patent claims. The reference materials I discuss are prior art below because they
`
`were available to those of ordinary skill in the art as of July 18, 1994.
`
`C. Anticipation
`I have been informed that a claim is not patentable when a single prior
`26.
`
`art reference describes every element of the claim, either expressly or inherently to
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that this is referred to as
`
`“anticipation.” I have also been informed that, to anticipate a patent claim, the
`
`prior art reference need not use the same words as the claim, but it must describe
`
`8
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000042
`
`

`

`
`
`the requirements of the claim with sufficient clarity that a person of skill in the art
`
`would be able to make and use the claimed invention based on the single prior art
`
`reference.
`
`27.
`
`In addition, I was informed and understand that, in order to establish
`
`that an element of a claim is “inherent” in the disclosure of a prior art reference, it
`
`must be clear to one skilled in the art that the missing element is an inevitable part
`
`of what is explicitly described in the prior art, and that it would be recognized as
`
`necessarily present by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`D. Obviousness
`I have been informed that, even if every element of a claim is not
`28.
`
`found explicitly or implicitly in a single prior art reference, the claim may still be
`
`unpatentable if the differences between the claimed elements and the prior art are
`
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the invention
`
`may be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when seen in light of
`
`one or more prior art references. I understand that a patent is obvious when it is
`
`only a combination of old and known elements, with no change in their respective
`
`functions, and that these familiar elements are combined according to known
`
`methods to obtain predictable results.
`
`9
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000043
`
`

`

`
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed that the following four factors are considered
`
`when determining whether a patent claim is obvious: (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 tending to prove
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness. I have also been informed that the courts have
`
`established a collection of secondary factors of nonobviousness, which include:
`
`unexpected, surprising, or unusual results; non-analogous art; teachings away from
`
`the invention; substantially superior results; synergistic results; long-standing need;
`
`commercial success; and copying by others. I have also been informed that there
`
`must be a connection between these secondary factors and the scope of the claim
`
`language.
`
`30.
`
`I have also been informed that some examples of rationales that may
`
`support a conclusion of obviousness include: (1) combining prior art elements
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results; (2) simply substituting
`
`one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (3) using known
`
`techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (4)
`
`applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; (5) choosing from a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success—in other
`
`words, whether something is “obvious to try”; (6) using work in one field of
`
`10
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000044
`
`

`

`
`
`endeavor to prompt variations of that work for use in either the same field or a
`
`different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are
`
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and (7) arriving at a claimed
`
`invention as a result of some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art
`
`that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings.
`
`31.
`
`I have also been informed that other rationales to support a conclusion
`
`of obviousness may be relied upon, for instance, that the common sense (where
`
`substantiated) of the person of skill in the art may be a reason to combine or
`
`modify prior art to achieve the claimed invention.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`32. As set forth more fully herein, it is my opinion that claims 1, 3, 4, and
`
`14 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before July
`
`18, 1994. Although I believe other grounds for invalidity of these claims exist, the
`
`obviousness of the claimed subject matter is demonstrated by the following
`
`combinations of prior art references:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The McNamara Patent would have rendered claims 1 and 4 obvious
`when taken in view of the Rocci Patent and the MetroNet Paper;
`
`The McNamara Patent would have rendered claim 3 obvious in view
`of the Rocci Patent and the MetroNet Paper and further in view of the
`Nagasawa Patent, the Dufresne Patent, and the Zudnek Patent; and
`
`The Thompson Patent would have rendered claim 14 obvious in view
`of the Motorola MC68360 Spec Sheet and Fultz.
`
`11
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000045
`
`

`

`
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`33. As I mention above, based on my knowledge and expertise and the
`
`prior art cited in the ’883 Patent it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the field of the ’883 Patent would typically hold an undergraduate degree in
`
`electrical engineering or have an equivalent educational experience, and three or
`
`more years working in a relevant field employing digital communications
`
`technology to deliver telecommunication services, or alternatively a relevant field
`
`involving the manufacture of telecommunication products. This opinion is based
`
`on, for example, the basic technical principles relied on for the basis for the
`
`operation of prior art such as the McNamara patent (discussed in more detail
`
`below) are found in textbooks, such as William Stallings, Local and Metropolitan
`
`Area Networks, at 34 (4th Ed. MacMillan Publishing Co. (1993)) (Ex. 1006)
`
`(hereafter “Stallings”) that would have been used in undergraduate courses, or for
`
`self-study for those skilled in the art. Moreover, as recognized in other reference
`
`works, “[t]elecommunications principles [were, by the 1980’s] becoming
`
`increasingly important in education at undergraduate and graduate levels.” Ex.
`
`1012 at 7. Unless otherwise stated, when I state that something would be known or
`
`understood by one skilled in the art, or having ordinary skill in the art, I am
`
`referring to a person with this level of education and experience.
`
`12
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000046
`
`

`

`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I have not been asked to opine on the meaning of the claims of the
`34.
`
`’883 Patent. Instead, I have been asked to apply the claim construction rulings for
`
`claims 1, 3, and 4 entered by a Judge in the United States District Court for the
`
`Eastern District of Texas. With respect to claim 14, I have instructed by counsel to
`
`apply additional specific claim constructions as further described below. For the
`
`purposes of this Declaration and my opinions, I have applied the following claim
`
`constructions as they pertain to claims 1, 3, and 4 of the ’883 Patent. A copy of the
`
`Court’s claim construction order can be found at Exhibit 1004. In accordance with
`
`that order, the preambles of the claims were not limiting. However, for the sake of
`
`completeness, I have addressed the preambles of the claims where applicable.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Interpretation
`
`“signalling data”
`
`“information concerned with the
`
`“signalling data channels”
`
`“channels used for carrying
`
`control of communications”
`
`signalling data; the channels may
`
`also carry user traffic”
`
`“remote terminals”
`
`“communication devices at a
`
`location remote from a central
`
`controller”
`
`13
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000047
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Interpretation
`
`“pair of predetermined signalling
`
`“a forward signalling data channel
`
`channels”
`
`and a reverse signalling data
`
`channel determined prior to
`
`establishing communications”
`
`“monitoring the status of a plurality
`
`“monitoring at least two of the
`
`of the signalling data channels in
`
`signalling data channels being used
`
`use . . . for the usability of said
`
`for one or more conditions that
`
`signalling data channels”
`
`affect the usability of the signalling
`
`data channels”
`
`“said predetermined signalling data
`
`“one of the pair of predetermined
`
`channel” and “said predetermined
`
`signalling data channels”
`
`channel”
`
`35.
`
`I have further been asked to apply the following constructions of
`
`various terms within claim 14 of the ’883 Patent. Those constructions are set forth
`
`below. For the purposes of my analysis, I apply these claim constructions to claim
`
`14 of the ’883 Patent. Because certain of these terms are in means-plus-function
`
`format, I have been asked to identify the functions in the prior art and apply the
`
`prior art to the structures identified below.
`
`14
`
`ARRIS883IPRI0000048
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Interpretation
`
`“system controlling means for
`
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`controlling the communication
`
`system comprising a micro-
`
`processor and associated EPROM
`
`and RAM”
`
`“transmitting means for transmitting
`
`transmitter for transmitting user
`
`user traffic or signalling data on
`
`traffic or signalling