IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
`GREENVILLE DIVISION
`
`ZIPIT WIRELESS INC.,
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED f/k/a RESEARCH
`)
`IN MOTION LIMITED and BLACKBERRY
`)
`CORPORATION f/k/a RESEARCH IN
`)
`MOTION CORPORATION,
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-2959-JMC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`ALON KONCHITSKY DECLARATION FOR PROPOSED TERMS
`AND CLAIM PHRASES FOR CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`I, Alon Konchitsky, hereby declare, affirm, and state the following:
`
`The facts set forth below are known to me personally and I have firsthand knowledge of
`
`them.
`
`I make this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs Zipit Wireless Inc., (“Zipit”) proposed
`
`constructions in the above-captioned matters.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1035, pg. 1
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01507
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of my curriculum vitae, detailing my
`
`education, experience, and publications in the field of telecommunications. Additionally, I
`
`provide the following overview of my background as it pertains to my qualifications for
`
`providing expert testimony in this matter.
`
`A.
`
`Educational Background
`
`2.
`
`In 1992, I joined the Israeli Air Force. I was assigned to a technology and
`
`intelligence unit that was very well known within the Air Force for successfully developing
`
`advanced technologies and excellent training. There, I worked on developing systems and
`
`products for high-speed, real-time software applications such as networking, moving maps, high
`
`definition video, video processors and multimedia messaging communications.
`
`3.
`
`I received a P.Eng in Electrical Engineering from the Tel Aviv Institute of
`
`Technology in 1992 and a B.A. in Computer Science from the Academic College of Tel Aviv
`
`University in 1997. My coursework and research work for these two programs involved, among
`
`many subjects, software development for real-time protocols and implementing multimedia
`
`communication functions such as messaging, voice and video.
`
`4.
`
`In 1998, I received an M.A. in Management with a focus in Business from
`
`Bournemouth University. Based on my research for my M.A. dissertation, I was able to forecast
`
`a global shift in computing systems from mainframe architectures to personal computers. I
`
`described my research results and forecast in my dissertation.
`
`5.
`
`In 2002, I received a Ph.D. in Engineering from Bournemouth University. My
`
`Ph.D. research focused on a RF semiconductor transmitter, and required a strong understanding
`
`of semiconductor physics, wireless circuit design, and wireless systems analysis. I subsequently
`
`
`
`2
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1035, pg. 2
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01507
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`had the opportunity to continue working on this multi-mode, multi-band transmitter in a Post
`
`Graduate program in CDMA Engineering at the University of California San Diego. My Ph.D.
`
`thesis research ultimately lead to a transmitter design that is now affiliated with Stanford
`
`University and a corresponding letter of recognition from Professor Bruce Lusignan, who was
`
`the Director of Wireless Design at the Department of Electrical Engineering.
`
`B.
`
`Career and Experience
`
`6.
`
`Over the past 20+ years, I have personally developed, modified, or analyzed
`
`software/firmware for many different applications, and I have supervised engineers performing
`
`such tasks. I have implemented or supervised the implementation of software code or hardware
`
`description language (HDL) for many different communications protocols across protocol layers.
`
`I have also developed or supervised the development of integrated circuits for wireless baseband
`
`communications and embedded processors. I am very comfortable with several programming
`
`languages, including C, C++, Assembler, Basic, Pascal, Matlab, many of which I have taught to
`
`others. I have developed products with HDL code including VHDL and Verilog. I also have
`
`firsthand experience with assembly language programming. I personally designed a wide variety
`
`of analog, RF, and digital circuit elements at both the IC and board level using various netlist-
`
`driven, schematic capture and manual or automated layout CAE/CAD tools.
`
`7.
`
`Over my many years of developing products that provide voice and data
`
`communications, I have acquired a deep understanding of cellular mobile systems and their
`
`protocols. Networking and telephony protocols that I am familiar with include UMTS, HSDPA,
`
`WCDMA, GSM, EDGE, GPRS, TCP, IP, LTE, GPS, IS-95, CDMA2000, 1xRTT, 1xEvDo,
`
`1xEvDv, 802.16, and 802.12, among others. I have also been involved with voice band
`
`communications for both wireless and wired networks on multiple occasions and I am familiar
`
`with many voice band communications codecs including AMR, EVRC, and SIP.
`
`
`
`3
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1035, pg. 3
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01507
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`In 1997, I took the position of Senior DSP Engineer at DSP Communications, Inc.
`
`(“DSPC”) headquartered in Cupertino, CA. I was hired to develop products for wireless cellular
`
`networking applications. Some of the components I developed early in my career at DSPC were
`
`used for 2G and 3G wireless products, voice band modem equipment, cellular handsets, and base
`
`stations.
`
`9.
`
`During my time at DSPC, I participated in the Third Generation Partnership
`
`Project (3GPP). 3GPP is an organization consisting of six telecommunications standard
`
`development groups (ARIB, ATIS, CCSA, ETSI, TTA, TTC, also known as “Organizational
`
`Partners”). Members of 3GPP develop complete network system specifications by exchanging
`
`information regarding cellular telecommunications network technologies, including radio access,
`
`non-radio access, the core transport network, Wi-Fi integration, and service capabilities—such as
`
`codecs, security, quality of service. 3GPP’s specifications and studies are thus contribution-
`
`driven by member companies. The 3GPP technologies from these groups are constantly
`
`evolving through Generations of commercial cellular/mobile systems (such as UMTS
`
`WCDMA). Since the completion of the first LTE and the Evolved Packet Core specifications,
`
`3GPP has become the focal point for mobile systems beyond 3G.
`
`10.
`
`When Intel acquired DSPC in 1999, I worked for Intel in various roles such as IC
`
`Designer, Mobile Chipset Development, and System Architect. In 2000, Intel assigned me to
`
`work on the 3G project, which was a major multi-division effort to build 3G products for mobile
`
`communications. That project continues today, and has been extended to 4G LTE.
`
`11.
`
`While I was at Intel, I also developed and later led the development of multiple
`
`chipsets for cellular systems based on UMTS WCDMA and CDMA 1xRTT2000 standards. A
`
`
`
`4
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1035, pg. 4
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01507
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`number of these chipsets were directed solely to cellular mobile stations and were specifically
`
`created for major customers.
`
`12.
`
`For my last role at Intel, I was responsible for the base band mobile platform sold
`
`in Asia. I managed all aspects of the software protocol stack, hardware and mechanics
`
`integration (such as systems controlled by mobile phones, battery savings algorithms), and
`
`multimedia (such as text, graphics, voice, GPS, interface, music, MP3, WMA, displays, and
`
`GUIs).
`
`13.
`
`I left Intel to join Nokia Mobile Phone in 2001. At the time, Nokia lead the mobile
`
`phone development industry with a worldwide market share of over 60 percent. I began my
`
`career at Nokia as a system design and integration engineer. In that capacity, I successfully
`
`managed product programs that were developing machine-to-machine terminal platforms and
`
`related software. I also supervised the development of Nokia’s mobile platforms, which
`
`involved writing “C” code for the project, designing electrical circuitry, writing technical
`
`specifications, and writing protocol specifications for the mobile protocol stack layers.
`
`14.
`
`My responsibilities at Nokia also involved supporting Nokia’s Business Unit. To
`
`that end, I conducted an extensive, global study of the mobile platform market and the M2M
`
`market, interviewing over 100 systems engineers in the process. I also translated market
`
`requirements to product requirements and wrote product specifications to facilitate Nokia’s entry
`
`into new high-speed data markets.
`
`15.
`
`I also supported Nokia’s largest production facility in the USA, which was located
`
`in Dallas, Texas. I developed different test channels and collaboration networks for the facility
`
`with various companies working in the mobile business, including GSM carriers, system
`
`integrators, hardware and software vendors, distributors, consultants, and installation companies.
`
`
`
`5
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1035, pg. 5
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01507
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`16.
`
`My last role at Nokia was a Radio System Architect. In that capacity, I prepared
`
`system design specifications for critical radio chips in mobile phones. This work was a
`
`collaborative effort with Stanford University.
`
`17.
`
`In 2003, I started providing consulting services to a large number of companies,
`
`hedge funds, venture capitals, law firms, and investment bankers on intellectual property matters
`
`relating to telecommunication technologies. As shown by my involvement in this case, I
`
`continue to offer consulting services today.
`
`18.
`
`In 2004, I joined IP Valuations Inc., where my role focused on licensing and
`
`valuation of patents relating to telecommunications. Specifically, I focused on patents relating to
`
`wireless technologies and evaluated infringement claims concerning mobile standards and
`
`products.
`
`19.
`
`In 2006, I founded Noise Free Wireless, Inc., a company that developed integrated
`
`circuits and embedded firmware for several voice communications systems. I served as Noise
`
`Free’s Chairman of the board and Chief Executive Officer for several years, and today, I
`
`continue to serve as a regular board member and Chief Technology Officer for the company. At
`
`Noise Free, I crafted solutions mainly for cellular and VoIP voice communications such as LTE,
`
`WCDMA, GSM. Fortune 50 companies are currently using my Noise Cancellation, Acoustic
`
`Echo Canceller, Voice Activity Detector, Voice Recognition, IVR and proprietary Voice band
`
`coders algorithms.
`
`20.
`
`In the end of 2011, I founded Patent Hive and have since been serving as the
`
`company’s Chairman and Chief Technology Officer. At Patent Hive, I devised patent analytics
`
`and patent intelligence solutions based on huge, multi-dimensional “big data”-bases.
`
`
`
`6
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1035, pg. 6
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01507
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Also at Patent Hive, I designed a platform to support “cloud” software as a service
`
`tool and designed a number of “artificial intelligence”-based algorithms to analyze intellectual
`
`property by using large scale databases of information, including patents and related financial
`
`information.
`
`C.
`
`Other Relevant Qualifications
`
`22.
`
`I am a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE) and an active member of the Circuits and Systems Society, the Communications Society,
`
`the Signal Processing Society (voice communications), and the Solid-State Circuits Society.
`
`23.
`
`I was formerly a Member of the Components, Packaging, and Manufacturing
`
`Technology Society, the Consumer Electronics Society, the Microwave Theory and Techniques
`
`Society, and the Robotics and Automation Society.
`
`24.
`
`I have published a number of papers and I am listed as an inventor on more than
`
`30 patents that have issued in areas such as voice and wireless communications.
`
`
`
`PRIOR EXPERT TESTIMONY AND COMPENSATION
`
`25.
`
`Included in Exhibit A is a listing of all other cases in which, during the previous 4
`
`years, I have testified as an expert at trial or by deposition.
`
`26.
`
`I am compensated for my time in this case at my hourly rate of $400. My
`
`compensation is not dependent on or related in any manner to the outcome of the current
`
`litigation. I have no financial interest whatsoever in the outcome of this litigation.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1035, pg. 7
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01507
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`27.
`
`In defining “a person of ordinary skill in the art” (hereinafter, a “POSITA”), I
`
`have been advised to consider factors such as the educational level and years of experience not
`
`only of the person or persons who have developed the invention that is the subject of the case,
`
`but also of others working in the pertinent art at the time of the invention; the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art; the teachings of the prior art; patents and publications of other persons or
`
`companies; and the sophistication of the technology. I further understand that a POSITA is
`
`presumed to think along conventional lines without undertaking to innovate. I understand that a
`
`POSITA is not a specific real individual, but rather a hypothetical individual having the qualities
`
`reflected by the factors discussed above.
`
`28.
`
`I believe that the level of ordinary skill in the art would be met by a person with a
`
`bachelor’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering with two years of industry
`
`experience. In addition, as of approximately the time of the invention, I was at least a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art under this definition.
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`I.
`
`“instant messages” / “instant messaging”
`
`29.
`
`I understand that there might be a dispute in this case regarding the construction of
`
`the terms “instant message” / “instant messaging terminal” / “instant messaging device”“ in
`
`United States Patent No. 7,292,870 (“the ‘870 patent”), claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 20, 24, 29–31, 36, 37,
`
`39, 40, and claims dependent therefrom; United States Patent No. 7,894,837 (“the ‘837 patent”),
`
`claims 1, 5, 11, 13, 15–17, 20, and claims dependent therefrom; United States Patent No.
`
`8,086,678 (“the ‘678 patent”), claims 2, 5, 7, and claims dependent therefrom; and United States
`
`
`
`8
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1035, pg. 8
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01507
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,190,694 (“the ‘694 patent”), claims 2, 10, and claims dependent therefrom. I note
`
`that the specifications of the ‘870 patent and the ‘837 patent are almost identical, and that
`
`citations herein to the specification of the ‘870 patent are equally applicable to the ‘837 patent.
`
`Similarly, I note that the specifications of the ‘678 patent and the ‘694 patent are almost
`
`identical, and that citations herein to the specification of the ‘678 patent are equally applicable to
`
`the ‘694 patent.
`
`30.
`
`In my opinion the phrases ““instant messaging” and “instant message” should be
`
`construed, as defined by the ‘870 patent in Col. 1, lines 12-20 (and in the ‘837 patent). Those
`
`patents state: “Instant messaging is used to describe a computer network service for the
`
`communication of textual messages between users in a real-time manner.”
`
`31.
`
`In light of this definition within the ‘870 patent and ‘837 patent, one of ordinary
`
`skill would understand that “instant message” should be construed to be a “message
`
`communicated between users in a real-time manner.” Similarly, one of ordinary skill would
`
`understand that “instant messaging” should be construed to be a “communication of messages
`
`between users in a real-time manner.”
`
`
`
`II.
`
`“instant messaging terminal” / “handheld terminal”
`
`32.
`
`I understand that there might be a dispute in this case regarding the construction
`
`of the terms “instant messaging terminal” in the ‘870 patent, claims 1, 5, 20, 24, 29, 31, 36, 37,
`
`39, 40, and claims dependent therefrom; the ‘837 patent, claims 1, 11, 15, 17, 20, and claims
`
`dependent therefrom; the ‘678 patent, claims 2, 5, and claims dependent therefrom; and the ‘694
`
`patent, claim 2.
`
`
`
`9
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1035, pg. 9
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01507
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`33.
`
`Additionally, I understand that there might be a dispute in this case regarding the
`
`construction of the term “handheld terminal” in the ‘870 patent, claims 1, 20, and claims
`
`dependent therefrom; and the ‘837 patent, claims 1, 17, and claims dependent therefrom.
`
`34.
`
`In my opinion the phrases “instant messaging terminal” “handheld terminal”
`
`should be construed consistently with how these terms are used and described in the patents. For
`
`example, Col. 4, Lines 50-52 of the ‘870 patent states: “The data entry device that is integrated in
`
`the instant messaging terminal housing includes keys for graphical symbols, such as those
`
`typically seen in instant messages.”
`
`35.
`
`Col. 7, Lines 4-11, the ‘870 patent also states: “The integration of the data entry
`
`device in the instant messaging terminal housing enables the textual characters and graphical
`
`symbols to be entered for instant messages without requiring platform support for a foldout
`
`keyboard or the like.”
`
`36.
`
`Similarly, Col. 9, Lines 6-15 of the ‘870 Patent describe an “instant messaging
`
`terminal that incorporates keys for facilitating instant messaging features without requiring a
`
`table or other platform structure for stability during data entry and “an instant messaging
`
`terminal that supports Wi-Fi communication for obtaining Internet access through Wi-Fi access
`
`points.”
`
`37.
`
`Additionally, in Provisional Patent Application No. 60/532,000 (“the Provisional
`
`patent”) to which I understand both the ‘870 patent and ‘837 patent claim priority, an “instant
`
`messaging terminal” was defined to be of a size so that it “may form a compact package
`
`approximately the size of a cellular phone or calculator or Personal Digital Assistant (PDA).”
`
`38.
`
`Finally, I note that both the ‘870 patent and the ‘837 patent clearly anticipate that
`
`the “instant messaging terminal” will have additional purposes and functions other than just
`
`
`
`10
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1035, pg. 10
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01507
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`sending instant messages. For instance, Col. 4, Lines 28-30 of the ‘870 patent describes the
`
`desirability of listening to music on the “instant messaging terminal” through “multiple music
`
`options while exchanging instant messages with buddies.”
`
`39.
`
`Thus, it is my opinion that “instant messaging terminal” is not to include what are
`
`commonly referred to as computer laptop devices in part due to the description of the size of the
`
`terminal given by the authors in the patents and the Provisional patent, including the portions that
`
`specify that the terminal is significantly smaller than a laptop computer device is commonly
`
`understood to be.
`
`40.
`
`Instead, in my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`“instant message terminal” as used in the patents should be construed to be “a terminal
`
`approximately the size of a cellular mobile phone capable of sending and receiving instant
`
`messages.” Similarly, it is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`“handheld terminal” should be construed to be “a terminal approximately the size of a cellular
`
`mobile phone.”
`
`
`
`III.
`
`“housing”
`
`41.
`
`I understand that there might be a dispute in this case regarding the construction of
`
`the term “housing” in the ‘870 patent, claims 1, 17, and claims dependent therefrom; and the
`
`‘837 patent, claims 1, 5, 10, and claims dependent therefrom.
`
`42.
`
`In my opinion the term “housing” should be construed consistently with how this
`
`term is used and described in the patents. For example, claim 1 of the ‘870 patent recites “a
`
`handheld terminal housing” with the remaining elements “mounted in,” “integrated in” or
`
`
`
`11
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1035, pg. 11
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01507
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`“within” the “housing.” Similarly, claim 1 of the ‘837 patent recites “a handheld terminal
`
`housing” with the remaining elements “mounted” in, “integrated in” or “within” the “housing.”
`
`43.
`
`These usages in the patent claims are consistent with the description in the ‘870
`
`patent and the ‘837 patent of the various components being “integrated in a housing for the
`
`instant messaging terminal.” See, e.g., ‘870 patent, Col. 4, Lines 35-49; Col. 6, Line 60-Col.7,
`
`Line 8; and FIG. 2. The “terminals” described in the ‘870 patent and ‘837 patent are
`
`consistently described as being integrated, and if formed of separate halves, like a clam-shell
`
`configuration, as being non-detachably connected or joined. See ‘870 patent, Col. 11, Line 59-
`
`Col. 12, Line10.
`
`44.
`
`Thus, in my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`“housing” as used in the patents should be construed to be a “non-detachable casing.”
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`“instant messaging protocol”
`
`45.
`
`I understand that there might be a dispute in this case regarding the construction
`
`of the term “instant messaging protocol” in the ‘837 patent, claims 1, 11, 13, 16, and 20 and
`
`claims dependent therefrom and the ‘870 patent, claims 1, 20 and claims dependent therefrom.
`
`46.
`
`In my opinion the phrase “instant messaging protocol” should be construed as
`
`used in the ‘870 patent and ‘837 patent and as this phrase would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. The term “instant messaging” has been discussed above. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “protocol” as is generally and commonly used
`
`in this field to be a system of digital rules for data exchange such as within or between
`
`computers.” See Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, CMP Books, 19th Ed., March 2003, p. 640.
`
`Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would generally understand that an instant message protocol
`
`
`
`12
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1035, pg. 12
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01507
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`is a system of digital rules for the exchange or instant messages between computers, such as
`
`another instant messaging device or a computer at an instant messaging service for example.
`
`47.
`
`This understanding is consistent with the use of the term within the ‘870 patent
`
`and the ‘837 patent. For example, the ‘870 patent describes exemplary computer processors that
`
`may be used in the terminal operating with an internal memory of “the application program that
`
`implements the display, instant messaging and session protocols in accordance with the
`
`principles of the present invention.” See ‘870 patent, Col. 12, Lines 16-22. The ‘870 patent also
`
`describes
`
`that
`
`the
`
`terminal
`
`that manages and sends such communications,
`
`including
`
`“conversation sessions with buddies across multiple messaging services.” See ‘870 patent, Col.
`
`5, Line 64-Col. 6, Line 14.
`
`48.
`
`I note that this also consistent with how the term “instant messaging protocol” is
`
`used in the claims of the ‘870 patent and the ‘837 patent Claim 1 of the ‘837 patent for example
`
`recites a handheld instant messaging terminal that includes “at least one processor that executes
`
`an application program to implement at least one instant messaging protocol for generation of
`
`instant messaging (IM) data messages that are compatible with an instant messaging service.”
`
`See ‘837 patent, claim 1. The “instant messaging protocol” recited in the ‘837 patent claim 1
`
`thus is a system of digital rules for the exchange of instant messages between computers, and in
`
`particular for “generation of instant messaging (IM) data messages that are compatible with an
`
`instant messaging service.” See ‘837 patent, claim 1.
`
`49.
`
`Meanwhile, claim 1 of the ‘870 patent recites an instant messaging terminal
`
`including a “control module including at least one processor for executing an application
`
`program to implement instant messaging and session protocols for at least one conversation
`
`session that is communicated by the wireless, Internet protocol communications module….” See
`
`
`
`13
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1035, pg. 13
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01507
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`‘870 patent, claim 1. Similarly, claim 20 of the ‘870 patent recites that the handheld instant
`
`messaging terminal performs a method that includes “implementing instant messaging and
`
`sessions protocols to control a conversation session through the wireless internet protocol access
`
`point.” The “instant messaging protocol” recited in the ‘870 patent claims thus is thus also a
`
`system of digital rules for the exchange of instant messages between computers, and in particular
`
`“for at least one conversation session that is communicated by the wireless, Internet protocol
`
`communications module” of the instant messaging terminal. See ‘870 patent, claim 1.
`
`50.
`
`Additionally, I note that during prosecution of the ‘837 patent, when discussing
`
`the broader phrase “instant messaging protocol for generation of instant messaging (IM) data
`
`messages that are compatible with an instant messaging service,” certain prior art was
`
`distinguished from the ‘837 patent claims because the wireless device in the prior art only acted
`
`through a separate computing device to send the wireless messages. See ‘837 Patent File
`
`History, September 13, 2010 Amendment, pp. 8-10.
`
`51.
`
`In other words, the prior art wireless device sent to messages to an intermediary
`
`or proxy computer using an intermediary protocol and the intermediary or proxy computer then
`
`generated the data messages that were compatible with an instant messaging service. See
`
`September 13, 2010 Amendment, pp. 8-10. By contrast, the handheld instant messaging terminal
`
`in the claims of ’837 patent itself generates such instant messaging data messages that are
`
`compatible with an instant messaging service, without the need for such intermediary
`
`protocol/computer. See September 13, 2010 Amendment, pp. 8-10. Similar arguments were
`
`made in the filed history of the ‘870 patent, with regard to the ability of the prior art to
`
`communicate wirelessly without then need for such intermediary protocols/computers. See ‘870
`
`Patent File History, November 3, 2006 Amendment, pp. 15-17.
`
`
`
`14
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1035, pg. 14
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01507
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`52.
`
`Thus, in my opinion one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term
`
`“instant messaging protocol” should be construed to mean “a system of digital rules for the
`
`exchange of instant messages without using an intermediary protocol.”
`
`
`
`V.
`
` “wireless, Internet protocol communications module”
`
`53.
`
`I understand that there might be a dispute in this case regarding the construction
`
`of the term “wireless, Internet protocol communications module” in claim 1 and the claims
`
`dependent therefrom of the ‘870 patent.
`
`54.
`
`In my opinion the phrase “wireless, Internet protocol communications module”
`
`should be construed in accordance with how its constituent terms have been used in the patents
`
`and would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The term wireless is generally
`
`understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to mean “transmitting signals through the air using
`
`electromagnetic radiation.” This definition is consistent with how the term wireless is used in
`
`the ‘870 patent, such as at Col. 13, Lines 35-43 which discusses sending wireless signals from a
`
`wireless transceiver that “radiates a signal” through an antenna in communication with the
`
`transceiver.
`
`55.
`
`The phrase “wireless…communications module” would be understood to be the
`
`“The Wi-Fi communications module” that the ‘870 patent discloses “enables the instant
`
`messaging terminal of the present invention to be used at Wi-Fi hotspots and in local networks
`
`that use a wireless router for communication.” See ‘870 patent Col. 6, Lines 15-21. See also, the
`
`‘870 patent at Col. 4, Lines 43-45 which similarly discloses that the “Wi-Fi communications
`
`module” of the instant messaging terminal is “for communicating messages with a Wi-Fi access
`
`point.”
`
`
`
`15
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1035, pg. 15
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01507
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`56.
`
`Wi-Fi is defined in the ‘870 patent to be “[w]ireless fidelity communication”
`
`which is a well-known method for performing wireless communications, including for
`
`communication with an Internet service provider (ISP). See ‘870 patent, Col. 1, Line 66 – Col.
`
`2, Line 3. The ‘870 patent also makes repeated references that such wireless communications
`
`from the instant message terminal may be in the Wi-Fi protocol to Wi-Fi hotspots or wireless
`
`Wi-Fi access points. See ‘870 patent, Col. 6, Lines 40-43; Col. 8, Lines 33-38; and Col. 12,
`
`Lines 35-39.
`
`57.
`
`Internet is generally understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a global
`
`system of interconnected computer networks” such as an interconnected computer network that
`
`uses the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP). See Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, CMP Books, 19th
`
`Ed., March 2003, p. 419.
`
`58.
`
`Additionally, I note that during prosecution of the ‘870 patent, when discussing
`
`the module for providing Internet protocol communications and the communications wirelessly
`
`provided by the device, certain prior art was distinguished from the ‘870 patent claims because
`
`the wireless device in the prior art only acted through a separate computing device to send the
`
`wireless messages. In other words, the prior art wireless device sent to messages to an
`
`intermediary or proxy computer using an intermediary protocol before the messages could be
`
`sent via Wi-Fi to a wireless, Internet protocol access point. See ‘870 Patent File History,
`
`November 3, 2006 Amendment, pp. 15-17. By contrast, the communications module of the ’870
`
`patent was disclosed to send the communications without the need for such intermediary
`
`protocol/computer. See November 3, 2006 Amendment, pp. 15-17.
`
`59.
`
`Thus, in my opinion one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term
`
`“wireless, Internet protocol communications module” as used in the ‘870 patent claims should be
`
`
`
`16
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1035, pg. 16
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01507
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`construed to be “a module which enables wireless communication via Wi-Fi without using an
`
`intermediary protocol, for connection to a system of interconnected computer networks.”
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`“wireless, Internet protocol access point”
`
`60.
`
`I understand that there might be a dispute in this case regarding the construction
`
`of the term “wireless, Internet protocol access point” in claim 1 and the claims dependent
`
`therefrom of the ‘870 patent.
`
`61.
`
`In my opinion the phrase “VIII. “wireless, Internet protocol access point” should
`
`be construed in accordance with how its constituent terms have been used in the patents and
`
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The terms “wireless” and “Internet”
`
`have been discussed above.
`
`62.
`
`Additionally, as discussed in the ‘837 and ’870 patents: “Wireless fidelity
`
`communication, or Wi-Fi, as it is also known, is increasing in popularity. In particular, retail
`
`establishments are providing Wi-Fi access points so customers can couple to an ISP while
`
`enjoying a beverage at the establishment. The access point includes a radio transceiver coupled
`
`to a server that typically implements the 802.11 b, 802.11a, or 802.11g communication standard.
`
`Locations providing wireless access points for the Internet are commonly referred to as
`
`‘hotspots.’” See ‘870 patent, Col. 1, Line 66- Col. 2, Line 7.
`
`63.
`
`See also the ‘870 patent at Col. 4, Lines 43-45; Col. 6, Lines 15-21; Col. 8, Lines
`
`33-38; and Col. 10, Lines 24-39 which also discuss that the wireless access points are Wi-Fi
`
`access points. I believe that this use is consistent with what one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand a wireless access point to be, a device that allows wireless devices to connect to a
`
`
`
`17
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1035, pg. 17
`Blackberry v. Zipit
`IPR2014-01507
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`wired network using Wi-Fi, or related standards or protocols. See Newton’s Telecom Dictionary,
`
`CMP Books, 19th Ed., March 2003, p. 37.
`
`64.
`
`Thus, in my opinion one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term
`
`“wireless, Internet protocol access point” as used in the ‘870 patent claims should be construed
`
`to be “a device that receives Wi-Fi signals to allow connection to a system of interconnected
`
`computer networks.”
`
`
`
`VII. “in response to”
`
`65.
`
`I understand that there might be a dispute in this case regarding the constructi