IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`QUALCOMM INC.,
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioner
`
`Trial Number: IPR2015-003141
`
`v.
`
`BANDSPEED, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. ZHI DING
`
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER'S REPLY
`
`TO PATENT OWNER'S RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR20 15-01577 has been joined with this proceeding.
`1
`
`Page 1
`
`Qualcomm Inc.
`Exhibit 1017
`IPR2015-00314
`
`
`
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`QUALCOMM INC.,
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioner
`
`Trial Number: IPR2015-003141
`
`v.
`
`BANDSPEED, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. ZHI DING
`
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER'S REPLY
`
`TO PATENT OWNER'S RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR20 15-01577 has been joined with this proceeding.
`1
`
`Page 1
`
`Qualcomm Inc.
`Exhibit 1017
`IPR2015-00314
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Zhi Ding, hereby declare as follows:
`
`
`
`for this testimony 1. I have been retained by Qualcomm Inc. to provide
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inter partes review proceeding. This testimony is intended to supplement my
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`original declaration in these proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`dated January 21, 2. I have reviewed the Patent Owner's Response,
`
`
`
`
`
`2016, and its accompanying exhibit, the declaration of Dr. Jose Melendez.
`
`
`
`
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`
`
`skill in the art 3. In my prior declaration, I stated that one of ordinary
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would have a B.S. degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, or an
`
`
`
`
`
`equivalent field, as well as at least 3-5 years of academic or industry experience in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the communications field.
`
`
`
`
`
`4. Dr. Melendez states that "a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the '624 Patent in the relevant time period would have had a Bachelor of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Science degree in Electrical or Computer Engineering or Computer Science and/or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`equivalent industrial work experience."
`
`
`
`skill in the 5. I do not agree with Dr. Melendez that a person of ordinary
`
`
`
`
`
`art would have a Bachelor of Science degree with no experience in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`communications field. Nevertheless, even adopting Dr. Melendez's definition of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art, my previous testimony remains unchanged and it is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`still my opinion that the prior art references disclosed in the petition render the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`challenged claims of the '624 patent obvious.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`
`
`6. The Patent Owner's Response and Dr. Melendez asserts that the
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board's ("PTAB") interpretation of "vote to use the
`
`
`
`particular communications channel" is unreasonably broad. Various portions of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the '624 specification are cited which indicate that, in some embodiments, votes
`
`
`
`
`
`come from "participants." I would note, however, that the language of the '624
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`specification regarding these examples explicitly states that the embodiments are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`exemplary in nature. A person of ordinary skill in the art reading the '624 patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would understand that the cited examples from the specification are not necessarily
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`limiting on the claims and that the claimed votes could come from various devices
`
`
`
`
`
`other than participants.
`
`
`
`station" 7. It is further noted that the claims do not require that a "mobile
`
`
`
`
`
`is providing the votes, as argued by Patent Owner. The claims do not define
`
`
`
`master or slave devices, nor do they require that votes come from a slave to a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`master. The claims only require that a "channel" receives votes. In my previous
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`testimony, I noted that the base station (which would actually be a "participant" in
`
`
`
`
`
`the network) of Cuffaro compiles information and assigns tallies (i.e., votes) to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`various channels. In fact, the "channel selection criteria" of the '624 patent, which
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`tracks data and voting, is implemented a master device; this is similar to how
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cuffaro is implemented on a base station. Cuffaro' s disclosure is sufficient to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`meet the claimed voting to use the particular communications channel.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Anticipation by Gerten
`
`8. The Patent Owner and Dr. Melendez state that Gerten does not
`
`
`
`
`
`disclose any device "capable of maintaining a master synchronized with more than
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`one slave in a given piconet where the master and a slave are using a default set of
`
`
`
`
`
`channels while the same master and a different slave are using different subsets of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`channels (having eliminated channels), changing subsets of channels over time."
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2001 at�� 34, 35. These arguments are incorrect, and they also argue concepts
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that are not limitations of the claims (e.g., the claims do not specify piconets, they
`
`
`
`
`
`do not limit the master/slave relationships, nor do they require that this limitation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`applies to a single piconet only).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in which a device can 9. Gerten teaches multiple embodiments
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`communicate over an adaptive hopping sequence with one device while
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`communicating over a normal sequence with another device. One embodiment
`
`
`
`was discussed in my previous declaration at, e.g., paragraphs 45 and 60-65. In
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of Gerten, the master unit performs a discovery process (block 1 10) upon
`
`
`
`
`
`connecting with a new slave unit. If the slave unit is capable of using interference
`
`
`
`
`
`avoidance, the master will begin the process to determine a modified set of
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`channels for use (block 120). When a second slave unit enters the piconet, if it is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`determined that the new slave unit cannot utilize interference avoidance, Gerten
`
`
`
`
`
`uses normal/default frequency hopping for that second slave (block 115).
`
`
`
`
`
`10. Patent Owner takes the stance that, under Gerten, when such a second
`
`
`
`slave enters the network, the first slave would necessarily have to revert back to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`utilizing the default hopping sequence.
`
`
`
`
`According to Patent Owner, the master is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`not capable of utilizing the inventive aspects of Gerten while functioning in a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`legacy setting for communicating with the second slave. Gerten contains no such
`
`
`
`
`
`teaching, nor would a person of ordinary skill in the art read such a requirement
`
`
`
`
`
`into Gerten, because it would render the invention useless in the very likely event
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In fact,
`
`that at least one legacy device would enter a communication network.
`
`
`
`Gerten discloses that its "process can be applied to a Bluetooth example and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`includes identification of a Bluetooth device's ability to support interference
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`avoidance, . . . [and] a method of modifying the Bluetooth hop sequence so that it
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`will avoid channels containing strong or fixed interferers while still supporting
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`standard
`
`
`Bluetooth hopping with other non-enabled members of the piconet . . . .
`"
`
`
`
`where mobile unit 22 acts as a 1 1. Gerten teaches another embodiment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`master in one piconet but acts as a slave in a second piconet. This is shown in
`
`
`
`Figure 1:
`
`5
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`23--........
`.... ' ' ' '
`
`....
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`I
`I
`I
`I
`I
`I
`I
`I
`/
`/
`
`.__,
`"'
`"'
`I
`,."'
`I ......
`,--
`..... _ --
`
`........ � 14 '
`
`\
`\
`I
`I
`I
`/
`"'
`..-"'
`
`\
`
`\ ' ' '
`
`---------
`
`
`
`
`
`12. Gerten teaches that the two piconets (i.e., 12 and 14) are
`
`
`
`"independent" and "non-synchronized." Ex. 1003 3: 15-39; Fig. 1. In this
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`circumstance, based on the teachings of Gerten, when mobile unit 22 is acting as a
`
`
`
`
`
`slave in the second piconet (12), it could be configured to utilize adaptive
`
`
`
`When acting as a master in the
`frequency hopping according to its capabilities.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`first piconet ( 14 ), in the event that a slave in the first piconet is not able to utilize
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`adaptive hopping, the master will maintain a normal hopping sequence with that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`slave according to the flow described in Figure 3. This would create a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`circumstance where a first participant (the tnaster/slave device) is able to
`
`
`
`
`
`communicate with a third participant via a normal mode, while also
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Such
`communicating with another participant via an adaptive hopping sequence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`functionality would meet each limitation of the present claim.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`within a communications 13. In this second embodiment, all master/slave
`
`
`
`
`
`particular piconet would be synchronized, and the two separate piconets are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`unsynchronized.
`
`
`Such an embodiment would comply with Patent Owner's
`
`
`
`incorrect argument (Ex. 2001 at�� 33-34) asserting that Gerten would require that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`all master-slave comtnunications within a piconet to communicate over the same
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`set of channels. Therefore, even if such a requirement were assumed to exist
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(which it does not), Gerten would still teach this limitation.
`
`
`
`Obviousness over Gerten in view of Coffaro
`
`
`
`
`
`requiring that a "specified" number of 14. When discussing the limitation
`
`
`
`
`
`votes be received to select a channel, Patent Owner states that a person of ordinary
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`skill in the art would not be able to resolve the situation where multiple channels
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this theory is not receive the same specified number of votes. It is noted that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`supported by Dr. Melendez. One of skill in the art would understand that such
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`situation only means that there is a non-unique selection when selecting a channel.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`One of skill in the art would understand that the case of having more frequencies
`
`
`
`than the number of channels could be deemed as· acceptable.
`This circumstance
`
`
`
`
`
`because the normal use of a Bluetooth would be accounted for and even expected
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`network may encounter many environments with minimal interference. In fact,
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`such a circumstance could happen within embodiments of the '624 patent, and the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`'624 patent does not find it necessary to teach a method of handling this issue.
`
`
`
`
`
`This circumstance is possible under Cuffaro' s usage of a "maximum" number of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`votes and under the system implemented in the '624 patent.
`A person of ordinary
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`skill in the art reading Cuffaro' s teachings regarding making decisions based on a
`
`
`
`
`
`"maximum" number of votes would find it obvious to select a "specified" number
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of positive votes when determining whether to use a particular channel.
`
`Such
`
`
`
`
`
`selections of vote levels reflect threshold levels of quality for a channel and it
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would be obvious to select any particular threshold for channel quality based on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`design choices that dictate performance of the overall cotnmunication system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`technical 15. Patent Owner argues that Gerten and Cuffaro are in different
`
`
`
`
`
`fields, address different problems, would not be seen as analogous art, and could
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`therefore not be combined. I disagree. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`designing the system of Gerten, which monitors interference on communication
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`channels in order to select particular frequencies to use in a hopping sequence,
`
`
`
`
`
`would look to knowledge derived from designing other wireless communication
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`systems that monitor and select channels for the same purposes. In fact, Gerten
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`itself states that its invention can be applied to different types of networks.
`
`Gerten
`
`at 2:63-3:2.
`
`8
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`16. The close relationship between Bluetooth and cellular
`
`
`
`communications technologies is illustrated by facts such as the assignment of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gerten patent to Motorola, Inc., a cellular device manufacturer.
`In fact, at least
`
`
`
`two other cellular device manufacturers, Ericsson and Nokia, are founding
`
`
`
`
`
`members of the Bluetooth Special Interest Group. A person of ordinary skill could
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`easily translate many actions that are taken with respect to separate uplink or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`downlink channels and could apply those actions to systems where the
`
`
`
`
`
`uplink/downlink channels are shared, so long as there exists no insurmountable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`technical obstacles.
`
`
`
`17. Moreover, the proposed person of ordinary skill in the art has been
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`agreed upon as having, e.g., a degree in electrical engineering.
`Such a person
`
`
`
`
`
`obtaining knowledge in the area of interference avoidance would not presume that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the knowledge was limited to specific frequency ranges. This is especially true in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`light of the close frequency ranges of cellular and Bluetooth communications (1.9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`frequency bands, GHz vs. 2.4 GHz). Additionally, in both licensed or unlicensed
`
`
`
`
`
`there is a need to avoid interference.
`
`
`
`
`
`the on other grounds regarding 18. Patent Owner made similar augments
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`addition of the Sage reference. Those arguments are likewise without merit for the
`
`
`
`
`
`reasons discussed above.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`Obviousness over Gendel in view of Haartsen
`
`19. Patent Owner further argues that nothing In Gendel teaches
`
`
`
`communicating over a default set of channels. As stated In my previous
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`declaration, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that block 126 in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gendel is provided to support legacy communication systems, such as systems that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`do not support segment substitution.
`
`
`
`It would make little sense to create specific
`
`
`
`Bluetooth interference avoidance systems that do not function with legacy devices.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Therefore one of skill in the art would find it obvious to configure Gendel such that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`it communicates over a default set of channels.
`
`
`
`
`
`20. Patent Owner argues that block 126 of Gendel could be utilized to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`implement interference avoidance methods other than those described in Gendel,
`
`
`
`
`
`and therefore Gendel does not necessarily require that a default hopping sequence
`
`
`
`
`
`be used. It was not my assertion that block 126 can only implement
`
`
`
`
`
`communications over a default sequence, rather one of skill in the art would have
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`recognized that the primary purpose of this block is to provide for such legacy
`
`
`
`
`
`functionality.
`
`2 1. Patent Owner and Dr. Melendez assert that Gendel and Haartsen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would not be combined by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Essentially, the
`
`
`
`argument is that even though both references teach methods to select/deselect
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`channels, utilize hopping sequences, and are implemented to avoid interference a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to the solutions provided in these
`
`
`
`
`
`whereas Haartsen of frequencies references, because G�ndel works with segments
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`works on a frequency-by-frequency basis, i.e., where each segment has a single
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`channel only. I disagree.
`
`
`
`22. One of skill in the art could easily derive and apply knowledge from
`
`
`
`these references. Both references address the same problems and implements
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`solutions in substantially the same manner. Merely changing the granularity of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`frequencies would require little modification as it merely modifies the size of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`segments, i.e., the number of frequencies contained in each segment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of Gendel and combination 23. Patent Owner also states that the proposed
`
`
`
`Haartsen is improper, because it would change the principle of operation of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as references the rationale for combining Gendel. This argument misconstrues
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`provided in paragraph 131 of my declaration. The proposed combination does not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`require an actual physical combination of devices. Rather, the proposed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`combination notes that various conceptual teachings are common between
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`references and one of skill in the art would understand that certain concepts could
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be applied in a predictable way in order to achieve expected results.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`***
`
`1 1
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`24. I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own
`
`
`
`
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or imprisonment, or �oth, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States
`
`
`
`Code.
`
`Zhi Ding, Ph.D.
`
`12
`
`Page 12
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
