`
`Paper No. 36
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`QUALCOMM INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`BANDSPEED, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-00314‘
`
`U.S. Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`
`OBSERVATION RELATED TO DEPOSITION OF DR. ZHI DING
`
`1 Case IPR2015-01577 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the PTAB Scheduling Order dated November 16, 2015, Petition-
`
`er Qualcomm Inc. (“Petitioner”) submits the following responses to Patent Owner
`
`Bandspeed, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) Motion for Observation Related to Deposition
`
`of Dr. Zhi Ding.
`
`II.
`
`RESPONSES
`
`A.
`
`Response to Observation No. 1
`
`In Exhibit 2006, 84:17 — 85:10 Patent Owner indicates that a base station of
`
`Cuffaro is a “participant.” At 86:10-16, Dr. Ding indicates that the base station of
`
`Cuffaro provides an expression of preference. At 86:21 — 87:5 and 87:10-14, Dr.
`
`Ding indicates that under another interpretation “you can view the measurement of
`
`signal quality by the participa[nt] as a preference. And that itself can be viewed as
`
`a vote.” This testimony is relevant to Dr. Ding’s testimony of paragraphs 6-7 of
`
`his supplemental declaration and to the proper claim construction of “vote to use a
`
`particular communications channel.”
`
`B.
`
`Response to Observation No. 2
`
`In Exhibit 2006, 86:17 — 87:1 Dr. Ding testified that in Cuffaro the mobile
`
`station is sending a measurement to the base station, and the base station makes the
`
`expression of preference based on comparing the received measurements. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. Ding’s testimony of paragraphs 6-7 of his supple-
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`mental declaration and to the proper claim construction of “vote to use a particular
`
`communications channel.”
`
`C.
`
`Response to Observation No. 3
`
`Patent Owner cites Ex. 2006 98:7-17 and states that “[w]hen asked if he
`
`agreed whether Gerten required two selection kernel components, Dr. Ding further
`
`testified, “I agree.” In Exhibit 2006 58:5-15 Dr. Ding stated “a single kernel may
`
`have multiple components .
`
`.
`
`. we could have a single kernel that has one compo-
`
`nent addressing the N channels and another component .
`
`.
`
`. to address the N minus
`
`M channels.
`
`I do not really see why .
`
`.
`
`. you are attempting to equate kernel with
`
`kernel component.” At 97:19 — 98:6 Dr. Ding noted that a kernel can be like a pro-
`
`gram that has two paths or different possibilities in handling transmissions depend-
`
`ing on stated conditions. This testimony is relevant to paragraphs 8-13 of Dr.
`
`Ding’s supplemental declaration regarding the disclosure in Gerten of a “transceiv-
`
`er is configured to transmit to and receive from a third communications device
`
`over the default set of two or more communications channels while transmitting to
`
`and receiving from the second communications device over the first set of two or
`
`more communications channels.”
`
`D.
`
`Response to Observation No. 4
`
`In Exhibit 2006 at 101: 22 — 102:1 when discussing Figure 1 of Gerten, Dr.
`
`Ding noted that two piconets within a scattemet functioning under a Bluetooth
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`standard would utilize the same default channels, but their hopping sequences
`
`should differ. At 102:5-6, Dr. Ding further indicated that Gerten’s patent was not
`
`on the Bluetooth standard, but was “an invention to improve upon the prior art
`
`Bluetooth.” This testimony is relevant to Dr. Ding’s assertions in paragraph 12 of
`
`his supplemental declaration regarding the ability of Gerten to permit a mobile unit
`
`to be configured to utilize adaptive frequency hopping in conjunction with Figure 1
`
`of Gerten.
`
`E.
`
`Response to Observation No. 5
`
`In Exhibit 2006 113:20 — 114:6 Dr. Ding noted that the alleged deficiency
`
`described by Patent Owner in Cuffaro would also be present in the ‘624 patent be-
`
`cause “you would still need to resolve that situation in the event that the number of
`
`channels you want to swap would result in fewer than 75 total frequencies for hop-
`
`ping because the FCC requires you need to have at least 75 channels in your hop-
`
`ping sequence.” This testimony is relevant to paragraph 14 of Dr. Ding’s supple-
`
`mental declaration wherein he states that Cuffaro’s disclosure renders obvious the
`
`limitation of the ‘624 patent requiring that a specified number of votes be received
`
`to select a channel for use.
`
`F.
`
`Response to Observation No. 6
`
`In Exhibit 2006 128:2-5 and 132:10-11, Dr. Ding notes that the captions and
`
`labels of Figure 1 of Gendel state that the segment substitution subsystem is not
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`implemented in box 136, which makes clear that this block provides for legacy
`
`functionality. At 132118 — 133:1 Dr. Ding further notes that “a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in this field are well trained to read block diagrams .
`
`.
`
`. unless there
`
`is something that is either ambiguous or unclear, it is the discretion or decision of
`
`the writer to decide whether they need further explanation or whether they feel that
`
`it may be insulting to the readers by saying too much of something that’s already
`
`15
`
`obvious.
`
`This testimony is relevant to paragraphs 19-20 of Dr. Ding’s supple-
`
`mental declaration noting that it would have been recognized that the primary pur-
`
`pose of Block 126 of Gendel is to support of legacy communications systems.
`
`G.
`
`Response to Observation Nos. 7-8
`
`In Exhibit 2006 136:14 — 137:19 and 137220 — 138:12, Dr. Ding was asked if
`
`he addressed specific arguments in his supplemental declaration. Dr. Ding con-
`
`firmed that there was no supplemental testimony directed toward the teachings in
`
`Cuffaro regarding “performance data over one of the channels” and the teachings
`
`of Gendel in view of Haartsen regarding “selecting, based upon performance of the
`
`plurality of communications channels at a second time that is later than the first
`
`time, a second set of two or more communications channels from the plurality of
`
`communications channels.”
`
`
`
`Dated: May 5 , 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Nathan J. Rees/
`
`Nathan J. Rees (Reg. No. 63,820)
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
`
`Dallas, Texas 75201-7932
`Tel: 214.855.7164
`
`Fax: 214.855.8200
`
`nate.rees@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on May 5, 2016, a complete copy of Petitioner’s Response to Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion for Opposition Related to Deposition of Dr. Zhi Ding was elec-
`
`tronically served on the Patent Owner.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`Gregory S. Donahue
`gdonahue@dpe1aw.com
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`David O. Simmons
`
`dsirnmons1@sbcg1obal.net
`
`/Nathan J. Rees/
`
`Nathan J. Rees
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Registration No. 63,820
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
`
`Dallas, Texas 75201-7932
`
`214.855.7164