`
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`QUALCOMM INC.,
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioner
`
`1
`Trial Number: IPR2015-00316
`
`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 15-01581 has been joined with this proceeding.
`1
`
`Page 1
`
`Qualcomm Inc.
`Exhibit 1017
`IPR2015-00316
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`2 1, dated January 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 comtnunications field.
`
`
`
`
`
`art skill in the relevant 4. Dr. Melendez states that "a person of ordinary
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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."
`
`
`
`5. I do not agree with Dr. Melendez that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`art would have a Bachelor of Science degree without the need for 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 ("PT AB") 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
`
`
`
`
`
`of the '624 that the language come from "participants." I would note, however,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`In fact, the "channel selection criteria" of the '624 patent, which
`
`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�� 33, 34. 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 1 0) 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that at least one legacy device would enter a communication network.
`
`In fact,
`
`
`
`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 . . . .
`"
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as a where mobile unit 22 acts 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
`
`
`
`12 ,"'
`...., ....
`/
`I
`I
`
`.... .... ' ' '
`
`'
`\
`\
`'
`\
`\
`I
`I
`I
`I
`I
`I
`I
`I
`I
`....
`,
`... ---
`, .....
`,. -
`�-
`
`..___..
`
`'V"-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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`circutnstance, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`frequency hopping according to its capabilities.
`When acting as a master in the
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a slave according to the flow described in Figure 3. This would create
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`circumstance where a first participant (the master/slave device) is able to
`
`
`
`communicate with a third participant via a normal mode, while also
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`communicating with another participant via an adaptive hopping sequence.
`Such
`
`
`
`functionality would meet each limitation of the present claim.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a communications within 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�� 32-33) asserting that Gerten would require that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`all master-slave communications 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
`
`
`
`number of requiring that a "specified" 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
`
`
`
`receive the same specified number of votes. It is noted that this theory is not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`This circumstance
`than the number of channels could be deemed as acceptable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would be accounted for and even expected because the normal use of a Bluetooth
`
`
`
`
`
`In fact,
`
`network may encounter many environments with minimal interference.
`7
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`such a circumstance could happen within emboditnents 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 communication system.
`
`
`
`
`
`15. Patent Owner argues that Gerten and Cuffaro are in different technical
`
`
`
`
`
`fields, address different problems, would not be s.een 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
`
`
`
`In fact, at least
`Gerten patent to Motorola, Inc., a cellular device manufacturer.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`skill in the art has been person of ordinary 1 7. Moreover, the proposed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GHz vs. 2.4 GHz). Additionally, in both licensed or unlicensed frequency bands,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`there is a need to avoid interference.
`
`
`
`
`
`the regarding on other grounds 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.
`
`
`
`21. 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
`
`
`
`
`
`references, because Gendel works with segments of frequencies whereas Haartsen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gendel. This argument misconstrues the rationale for combining references as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`provided in paragraph 131 of tny 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 fme
`
`or �oth, under Section 1 00 1 of Title 18 of the United States
`or imprisonment,
`
`Code.
`
`I
`Date
`
`Zhi Ding, Ph.D.
`
`12
`
`Page 12