UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Paper No. 36
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`QUALCOMM INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`BANDSPEED, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-00316‘
`
`U.S. Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`
`OBSERVATION RELATED TO DEPOSITION OF DR. ZHI DING
`
`' Case IPR2015-01581 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Paper No. 36
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`QUALCOMM INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`BANDSPEED, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-00316‘
`
`U.S. Patent 7,477,624 B2
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`
`OBSERVATION RELATED TO DEPOSITION OF DR. ZHI DING
`
`' Case IPR2015-01581 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 9827-17 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 5825-15 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
`
`program that has two paths or different possibilities in handling transmissions de-
`
`pending 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 fiom 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:l0-11, Dr. Ding notes that the captions and
`
`labels of Figure 1 of Gendel states that the segment substitution subsystem is not
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`implemented in box 136, which makes clear that this block provides for legacy
`
`functionality. At l32:18 — 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
`
`‘)3
`
`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 136214 — 137219 and 137220 —138:l2, 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@nortonrosefu1bright.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
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Gregory S. Donahue
`gdonahue@dpelaw.com
`
`David 0. Simmons
`dsimmons 1 @sbcglobal.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
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
