UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00369
`Patent 6,128,290
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JING HU
`
`
`
`
`
`APL 1014
`IPR2015-00369
`
`
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00369
`Patent 6,128,290
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JING HU
`
`
`
`
`
`APL 1014
`IPR2015-00369
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`V.
`VI.
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
`My Background and Qualifications .............................................................. 2
`List of Documents Considered in Formulating My Opinions....................... 4
`Legal Principles ............................................................................................. 6
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................... 9
`State of the Art and Summary of References ................................................ 9
`A. Natarajan..............................................................................................10
`B. Neve .....................................................................................................15
`VII. Claims 1-4 would have been obvious to a POSA over Natarajan in
`view of Neve. .............................................................................................. 17
`VIII. HDLC is consistent with low duty cycle RF burst communications. ......... 20
`A. The preferred embodiment disclosed in the ’290 patent uses
`HDLC. .................................................................................................20
`B. Mr. Dezmelyk’s understanding of HDLC is incorrect. .......................21
`C. Natarajan and the HDLC protocol do not use “idle words.” ..............33
`IX. DSS’s interpretation of “low duty cycle” is incorrect. ................................ 36
`X.
`Conclusion ................................................................................................... 42
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`
`I, Dr. Jing Hu, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of eighteen (18) and otherwise competent to make
`
`this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of APPLE INC. for
`
`the above-captioned inter partes review (IPR). I am being compensated for my
`
`time in connection with this IPR at my standard legal consulting rate, which is
`
`$250 per hour.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that this inter partes review involves U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,128,290 (“the ’290 patent”), APL 1001, which issued from U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 08/949,999 (“the ’999 application”), filed on October 14, 1997.
`
`The ’290 patent names Phillip P. Carvey as the sole inventor. The ’290 patent
`
`issued on October 3, 2000, from the ’999 application. It is my understanding that
`
`the ’290 patent is currently owned by DSS Technology Management, Inc.
`
`4.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ’290 patent and
`
`considered each of the documents cited herein in light of the general knowledge in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged inventions. In formulating my opinions, I have
`
`relied upon my experience, education, and knowledge in the relevant art(s). I have
`
`also considered the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at
`
`the relevant time period.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`
`II.
`
`My Background and Qualifications
`
`5.
`
`I hold a doctoral degree (PhD) in Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering, granted by University of California, Santa Barbara in 2007, as well as
`
`a Master’s degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Rice University in
`
`2003, and a Bachelor’s degree in Precision Instruments from Tsinghua University,
`
`Beijing, China in 2001.
`
`6.
`
`I worked as a research scientist and embedded software engineer at
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. between the years of 2007 and 2012. At Cisco Systems, I
`
`worked on a series of projects that included wide area network optimization, video
`
`quality monitoring, and multimedia conferencing systems on digital signal
`
`processing parts of enterprise network routers. I designed algorithms, wrote
`
`production source code and conducted unit testing on these projects.
`
`7.
`
`I have conducted research in both academia and industry for over ten
`
`years. My research topics include wireless network optimization, information
`
`theory, video compression, and communication over wireless networks. I have
`
`published numerous peer-reviewed research papers on these topics. My research
`
`paper “Video capacity of Wireless LANs with a multiuser perceptual quality
`
`constraint” won Best Paper Award of IEEE Transactions on Multimedia over the
`
`years of 2007 to 2009. Please see my Curriculum Vitae (CV) for the list of my
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`other published research papers. I have been a visiting researcher at University of
`
`
`
`California, Santa Barbara since early 2013.
`
`8.
`
`I am an inventor of four awarded or pending U.S. patents, on topics
`
`ranging from wide area network optimization to video quality monitoring in the
`
`network and in the endpoints. Please see my CV for the list of my patents and
`
`patent applications.
`
`9.
`
`I have co-authored a book titled “Rate Distortion Bounds for Voice
`
`and Video,” published
`
`in
`
`the prestigious Foundations and Trends
`
`in
`
`Communications and Information Theory Series, in February 2014. In this book,
`
`my co-author and I teach the current best-performing voice and video codecs for
`
`communication over wired, wireless, and cellular networks and present the first
`
`rate distortion bounds for voice and video that lower bound the operational rate
`
`distortion performance of these codecs.
`
`10.
`
`In the course of my research and product development related to data
`
`communication over wireless and wired networks, I worked extensively with
`
`communication protocols across various layers of the networks, including, for
`
`example, IEEE 802.11, Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), Ethernet, and High-
`
`Level Data Link Control (HDLC) on the data link layer. I have both designed data
`
`communication algorithms and developed relevant products that function over
`
`and/or interoperate with the networks governed by these protocols.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`I have been engaged as an expert consultant in many technology-
`
`
`
`11.
`
`based matters for the past three years, with a focus on patent infringement and
`
`patent portfolio evaluation. My cases have covered diverse areas such as Bluetooth
`
`technologies, cellular networks, smart handheld devices, banking and security
`
`related software, video compression related software, and television systems.
`
`12. Additional information concerning my qualifications are set forth in
`
`my current CV, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit APL 1015.
`
`III.
`
`List of Documents Considered in Formulating My Opinions
`
`13.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have considered
`
`the following
`
`documents and any other documents cited herein:
`
`Exhibit /
`Paper #
`
`1
`
`9
`
`Description
`
`Apple’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No.
`6,128,290
`
`Institution Decision by Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`17
`Patent Owner DSS Technology, Inc.’s Response to Petition
`APL 1001 Carvey, U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290, “Personal Data Network,” (filed
`October 14, 1997; issued October 3, 2000) (“the ’290 patent”).
`
`APL 1003
`
`Natarajan et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,241,542, “Battery Efficient
`Operation of Scheduled Access Protocol,” (filed August 23, 1991;
`issued August 31, 1993) (“Natarajan”).
`APL 1004 Neve et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,887,266, “Communication System,”
`(filed April 29, 1986; issued December 12, 1989) (“Neve”).
`
`APL 1005 File history of U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit /
`Paper #
`APL 1006 Application No. 08/611,695 (as-filed)
`APL 1007 Apple’s Claim Construction Brief in Case No. 6:13-cv-00919-JDL
`(EDTX)
`APL 1011 Deposition Transcript of Robert Dezmelyk, IPR2015-00369 and
`IPR2015-00373, December 15, 2015 (“Dezmelyk Depo.”)
`APL 1012 Mischa Schwartz, Telecommunications Networks: Protocols,
`Modeling and Analysis, Addison-Wesley, 1988 (“Schwartz”)
`APL 1013 Tom Sheldon, Encyclopedia of Networking & Telecommunications,
`Lisa Wolters-Broder ed., McGraw Hill, 2001 (other excerpts
`submitted as DSS 2010)
`DSS 2001 U.S. Patent No. 5,699,357
`DSS 2002 Definition of “e.g.,” Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)
`DSS 2003 Myk Dormer, Low Duty Cycle?, Electronics World Magazine, Dec.
`2008, available at
`http://www.radiometrix.com/files/additional/Low-
`Duty-Cycle.pdf
`DSS 2004 U.S. Pat. No. 7,558,232
`DSS 2005 U.S. Pat. No. 7,092,762
`DSS 2006 U.S. Pat. No. 7,049,620
`DSS 2007 U.S. Pat. No. 8,837,653
`DSS 2008 U.S. Pat. No. 8,727,561
`DSS 2009 Definition of “burst,” Chambers Dictionary of Science and
`Technology (1st ed. 1999)
`DSS 2010 Tom Sheldon, Encyclopedia of Networking & telecommunications,
`549, (Lisa Wolters-Broder ed., McGraw Hill 2001)
`DSS 2011 U.S. Pat. No. 3,598,914
`DSS 2012 U.S. Pat. No. 6,983,031
`DSS 2013 Yurcik, William J., Serial and Parallel Transmission. Computer
`Sciences. 2002. Encyclopedia.com, available at
`http://www.encyclopedia.com
`DSS 2014 Asynchronous HDLC MC68360 ASYNC HDLC Protocol Microcode
`User’s Manual, 8, (Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. 1996)
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`
`Exhibit /
`Paper #
`DSS 2016 Declaration of Mr. Robert Dezmelyk (“Demelyk Dec.”)
`DSS 2017 Wmat Auppu, AIF Inter DSP Communication, 1, available at
`http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/AIF_Inter_DSP_Communic
`ation
`
`Description
`
`
`IV.
`
`Legal Principles
`I understand that, during an inter partes review, claims are to be given
`
`14.
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as would be
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that to determine how a person of ordinary skill would
`
`understand a claim term, one should look to those sources available that show what
`
`a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to
`
`mean. Such sources include the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of
`
`the patent’s specification, the prosecution history of the patent (all considered
`
`“intrinsic” evidence), and “extrinsic” evidence concerning relevant scientific
`
`principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that words or terms should be given their ordinary and
`
`accepted meaning unless it appears that the inventors were using them to mean
`
`something else. I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to
`
`read a claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the
`
`disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`specification. For this reason, the words of the claim must be interpreted in view of
`
`
`
`the entire specification. Put another way, claim terms are given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the specification and the
`
`prosecution history.
`
`17.
`
`In addition to consulting the specification, one should also consider
`
`the patent’s prosecution history. The prosecution history provides evidence of how
`
`both the Patent Office and the inventor(s) understood the terms of the patent,
`
`particularly in light of what was known in the prior art. Furthermore, where the
`
`specification describes a claim term broadly, arguments and amendments made
`
`during prosecution may require a more narrow interpretation.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that while intrinsic evidence is of primary importance,
`
`extrinsic evidence, e.g., all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history,
`
`including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, can
`
`also be considered. For example, technical dictionaries may help one better
`
`understand the underlying technology and the way in which one of skill in the art
`
`might use the claim terms. Extrinsic evidence should not be considered, however,
`
`divorced from the context of the intrinsic evidence.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis involves comparing a claim
`
`to the prior art to determine whether the claimed invention would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the prior art, and in light
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`of the general knowledge in the art. I also understand when a person of ordinary
`
`
`
`skill in the art would have reached the claimed invention through routine
`
`experimentation, the invention may be deemed obvious.
`
`20.
`
`I also understand that obviousness can be established by combining or
`
`modifying the teachings of the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. It is also
`
`my understanding that where there is a reason to modify or combine the prior art to
`
`arrive at the claimed invention, there must also be a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in so doing. I understand that the reason to combine prior art references
`
`can come from a variety of sources, not just the prior art itself or the specific
`
`problem the patentee was trying to solve. And I understand that the references
`
`themselves need not provide a specific hint or suggestion of the alteration needed
`
`to arrive at the claimed invention; the analysis may include recourse to logic,
`
`judgment, and common sense available to a person of ordinary skill that does not
`
`necessarily require explanation in any reference.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that when considering the obviousness of an invention,
`
`one should also consider whether there are any secondary considerations that
`
`support the nonobviousness of the invention. I understand that secondary
`
`considerations of nonobviousness include failure of others, copying, unexpectedly
`
`superior results, perception in the industry, commercial success, and a long-felt but
`
`unmet need.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`
`V.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) is one
`
`who is presumed to be aware of pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in
`
`the art, and is a person of ordinary creativity. In my opinion, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the priority date of the ’290 patent would be a person
`
`with an undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering and 1-2 years of experience
`
`working with wireless network technology, or equivalent education and/or work
`
`experience. I am familiar with what a POSA would have known at the time of the
`
`priority date of the ’290 patent.
`
`VI.
`
`State of the Art and Summary of References
`
`23.
`
`In my opinion, the references asserted against the ’290 patent claims
`
`and discussed herein clearly show that the features recited in the ’290 patent claims
`
`were well known in the prior art. To the extent that a particular feature is not
`
`explicitly described in one of the asserted references, it is my opinion that these
`
`features would have been obvious to a POSA.
`
`24. Many of the claimed limitations are simply well known components
`
`of wireless communication systems performing their standard functions. For
`
`example, the claims recite basic features such as a “server microcomputer unit”
`
`communicating with multiple “peripheral units,” where these components each
`
`have a transmitter and receiver. Energizing the transmitters and receivers only
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`during designated transmission slots was also well known. So too was
`
`
`
`synchronizing devices so that they could rely on timed communication plans.
`
`25.
`
`It is my opinion that the ’290 patent claims merely recite a collection
`
`of well known components performing their standard function according to well
`
`known techniques. In my opinion, the ’290 patent claims do not recite any features
`
`that were not previously known in the art or would not have been obvious to a
`
`POSA.
`
`26.
`
`It is my understanding from reviewing DSS’s Patent Owner Response
`
`to Petition that DSS only contends that one feature–the server transmitter being
`
`“energized in low duty cycle RF bursts”–is not taught or suggested by the
`
`combination of prior art references. Therefore, my opinions and analysis herein
`
`focus on this claim element.
`
`27. Exemplary relevant art that was published before October 14, 1997
`
`includes the references described below.
`
`A. Natarajan
`28. Natarajan is directed to battery power conservation in wireless
`
`communications of mobile computers controlled by multi-access protocols.
`
`(Natarajan, 1:6-12.) Figure 1 shows that multiple mobile units (10, 12, 14, 16)
`
`communicate with base stations (26, 28) via wireless radio links. (Natarajan, 2:28-
`
`39, Figure 1.) Natarajan describes that the base stations can be a “conventional
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`microcomputer” and that the mobile units can be a “hand held or laptop computer.”
`
`
`
`(Natarajan, 2:40-41, 2:58-59.) Both the base stations and mobile units have an RF
`
`transceiver for establishing a radio link. (Natarajan, 2:51-56, 2:65-67.) A system
`
`schematic common to both the base station and mobile stations is illustrated in
`
`FIG. 3. (Natarajan, 3:7-8.) Each device includes, for example, a microprocessor
`
`system (56) that controls the transceiver via an interface (58). (Natarajan, 3:14-15.)
`
`The microprocessor system also includes a dedicated microprocessor (62) with
`
`high-resolution time interval determination hardware or “timers.” (Natarajan, 3:18-
`
`21.)
`
`29. Natarajan describes that its system is intended “for minimizing battery
`
`power consumed by wireless link adapters at the mobile units.” To do so,
`
`Natarajan describes turning off the transmitter and receivers when not in use.
`
`(Natarajan, 4:2-5.) More specifically, Natarajan describes that:
`
`[s]cheduled access multiaccess protocols can be implemented to
`effectively conserve battery power by suitable control of the state of
`transmitter and receiver units at the portable units (i.e., by scheduling
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`when they should be turned ON or OFF). A desirable solution is one
`in which the transmitter (or receiver) consumes power only when it is
`actively transmitting a message (or actively receiving a message).
`(Natarajan, 3:59-4:6.)
`
`
`
`30. Natarajan further describes that the scheduled multiaccess protocol
`
`divides time into “fixed-length frames, and frames are divided into slots,” as
`
`shown, for example, in FIG. 4. (Natarajan, 4:20-23, FIG. 4.) The frames are
`
`divided into subframes where, for example with respect to FIG. 4, one subframe is
`
`for transmitting data packets from the base station to mobile units (Period A), a
`
`second subframe is for contention-free transmission from mobile units to the base
`
`station (Period B), and a third subframe is for “bursty data traffic” in a contention
`
`mode from mobile units to the base station (Period C). (Natarajan, 4:27-38.)
`
`
`
`31. Natarajan describes that in Period A, the base station controls the
`
`outbound transmissions to the mobile units. (Natarajan, 4:40-41.) Prior to Period
`
`A, the base station broadcasts a header (AH) to the mobile units that includes: a list
`
`of mobile units that will be receiving data packets from the base station, the order
`
`in which the mobile units will receive the data packets, and the number of data
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`packets that will be transmitted to each mobile unit. (Natarajan, 4:45-53.) If a
`
`
`
`mobile unit is not included in header (AH), it will not be receiving data from the
`
`base station, and can turn off its receiver for Period A. (Natarajan, 4:63-67.)
`
`Because the mobile units know the order and number of data packets to be
`
`transmitted, each mobile unit that will be receiving data can compute when its
`
`designated transmission slot will be, go to sleep until that time, and wake itself up
`
`in its designated time slot to receive data. (Natarajan, 4:67-5:4.) After receiving its
`
`data, the receiver can go back to sleep for the remainder of Period A. (Natarajan,
`
`5:4-6.)
`
`32. Natarajan similarly discloses broadcasting another header (BH) for
`
`scheduling which mobile units will be allowed to transmit to the base station and
`
`the order they will transmit. (Natarajan, 5:9-29.) Flow charts of these processes are
`
`shown, for example, in FIGS. 8A-8D and described in Natarajan at 8:14-9:54.
`
`Using this scheme, the mobile units save power by powering up only during their
`
`designated reception or transmission time slot.
`
`33. Natarajan also describes that header (AH) includes “a coded
`
`description of mobile users that will receive data in the current frame. That is, it is
`
`a designation of which mobile users are to communicate with the base station
`
`during this frame.” (Natarajan, 6:19-22.) Header (BH) similarly includes “a coded
`
`designation or description of mobile users that can transmit data in the current
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`frame.” (Natarajan, 6:31-33.) Natarajan describes assigning each mobile unit an
`
`
`
`index number during a “registration period” which is “needed to associate each
`
`mobile unit in the network with the intended base station.” (Natarajan, 6:48-54.)
`
`34. The header (AH) transmitted from the base station includes a
`
`“Receiving Users designation or Index message portion” that is a bit-vector
`
`sequence with a bit for each of the registered mobile units. (Natarajan, 6:55-58.)
`
`FIG. 5 illustrates an example of this sequence.
`
`
`
`35.
`
` Natarajan specifically describes
`
`that
`
`the “coded description”
`
`designates whether or not each mobile unit will communicate with the base station
`
`during a particular time frame:
`
`The content of each bit location signals the receiver activity of the
`user designated or indexed by the bit location. For example, reading
`left to right, a “1” in the 4’th, 8’th, 9’th, etc. bit location can be used
`to signal that the 4’th, 8’th, 9’th, etc. mobile unit is designated to
`receive one message in the current frame period. “0” in the 1’st, 2’nd,
`3’rd, etc. bit location signals that the 1’th, 2’nd, 3’rd, etc. mobile unit
`is inactive (is not designated to receive any data) and can turn its
`receiver power OFF until the beginning of Header BH.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`
`(Natarajan, 6:59-68.)
`
`An analogous scheme is used in the header (BH) for transmission from the
`
`mobile units to the base station. (Natarajan, 7:1-6.) This scheduled communication
`
`scheme reduces power consumption by requiring that the mobile units only be
`
`powered on during time slots where they will be receiving or transmitting data.
`
`(Natarajan, 7:6-15.)
`
`B. Neve
`36. Neve is directed to “[a] communication system able to provide
`
`multiple path communication between a plurality of stations operating on a single
`
`channel. The stations are synchronized and a cyclically repeating series of time
`
`slots is defined.” (Neve, Abstract.) In order to provide radio data communication,
`
`Neve discloses that each device includes “a transmitter and receiver device
`
`(transceiver) 2 which includes an antenna 3, a transmitter circuit 4 and a receiver
`
`circuit 5.” (Neve, 3:59-63.) The transceiver is connected to a digital control
`
`processor, which controls data transfer to and from the transmitter and receiver.
`
`(Neve, 3:64-68.)
`
`37. Neve describes that it is “desirable to provide a communications
`
`system in which the transmitting and receiving apparatus is small, may be easily
`
`installed in any location, and is of very low power consumption.” (Neve, 1:31-34.)
`
`Thus, Neve’s system “enables a very low power consumption to be achieved in the
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`cases where the device requires to transmit data only rarely or the receiver receives
`
`
`
`the predetermined code signal only rarely…a device may need to transmit data for
`
`only a fraction of a second in many hours.” (Neve, 2:25-31.)
`
`38. Neve describes that when data transfer is not taking place, the device
`
`can enter a lower power consumption state. (Neve, 2:13-16.) The system is
`
`designed “automatically to re-enter the data transfer condition when either a signal
`
`is received from the device indicative of the need to transmit data or a
`
`predetermined code signal is received by the receiver circuit indicative of the need
`
`to receive data.” (Neve, 2:19-24.) So, the receiver has very low power
`
`consumption because only the internal timing circuitry is energized continuously,
`
`whereas the rest of the receiving circuit is energized only when its assigned time
`
`slot occurs. (Neve, 2:39-41.) Similarly, the transmitter only needs to be energized
`
`when transmission is required. (Neve, 2:45-47.)
`
`39. The time slots include “at least one synchronisation time slot, at least
`
`one interrupt time slot, and a plurality of address or data time slots, wherein any
`
`other station can transmit a message to the master station during an interrupt time
`
`slot to indicate a request to communicate.” (Neve, 3:12-17.) Neve describes that
`
`the receiver circuit “includes a low power timing circuit which operates to energise
`
`the rest of the receiver circuit only for the time slot in which its address may occur
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`and for
`
`the synchronisation
`
`time slot
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`thereby enabling
`it
`to maintain
`
`synchronisation with low power consumption.” (Neve, 4:43-48.)
`
`40. Neve further describes that controlling the transceiver includes power
`
`up, cadence capture, bit synchronization, and a bit synchronization clock. (Neve,
`
`6:7-11.) The clock is always active and the fundamental frequency of the oscillator
`
`is used as the system clock for the CPU. (Neve, 6:11-14.)
`
`VII. Claims 1-4 would have been obvious to a POSA over Natarajan in
`view of Neve.
`
`41. Having reviewed claims 1-4 of the ’290 patent and the prior art of
`
`record, it is my opinion that each and every limitation of claims 1-4 is disclosed by
`
`Natarajan and/or Neve or would have been obvious to a POSA in view of the
`
`combination of Natarajan and Neve. Therefore, it is my opinion that claims 1-4 of
`
`the ’290 patent would have been obvious in view of Natarajan and Neve.
`
`42. Having reviewed Patent Owner DSS Technology Inc.’s Response to
`
`Petition, it appears that DSS’s only contention is that the combination of Natarajan
`
`and Neve does not teach or suggest a server transmitter “energized in low duty
`
`cycle RF bursts,” as recited in independent claim 1. It is my opinion that this
`
`feature is, in fact, taught by the combination of Natarajan and Neve. At the very
`
`least, should the Board find, wrongly in my opinion, that this feature is not
`
`expressly taught by the prior art, this feature would have been obvious to a POSA
`
`in view of Natarajan and Neve.
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`43. The general term “low duty cycle RF bursts” is not expressly defined
`
`
`
`in the ’290 patent. I agree with the Board’s position in the Institution Decision that,
`
`under the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term, Natarajan’s “scheduled
`
`multi-access protocol in which time is divided into fixed-length frames, along with
`
`Natarajan’s description of frames being divided into slots and multiple subframes”
`
`demonstrates that Natarajan discloses “said server and peripheral transmitters
`
`being energized in low duty cycle RF bursts.” (Institution Decision, p. 18.) This is
`
`because, like the ’290 patent, Natarajan discloses that “[s]cheduled access
`
`multiaccess protocols can be implemented to effectively conserve battery power by
`
`suitable control of the state of transmitter and receiver units at the portable units
`
`(i.e., by scheduling when they should be turned ON or OFF)…the transmitter (or
`
`receiver) consumes power only when it is actively transmitting a message (or
`
`actively receiving a message).” (Natarajan, 3:59-4:6.) Under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of this term, a POSA would consider a system operating
`
`in this manner to operate in “low duty cycle RF bursts.”
`
`44. DSS asserts that Natarajan only describes that the mobile units operate
`
`in the manner described above. (POR, p. 16.) However, it is my opinion that a
`
`POSA would have understood that the base station would have operated similarly,
`
`that is, when the base station is not transmitting, its transmitter is powered off. As
`
`described in Natarajan, “[m]ost users are very likely to be inactive (both Transmit-
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`Inactive and Receive-Inactive) most of the time for most applications. This is
`
`
`
`primarily due to the bursty nature of data communication traffic.” (Natarajan, 6:41-
`
`44 (emphasis added).) Because most of the users are inactive most of the time, the
`
`base station will not have information to transmit most of the time. Therefore,
`
`when it is not transmitting, it will be powered off. Based on this description, a
`
`POSA would have understood Natarajan’s base station and mobile units operate in
`
`“low duty cycle RF bursts.”
`
`45. Furthermore, as described above, Natarajan explicitly discloses that
`
`the mobile unit transmitters operate in “low duty cycle RF bursts.” (Natarajan,
`
`3:59-4:6.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSA to have the base
`
`station operate in an analogous manner. The RF systems of the base station and
`
`mobile stations in Natarajan have the same physical structure. (Natarajan, 3:7-8,
`
`FIG. 3.) A POSA applying the exact design disclosed in Natarajan to an
`
`application exactly as described in Natarajan where “[m]ost users are very likely to
`
`be
`
`inactive
`
`(both Transmit-Inactive and Receive-Inactive) most of
`
`the
`
`time,”(Natarajan, 6:41-44 (emphasis added)) would have conceived a system in
`
`which both the transmitter and the receiver of both the base station and the mobile
`
`stations operate in “low duty cycle RF bursts.” Therefore, it is my opinion that a
`
`POSA would not have found the “low duty cycle RF bursts” recited in claim 1 of
`
`the ’290 patent to be novel.
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`VIII. HDLC is consistent with low duty cycle RF burst communications.
`46. DSS asserts that the High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC) packet
`
`
`
`structure disclosed in Natarajan is inconsistent with a server transmitter being
`
`energized in low duty cycle RF bursts. (POR, pp. 20-22.) For the reasons below, it
`
`is my opinion that DSS’s position is wrong. To the contrary, HDLC is consistent
`
`with low duty cycle RF burst communications.
`
`A. The preferred embodiment disclosed in the ’290 patent uses HDLC.
`47. The preferred embodiment of the ’290 patent discloses using HDLC
`
`for communication between the PDA and PEAs. Therefore, if HDLC is not
`
`compatible with low duty cycle RF burst communications, then the preferred
`
`embodiment in the ’290 patent would not work.
`
`48. The basic scheme of the ’290 patent’s frame structure is “a form of
`
`time division multiple access (TDMA).” (’290 patent, 5:45-50.) The ’290 patent
`
`states that “[a]s will be understood by those skilled in the art, the TDMA system is
`
`greatly facilitated by the establishment of a common frame time base between PEA
`
`and PDA.” (’290 patent, 7:63-65.) I agree this was well-known in the art. The ’290
`
`patent describes that establishment of a common frame time base is accomplished
`
`using synchronization beacons (SBs). (’290 patent, 7:65-67.) Before receiving the
`
`SBs, a PEA is associated with the PDA using a succession of Attachment Beacons
`
`(ABs), which are “composed of RF bursts having the same interval spacings as
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00369
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`Synchronization Beacons,” broadcast from the PDA to the PEAs. (’290 patent,
`
`
`
`9:13-16 (emphasis added), 9:66-10:2.) The ’290 patent states that “[t]his
`
`succession of ABs forms an HDLC channel using bit-stuffing to delineate the
`
`beginning and end of a packet.” (’290 patent, 10:2-4 (emphasis added).)
`
`49.
`
`In view of this disclosure in the ’290 patent, a POSA would have
`
`understood that the preferred embodiment of the ’290 patent discloses using HDLC
`
`to transmit a
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
