throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. Unassigned
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF JACK D. GRIMES, PH.D.
`
`APL 1008
`IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 6,128,290
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IX.(cid:1)
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................... 4(cid:1)
`I.(cid:1)
`My Background and Qualifications .............................................................. 5(cid:1)
`II.(cid:1)
`List of Documents Considered in Formulating My Opinion ........................ 6(cid:1)
`III.(cid:1)
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................... 7(cid:1)
`IV.(cid:1)
`V.(cid:1) My Understanding of Claim Construction .................................................... 7(cid:1)
`VI.(cid:1)
`The Basis of my Analysis with Respect to Obviousness .............................. 7(cid:1)
`VII.(cid:1) The ’290 Patent Specification ....................................................................... 9(cid:1)
`VIII.(cid:1) Terminology of the Claims of the ’290 patent ............................................ 13(cid:1)
`A.(cid:1)
`“within short range of said server unit” ............................................. 13(cid:1)
`B.(cid:1)
`“code sequence” ................................................................................. 13(cid:1)
`State of the Art Before October 14, 1997 and Summary of References ..... 15(cid:1)
`A.(cid:1) Barber ................................................................................................. 16(cid:1)
`B.(cid:1) Natarajan ............................................................................................ 20(cid:1)
`C.(cid:1) Neve ................................................................................................... 25(cid:1)
`Summary Chart of Analysis Over the Art ................................................... 27(cid:1)
`X.(cid:1)
`XI.(cid:1) Ground 1: Claims 1-4 would have been obvious in view of Barber. ......... 27(cid:1)
`A.(cid:1)
`Independent claim 1 would have been obvious in view of
`Barber. ................................................................................................ 27(cid:1)
`B.(cid:1) Claim 2 would have been obvious in view of Barber. ....................... 42(cid:1)
`C.(cid:1) Claim 3 would have been obvious in view of Barber. ....................... 43(cid:1)
`D.(cid:1) Claim 4 would have been obvious in view of Barber. ....................... 44(cid:1)
`XII.(cid:1) Ground 2: Claims 1-4 would have been obvious over Natarajan in
`view of Neve. .............................................................................................. 45(cid:1)
`A.(cid:1) Overview of the Combination of Natarajan and Neve ....................... 45(cid:1)
`B.(cid:1)
`Independent claim 1 would have been obvious over
`Natarajan in view of Neve. ................................................................. 49(cid:1)
`C.(cid:1) Claim 2 would have been obvious over Natarajan in view of
`Neve. .................................................................................................. 65(cid:1)
`D.(cid:1) Claim 3 would have been obvious over Natarajan in view of
`Neve. .................................................................................................. 66(cid:1)
`E.(cid:1) Claim 4 would have been obvious over Natarajan in view of
`Neve. .................................................................................................. 67(cid:1)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`XIII.(cid:1) Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness ......................................................... 68(cid:1)
`XIV.(cid:1) Conclusion ................................................................................................... 70(cid:1)
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`
`I, Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D., hereby declare as follows:
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`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
`
`$500 per hour. I understand that the petition for 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 is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`08/611,695, filed on March 6, 1996. 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.
`
`3.
`
`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. I have
`
`also considered the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`(i.e., a person of ordinary skill in the field of wireless network technology, defined
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`further below) prior to October 14, 1997, the priority date for claims 1-4 of the
`
`’290 patent.
`
`II.
`
`My Background and Qualifications
`
`4.
`
`I am currently an independent consultant. Since 1989, I have provided
`
`studies, strategies and opinions to industry and the legal profession, with particular
`
`emphasis on topics including: PDAs, Wireless data systems, Security, Engineering
`
`development practices, Microprocessor
`
`technology and Computer system
`
`architecture. Prior to and during my work as an independent consultant, I worked
`
`at senior levels of management for various large and small high technology
`
`companies and have over twenty years of management experience at those
`
`companies.
`
`5.
`
`I received my Doctor of Philosophy degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`with a minor in Computer Science from Iowa State University in 1970. I received a
`
`Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Iowa State University in
`
`1968 and a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Iowa State
`
`University in 1965. I also received a Master of Science Degree in Experimental
`
`Psychology from the University of Oregon in 1981 with an emphasis on user
`
`interface design.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I have taught courses at the graduate level in computer science for
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`Oregon State University. I have also taught courses at the graduate and
`
`undergraduate level in Electrical Engineering at Iowa State University.
`
`7.
`
`Additional information concerning my work experience, professional
`
`publications, and presentations in the field of computer science, and cases in which
`
`I have testified as an expert at trial or deposition are set forth in my current
`
`Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit APL 1009.
`
`III.
`
`List of Documents Considered in Formulating My Opinion
`
`8.
`
`In formulating my opinion, I have considered
`
`the following
`
`documents and any other documents cited herein:
`
`Apple
`Exhibit #
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`Carvey, U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290, “Personal Data Network,” (filed
`October 14, 1997; issued October 3, 2000) (“the ’290 patent”).
`Barber, Thomas J., “BodyLANTM: A Low-Power Communications
`System,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, submitted January
`30, 1996, archived in Massachusetts Institute of Technology
`Libraries April 11, 1996 (“Barber”).
`
`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”).
`
`Neve et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,887,266, “Communication System,”
`(filed April 29, 1986; issued December 12, 1989) (“Neve”).
`
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290
`
`Application No. 08/611,695 (as-filed)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Apple
`Exhibit #
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`Description
`
`1007
`
`Apple’s Claim Construction Brief in Case No. 6:13-cv-00919-JDL
`(EDTX)
`
`
`IV.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`9.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art 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. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSA”) of wireless network technology would have typically had an
`
`undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering and 1-2 years of experience
`
`working with wireless network technology, or equivalent education and/or work
`
`experience, as of the priority date.
`
`V.
`
`My Understanding of Claim Construction
`
`10.
`
`I understand that, during an inter partes review, claims are to be given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as would be
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`VI.
`
`The Basis of my Analysis with Respect to Obviousness
`
`11.
`
`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
`
`of the general knowledge in the art. I also understand when a person of ordinary
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`skill in the art would have reached the claimed invention through routine
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`experimentation, the invention may be deemed obvious.
`
`12.
`
`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.
`
`13.
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`
`VII. The ’290 Patent Specification
`14. This declaration is being submitted together with a petition for inter
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`partes review of claims 1-4, of the ’290 patent.
`
`15.
`
`I have considered the disclosure and file history of the ’290 patent in
`
`light of general knowledge in the art before the proper priority date for claims 1-4
`
`of the ’290 patent, October 14, 1997.
`
`16. The ’290 patent is directed to a data network for “bidirectional
`
`wireless data communications between a microcomputer unit and a plurality of
`
`peripheral units.” (’290 patent, 1:12-14.) The ’290 patent describes that the “server
`
`microcomputer” can be a personal digital assistant (“PDA”). (Id. at 2:66-67.) The
`
`“peripheral units” are referred to generally as “personal electronic accessories” or
`
`“PEAs”. (Id. at 2:15-18.) The PEAs include input devices such as a keyboard,
`
`mouse, body-mounted accessories such as displays “mounted on a headband or
`
`eyeglasses”, and “physiological sensors”. (Id. at 1:62-2:18.) These “physiological
`
`sensors” can be, for example, temperature, heartbeat, and respiration sensors for
`
`patient monitoring and fitness training. (Id. at 2:10-15.) FIG. 1 of the ’290 patent,
`
`reproduced below, illustrates the server microcomputer (11) and associated PEAs
`
`(21, 29). The ’290 patent describes that the server microcomputer and peripherals
`
`are linked “in close physical proximity, e.g., within twenty meters,” to establish a
`
`common time base for synchronization. (Id. at 1:50-55.)
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`
`
`17. FIGS. 2 and 3, reproduced below, illustrate the PEA modem and PDA
`
`modem, respectively. The ’290 patent describes that the PEA modem has five
`
`major components: a transmitter (40), a receiver (41), a local oscillator (42) shared
`
`by the transmitter and the receiver, a controller (43) which times and coordinates
`
`the operations of other components, and a voltage controlled crystal oscillator (44)
`
`for maintaining a common time base with the host microcomputer. (Id. at 3:30-39.)
`
`Similarly, the PDA modem has five major components: a transmitter (15), a
`
`receiver (17), a local oscillator (16) shared by the transmitter and the receiver, a
`
`controller (14), and a crystal oscillator (18) for maintaining the network time base.
`
`(Id. at 4:9-15.) The ’290 patent describes that “[t]here are no differences between
`
`the receiver, local oscillator, and transmitter in both the PEA and PDA modems.”
`
`(Id. at 4:16-18.) The ’290 patent describes with respect to FIG. 4 that “transmission
`
`is effected using the local oscillator 45 to drive the transmit antenna amplifier 50
`
`whose output drives transmit antenna 51.” (Id. at 4:25-27.)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`
`
`
`
`18. The ’290 patent’s goal is to “provide wireless communication
`
`between a host or server microcomputer unit and a plurality of peripheral units”
`
`that is “reliable”, “low power”, “avoids interference from nearby similar systems”,
`
`and is “relatively simple”. (Id. at 1:33-46.) The ’290 patent describes that its
`
`“general scheme of data transmission and reception is a form of time division
`
`multiple access (TDMA)” where transmissions occur “in only those slots indicated
`
`by a TDMA program.” (Id. at 3:57-59, 4:1-2.) The ’290 patent further describes
`
`that:
`
`Both the host and all PEAs share a common TDMA program at one
`
`time. For each slot, this TDMA program indicates that a PEA or host
`
`is to transmit, or not, and whether it will receive, or not. In the
`
`intervals between slots in which a PEA is to transmit or receive, all
`
`receive and transmit circuits are powered down. (Id. at 4:2-8.)
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`19. The ’290 patent describes that “code sequences” are generated, which
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`control the operation of the transmitters in a low duty cycle pulsed mode of
`
`operation. (Id. at 1:57-61, 2:35-39.) This causes the peripheral units’ transmitters to
`
`only be active for short durations of time, which the ’290 patent asserts
`
`“substantially reduces power consumption and facilitates the rejection of
`
`interfering signals.” (Id. at 1:59-61.)
`
`20.
`
` The ’290 patent describes that “[t]he codes are mostly zeros with
`
`three scattered ones representing the locations of the slots in which RF bursts are to
`
`be transmitted or received.” (Id. at 7:27-29.) “The position of each burst is dictated
`
`by a one” in a code word. (Id. at 7:23-24.) So what the ’290 patent describes is
`
`using a code word consisting of zeros and ones to determine when transmissions
`
`are to occur.
`
`21. The ’290 patent also states that it would “be understood by those
`
`skilled in the art, [that] the TDMA system is greatly facilitated by the
`
`establishment of a common frame time base between PEA and PDA.” (Id. at 7:63-
`
`65.) I agree that a POSA would have understood that establishing a common time
`
`base in a system like the one described in the ’290 patent would have been
`
`advantageous. The ’290 patent describes that to establish this common time base,
`
`synchronization beacons are transmitted from the PDA to the PEA. (Id. at 7:65-
`
`8:2.)
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`VIII. Terminology of the Claims of the ’290 patent
`22.
`I understand that, in connection with the inter partes review, claim
`
`terms must be given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the patent
`
`specification. Except for the claim terms addressed below, I have assumed all other
`
`claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`A. “within short range of said server unit”
`23. The term “within short range of said server unit” appears in claim 1 of
`
`the ’290 patent. I note that this term appears only once in the ’290 patent
`
`specification, in the Abstract: “a plurality of peripheral units located within short
`
`range of the server unit, e.g. within 20 meters.” Although the ’290 patent uses the
`
`symbol “e.g.,” meaning “for example,” no other examples are provided anywhere
`
`in the ’290 patent. In the art, the term “short range” has no commonly accepted
`
`meaning. A POSA would not have known whether this meant 5 meters or 500
`
`meters. Therefore, since the only guidance in the ’290 patent specification for this
`
`term is “within 20 meters”, I have assumed that the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the term “within short range of said server unit” is “within 20
`
`meters of said server unit”.
`
`B. “code sequence”
`24. The term “code sequence” appears in claims 1 and 3 of the ’290
`
`patent. A “code sequence” is not a term of art that would have been known to a
`
`POSA and therefore a POSA would have looked to the ’290 patent specification
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`for guidance on the meaning of this term. The ’290 patent describes that “[u]sing
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`the common time base, code sequences are generated which control the operation
`
`of the several transmitters in a low duty cycle pulsed mode of operation.” (’290
`
`patent, 1:57-59.) The ’290 patent also describes that “[t]he server and peripheral
`
`unit transmitters are energized in low duty cycle pulses at intervals which are
`
`determined by a code sequence which is timed in relation to the synchronizing
`
`information initially transmitted from the server microcomputer”. (’290 patent,
`
`2:35-39.) This is similar to the language recited in claim 1. The ’290 patent also
`
`discloses that the PEA controller is responsible for “acquiring from the host
`
`appropriate code sequences to be used in data communications”. (’290 patent,
`
`3:43-44.)
`
`25. The ’290 patent also describes “Optically Orthogonal Codes” and
`
`“codewords”. (’290 patent, 7:15-44.) “The codes are mostly zeros with three
`
`scattered ones representing the locations of the slots in which RF bursts are to be
`
`transmitted or received.” (’290 patent, 7:26-29.) Thus, in my opinion, a “code
`
`sequence” is a series of ones and zeros (i.e., values) representing possible
`
`transmission time slots. A “one” indicates that a unit will transmit in that time slot
`
`and, therefore, its transmitter will be energized. A “zero” indicates that a unit will
`
`not transmit, and so its transmitter will not be energized (i.e., it is depowered).
`
`Accordingly, it is my opinion that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`
`term “code sequence” in view of the ’290 patent specification is “a series of values,
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`where each value in the series represents a time slot where a unit’s transmitter is
`
`energized or a time slot where a unit’s transmitter is depowered.”
`
`IX.
`
`State of the Art Before October 14, 1997 and Summary of References
`
`26.
`
`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.
`
`27. 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 the “server microcomputer unit”
`
`communicating with multiple “peripheral units”, where these components each
`
`have a
`
`transmitter and
`
`receiver. Further,
`
`the claimed “commands”,
`
`“synchronization information”, and “input information” were typical types of data
`
`that would have been communicated in such networks. Energizing the transmitters
`
`and receivers only during designated transmission slots was also well known. So
`
`too was synchronizing the clocks, and their associated oscillators, of devices that
`
`rely on timed communication plans.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`28. Thus, it is my opinion that the ’290 patent claims merely recite a
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`collection of well known components performing their standard function according
`
`to well known techniques. Quite simply, 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.
`
`29. Exemplary relevant art that was published before October 14, 1997
`
`includes the references described below.
`
`A. Barber
`30. The Barber reference
`
`is a Master’s
`
`thesis, which
`
`is
`
`titled
`
`“BodyLANTM: A Low-Power Communications System”. (Barber, p. 1.) I note that
`
`the entirety of Barber’s disclosure is strikingly similar to that of the ’290 patent.
`
`The earlier-published Barber thesis actually describes many of the features of the
`
`’290 patent in greater detail than the ’290 patent itself.
`
`31. Barber is directed to “a low-power wireless
`
`communications system designed to operate within the
`
`sphere of the body.” (Barber, p. 3.) Barber discloses
`
`three possible network configurations: “Star”, “Ring”,
`
`and “Complete”. (Barber, pp. 9-10.) Barber discloses that in the “Complete”
`
`configuration, each node in the system is identical and “has the ability to
`
`independently send data to and receive data from other nodes as well as accept
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`
`input and deliver output to a user.” (Barber, p. 10.) However, Barber focuses on the
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`“Star” configuration, shown in Figure 1a. (Barber, pp. 9-10.) In the “Star”
`
`configuration, all communications occur through a central node call the “Hub”.
`
`(Barber, p. 9.) Barber describes that the other nodes are called “Personal Electronic
`
`Assistants (PEAs)”. (Barber, p. 12.) These are akin to the “personal electronic
`
`accessories (PEAs)” described in the ’290 patent.
`
`32. Barber further describes the roles of the Hub and PEAs:
`
`The Hub is responsible for interfacing with the user, controlling the
`
`overall TDMA schedule and gathering and processing the data from
`
`the PEAs. The PEAs are responsible for initializing the connection to
`
`the network, gathering data and transmitting the data to the Hub.
`
`(Barber, p. 12.)
`
`33. Barber describes that the Hub includes a central Hub computer and a
`
`controller/modem interface card. (Barber, p. 12.) The central Hub computer
`
`presents data gathered from the PEAs to the user and the controller/modem
`
`interface card is a PCMCIA card that controls TDMA scheduling and gathers and
`
`processes data from the PEAs. (Barber, pp. 12-13.)
`
`34. Barber describes that the PEAs have one or more sensors, a radio
`
`modem, a microprocessor, and a custom controller integrated circuit. (Barber, p.
`
`13.) The sensors collect data, which can be provided to the user via the Hub
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`
`computer. (Barber, p. 13.) The radio modem provides a wireless link between the
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`PEA and Hub, and the microprocessor handles higher level data processing
`
`functions locally at the PEA, for example, computing the phase correction for the
`
`symbol clock. (Barber, p. 13.) The controller integrated circuit controls interaction
`
`between the PEA and Hub, including synchronizing the local symbol clock to the
`
`Hub symbol clock. (Barber, pp. 13-14.)
`
`35. Barber also discusses three well known methods of dividing
`
`communications access: Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA), Frequency
`
`Division Multiple Access (FDMA), and Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA).
`
`(Barber, pp. 11-12.) Barber describes that TDMA is the preferred design for the
`
`BodyLANTM system. (Barber, p. 12.) In the TDMA system, “each node has a
`
`scheduled time to use the channel and is inactive during all other times”, which
`
`decreases power consumption. (Barber, p. 11.) The TDMA system involves
`
`“synchronizing the receiver symbol clock to the transmitter symbol clock.”
`
`(Barber, p. 12.)
`
`36. Barber further describes three modes of operation: attachment,
`
`synchronization, and TDMA. (Barber, p. 24.) During attachment, the PEA searches
`
`for attachment beacons from the Hub. (Barber, p. 26.) Attachment beacons are the
`
`same for all PEAs—a 23 bit code word expanded to 32 bits and transmitted during
`
`a 520 bit period, shown in Figure 13 of Barber. (Barber, pp. 51-52.) The
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`
`attachment beacons are collected to form an initial TDMA plan used during the
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`synchronization phase. (Barber, pp. 52.) Barber describes that:
`
`A set of 106 attachment beacons contains the entire sequence of bits
`
`necessary to initialized [sic]the TDMA plan. The 106 bits are broken
`
`down as follows: 23 bits for a new, PEA specific code word, 42 bits
`
`define seven 6-bit time intervals for beacon arrival, 6 bits for a PEA
`
`identification number, 6 bits for frequency selection, an 8 bit
`
`initialization flag and a 16 bit checksum.
`
`(Barber, p. 52.)
`
`
`
`37. Once the attachment process is completed, the synchronization mode
`
`begins. (Barber, p. 26.) Synchronization beacons are transmitted from the Hub to
`
`the PEAs with information to align the local symbol clock of a PEA with the Hub
`
`symbol clock. (Barber, p. 26.) Like the attachment beacons, the synchronization
`
`beacons consist of 32 bits embedded in a 520 bit sequence. (Barber, p. 27.) Barber
`
`describes that “the synchronization beacons are based on the code word transmitted
`
`to the PEA during the attachment mode, which is a code specific to that Hub rather
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`
`than a universal code.” (Barber, p. 27.) Once the PEA and Hub establish a
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`communications link and are synchronized, the devices can regularly transmit and
`
`receive according to the TDMA plan. (Barber, p. 30.)
`
`B. Natarajan
`38. 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
`
`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 stations 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 interface (58). (Natarajan, 3:14-15.)
`
`The microprocessor system also includes a dedicated microprocessor (62) with
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`
`
`high-resolution time interval determination hardware or “timers”. (Natarajan, 3:18-
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`21.) An interface connects the microprocessor system with computer (50), which
`
`includes user application programs (72). (Natarajan, 3:50-52.)
`
`39. 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
`
`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.)
`
`40. 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
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`
`
`station (Period B), and third subframe is for “bursty data traffic” in a contention
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`mode from mobile units to the base station (Period C). (Natarajan, 4:27-38.)
`
`
`
`41. 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
`
`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, mobile units 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.)
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`42. Natarajan similarly discloses broadcasting another header (BH) for
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`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 8:14-9:53.
`
`Using this scheme, the mobile units save power by powering up only during their
`
`designated reception or transmission time slot.
`
`43. Natarajan more specifically describes that header (AH) includes “a
`
`coded description of mobile users that will receive data in the current frame. That
`
`is, it is a designati

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket