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 .............................. 8(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)
`“local oscillator” ................................................................................. 13(cid:1)
`State of the Art Before October 14, 1997 and Summary of References ..... 16(cid:1)
`A.(cid:1) Barber ................................................................................................. 17(cid:1)
`B.(cid:1) Natarajan ............................................................................................ 21(cid:1)
`C.(cid:1) Neve ................................................................................................... 26(cid:1)
`D.(cid:1) Mahany ............................................................................................... 28(cid:1)
`Summary Chart of Analysis Over the Art ................................................... 29(cid:1)
`X.(cid:1)
`XI.(cid:1) Ground 1: Claims 9 and 10 would have been obvious in view of
`Barber. ......................................................................................................... 30(cid:1)
`A.(cid:1)
`Independent claim 9 would have been obvious in view of
`Barber. ................................................................................................ 30(cid:1)
`B.(cid:1) Claim 10 would have been obvious in view of Barber. ..................... 46(cid:1)
`XII.(cid:1) Ground 2: Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 would have been obvious over
`Natarajan in view of Neve. .......................................................................... 47(cid:1)
`A.(cid:1) Overview of the Combination of Natarajan and Neve ....................... 47(cid:1)
`B.(cid:1)
`Independent claim 6 would have been obvious over
`Natarajan in view of Neve. ................................................................. 51(cid:1)
`C.(cid:1) Claim 7 would have been obvious over Natarajan in view of
`Neve. .................................................................................................. 69(cid:1)
`Independent claim 9 would have been obvious over
`Natarajan in view of Neve. ................................................................. 70(cid:1)
`E.(cid:1) Claim 10 would have been obvious over Natarajan in view
`of Neve. .............................................................................................. 89(cid:1)
`XIII.(cid:1) Ground 3: Claims 6 and 7 would have been obvious over Mahany. .......... 90(cid:1)
`
`D.(cid:1)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`Independent claim 6 would have been obvious over Mahany. .......... 90(cid:1)
`A.(cid:1)
`B.(cid:1) Claim 7 would have been obvious over Mahany. ............................ 103(cid:1)
`XIV.(cid:1) Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness ....................................................... 104(cid:1)
`XV.(cid:1) Conclusion ................................................................................................. 105(cid:1)
`
`
`
`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 proper priority date for the claims 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)
`
`1010
`
`Mahany, U.S. Patent No. 5,696,903, “Hierarchical Communications
`System Using Microlink, Data Rate Switching, Frequency Hopping
`and Vehicular Local Area Networking,” (filed April 29, 1994;
`issued December 9, 1997) (“Mahany”)
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`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
`
`skill in the art would have reached the claimed invention through routine
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`support the nonobviousness of the invention. I understand that secondary
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`considerations of nonobviousness include failure of others, copying, unexpectedly
`
`superior results, perception in the industry, commercial success, and a long-felt but
`
`unmet need.
`
`VII. The ’290 Patent Specification
`14. This declaration is being submitted together with a petition for inter
`
`partes review of claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 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 earliest proper priority date 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,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`
`reproduced below, illustrates the server microcomputer (11) and associated PEAs
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`(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 or synchronization. (Id. at 1:50-55.)
`
`
`
`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.”
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`(Id. at 4:16-18.) The ’290 patent describes with respect to FIG. 4 that “transmission
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`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.)
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`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.)
`
`19. The ’290 patent describes that “code sequences” are generated, which
`
`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.” (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.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`
`The ’290 patent describes that to establish this common time base, synchronization
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`beacons are transmitted from the PDA to the PEA. (Id. at 7:65-8:2.)
`
`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. “local oscillator”
`23. The term “local oscillator” appears in claims 6 and 9 of the ’290
`
`patent. In my opinion, the term “local oscillator” as it is used in the claims conflicts
`
`with its use in the ’290 patent specification and what the understanding of a POSA
`
`would have been reading this term. Claim 6 recites that the peripheral units each
`
`include “a local oscillator which can be synchronized to said server unit oscillator
`
`using said synchronizing information”. Claim 9 also recites that each peripheral
`
`unit includes a “local oscillator” where the peripheral units have “a second mode to
`
`synchronize the respective local oscillator with the server unit oscillator”.
`
`Therefore, the claims recite that the “local oscillator” of the peripheral unit is
`
`synchronized with the “server unit oscillator”. Both claims 6 and 9 recite that the
`
`“server unit oscillator” is “for establishing a time base”.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`24.
`
`In my opinion, the ’290 patent specification does not teach the
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`claimed relationship that the “local oscillator” of the peripheral units is
`
`synchronized with the “server unit oscillator”. What the ’290 patent teaches is that
`
`the PDA and PEA modems each have a “crystal oscillator” and a “local
`
`oscillator”. (See e.g., ’290 patent, FIGS. 2-3.) In particular, the PDA modem has “a
`
`crystal oscillator 18 which is utilized in maintaining the network time base.” (’290
`
`patent, 4:14-15, FIG. 3 (CXO 18).) This appears to be the claimed “server unit
`
`oscillator”. The PDA modem also has “a local oscillator 16 which is shared by the
`
`transmitter and the receiver”. (’290 patent, 4:11-12, FIG. 3.) Similarly, the PEA
`
`modem has “a voltage controlled crystal oscillator oscillator [sic] 44 which is
`
`utilized in maintaining a common time base with the host microcomputer.” (’290
`
`patent, 3:36-38, FIG. 2 (VCXO 44).) “VCXO 44 is powered continuously and
`
`serves as the time base for all activities.” (’290 patent, 8:40-41.) The PEA modem
`
`also has “a local oscillator 42 which is shared by the transmitter and the receiver”.
`
`(’290 patent, 3:33-34, FIG. 2.) Therefore, the ’290 patent specification discloses
`
`that the “voltage controlled crystal oscillator” of the PEA is used to maintain the
`
`common time base with the “server unit oscillator” (i.e., crystal oscillator 18).
`
`Regarding the “local oscillator”, the ’290 patent describes, referring 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.” (’290 patent, 4:25-27.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`25. Therefore, the ’290 patent specification describes that the “crystal
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`oscillators”—CXO (18) of the PDA (“server unit”) and VCXO (44) of the PEA
`
`(“peripheral unit”)—are responsible for maintaining a time base. And the “local
`
`oscillators” are used to drive the transmit antennas. This is also how a POSA
`
`would have understood these components to function. In particular, “local
`
`oscillator” is a term of art and its usage in the ’290 specification to denote a
`
`component that drives the transmitter/receiver is consistent with its commonly
`
`understood meaning. The crystal oscillator of the peripheral unit, not the local
`
`oscillator, would have been synchronized with the crystal oscillator of the server
`
`unit. Yet the ’290 patent claims recite that the “local oscillator” of the peripheral
`
`unit “can be synchronized to said server unit oscillator”, where the “server unit
`
`oscillator” is responsible “for establishing a time base”.
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, read literally and in view of the ’290 patent
`
`specification, claims 6 and 9 do not make sense. The claimed relationships
`
`between oscillators is not what the ’290 patent describes and is not how a POSA
`
`would have understood these components to function.
`
`27.
`
`In view of the discrepancies between the ’290 patent claims and
`
`specification, I have been asked to analyze the claims assuming the term “local
`
`oscillator” means “an oscillator located in a peripheral unit”, which makes the
`
`“local oscillator” any oscillator in the peripheral unit. Although this is not how a
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`
`POSA would have understood this term, my analysis of the claims in view of the
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`prior art is based on this assumption.
`
`IX.
`
`State of the Art Before October 14, 1997 and Summary of References
`
`28.
`
`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.
`
`29. 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.
`
`30. Thus, it is my opinion that the ’290 patent claims merely recite a
`
`collection of well known components performing their standard function according
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`
`to well known techniques. Quite simply, in my opinion, the ’290 patent claims do
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`not recite any features that were not previously known in the art or would not have
`
`been obvious to a POSA.
`
`31. Exemplary relevant art that was published before October 14, 1997
`
`includes the references described below.
`
`A. Barber
`32. 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.
`
`33. 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 input and deliver
`
`output to a user.” (Barber, p. 10.) However, Barber focuses on the “Star”
`
`configuration, shown in Figure 1a. (Barber, pp. 9-10.) In the “Star” configuration,
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`
`all communications occur through a central node call the “Hub”. (Barber, p. 9.)
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`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.
`
`34. 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.)
`
`35. 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.)
`
`36. 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
`
`computer. (Barber, p. 13.) The radio modem provides a wireless link between the
`
`PEA and Hub, and the microprocessor handles higher level data processing
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`
`functions locally at the PEA, for example, computing the phase correction for the
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`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.)
`
`37. 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.)
`
`38. 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
`
`attachment beacons are collected to form an initial TDMA plan used during the
`
`synchronization phase. (Barber, pp. 52.) Barber describes that:
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`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.)
`
`
`
`39. 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
`
`than a universal code.” (Barber, p. 27.) Once the PEA and Hub establish a
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`
`
`communications link and are synchronized, the devices can regularly transmit and
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`receive according to the TDMA plan. (Barber, p. 30.)
`
`B. Natarajan
`40. 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
`
`high-resolution time interval determination hardware or “timers”. (Natarajan, 3:18-
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`
`
`21.) An interface connects the microprocessor system with computer (50), which
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 6,128,290
`Declaration of Jack D. Grimes, Ph.D. (APL 1008)
`
`includes user application programs (72). (Natarajan, 3:50-52.)
`
`41. 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.)
`
`42. 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
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`
`
`
`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.)
`
`
`
`