UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BIOTRONIK, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ATLAS IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 5,371,734
`Issued: December 6, 1994
`Filed: January 29, 1993
`Inventor: Michael A. Fischer
`
`
`
`Title: MEDIUM ACCESS CONTROL PROTOCOL FOR WIRELESS
`NETWORK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2015-00534
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ZYGMUNT HAAS
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`Paper No. ________
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC., ST JUDE MEDICAL S.C., INC. AND
`PACESETTER, INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ATLAS IP, LLP
`
`(alleged) Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 5,371,734
`Issue Date: December 4, 1994
`
`Title: Medium Access Control Protocol For Wireless Network
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ZYGMUNT HAAS
`
`1
`
`ST. JUDE 1002
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Engagement and compensation.......................................................................... 1
`
`II. Summary of opinions ......................................................................................... 1
`
`III. Qualifications .................................................................................................... 1
`
`IV. My understanding of the relevant law. ............................................................. 5
`
`A. Claim construction ........................................................................................ 5
`
`B. Anticipation ................................................................................................... 5
`
`C. Obviousness ................................................................................................... 6
`
`V. Technical introduction ....................................................................................... 9
`
`A. Background.................................................................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`'734 Patent Disclosure .................................................................................15
`
`VI. Level of ordinary skill in the art .....................................................................22
`
`VII.
`
`Predictability of the art ................................................................................26
`
`VIII. Relevant timeframe for determining obviousness.......................................26
`
`IX. Overview of the claims ...................................................................................26
`
`X. Construction of the claims ...............................................................................27
`
`XI. Claims 6, 14, and 21 are invalid as anticipated by Natarajan 1992. ..............27
`
`A. Summary of opinion relating to Natarajan 1992 .........................................27
`
`B. Natarajan 1992 is a prior art printed publication. .......................................28
`
`C. Summary of Natarajan 1992. ......................................................................28
`
`D. Terminology comparison between Natarajan 1992 and the '734 patent .....37
`
`E. Element-by-element comparison of the claims to Natarajan 1992 .............38
`
`1. Claim 6 .....................................................................................................38
`
`2. Claim 14 ...................................................................................................55
`
`3. Claim 21 ...................................................................................................57
`
`XII. Claim 11 is invalid as obvious over Natarajan 1992 and Bella ..................59
`
`A. Summary of opinion relating to Natarajan 1992 and Bella ........................59
`
`B. Bella is prior art. ..........................................................................................59
`
`C. Overview of Bella .......................................................................................59
`
`D. There was motivation to combine Natarajan 1992 and Bella .....................62
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`E. Element-by-element analysis of Natarajan 1992 and Bella ........................64
`
`XIII. Claim 44 is invalid as obvious over Natarajan 1992 and Wilson ...............67
`
`A. Summary of opinion relating to Natarajan 1992 and Wilson .....................67
`
`B. Wilson is prior art. .......................................................................................67
`
`C. Overview of Wilson ....................................................................................67
`
`D. There was motivation to combine Natarajan 1992 with Wilson .................70
`
`E. Element-by-element analysis of Natarajan '542 and Wilson ......................72
`
`XIV. Claims 6, 14 and 21 are invalid as obvious over Natarajan '542 and Bantz.
`
`79
`
`A. Summary of opinion relating to Natarajan '542 and Bantz .........................80
`
`B. Natarajan '542 and Bantz are prior art .........................................................80
`
`C. Overview of Natarajan '542.........................................................................80
`
`D. Overview of Bantz .......................................................................................82
`
`E. There was motivation to combine Natarajan '542 with Bantz ....................83
`
`F. Element-by-element analysis of Natarajan '542 and Bantz ........................87
`
`1. Claim 6 .....................................................................................................87
`
`2. Claim 14 .................................................................................................101
`
`3. Claim 21 .................................................................................................103
`
`XV. Claim 11 is invalid as obvious over Natarajan '542, Bantz and Bella ......105
`
`A. Summary of opinion relating to Natarajan '542, Bantz and Bella ............105
`
`B. Bella is prior art. ........................................................................................105
`
`C. Overview of Bella .....................................................................................105
`
`D. There was motivation to combine Natarajan '542, Bantz and Bella .........105
`
`E. Element-by-element analysis of Natarajan '542, Bantz and Bella ............107
`
`XVI. Claim 44 is invalid as obvious over Natarajan '542, Bantz, and Wilson. .109
`
`XVII. Oath ........................................................................................................109
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I, Zygmunt Haas hereby declare as follows:
`
`I. Engagement and compensation
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by St. Jude Medical, Inc. to serve as an expert in
`
`the inter partes review proceeding discussed above. For this service, I am being
`
`paid my usual hourly consulting fee of $375 / hour.
`
`II. Summary of opinions
`
`3.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 6, 14 and 21 of U.S. Pat. No. 7,371,734
`
`("the '734 patent") are invalid as anticipated by the Natarajan 1992 article.
`
`4.
`
`It is further my opinion that claim 11 is invalid as obvious over
`
`Natarajan 1992 and Bella.
`
`5.
`
`It is further my opinion that claim 44 is invalid as obvious over
`
`Natarajan 1992 and Wilson.
`
`6.
`
`It is further my opinion that claims 6, 14 and 21 are invalid as obvious
`
`over Natarajan '542 and Bantz.
`
`7.
`
`It is further my opinion that claim 11 is invalid as obvious over
`
`Natarajan '542, Bantz and Bella.
`
`8.
`
`It is further my opinion that claim 44 is invalid as obvious over
`
`Natarajan '542, Bantz, and Wilson.
`
`III. Qualifications
`
`
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`9.
`
`I hold a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University
`
`(1988), a Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering from Tel-Aviv University in
`
`Israel (1985 - summa cum laude) and a Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from Technion (IIT) in Israel (1979 – summa cum laude).
`
`10.
`
`I have approximately 30 years of relevant experience, including about
`
`20 years of experience in wireless and mobile communications.
`
`11.
`
`I am currently a Professor and Distinguish Chair in Computer Science
`
`at the University of Texas in Dallas. I have held that position since August, 2013.
`
`Prior to that, I was a Professor of Electrical Engineering at Cornell University from
`
`1995 to 2013, when I retired from Cornell with the title Professor Emeritus. At
`
`Cornell, I taught courses in Networking and Wireless Networks, among others.
`
`12. During 2010-2011, I was on leave from Cornell University to work as
`
`a Program Director for the Engineering Directorate of the National Science
`
`Foundation in Arlington, Virginia.
`
`13. Prior to joining the faculty at Cornell, I worked in industry and
`
`government. During 1994-1995, I worked for AT&T Business Communication
`
`Services as a Member of the Technical Staff. From 1988 to 1995, I worked in
`
`Network Research at AT&T Bell Laboratories. From 1985 to 1988 (while working
`
`on my Ph.D.), I was a Research Assistant in the Electrical Eng. Dept., Stanford
`
`University. From 1981 to 1985 (while completing my Master's Degree) I also
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 6
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`worked as a Teaching Assistant in the Electrical Engineering Department of the
`
`Tel-Aviv University. The bulk of this experience involved communication
`
`networks and in particular, wireless networked communication systems.
`
`14.
`
`I have received a number of awards and recognitions throughout my
`
`career, including: The 2012 IEEE ComSoc WTC Recognition Award (the award
`
`recognizes individuals for "outstanding technical contributions in the field and for
`
`his service to the scientific and engineering communities") presented at IEEE
`
`Globecom 2012, December 5, 2012, Anaheim, CA (WTC Recognition Awards),
`
`“Best Paper Award” for the paper “Collaborating with Correlation for Energy
`
`Efficient WSN,” [M. Nikolov and Z.J. Haas], First ACM Annual International
`
`Workshop on Mission-oriented Wireless Sensor Networking (ACM MiSeNet
`
`2012), in conjunction with ACM MobiCom 2012, Istanbul, Turkey, August 26,
`
`2012 IEEE Distinguished Lecturer Tour, Scandinavian Countries, May 25, 2009 –
`
`June 5, 2009, Elevation to IEEE Fellow, January 2007, Promotion to the rank of
`
`Full Professor, School of ECE, Cornell University, July 1, 2004, Distinguish
`
`Lecturer, IEEE Communications Society, (two terms) 01/2004 - 12/2005, 01/2005
`
`- 12/2007, IEEE Distinguished Lecturer Tour, Australia, September 26-October 3,
`
`2005, Expert Lecturer, IEEE Communications Society, 2002-2004, Michael
`
`Tien'72 Excellence in Teaching Award, Cornell College of Engineering for 2002-
`
`2003 academic year, November 2003, “Best Paper Award” for the paper “Optimal
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 7
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`Resource Allocation for UWB Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,” [C. Zou and Z.J.
`
`Haas], IEEE 16th International Symposium on Personal Indoor and Mobile Radio
`
`Communications (PIMRC'05), “Highly Commended Paper Award” for the paper
`
`“Performance Evaluation of the Modified IEEE 802.11 MAC for Multi-Channel
`
`Multi-Hop Ad Hoc Network,” [J. Li, Z.J. Haas, M. Sheng, and Y. Chen], IEEE
`
`International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications
`
`(AINA 2003), Elected Chair of the IEEE Technical Committee on Personal
`
`Communications (TCPC), January 2001 - November 2002 (previously elected
`
`Vice Chair and Secretary), Michael Tien'72 Excellence in Teaching Award,
`
`Cornell College of Engineering for 1999-2000 academic year, September 2000,
`
`Numerous Marquis Who’s Who citations, Election to Indefinite Tenure, Cornell
`
`University, October 1998, Michael Tien'72 Excellence in Teaching Award, Cornell
`
`College of Engineering for 1996-1997 academic year, September 1997, AT&T
`
`Foundation Award, September 1995, President Award, Technion, Israel (1976,
`
`1977, 1978, and 1979) IEEE Communications Society (ComSoc).
`
`15.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 200 refereed journal and
`
`conference publications, primarily in the fields of wireless and network
`
`communications.
`
`16.
`
`I have approximately 18 issued or pending patents in the fields of
`
`communications, networking and/or wireless communications.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`IV. My understanding of the relevant law.
`
`A. Claim construction
`
`17.
`
`I understand that, when a patent is expired, a claim term in an inter
`
`partes review is to be interpreted in the following manner. First, the language of
`
`the claims themselves is of primary importance, in the effort to ascertain precisely
`
`what it is that is patented. The terms used in a claim are generally given the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning that the terms would have to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in question at the time of the alleged invention, unless the term is
`
`expressly defined in the patent. The person of ordinary skill in the art reads the
`
`claim in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. Next to the
`
`language of the claims, the specification is the single best source for interpreting
`
`the claim terms. The claims may also be interpreted using the record of
`
`correspondence between the patent applicant and the Patent Office, and also with
`
`reference to other sources of evidence that can help to define the meaning of terms
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant timeframe. I define the relevant
`
`timeframe in ¶71, below.
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a claim in an issued patent can be invalid if it is
`
`anticipated. In this case, "anticipation" means that there is a single prior art
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 9
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`reference that discloses every element of the claim, arranged in the way required
`
`by the claim.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that an anticipating prior art reference must disclose each
`
`of the claim elements expressly or inherently. I understand that "inherent"
`
`disclosure means that the claim element, although not expressly described by the
`
`prior art reference, must necessarily be present based on the disclosure. I
`
`understand that a mere probability that the element is present is not sufficient to
`
`qualify as "inherent disclosure".
`
`C. Obviousness
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a claim in an issued patent can be invalid if it is
`
`obvious. Unlike anticipation, obviousness does not require that every element of
`
`the claim be in a single prior art reference. Instead, it is possible for claim
`
`elements to be described in different prior art references, so long as there is
`
`motivation or sufficient reasoning to combine the references.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid for obviousness if the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the alleged invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`
`pertains.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`22.
`
`I understand, therefore, that when evaluating obviousness, one must
`
`consider obviousness of the claim "as a whole". This consideration must be from
`
`the perspective of the person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, and that such
`
`perspective must be considered as of the "time the invention was made".
`
`23. The level of ordinary skill in the art is discussed in ¶¶59-69, below.
`
`24. The relevant timeframe for obviousness, the "time the invention was
`
`made", is discussed in ¶71, below.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that in considering the obviousness of a claim, one must
`
`consider four things. These include the scope and content of the prior art, the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time, the differences between the prior art
`
`and the claim, and any "secondary considerations".
`
`26.
`
`I understand that "secondary considerations" include real-world
`
`evidence that can tend to make a conclusion of obviousness more probable or less
`
`probable. For example, the commercial success of a product embodying a claim of
`
`the patent could provide evidence tending to show that the claimed invention is not
`
`obvious. In order to understand the strength of the evidence, one would want to
`
`know whether the commercial success is traceable to a certain aspect of the claim
`
`not disclosed in a single prior art reference (i.e., whether there is a causal "nexus"
`
`to the claim language). One would also want to know how the market reacted to
`
`disclosure of the invention, and whether commercial success might be traceable to
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`things other than innovation, for example the market power of the seller, an
`
`advertising campaign, or the existence of a complex system having many features
`
`beyond the claims that might be desirable to a consumer. One would also want to
`
`know how the product compared to similar products not embodying the claim. I
`
`understand that commercial success evidence should be reasonably commensurate
`
`with the scope of the claim, but that it is not necessary for a commercial product to
`
`embody the full scope of the claim.
`
`27. Other kinds of secondary considerations are possible. For example,
`
`evidence that the relevant field had a long-established, unsolved problem or need
`
`that was later provided by the claimed invention could be indicative of non-
`
`obviousness. Evidence that others had tried, but failed to make an aspect of the
`
`claim might indicate that the art lacked the requisite skill to do so. Evidence of
`
`copying of the patent owner's products might also indicate that its approach to
`
`solving a particular problem was not obvious. Evidence that the art recognized the
`
`value of products embodying a claim, for example, by praising the named
`
`inventors' work, might tend to show that the claim was non-obvious.
`
`28.
`
`I further understand that prior art references can be combined where
`
`there is an express or implied rationale to do so. Such a rationale might include an
`
`expected advantage to be obtained, or might be implied under the circumstances.
`
`For example, a claim is likely obvious if design needs or market pressures existing
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`in the prior art make it natural for one or more known components to be combined,
`
`where each component continues to function in the expected manner when
`
`combined (i.e., when there are no unpredictable results). A claim is also likely
`
`invalid where it is the combination of a known base system with a known
`
`technique that can be applied to the base system without an unpredictable result.
`
`In these cases, the combination must be within the capabilities of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that when considering obviousness, one must not refer to
`
`teachings in the specification of the patent itself. One can, however, refer to
`
`portions of the specification admitted to be prior art, including the
`
`"BACKGROUND" section. Furthermore, a lack of discussion in the patent
`
`specification concerning how to implement a disclosed technique can support an
`
`inference that the ability to implement the technique was within the ordinary skill
`
`in the prior art.
`
`V. Technical introduction
`
`A. Background
`
`30. The following is a brief technical background covering some concepts
`
`relevant to the '734 patent specification and its claims.
`
`31. The '734 patent has the title "MEDIUM ACCESS CONTROL
`
`PROTOCOL FOR WIRELESS NETWORK". A wireless network is a group of
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`stations that communicate with each other using a wireless technology, such as
`
`radio. For example, the '734 patent shows a group of radio stations, called
`
`"communicators", in Fig. 1, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`32.
`
`In Fig. 1, communicators are labeled 60a, 60b, 60c, 60d, 60e and 60f.
`
`
`
`Each communicator has a transmitter and receiver (or "transceiver"). (Ex. 1001,
`
`14:15-34). The transceivers send and transmit electromagnetic waves in the radio
`
`frequency ("RF") portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. (Ex. 1001, 5:9-12).
`
`Usually, such communicators will have one or more assigned frequency bands, or
`
`channels. (Ex. 1001, 15:65-16:4). If a transmitter is transmitting in a particular
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`frequency channel, a receiver must be listening to the same channel in order to
`
`receive the communication.
`
`33.
`
`In a network of communicators using the same channel, it is possible
`
`that collisions will occur. A collision in the RF sense means that two transmitters
`
`that are sufficiently close to a given receiver transmit at the same time. The
`
`transmissions can then interfere with each other being received at a given receiver.
`
`This is similar to what happens when people try to hear a conversation in a
`
`crowded restaurant—other voices make it more difficult to hear.
`
`34. To manage the problem of collisions, networks even prior to the
`
`relevant timeframe (and today) use rules. Such rules are referred to as MAC
`
`("Media Access Control") protocols. The MAC protocols specify the conditions
`
`under which communicators in a network could transmit.
`
`35. There were a number of approaches to designing MAC protocols that
`
`were known for wireless networks during the relevant timeframe. The '734 patent
`
`describes three common examples: CSMA, TDMA, and PRMA. (Ex. 1001, 2:63-
`
`5:6).
`
`36.
`
`In CSMA ("Carrier Sense Multiple Access"), a communicator will
`
`first check whether the communications medium is in use prior to transmitting. If
`
`the medium is in use, the communicator will "back off", waiting a certain length of
`
`time to try again. If the medium is not in use, the communicator will transmit its
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 15
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`message. (Ex. 1001, 2:63-2:10). Note that although in CSMA communicators
`
`check for existing transmission before they access the medium, there is still some
`
`(although reduced) probability of collisions in CSMA. The '734 patent states that
`
`CSMA "perform[s] poorly when many stations are contending for access to the
`
`medium…." (Ex. 1001, 3:13-15). One reason is that the probability of collision
`
`increases when many stations are competing for access to the shared medium.
`
`Furthermore, unless special provisions are made, one communicator could
`
`potentially dominate medium access if it has a large amount of data to transmit.
`
`37. The second admitted prior art protocol is "Time Division Multiple
`
`Access" or TDMA. In TDMA, each communicator is assigned a time slot in which
`
`it may transmit. Outside of the time slot, the communicator is not permitted to
`
`transmit. The time slots are typically evenly divided among communicators. (Ex.
`
`1001, 3:26-36). The '734 patent states that under some conditions, a TDMA
`
`system can perform poorly. This can happen, for example, when network traffic is
`
`"bursty". In "bursty" conditions, a communicator usually has little data to transmit,
`
`but may from time to time receive a large amount of data to transmit. Under such
`
`conditions, the slots for the inactive communicators will continue to be assigned in
`
`a standard TDMA system, leaving that bandwidth unused. The slot for the active
`
`transmitter will not be expanded, even if the data to transmit exceeds the available
`
`bandwidth. (Ex. 1001, 3:43-48).
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 16
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`38.
`
`In a PRMA ("Packet Reservation Multiple Access") system, each
`
`communicator sends a reservation request to a master station. The master station
`
`receives the requests, and allocates slots for transmission as needed. (Ex. 1001,
`
`3:60-61). This allows the master communicator to be more flexible about who
`
`uses the system, and to deal with "bursty" network conditions. However, the
`
`sending of reservation requests and confirmations take up a certain amount of
`
`overhead, reducing bandwidth available for transmissions of user data. (Ex. 1001,
`
`4:13-22).
`
`39. Variations and hybrids of these schemes, as well as schemes based on
`
`different principles, were also known in the relevant timeframe.
`
`40. Proprietors of wireless networks were also concerned with managing
`
`errors that occur in transmission. Transmissions in a wireless medium are typically
`
`susceptible to more errors than transmissions in a wired medium would be. This
`
`can be exacerbated by the portability of units in a wireless network. A wireless
`
`network is often used to allow the portability of the communicators. For example,
`
`a communicator might be a portable computer. The portable computer might be
`
`moved from place to place, and in each place the communicator might have a
`
`different radio path to other communicators. Certain radio paths will be better than
`
`others (more direct, less interference, etc.), and will result in better or worse
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 17
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`communications. Poor links may result in high numbers of errors at the receiving
`
`station.
`
`41. To compensate for potential errors in a wireless medium, it is possible
`
`to use error control (e.g., error correction) methods. These can include, for
`
`example, including error detecting codes in a transmission. An error detecting
`
`code can be calculated using the message data. The calculated code will then be
`
`appended to and transmitted with the message. When the receiver receives the
`
`transmission, it attempts to re-calculate the error-detecting code from the message.
`
`If the calculated code does not match the received code, then an error in the
`
`received transmission is assumed. At this point, a number of schemes can be
`
`implemented to correct the transmission. For example, the receiver can send back
`
`a non-acknowledgement packet, requesting that the transmitter re-transmit the
`
`message. In the relevant timeframe, there were already known numerous
`
`sophisticated schemes available for error control, such as error detection and error
`
`correction schemes.
`
`42. Patents like the '734 patent were concerned with wireless network
`
`communications. The wireless communications formed part of the physical
`
`network. Other types of physical networks (primarily wired networks) were in
`
`widespread use in the relevant timeframe. Furthermore, many types of data traffic
`
`moved over both wired and wireless networks connected to the Internet in the
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 18
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`relevant timeframe. Typically, applications that used the Internet to communicate
`
`(such as computer programs that generated data to be communicated) were not
`
`aware of whether their data were traveling over wired or wireless networks. In
`
`particular, such applications did not have to be concerned with the physical
`
`medium over which their data was sent.
`
`B. '734 Patent Disclosure
`
`43. The '734 patent is purportedly directed at a MAC protocol for wireless
`
`networks. A wireless network of the '734 patent consists of communicators that
`
`function as "hubs" and "remotes". The term "hub" refers to a communicator that
`
`serves as a coordinator and forwarder of communications between other
`
`communicators. These other communicators are called "remotes". The '734
`
`patent's MAC protocol defines a process that allows a group of communicators to
`
`choose one of them to serve as a hub. (Ex. 1001, 5:42-45; 42:54-61).
`
`44. The MAC protocol of the '734 patent uses repeating "communication
`
`cycles". Communication cycles are depicted in Figs. 3 and 10 of the '734 patent.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 7:10-17 and 32-34). Figure 3 shows a communication cycle in circular
`
`form, while Fig. 10 shows the communication cycle in linear form. Fig. 10 is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 19
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`45. Figure 10 has a time arrow in the upper left, indicating that the left
`
`part of the diagram is earlier in time, and the right part of the diagram is later in
`
`time. The communication cycle of Fig. 10 repeats. (Ex. 1001, 5:44-47). The
`
`events that happen within a single communication cycle thus serve to illustrate
`
`several main points of the '734 patent MAC protocol.
`
`46. The communication cycle of the '734 patent is divided broadly into an
`
`outbound portion and an inbound portion. The terms "outbound" and "inbound"
`
`are from the perspective of a communicator called a "hub". Thus, when a
`
`communication is "outbound" from the perspective of the hub, it is being
`
`transmitted by the hub and going to one or more remotes. When a communication
`
`is "inbound" from the perspective of the hub, it is being transmitted by one or more
`
`remotes to the hub.
`
`47. As shown in Fig. 10, the communication cycle begins on the left with
`
`an "outbound portion", or a time when the hub transmits to one or more remotes.
`
`The first interval in the outbound portion is an "info interval 76". The '734 patent
`
`explains:
`
`"[T]here is an initial information (info) interval 76 during which the
`
`hub 64 transmits control and other information to the remotes 66. This
`
`information allows each of the remotes 66 to recognize and participate
`
`in the communication cycle at the predetermined times." (Ex. 1001,
`
`11:57-62).
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 20
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`48. When the '734 patent refers to "the predetermined times" here, it is
`
`referring to the specified times for the remotes to transmit and receive. Having
`
`specified times to transmit and receive allows the remotes to calculate when they
`
`need to participate in communication. If the remotes can calculate when they need
`
`to participate, they can power down their transmitting and receiving circuits at
`
`other times, when these circuits are not needed, saving battery power. When the
`
`circuits are needed again, they can be powered up. The '734 patent explains this as
`
`follows:
`
`"Because all frames, both outbound and inbound, occur at
`
`predetermined times, the remotes 66 are able to determine in advance
`
`approximately when to expect frames transmitted from the hub and
`
`when to transmit frames to the hub. As a consequence of the
`
`predictable times when frames may be both received and transmitted,
`
`the remotes can power their radio interfaces down to preserve power
`
`at other times. Because radio circuits with radiated RF energy levels
`
`that comply with the rules in Part 15 of the FCC regulations consume
`
`about as much electrical power when receiving as when transmitting,
`
`this ability to power the radio off completely is a major benefit for
`
`battery-powered communicators." (Ex. 1001, 14:29-41).
`
`49. The information transmitted in the information interval 76 at the
`
`beginning of the communication cycle is sufficient to allow the remotes to
`
`calculate the start time and duration of the intervals when the remotes will need to
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Biotronik, Inc. - Ex. 1002, p. 21
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,371,734
`Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas
`
`power their transmitters and/or receivers on. (Ex. 1001, 5:44-66; 13:12-27; 12:47-
`
`58; Abstract).
`
`50. Following the information interval 76 there is a broadcast interval 78.
`
`The purpose of the broadcast interval 78 is to "allow the hub 64 to broadcast the
`
`same information to all of the remotes 66 in the Gr