UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2015-00635
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF STUART LIPOFF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,563,883
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 1
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Exhibits Referenced in This Declaration .............................................. v 
`
`I. 
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS ........................................... 1 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Educational Background .................................................................... 2 
`
`Career History and Relevant Industry Participation ...................... 2 
`
`II. 
`
`SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT, COMPENSATION ...................................... 5 
`
`III.  LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN MY ANALYSIS .................................... 6 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................... 6 
`
`Prior Art ............................................................................................... 8 
`
`C.  Obviousness .......................................................................................... 8 
`
`IV.  SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS ............................................................... 10 
`
`V. 
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... 11 
`
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 11 
`
`VII.  THE ’883 PATENT ..................................................................................... 12 
`
`A. 
`
`Background of the ’883 Patent ......................................................... 12 
`
`B.  Overview of the ’883 Patent – The Alleged Invention ................... 14 
`
`C.  Overview of Claims 1, 3, and 4 of the ’883 Patent ......................... 19 
`
`VIII.  OVERVIEW OF TRUNKED RADIO SYSTEMS ................................... 21 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Trunked Radio Systems Generally .................................................. 21 
`
`Signalling Data vs. Bearer Traffic in Multiple Access Systems .... 23 
`
`C.  Overview of MPT .............................................................................. 28 
`
`IX. 
`
`INVALIDITY OVER MPT ........................................................................ 38 
`
`A.  Claim 1 Would Have been Obvious Over MPT 1343 In View
`of MPT 1347 and MPT 1327 ............................................................ 38 
`
`i
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 2
`
`

`

`
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`Preamble: “In a multiple access communication system
`comprising a central controller, a shared transmission
`means for signalling data and user information, and a
`plurality of remote terminals, a method of allocating
`signalling data channels between said central controller
`and said plurality of remote terminals from a plurality of
`communication channels and of assigning remote
`terminals . . .” ............................................................................ 38 
`
`Limitation [A]: “establishing communications between
`said central controller and said plurality of remote
`terminals via a plurality of signalling data channels, each
`of said remote terminals being initially assigned to a pair
`of predetermined signalling data channels” .............................. 51 
`
`Limitation [B]: “monitoring the status of a plurality of
`signalling data channels in use between said central
`controller and said plurality of remote terminals for the
`usability of said signalling data channels” ................................ 64 
`
`Limitation [C]: “determining whether one of said plurality
`of remote terminals needs to be reassigned to a different
`signalling data channel other than said predetermined
`signalling data channel” ............................................................ 69 
`
`Limitation [D]: “determining whether a different and
`suitable signalling data channel is available other than said
`predetermined channel.” ........................................................... 74 
`
`Limitation [E]: “reassigning by said central controller said
`remote terminal to a different and suitable signalling data
`channel for communication henceforward.” ............................. 82 
`
`It would have Been Obvious to Modify MPT 1343 to
`Provide for the Additional Features and Capabilities
`Contained in MPT 1327 and MPT 1327. .................................. 86 
`
`B. 
`
`Claim 3 Would Have Been Obvious Over the Combined
`Teachings of the MPT 1343, MPT 1347, and MPT 1327, and
`Further In View of the Zudnek Patent and the Dufresne
`Patent .................................................................................................. 89 
`
`ii
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 3
`
`

`

`
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`Preamble: “In a multiple access communication system
`according to claim 1, said step of monitoring the status of a
`plurality of the signaling data channels in use between said
`central controller and said plurality of remote terminals for
`usability of said signaling data channels” ................................. 90 
`
`Limitation [A]: “calculating the aggregate traffic load
`requirements of said plurality of signalling data channels
`in use”........................................................................................ 90 
`
`Limitation [B]: “monitoring the past collision count of said
`plurality of signalling data channels in use” ............................. 95 
`
`Limitation [C]: “Monitoring the transmission error count
`of said plurality of signalling data channels in use” ............... 101 
`
`Limitation [D]: “sensing the status of said plurality of
`signalling data channels in use for failure” ............................. 102 
`
`It would have Been Obvious to Modify MPT to Provide
`for the “Monitoring” of the Claimed Parameters and
`“Sensing” For Failures Because Such an Arrangement
`Would Improve the “Load Sharing” and Robustness of the
`MPT System ............................................................................ 104 
`
`C.  Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious Over MPT 1343 in view
`of MPT 1327 and MPT 1347 .......................................................... 105 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Preamble: “In a multiple access communication system
`according to claim 1, said step of determining whether one
`of said plurality of remote terminals needs to be reassigned
`to a different signalling data channel other than said
`predetermined signalling data channel” .................................. 106 
`
`Limitation [A]: “sensing the status of said predetermined
`signalling data channel which said terminal has been
`assigned to for overloading to determine whether said
`terminal needs to be reassigned to a different signalling
`data channel because of overloaing” ...................................... 106 
`
`Limitation [B]: “sensing the status of said predetermined
`signalling data channel which said terminal has been
`
`iii
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 4
`
`

`

`
`
`assigned to for failure to determine whether said terminal
`needs to be reassigned to a different signalling data
`channel” .................................................................................. 110 
`
`X.  CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 113 
`
`iv
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 5
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibits Referenced in This Declaration
`
`ARRIS EX. NO.
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`
`1001
`
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883 to
`Cheng
`Curriculum Vitae of Stuart Lipoff
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order from C-
`Cation Techs., LLC v. Comcast Corp., et. al., 2:11-CV-
`30-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 222 (Jul. 3, 2013)
`MPT 1327: A Signalling Standard for Trunked Private
`Land Mobile Radio Systems (Revised and reprinted
`November 1991) (“MPT 1327”)
`MPT 1343: Performance Specification; System Interface
`Specification for radio units to be used with commercial
`trunked networks operating in Band III sub-bands 1 and 2
`(Revised and Reprinted September 1991) (“MPT 1343”)
`MPT 1347: Radio interface specification; For commercial
`trunked networks operating in Band III, sub-bands 1 and
`2 (Revised and Reprinted September 1991).
`U.S. Patent No. 4,870,408 to Zudnek
`U.S. Patent No. 4,920,533 to Dufresne et al.
`Radiocommunications Agency: 91-92 Annual Report
`William Stallings, Local and Metropolitan Area Networks
`(4th Ed. MacMillan Publishing Co. (1993))
`John Graham, The Facts on File Dictionary of
`Telecommunications (1983)
`C-Cation Technologies, LLC’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief in C-Cation Techs., LLC v. Comcast
`Corp., et al., No. 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 187
`(filed Mar. 22, 2013)
`Robert I. Desourdis, Jr., et al., EMERGING PUBLIC SAFETY
`WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS (Artech House,
`
`v
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`ARRIS EX. NO.
`
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`2001) (excerpts)
`Radiocommunications Agency Home Page (last visited
`1/28/2015)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,117,501 to Childress et al.
`Thomas Farrell, “A Computer Simulation Analysis of
`Convention and Trunked Land Mobile Radio Systems at
`Wright Patterson Air Force Base” (Jan. 19, 1989).
`International Application Publication No. WO 93/16566
`(Aug. 19, 1993)
`International Application Publication No. WO 93/16530
`(Aug. 19, 1993)
`
`vi
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 7
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`I Stuart Lipoff hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`2. My name is Stuart Lipoff. I am currently the president of IP Action Partners
`
`Inc. and have over 40 years of experience in a wide variety of technologies and
`
`industries relating to data communications, including data communications over
`
`wireless and cable systems networks.
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained by ARRIS Group, Inc. (“ARRIS”) in connection with
`
`its request for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883 (“the ’883 Patent”).
`
`A copy of the ’883 Patent has been designated Ex. 1001. I have reviewed and am
`
`familiar with the ’883 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding the validity of certain
`
`claims of the ’883 Patent. This Declaration includes a detailed discussion of my
`
`background and qualifications, the background of the technologies involved in and
`
`related to the ’883 Patent that would have been understood by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the filing of the ’883 Patent, various prior art
`
`references that disclose—either alone or in combination with each other—all of the
`
`relevant features of ’883 Patent claims 1, 3, and 4. The bases and reasons for my
`
`opinions are set forth in this Declaration.
`
`
`
`1
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 8
`
`

`

`
`
`5.
`
`A. Educational Background
`I earned a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering in 1968 from Lehigh
`
`University and a second B.S. degree in Engineering Physics in 1969, also from
`
`Lehigh University. I also earned a M.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from
`
`Northwestern University in 1974 and a MBA degree from Suffolk University in
`
`1983.
`
`B. Career History and Relevant Industry Participation
`I am currently the president of IP Action Partners Inc., which is a consulting
`
`6.
`
`practice serving the telecommunications, information technology, media,
`
`electronics, and e-business industries.
`
`7.
`
`I hold a Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) General
`
`Radiotelephone License and a Certificate in Data Processing (“CDP”) from the
`
`Association for Computing Machinery (“ACM”)-supported Institute for the
`
`Certification of Computing Professionals (“ICCP”), and I am a registered
`
`professional engineer (by examination) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
`
`8.
`
`I am a fellow of the IEEE Consumer Electronics, Communications,
`
`Computer, Circuits, and Vehicular Technology Groups. I am also a member of the
`
`IEEE Consumer Electronics Society National Administration Committee, and was
`
`the Boston Chapter Chairman of the IEEE Vehicular Technology Society. I
`
`previously served as 1996-1997 President of the IEEE Consumer Electronics
`
`
`
`2
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 9
`
`

`

`
`
`Society, have served as Chairman of the Society’s Technical Activities and
`
`Standards Committee, and am now VP of Publications for the Society. I have also
`
`served as an Ibuka Award committee member.
`
`9.
`
`I have also presented papers at many IEEE and other meetings. A listing of
`
`my publications is included as part of my curriculum vitae (“CV”), which is
`
`attached as Exhibit 1003. For example, in Fall 2000, I served as general program
`
`chair for the IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference on advanced wireless
`
`communications technology, and I have organized sessions at The International
`
`Conference on Consumer Electronics and was the 1984 program chairman. I also
`
`conducted an eight-week IEEE sponsored short course on Fiber Optics System
`
`Design. In 1984, I was awarded IEEE’s Centennial Medal and in 2000, I was
`
`awarded the IEEE’s Millennium Medal.
`
`10. As Vice President and Standards Group Chairman of the Association of
`
`Computer Users (“ACU”), I served as the ACU representative to the ANSI X3
`
`Standards Group. For the FCC’s Citizens advisory committee on Citizen’s Band
`
`(“CB”) radio (“PURAC”), I served as Chairman of the task group on user rule
`
`compliance. I have been elected to membership in the Society of Cable Television
`
`Engineers (“SCTE”), the ACM, and The Society of Motion Picture and Television
`
`Engineers (“SMPTE”). I also served as a member of the USA advisory board to
`
`the National Science Museum of Israel, presented a short course on international
`
`
`
`3
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 10
`
`

`

`
`
`product development strategies as a faculty member of Technion Institute of
`
`Management in Israel, and served as a member of the board of directors of The
`
`Massachusetts Future Problem Solving Program.
`
`11.
`
`I am a named inventor on seven United States patents and have several
`
`publications on data communications topics in Electronics Design, Microwaves,
`
`EDN, The Proceedings of the Frequency Control Symposium, Optical Spectra, and
`
`IEEE publications.
`
`12. For 25 years, I worked for Arthur D. Little, Inc. (“ADL”), where I became
`
`Vice President and Director of Communications, Information Technology, and
`
`Electronics (“CIE”). Prior to my time at ADL, I served as a Section Manager for
`
`Bell & Howell Communications Company for four years, and prior to that, as a
`
`Project Engineer for Motorola’s Communications Division for three years.
`
`13. At ADL, I was responsible for the firm’s global CIE practice in laboratory-
`
`based contract engineering, product development, and technology-based
`
`consulting. At both Bell & Howell and Motorola, I had project design
`
`responsibility for wireless communication and paging products.
`
`14. While employed at ADL, I served as the leader of a project that developed a
`
`series of specifications for residential cable modems known as Data over Cable
`
`Service Interface Specification, or “DOCSIS.” The scope of work for this project
`
`included developing a roadmap and strategic framework for evolving the business
`
`
`
`4
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 11
`
`

`

`
`
`from internet services to broadband services combining voice, data, and secure
`
`electronic content delivery. This project was performed by ADL under contract to
`
`the Multimedia Cable Network System (“MCNS”) consortium and the
`
`specifications resulting from that project have since been adopted by the United
`
`Nations as a global telecommunications specification.
`
`15. Following my time at ADL, I managed a project (through IP Action
`
`Partners) for Next Generation Network Architecture, LLC (“NGNA”) that
`
`produced a five-year planning horizon for services and technology in the cable
`
`industry. The services and vision were then mapped to overall architectures
`
`impacting network elements in the back office, head-end, outside plant, and
`
`customer premises, and documented in next generation network recommendations.
`
`The project involved coordination with senior technical staff of several multiple
`
`service operators (“MSOs”) as well as interactions with over one hundred suppliers
`
`and vendors of systems, software, and products in the cable industry.
`
`16. Additional information regarding my background, qualifications,
`
`publications, and presentations is provided in my CV, which is included as Exhibit
`
`1003.
`
`II.
`17.
`
`SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT, COMPENSATION
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding the validity of claims 1,
`
`3, and 4 of the ’883 Patent. I have been asked to focus my analysis on certain prior
`
`
`
`5
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 12
`
`

`

`
`
`art materials, and provide a detailed technical overview reflecting what I believe
`
`would have been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the
`
`’883 Patent was filed in July 1994.
`
`18. While I have been asked to focus on certain items of prior art in connection
`
`with this declaration, and to focus my analysis on certain bases for invalidity, I do
`
`in fact believe other prior art would also render claims 1, 3, and 4 invalid on other
`
`bases and therefore, the discussion herein reflects only some reasons why I believe
`
`that claims 1, 3, and 4 should not have been allowed to issue in a patent.
`
`19.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard hourly consulting rate of $375 per
`
`hour. My compensation is in no way contingent on the substance of my opinions
`
`or the outcome of this matter.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN MY ANALYSIS
`20.
`I am not a patent attorney, nor have I independently researched the law of
`
`patent validity. Attorneys have explained certain legal principles to me that I have
`
`relied on in forming my opinions set forth in this Declaration.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A.
`I understand that the ’883 Patent was filed on July 18, 1994. For the
`
`21.
`
`purposes of my analysis, and in the absence of any information to the contrary, I
`
`have used the July 18, 1994 date as the relevant date for my analysis of the prior
`
`art.
`
`
`
`6
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 13
`
`

`

`
`
`22.
`
`I understand that assessment of the validity of the claims of the ’883 Patent
`
`must be undertaken from the perspective of what would have been known and
`
`understood by someone of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest priority date of
`
`the ’883 Patent. Based on my knowledge and expertise and the prior art cited in
`
`the ’883 Patent, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`’883 Patent would typically hold an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering
`
`or have an equivalent educational experience, and three or more years working in a
`
`relevant field employing digital communications technology to deliver
`
`telecommunication services, or alternatively a relevant field involving the
`
`manufacture of telecommunication products.
`
`23. To further elaborate, relevant industry segments and product categories
`
`include, for example, wireless communications systems, products, and services
`
`such as cellular radio and private/public safety two-way radio systems (e.g., police
`
`and fire two-way radio), and cable television systems, products, and services
`
`relating to the delivery and consumption of cable television services. While there
`
`may be some obvious differences between wireless and wire line communications,
`
`the fundamental technologies are very much interrelated, and by July 18, 1994,
`
`were increasingly converging.
`
`24.
`
`I also base my opinion regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art on the
`
`types of problems encountered in the art at the time of the invention, the prior art
`
`
`
`7
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 14
`
`

`

`
`
`references discussed herein, and the sophistication of telecommunication
`
`technologies in the cable and related industries as of July 18, 1994. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1012 at 7 (“Telecommunications principles are becoming increasingly important in
`
`education at undergraduate and graduate levels.”). In fact, by this date, I too had
`
`personal hands-on experience that I believe further informs my opinion on the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art, as I have summarized above and as reflected by
`
`my CV, Ex. 1003.
`
`Prior Art
`
`B.
`I have been informed that the law provides certain categories of information
`
`25.
`
`(known as prior art) that may be used to anticipate or render obvious patent claims.
`
`The reference materials I discuss are prior art below because they were available to
`
`those of ordinary skill in the art as of July 18, 1994.
`
`C. Obviousness
`I have been informed that, even if every element of a claim is not found
`
`26.
`
`explicitly or implicitly in a single prior art reference, the claim may still be
`
`unpatentable if the differences between the claimed elements and the prior art are
`
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the invention
`
`may be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when considered in
`
`light of one or more prior art references. I understand that a patent is obvious when
`
`
`
`8
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 15
`
`

`

`
`
`it is only a combination of old and known elements, with no change in their
`
`respective functions, and that these familiar elements are combined according to
`
`known methods to obtain predictable results.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that the following four factors are considered when
`
`determining whether a patent claim is obvious: (1) the scope and content of the
`
`prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claim; (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations tending to prove
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness. I have also been informed that the courts have
`
`established a collection of secondary factors of nonobviousness, which include:
`
`unexpected, surprising, or unusual results; non-analogous art; teachings away from
`
`the invention; substantially superior results; synergistic results; long-standing need;
`
`commercial success; and copying by others. I have also been informed that there
`
`must be a connection between these secondary factors and the scope of the claim
`
`language.
`
`28.
`
`I have also been informed that some examples of rationales that may support
`
`a conclusion of obviousness include: (1) combining prior art elements according to
`
`known methods to yield predictable results; (2) simply substituting one known
`
`element for another to obtain predictable results; (3) using known techniques to
`
`improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (4) applying a
`
`known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement
`
`
`
`9
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 16
`
`

`

`
`
`to yield predictable results; (5) choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success—in other words,
`
`whether something is “obvious to try”; (6) using work in one field of endeavor to
`
`prompt variations of that work for use in either the same field or a different one
`
`based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art; and (7) arriving at a claimed invention as a result
`
`of some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one
`
`of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings.
`
`29.
`
`I have also been informed that other rationales to support a conclusion of
`
`obviousness may be relied upon, for instance, that the common sense (where
`
`substantiated) of the person of skill in the art may be a reason to combine or
`
`modify prior art to achieve the claimed invention.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`30. As set forth more fully herein, it is my opinion that claims 1, 3, and 4 would
`
`have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before July 18, 1994.
`
`Although I believe other grounds for invalidity of these claims exist, the
`
`obviousness of the claimed subject matter is demonstrated by the following
`
`combinations of prior art references:
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1 and 4 would have been obvious over MPT 1343 in view of
`MPT 1327 and MPT 1347;
`
`
`
`10
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 17
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`Claim 3 would have been obvious over MPT 1343, in view of MPT
`1327, and MPT 1347 and further in view of the Dufresne Patent and
`the Zudnek Patent.
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`31. As I mention above, based on my knowledge and expertise and the prior art
`
`cited in the ’883 Patent it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the field
`
`of the ’883 Patent would typically hold an undergraduate degree in electrical
`
`engineering or have an equivalent educational experience, and three or more years
`
`working in a relevant field employing digital communications technology to
`
`deliver telecommunication services, or alternatively a relevant field involving the
`
`manufacture of telecommunication products. This opinion is based on, for
`
`example, the fact that, “[t]elecommunications principles [were] becoming
`
`increasingly important in education at undergraduate and graduate levels,” by the
`
`early 1980’s. Ex. 1012 at 7. My personal experience was that these trends
`
`continued through July 18, 1994, and continue even today. Unless otherwise
`
`stated, when I state that something would be known or understood by one skilled in
`
`the art, or having ordinary skill in the art, I am referring to a person with this level
`
`of education and experience.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`32.
`I have not been asked to opine on the meaning of the claims of the ’883
`
`Patent. With the exception of the terms “said predetermined signalling data
`
`channel” and “said predetermined channel,” I have been asked to apply the plain
`11
`
`
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 18
`
`

`

`
`
`and ordinary meaning of all terms in claims 1, 3, and 4 as they would have been
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as of July 18, 1994 when considering
`
`how the words used in the context of the ’883 Patent.
`
`33. With respect to the phrases “said predetermined signaling data channel” and
`
`“said predetermined channel,” I have been asked to apply the construction given by
`
`the Court in an earlier litigation. Specifically, where the claims 1 and 4 say “said
`
`predetermined signalling data channel” and “said predetermined channel,” I have
`
`been asked to assume that this phrase means “one of the pair of predetermined
`
`signalling data channels,” as provided by the Court at Ex. 1004, pages 41-44. I
`
`have applied this interpretation in rendering my opinions below.
`
`34.
`
`I have not been asked to opine on whether the scope of any terms in the
`
`claims is reasonably certain. Nor have I formulated such an opinion for the
`
`purposes of this proceeding.
`
`VII. THE ’883 PATENT
`A. Background of the ’883 Patent
`35. As I will explain in detail below, the ’883 Patent was filed after the industry
`
`had been working on two-way data transmission systems, including community
`
`access television (CATV) systems for at least 25 years. CATV systems had been
`
`designed for transmitting data between remote terminals and headend terminals
`
`
`
`12
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 19
`
`

`

`
`
`over coaxial cable. The ’883 Patent admits of a great deal of prior art, both in the
`
`field of CATV, but also in the field of radio telephony.
`
`36. The ’883 Patent “pertains generally to methods and apparatus for facilitating
`
`the two-way multi-media communication based on a shared transmission media
`
`such as coaxial cable-TV network, and more specifically to methods and apparatus
`
`for signalling channel management and protocol.” See Ex. 1001 at 1:7-12.
`
`37. The ’883 Patent admits that “[t]here are many proposals of means for
`
`dynamically adjusting the number of traffic-bearing channels according to varying
`
`traffic demands or the transmission quality in the radio telephony environment,
`
`e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,134,709, 5,235,631 and 5,276,908.” Ex. 1001 at 1:60-64.
`
`“U.S. Pat. No. 4,870,408 proposes a process of re-assigning subscriber units to
`
`balance the traffic load over the available channels.” Id. at 1:66-2:1. Instead of
`
`only adjusting the frequency of (or reassigning) bearer channels—or channels that
`
`carry only user traffic—the ’883 Patent relates to systems and methods for
`
`adjusting the frequency of signalling channels that may also be used to carry user
`
`data, as well as bearer channels. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 2:4-7 (“The present
`
`invention presents a method to dynamically allocate both signalling data and
`
`traffic-bearing channels and to dynamically assign remote terminals to these
`
`channels.”). As I discuss below, the balancing of traffic load—as well as the load
`
`
`
`13
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 20
`
`

`

`
`
`of the signalling data—was well known in the art as shown, by for example, the
`
`MPT Specifications. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, § 9.5.1.
`
`B. Overview of the ’883 Patent – The Alleged Invention
`38. Although dynamic adjustment of “traffic-bearing channels” was admittedly
`
`known, the alleged advantage of the invention included “a dynamic process . . . to
`
`adjust the number of signalling channels to meet the requirements of varying
`
`traffic demand[s] and the system growth.” Ex. 1001 at 2:44-46 (emphasis added);
`
`see also id. at 8:32-34 (“At any time, the central controller can initiate the terminal
`
`re-assignment process if deemed appropriate for the varying traffic demand or
`
`other system dynamics.”). According to the ’883 Patent, one advantage of being
`
`able to reassign signalling data channels is to aid “in system redundancy for
`
`anomalies such as interference and component failure.” Ex. 1001 at 2:49-52.
`
`These signalling channels can carry “sporadic user data” or signalling data. Id. at
`
`3:52-55.
`
`39. The basic architecture for the system to which the ’883 Patent is directed is
`
`shown in Figures 1 and 2 of the ’883 Patent specification, and Figures 16 and 17
`
`show the devices at the transmitting and receiving nodes. The ’883 Patent
`
`specification describes two distinct types of communications channels that are
`
`managed by a central controller: (1) “B” or “bearer channels” that carry “user
`
`information,” and (2) “D” or “signalling data channels” that carry signalling data.
`
`
`
`14
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 21
`
`

`

`
`
`See Ex. 1001 at 2:64-3:13. As the ’883 Patent acknowledges, the “D” channels are
`
`also capable of carrying “sporadic” user data in addition to the signalling data. See
`
`Ex. 1001 at 3:52-55.
`
`40. Figure 1 of the ’883 Patent specification shows bearer channels carrying user
`
`information as “FB” (for sending user information in the forward direction from
`
`the central controller to the remote terminals) and “RB” (for sending user
`
`information in the reverse direction from the remote terminals to the central
`
`controller).
`
`
`
`
`41. Figure 1, above (Figure 2 of the ’883 Patent with added highlighting), shows
`
`Figure 1
`
`the forward bearer channels (“FB”) in green, and the reverse bearer channels
`
`(“RB”) in red. The forward and reverse channels are shown as being separated by
`
`a guard band. The vertical direction depicts different frequencies. Thus, a person
`
`
`
`15
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`IPR2015-00635, p. 22
`
`

`

`
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand this figure to show a group of FB
`
`signals of one frequency range, and a group of RB signals of a second frequency
`
`range. The arrows indicate that the forward bearer (FB) channels are sent from the
`
`central controller to the remote terminals and the reverse bearer (RB) channels are
`
`sent from the remote terminals to the central controller.
`
`
`
`Figure 2
`
`42. Also shown in Figure 2 of the ’883 Patent, reproduced as Figure 2 with
`
`added highlighting, above, are the forward signalling data channels (“FD”)
`
`channels (shown in orange) for sending signalling data in the first direction from
`
`the central controller to the remote terminals and reverse signalling data channels
`
`(“RD”) (shown in blue) for sending signalling