`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2015-00635
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................................... 2
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ....................................... 2
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................. 2
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .............................. 3
`D. Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .......................................... 4
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .................................................... 4
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................................ 4
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ........................................ 4
`B. Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested ............................................................................................................... 5
`C. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b), 42.104(b)(3) ................... 6
`D. How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ........................................................................................ 7
`E. Supporting Evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ..................................... 7
`V. SUMMARY AND TECHNICAL BACKGROUND of the ’883 Patent ............ 8
`A. The Alleged Invention of the ’883 Patent ........................................................ 8
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................. 9
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ...................... 9
`A. Overview of the MPT Specifications ............................................................... 9
`1. Technical Overview of the MPT Specifications ........................................... 9
`2. The MPT Specifications Are Printed Publications ..................................... 16
`3. The Functionalities Defined By the MPT Specifications Were Intended to
`be Combined .................................................................................................... 17
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1 and 4 are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Obvious
`Over MPT 1343 In View of MPT 1347 and MPT 1327 ...................................... 19
`1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................................ 19
`a. 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 . . . .” ................................................................. 19
`b. 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” ......................................... 24
`i. Limitation [A], Example 1: Channel Hunt Sequence and Normal
`Operation on Control Channel ................................................................. 26
`ii. Limitation [A], Example 2: Fall-back Procedures .............................. 29
`c. 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” ....................... 31
`i. Limitation [B], Example 1: Channel Hunt Sequence and Normal
`Operation on Control Channel ................................................................. 32
`ii. Limitation [B], Example 2: Fall-Back Procedures .............................. 33
`d. 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” ....................................... 34
`i. Limitation [C], Example 1: Channel Hunt Sequence and Normal
`Operation on Control Channel ................................................................. 35
`ii. Limitation [C], Example 2: Fall-Back Procedures .............................. 36
`e. Limitation [D]: “determining whether a different and suitable signalling
`data channel is available other than said predetermined channel” .............. 38
`i. Limitation [D], Example 1: Channel Hunt Sequence and Normal
`Operation on Control Channel ................................................................. 38
`ii. Limitation [D], Example 2: Fall-Back Procedures ............................. 42
`f. Limitation [E]: “reassigning by said central controller said remote
`terminal to a different and suitable signalling data channel for
`communication henceforward” .................................................................... 43
`i. Limitation [E], Example 1: Channel Hunt Sequence and Normal
`Operation on Control Channel ................................................................. 43
`ii. Limitation [E], Example 2: Fall-Back Procedures .............................. 45
`2. Claim 4 ......................................................................................................... 46
`
`
`
`
`
`a. 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 comprising the steps of:” 46
`b. 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 overloading;” ....................................... 47
`c. Limitation [B]: “sensing the status of said predetermined signalling data
`channel which said terminal has been assigned to for failure to determine
`whether said terminal needs to be reassigned to a different signalling data
`channel because of failure.” ......................................................................... 49
`C. Ground 2: Claim 3 is Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Obvious Over
`MPT 1343 In View of MPT 1347 and MPT 1327 as Applied to Claim 1, and
`Further In View of Zudnek and Dufresne ............................................................ 51
`1. Claim 3 ......................................................................................................... 51
`a. Preamble: “In a multiple access communication system according to
`claim 1, said step of monitoring the status of a plurality of the signalling
`data channels in use between said central controller and said plurality of
`remote terminals for the usability o said signalling data channels
`comprising the steps of” ............................................................................... 51
`b. Limitation [A]: “calculating the aggregate traffic load requirements of
`said plurality of signalling data channels in use;” ....................................... 52
`c. Limitation [B]: “monitoring the past collision count of said plurality of
`signalling data channels in use;” .................................................................. 55
`d. Limitation [C]: “monitoring the transmission error count of said
`plurality of signalling data channels in use;” ............................................... 57
`e. Limitation [D]: “sensing the status of said plurality of signalling data
`channels in use for failure.” ......................................................................... 58
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Brief Description
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883 to Cheng
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff
`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)
`(“MPT 1347”)
`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,
`
`ARRIS Ex. No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`
`
`
`
`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)
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`ARRIS GROUP, Inc. petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R., Part 42 of claims 1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,563,883 (“the ’883 Patent”) and shows herein that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it will prevail by proving those claims are invalid.
`
`The methods of “allocating signalling data channels,” Ex. 1001 at 14:30-32,
`
`based on various channel conditions recited in claim 1, 3, and 4 were well known
`
`to those having ordinary skill in the art by the July 18, 1994 filing date of the ’883
`
`Patent. The combination of features relating to channel allocation over a shared
`
`transmission medium recited in the challenged claims of the ’883 Patent have been
`
`combined in only predictable manners according to their known functionalities as
`
`would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1002,
`
`¶ 30; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 395, 417 (2007) (“[A] court must ask
`
`whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements
`
`according to their established functions.”). Thus, the challenged claims are invalid
`
`and should be cancelled.
`
`As demonstrated below, the challenged claims are invalid under § 103(a) as
`
`being obvious over a collection of related technical specifications promulgated by
`
`the British Ministry of Post and Telecommunications (“MPT”) relating to trunked
`
`radio communications. See generally Exs. 1005-1007 (collectively “the MPT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Specifications”). The MPT Specifications define characteristics for a trunked radio
`
`network and utilize many aspects of the challenged claims for the very same
`
`purpose that the ’883 Patent uses those limitations: allocation of channels carrying
`
`signalling data based on channel conditions. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, ¶ 99. Since there
`
`was nothing inventive about the subject matter of claims 1, 3, and 4 of the ’883
`
`Patent, those claims should be cancelled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`ARRIS GROUP, Inc. is the real party-in-interest for the instant petition.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`The ’883 Patent is asserted in C-Cation Techs., LLC v. Time Warner Cable
`
`Inc., et al., No. 2:14-cv-00059 (E.D. Tex.). The ’883 Patent is also involved in
`
`pending inter partes review No. IPR2014-00746 filed by ARRIS Group, Inc.
`
`The ’883 Patent was asserted in the following actions: C-Cation Techs., LLC
`
`v. Cable One, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00030 (E.D. Tex.) (filed Jan. 25, 2011; terminated
`
`Jan. 21, 2014); Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. C-Cation, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-
`
`01922 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed Mar. 18, 2011; terminated Jan. 21, 2014). It was also the
`
`subject of IPR2014-00454 filed by Cisco Systems, Inc..1
`
`
`1 The Board denied institution in IPR2014-00454. The petition in that proceeding
`
`was based in part on the MPT Specifications relied on herein. The board found that
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Lead
`Counsel:
`Andrew
`R.
`Sommer
`(Reg.
`
`#53,932)
`
`Email: asommer@winston.com. Firm: WINSTON & STRAWN LLP. Address:
`
`1700 K Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20006-3817. Telephone: (202) 282-5000.
`
`Fax: (202) 282-5100.
`
`Back-Up Counsel:
`
`Jonathan
`
`E. Retsky
`
`(Reg.
`
`#34,415)
`
`Email: jretsky@winston.com. Firm: WINSTON & STRAWN LLP. Address:
`
`the petition failed to “provide sufficient articulated reasoning with rational
`
`underpinning explaining why one with ordinary skill in the art would modify the
`
`teachings of the applied references to arrive at the claimed invention.” See Cisco
`
`Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 14-15
`
`(Aug. 29, 2014). ARRIS’s prior petition in IPR2014-00746 was based on a U.S.
`
`Patent to McNamara and institution against claims 1, 3, and 4 was denied because
`
`McNamara allegedly taught away from the claimed invention. Because: (1) the
`
`MPT Specifications are materially different from McNamara in that they do not
`
`include any alleged teaching away of a central controller as claimed; and (2) this
`
`petition and focuses on details of the MPT Specifications (alone or in combination
`
`with other references) that have never been addressed on the merits by the Office,
`
`the same, or substantially the same, prior art and arguments have not been
`
`presented to the Office before. Cf. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (2012).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`35 West Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60638. Telephone: (312) 558-3791.
`
`Fax: (312) 558-5700.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`D.
`Service via hand-delivery may be made at the postal mailing address of
`
`either lead or back-up counsel. Petitioner consents to service by e-mail.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`The required fee is being paid through the Patent Review Processing
`
`System.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’883 Patent is available for IPR. Petitioner does
`
`not own the ’883 Patent. Neither Petitioner nor any real party-in-interest filed a
`
`civil action challenging the validity of a claim in the ’883 Patent other than a
`
`counter-claim seeking a declaration of patent invalidity. This Petition has been
`
`filed less than one year after the date on which Petitioner, a real party-in-interest,
`
`or a privy of the Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of
`
`the ’883 Patent. Neither Petitioner, any real parties-in-interest, nor any privies of
`
`Petitioner are estopped from challenging the claims on the grounds identified in
`
`this Petition.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1, 3, and 4 of the ’883 Patent in
`
`view of the following prior art references: (1) MPT 1327: A Signalling Standard
`
`for Trunked Private Land Mobile Radio Systems (“MPT 1327,” Ex. 1005); (2)
`
`MPT 1343: Performance Specification (“MPT 1343,” Ex. 1006); (3) MPT 1347:
`
`Radio Interface Specification (“MPT 1347,” Ex. 1007); (3) U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,870,408 to Zudnek (Ex. 1008) (“Zudnek”); and (4) U.S. Patent No. 4,920,533 to
`
`Dufresne et al. (Ex. 1009) (“Dufresne”).
`
`Each of these prior art references constitutes prior art under § 102 (pre-AIA)
`
`as demonstrated below.2 Based on these references, and as explained in detail
`
`below, Petitioner presents the following grounds for trial:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1 and 4 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) over MPT 1343 in view of MPT 1327, and MPT 1347.
`
`Ground 2: Claim 3 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over MPT 1343 in view of MPT 1327 and MPT 1347 and further in view of
`
`Zudnek and Dufresne.
`
`
`2 Statutory citations are to Title 35 of the United States Code unless otherwise
`
`noted.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b), 42.104(b)(3)
`The ’883 Patent has expired. The claims of an expired patent are construed
`
`according to the methodology set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`For the purposes of this proceeding, all terms should have their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning read in light of the ’883 Patent’s specification, as would have
`
`been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, except as otherwise
`
`discussed below.3 See, e.g., Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367,
`
`1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary
`
`meanings to one of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the
`
`specification and the prosecution history.”).
`
`3 Claims may be held obvious under § 103(a) even where the scope of a claim is
`
`not reasonably certain as required by Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134
`
`S.Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014). In evaluating obviousness, what matters is whether a
`
`claim’s scope encompasses that which is obvious—not whether the full reach of
`
`the claim is reasonably certain, the latter requirement being one of definiteness. “If
`
`[a] claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103” and thus a showing
`
`that a claim extends at least as far as to cover “an obvious solution” to a recognized
`
`problem in the art may prove that claim obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`
`550 U.S. 398, 419-20 (2007).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`In prior litigation, Magistrate Judge Payne construed certain terms of the
`
`’883 Patent. As relevant to this proceeding, Magistrate Judge Payne construed the
`
`phrases “said predetermined signalling data channel” and “said predetermined
`
`channel,” present in claims 1 and 4, to mean “one of the pair of predetermined
`
`signalling data channels,” Ex. 1004 at 41-44, which the Court found supported by
`
`Exhibit 1001 at 8:44-50. Therefore, to the extent that the scope of the claims using
`
`these phrases are reasonably certain despite a lack of antecedent basis, Petitioner
`
`proposes using Magistrate Judge Payne’s construction for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`D. How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(4)
`
`An explanation of how construed claims 1, 3, and 4 are unpatentable under
`
`the grounds identified above, including the identification of where each element of
`
`the claim is found in the prior art patents and printed publications, is provided
`
`infra, § VII.
`
`Supporting Evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)
`
`E.
`Each of the grounds for trial is supported by the Declaration of Mr. Stuart
`
`Lipoff, Ex. 1002 and the other exhibits filed herewith. Mr. Lipoff’s Declaration
`
`explains: the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art, how a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood scope and content of the prior art, and the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`conclusions that such a person would have made regarding the obviousness of the
`
`subject matter claimed.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY AND TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ’883
`PATENT
`
`The ’883 Patent relates to systems and methods for “facilitating the two-way
`
`multi-media communication based on a shared transmission media . . . .” See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:7-12; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 36-37. This section summarizes some relevant
`
`aspects of the ’883 Patent.
`
`A. The Alleged Invention of the ’883 Patent
` The ’883 Patent “pertains generally to methods and apparatus for
`
`facilitating 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.” Ex. 1001 at 1:7-12.
`
`After conceding 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,” Ex. 1001
`
`at 1:60-64, the ’883 Patent claims that its novelty relates to “a dynamic process . . .
`
`to adjust the number of signalling channels to meet the requirements of varying
`
`traffic demand and the system growth,” id. at 2:44-46. As had already been
`
`recognized in the prior art, this “aids in . . . redundancy for anomalies such as
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`interference and component failure.” Id. at 2:49-52. In addition to signalling data,
`
`the signalling channels can carry “sporadic user data.” Id. at 3:52-55; 7:41-43.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`As of July 18, 1994, a person having ordinary skill in the art relevant to the
`
`’883 Patent would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, or
`
`have had 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. See Ex. 1002, ¶ 31; Ex. 1003; Ex.
`
`1011 at viii; Ex. 1012 at 7 (discussing how telecommunications was being taught
`
`at the undergraduate level as of 1983). In this Petition, reference to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art refers to a person with these qualifications.
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`A. Overview of the MPT Specifications
`1.
`Technical Overview of the MPT Specifications
`The MPT Specifications are encyclopedic documents that describe system
`
`operations for the initiation and maintenance of communications in a standards-
`
`compliant trunked radio network. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, Foreword; Ex. 1002, ¶65.
`
`The procedures used for establishing communications and maintaining those
`
`communications, as well as processes used during communication are described in
`
`various, interrelated sections. Each of the Specifications heavily references the
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`others, and they are intended to be read together, as discussed in further detail
`
`below. The flowchart below illustrates how certain sections of the various MPT
`
`Specifications interrelate to one another to define specific system use cases.
`
`
`
`Starting with a user initially turning on a radio unit or selecting a trunking
`
`network to connect to, the radio unit attempts to “acquire a control channel
`
`emanated by the selected network.” Ex. 1006, § 9.3.3.1; Ex. 1002, ¶ 114.
`
`Depending on the information retained in memory, the way the radio unit is
`
`configured, and the available control channels, the radio unit executes one or more
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`control channel hunting procedure to “locate” an “appropriate control channel.”
`
`Id.
`
`For instance, when a radio that does not implement certain optional hunt
`
`stages is turned on and has a valid registration stored in memory from a prior use
`
`on the network, the radio unit executes the Single Channel Hunt Sequence and
`
`tunes to the channel indicated in the previous record. Id. at § 9.3.3.2.2; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶ 71. If the Single Channel Hunt Sequence fails, the radio unit moves on to the
`
`Preferential Hunt Sequence, and so forth, until an appropriate control channel is
`
`located. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, § 9.3.3.2.2. (“Upon unsuccessful completion of the
`
`‘single channel hunt sequence’ the radio unit shall enter the ‘preferential hunt
`
`sequence’.”).
`
`Once a proper control channel has been located, the radio unit attempts to
`
`confirm that control channel by testing the channel in accordance with the
`
`procedures of MPT 1343 § 9.3.4 before any transmissions on the control channel
`
`are allowed. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, § 9.3.3.2.2. (“The radio unit shall not make any
`
`transmissions on a control channel until it has confirmed the channel in accordance
`
`with the procedure specified in 9.3.4 (including the error checking procedure
`
`specified in 9.3.4.4).”); Ex. 1002, ¶ 71. Control channel confirmation includes
`
`several tests. Ex. 1002, ¶ 72. The radio unit determines that the control channel is
`
`appropriate to acquire by comparing the allowed category of radio units on that
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`control channel (as contained in the LAB sub-field of the control channel’s system
`
`identification code) to its own categorization retained in the radio units read only
`
`memory. Ex. 1006, § 9.3.4.2.5. The radio unit also determines if the control
`
`channel will be suitable by monitoring the error rate of that control channel and
`
`comparing that against threshold requirements. Id. at § 9.3.4.3 (“Whilst receiving
`
`a control channel a radio unit shall monitor the codeword error rate and count the
`
`codewords received with errors . . . .”). If this error check fails then the radio unit
`
`leaves the control channel and returns to the control channel hunting procedures.
`
`Id. at § 9.4.1 (“Whilst active on a control channel, either prior to acquisition being
`
`confirmed or during activity subsequent to control channel confirmation, the radio
`
`unit shall monitor conditions on that channel and be prepared to leave the control
`
`channel and return to the control channel hunting procedures.”). If the testing
`
`succeeds then the hunt sequence is considered complete and the control channel
`
`confirmed. Id. at § 9.3.4.4; Ex. 1002, ¶ 72.
`
`Once a control channel is confirmed, the radio unit determines whether it is
`
`required to register before it is able to transmit freely. Ex. 1006, § 10.2.3; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 73. Registration is “a method of recording the area or group of areas
`
`where a radio unit is likely to be located within a network.” Ex. 1006, § 10.1.1.
`
`Registration also “provides a means of restricting the service of individual radio
`
`units by allowing the network to deny registration requests.” Id.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`For basic registration, the radio unit determines if it is required to register
`
`based on the mode of the system (e.g., fall-back where registration is not required
`
`or normal operations where it may be), as well as based on the data retained in
`
`memory and broadcast on control channels. Id. at § 10.2.3 (“If the verified AREA
`
`code is zero, or the radio unit is personalised with a zero length AREA field, or the
`
`radio unit is in fall-back mode, the radio unit shall not seek to register by random
`
`access nor shall it create or alter any registration record.”); Ex. 1002, ¶ 72. If the
`
`radio unit determines registration is not required, it is free to transmit on the
`
`confirmed control channel. Ex. 1006, § 10.2.3 (“The radio unit shall note that
`
`registration is not required and that it is free to initiate calls.”).
`
`If registration is required, however, the radio unit checks to see if it holds a
`
`successful registration. Id. If not, the radio unit proceeds to execute the
`
`registration procedures of MPT 1343 § 10.2.4, which are either allowed, denied, or
`
`failed by the TSC. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, § 10.2.3; Ex. 1005, § 8.2.1.2; Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`74. If the registration is denied or failed, the radio unit defaults back to the control
`
`channel hunting procedures. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, §§ 10.2.4.1.2 & 10.2.4.1.3; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 74. If the registration is accepted the radio unit records a local copy of the
`
`registration record, Ex. 1006, § 10.2.4.1.1, and is free to transmit, id. at § 10.2.3
`
`(“At any time that the radio unit holds a successful registration record relating to
`
`the verified AREA code, it is free to transmit . . . .”).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Once registered, the radio unit enters normal operations on the network.
`
`This consists of making and receiving calls, Ex. 1006, § 11, sending and receiving
`
`data messages, id. at § 14, responding to subsequent registration demands by the
`
`TSC, id. at § 10.3.4.2, and monitoring of the control channels for inter alia errors,
`
`id. at § 11.3.2.3 & App’x A. Additionally, radio units may perform background
`
`searches for alternative control channels which “may offer greater spectral
`
`efficiency” or result in “improved quality of service to the user” while confirmed
`
`on a control channel. Id. at § 9.3.3.7; Ex. 1002, ¶ 156. The radio unit also
`
`monitors for a variety of conditions and receipt of specific messages that prompt
`
`the radio unit to re-enter the control channel hunting procedures as dictated by
`
`MPT 1343 § 9.4.1. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 140-141.
`
`In the event of a network failure, the network may implement a fall-back
`
`procedure to provide a reduced network capability until normal function is
`
`restored. See Ex. 1006, § 13; Ex. 1002, ¶ 80. This is a standard option for radio
`
`units and for standards-compliant MPT-based systems. Ex. 1006, § 13.1. When
`
`fall-back operation is signaled, “[e]ach radio unit . . . [relapses] to a pre-
`
`programmed channel” where “all members of a fleet [are] programmed with the
`
`same channel number.” Id. Modified procedures and limited call procedures are
`
`utilized while in fall-back mode. Id. at § 13.4; Ex. 1002, ¶ 81. However, at least
`
`simple call messaging and data transfer messaging are allowed. Ex. 1006, § 13.4.1
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`(“ALHF invites the following types of call request: RQS, RQX, RQT, RQE, RQQ
`
`and RQC” where “RQS” is a request for a simple call message and “RQC” is a
`
`request to transmit a short data message.); Ex. 1002, ¶ 135.
`
`Fall-back procedures may be terminated through either: (1) the network
`
`signalling the exit from fall-back, or (2) the user selecting to transfer to a different
`
`network. Ex. 1006, § 13.5. Additionally, the MPT Specifications recommend that
`
`“the radio unit hunts occasionally for a normal operation mode control channel,
`
`regardless of the quality of the channel and whether or not the radio unit is active.”
`
`Id.; Ex. 1002, ¶ 158. In each case the radio unit re-enters the control channel hunt
`
`sequence specific to the method through which the termination of fall-back
`
`procedures was achieved. Ex. 1006, § 13.5 (“Under any of the following
`
`conditions the radio unit shall exit from fall-back mode, abandon any call set-up or
`
`transaction in progress, and enter the control channel acquisition procedures . . .
`
`.”). For example, upon receiving a MOVE message where the control channel is
`
`specified through a non-zero value in the CONT field of the message, the radio
`
`unit enters the Single Channel Hunt Sequence. Ex. 1006, § 9.3.3.2.2 (“The
`
`receiver shall be tuned to receive the nominated channel within 35ms of the
`
`following instants . . . the end of any MOVE message that is applicable to the radio
`
`unit and in which the value of the CONT field is not 0.”); Ex. 1002, ¶ 160. The
`
`radio unit will then progress normally through the control channel hunting
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`procedures, confirmation, and registration until re-entering normal operations and
`
`able to transmit freely. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 158, 161.
`
`Thus, the MPT Specifications describe various processes for establishing
`
`and maintaining communications in a standard-compliant MPT-b