ARRIS Group, Inc.
`and
`Cox Communications, Inc.
`v.
`C-Cation Technologies, LLC
`
`IPR2015-00635
`
`Petitioners’ Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`April 26, 2016
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 1 of 47
`
`
`and
`Cox Communications, Inc.
`v.
`C-Cation Technologies, LLC
`
`IPR2015-00635
`
`Petitioners’ Oral Hearing Demonstratives
`April 26, 2016
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 1 of 47
`
`
`
`’883 Patent Overview
`
`bearer channels
`
`signalling data channels
`
`Ex. 1001 at Figs. 1-3; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 39-44; Pet. at 8-9.
`
`2
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 2 of 47
`
`
`
`’883 Patent Overview
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:47-50.
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:36-38.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:50-53.
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1023; Reply 17-19.
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 3 of 47
`
`
`
`’883 Patent, Claim 1
`
`Ex. 1001, claim 1.
`
`4
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 4 of 47
`
`
`
`’883 Patent, Claim 3
`
`Ex. 1001, claim 3.
`
`5
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 5 of 47
`
`
`
`’883 Patent, Claim 4
`
`Ex. 1001, claim 3.
`
`6
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 6 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Specs Are Printed Pubs
`
`Exs. 1005, 1006, 1007.
`
`7
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 7 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Specs Are Printed Pubs
`
`Ex. 1010 at pp. 36, 38.
`
`8
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 8 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Specs Are Printed Pubs
`
`Ex. 1018 at 2.
`
`Ex. 1019 at 2:6-9.
`
`Ex. 1026 at p. 2;
`see also Ex. 1028 (cover).
`
`Ex. 1027 at 2:47-52;
`see also Ex. 1029 at 3:9-14.
`
`Pet. at 16-17; Reply 3-5; see also Exs. 1010, 1014, 1015.
`
`9
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 9 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Specs Are Printed Pubs
`
`Ex. 1031 at p.8.
`
`Pet. at 16-17; Reply 3-5; see also Exs. 1010, 1014, 1015.
`
`Ex. 1030 at p.29.
`
`Ex. 1032 at p.9.
`
`10
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 10 of 47
`
`
`
`Overview: Relevant MPT Functions
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 99-101; Pet. 24-25.
`
`11
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 11 of 47
`
`
`
`Overview: Relevant MPT Functions
`
`Pet. at 10-16.
`
`12
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 12 of 47
`
`
`
`Overview: Relevant MPT Functions
`
`Pet. at 26-27; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 112-118.
`
`13
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 13 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Discloses Claim 1’s Preamble
`
`Claim 1, 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”
`Multiple access communication system: Ex. 1005, § 1.3.3.1
`Proofs:
`(slotted Aloha random access protocol); Ex. 1001 at 1:40-43; Ex.
`1011 (slotted Aloha is a random access protocol); Ex. 1006 §§ 4.1,
`4.1.1, 4.1.2 (describing RU channel frequencies); id. §§ 5.1.1. &
`5.1.2 (channel allocations for frequency-divided network); Ex. 1001
`at 1:15-23 (frequency division is multiple access); Ex. 1006 at ii
`(trunked networks); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 87-89.
`
`Central controller: Ex. 1006 § 3.1 (“Trunking System Controller”);
`Ex. 1005, §§ 8.1, 8.2 (identifying certain TSC controller functions);
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 90.
`
`Pet. at 20-21.
`
`14
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 14 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Discloses Claim 1’s Preamble
`
`Claim 1, 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”
`Shared transmission means for signalling data: Ex. 1006 §§ 4.1.1,
`Proofs:
`4.1.2, 5.1.1, 5.1.2 (describing air wave communications using specific
`frequency bands); Ex. 1005, § 1.3.2 (describing a “Go To Channel”
`message, which is signalling data); Ex. 1006, § 3.1 (“Traffic Channel”
`carries “user communications,” i.e., user data); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 91-96.
`
`a plurality of remote terminals: Ex. 1006 § 3.1 (defining “Radio
`Unit”); Ex. 1005, § 7.2.2 (discussing dividing population of RUs into
`subsets); Ex. 1006, § 8.2.2.2 (describing multiple “fleets” of RUs) 8.1,
`8.2 (identifying certain TSC controller functions); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 97-98.
`
`Pet. at 22-23.
`
`15
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 15 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Discloses Claim 1’s Preamble
`
`Claim 1, 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”
`Proofs:
`a method of allocating signalling data channels between said
`central controller and said plurality of remote terminals from a
`plurality of communications channels and of assigning remote
`terminals: Ex. 1006, §§ 3.1, 9.1 (disclosures related to non-dedicated
`control channels); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 99-103. The MPT Specifications
`disclose at least two methods for allocating signalling data channels
`and of assigning remote terminals: single channel hunt and fall-back
`mode.
`
`Pet. at 23, passim.
`
`16
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 16 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Discloses Claim 1, Step (a)
`
`Claim 1, step (a)
`“(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;”
`Single Channel Hunt: Ex. 1006, §§ 3.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 5.1.1, 5.1.2
`Proofs:
`(describing forward and return channels, channel pairs); id., §§ 9.3.3.2.2,
`9.3.4, 9.3.4.4, 10.2.3, 10.2.4, 10.2.4.1.1 (confirmation and registration
`process and commencing a session); id., § 9.5.1 (multiple control
`channels at a single site); Ex. 1005, §§ 1.3.2, 1.3.5.2 (describing “Go To
`Channel” messages to allocate traffic channels); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 100, 114,
`118, 119, 121.
`
`Fallback Mode: Ex. 1006, § 10.2.3 (no registration required for RUs in
`fallback mode); id., §§ 13.3, 13.4.1 (explaining how RU tunes to pre-
`programmed fall-back channel), id., § 13.1 (multiple channels); id., § 3.1,
`13.2 (defining control and traffic channels; fall-back channel stored in
`memory); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 123-127.
`
`Pet. at 24-31.
`
`17
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 17 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Discloses Claim 1, Step (b)
`
`Claim 1, step (b)
`“(b) 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 of said signalling data channels;”
`Single Channel Hunt: Ex. 1007, § 9.4.4 (error checking by RU); Ex.
`Proofs:
`1006, §§ 9.3.4.3, 9.4.1, 9.5.1 (monitoring codeword error rate and
`leaving control channel if too many errors; multiple control channels at
`a single site); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 130-133.
`
`Fallback Mode: Ex. 1006, §§ 13.1, 13.4.1 (operation of multiple
`channels, random access requests and time-outs); id., App’x B at B.2
`(timing parameters); Ex. 1005, § 7.3.8 (RU abandons attempt to
`access channel if time-out expires); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 134-138.
`
`Pet. at 31-34.
`
`18
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 18 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Discloses Claim 1, Step (c)
`
`Claim 1, step (c)
`“(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;”
`Single Channel Hunt: Ex. 1006, § 9.4.1 (discussing leaving control
`Proofs:
`channel based on “a codeword sample error event” over a certain
`number of samples); id., § 9.3.3.7 (“background search sequence”
`resulting in the identification of a better control channel); id., § 9.3.1
`(control channel acquisition procedures can be entered because of too
`many unsuccessful attempts); id., § 10.2.3 (once registered, RU “free
`to transmit”); Ex. 1005, §§ 7.3.8, App’x 1 (A1-1) (determining whether
`number of attempts exceeded); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 140-143, 194; Ex. 1001
`at 6:41-47 (timeout indicates failure).
`
`Pet. at 34-36.
`
`19
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 19 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Discloses Claim 1, Step (c)
`
`Claim 1, step (c)
`“(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;”
`Fall-Back Mode: Ex. 1006, § 13.5 (conditions for entering fall-back
`Proofs:
`mode including MOVE and CLEAR messages, receipt of an ALOHA
`message, or user-initiated change); id., § 9.4.1 (exiting fall-back mode
`if control channel quality degrades); Ex. 1005, § 5.5.4.4 (MOVE
`message directs RU to a different control channel); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 144-
`149.
`
`Pet. at 36-38.
`
`20
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 20 of 47
`
`
`
`Step 1(c): Dispute Is Claim Construction
`
`Does step (c)
`require the central
`controller perform
`“determining”?
`
`Resp. at 34-37; Reply at 7-16.
`
`21
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 21 of 47
`
`
`
`Where Inventor Wanted Specific
`Apparatus to Perform Step, He Said So
`
`Ex. 1001, claim 1.
`
`Ex. 1001, claim 2.
`
`Ex. 1001, claim 7.
`
`Reply at 8-10; see also Ex. 1001, cl. 6 (limitations (b) and (c)), cl. 8
`(limitations (c) and (d)); cls. 9-12.
`
`22
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 22 of 47
`
`
`
`Remote Terminal Can Request Reassignment
`
`Reply at 11-12; Ex. 1023; Ex. 1022, 63:13-65:4.
`
`23
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 23 of 47
`
`
`
`Remote Terminal Can Change Channel
`After Timeout
`
`Reply at 12; Ex. 1001 at 6:41-47, 8:61-65, FIG. 7.
`
`24
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 24 of 47
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Has Been
`Inconsistent on the Meaning of the Claims
`
`Reply at 13-14; Ex. 2022 at 109:10-12, 110:6-17, 110:18-23;
`Ex. 1024 at 67:16-68:16.
`
`25
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 25 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Discloses Claim 1, Step (d)
`
`Claim 1, step (d)
`“(d) determining whether a different and suitable signalling data channel is
`available other than said predetermined channel;”
`Single Channel Hunt: Ex. 1006, §§ 9.3.3.3, 9.3.3.3.3, 9.3.4,
`Proofs:
`9.3.4.3, 9.3.4.2.5, 9.3.4.4, 9.4.1 (describing leaving control channel
`and entering hunt stage which includes sampling control channels,
`error checking, and confirming control channel and examining LAB
`sub-field); Ex. 1007, § 9.3.2.3 (describing LAB sub-field as defining
`categories of RUs that can access a particular control channel); Ex.
`1006, §§ 9.3.3.7, 9.4.1 (describing background search sequence and
`leaving a control channel for another control channel identified by
`background search); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 151-157.
`
`Pet. at 38-41.
`
`26
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 26 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Discloses Claim 1, Step (d)
`
`Claim 1, step (d)
`“(d) determining whether a different and suitable signalling data channel is
`available other than said predetermined channel;”
`Fall-Back Mode: Ex. 1006, §§ 9.3.3.2.2, 9.3.4, 9.3.4.2.5, 9.3.4.3,
`Proofs:
`9.3.4.4, 13.5 (describing identification of control channel while in fall-
`back mode and confirmation of new control channel); Ex. 1007, §
`9.3.2.3 (describing LAB sub-field as defining categories of RUs that
`can access a particular control channel); Ex. 1006, §§ 9.3.3.7, 9.4.1
`(describing background search sequence and leaving a control
`channel for another control channel identified by background
`search); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 158-161.
`
`Pet. at 42-43.
`
`27
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 27 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Discloses Claim 1, Step (e)
`
`Claim 1, step (e)
`“(e) reassigning by said central controller said remote terminal to a different and
`suitable signalling data channel for communication henceforward.”
`Single Channel Hunt and Fall-Back Mode: Ex. 1006 § 10.2.3
`Proofs:
`(describing registration process and how RU can transmit only
`limited information until registered); id., §§ 10.1.1, 10.2.1, 10.2.1.1,
`10.2.3, 10.2.4.1, 10.2.4.1.1 (describing acceptance and denial of
`registrations and how the registration must be “held within the
`network” as well as the RU); Ex. 1006, § 10.2.4.1.2 (RU resumes
`hunting for new control channel if registration denied); Ex. 1005, §§
`8.2.1.2 (responding to a registration request with a “system
`overload” message causing RU to try to find a different control
`channel); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 73-74, 103, 164-169.
`
`Pet. at 43-46; Reply 19-20, 23-24.
`
`28
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 28 of 47
`
`
`
`’883 Pat.: Assignment/Reassignment
`Is Part of Registration
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:47-50.
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:36-38.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:50-53.
`
`Reply at 17-18.
`
`29
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 29 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Control Channel Acquisition
`Process Is Channel-Dependent
`
`Pet. at 10-16, 43-45.
`
`30
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 30 of 47
`
`
`
`Registration Is Channel Dependent
`
`Ex. 1005, § 8.2.1.2.
`
`Ex. 1006, § 9.4.1(j); see also Ex. 1006, §§ 10.2.4.1.2, 10.2.4.1.3.
`
`Pet. at 43-45; Reply at 19-20.
`
`31
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 31 of 47
`
`
`
`Registration Allows For Communication
`On a Control Channel
`
`Ex. 1006, § 10.2.3.
`
`Pet. at 43-45; Reply at 19-20.
`
`32
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 32 of 47
`
`
`
`Dr. Heegard’s Position Is at Odds With the
`’883 Patent
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:47-50.
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:36-38.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:50-53.
`
`Reply at 17-18.
`
`33
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 33 of 47
`
`
`
`Dr. Heegard’s Position on Step 1(e) Has
`Been Inconsistent
`
`Passive Load
`Balancing
`
`MPT Specifications
`
`Remote terminal requests access
`to control channel?
`
`Central controller determines
`how or whether to respond?
`
`Remote terminal can use control
`channel only if central controller
`allows?
`
`Grant of request permits load
`balancing?
`
`Reply at 16-17; Ex. 1022 at 141:25-143:9;
`Ex. 1033 at 2, B-32; Ex. 1034 at 245;
`Ex. 1005 § 8.2.1.2; Ex. 1006, § 9.4.1(j).
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`34
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 34 of 47
`
`
`
`Grauel Differs Significantly From
`the MPT Specs
`
`• Grauel may reassign itself to allow transmissions;
`• Remote terminals in MPT cannot transmit user data until they are
`registered to the control channel by the TSC
`
`Ex. 1006, § 10.2.3.
`
`Reply at 20-22.
`
`35
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 35 of 47
`
`
`
`Grauel is Too Unclear to Limit the Claims
`
`Ex. 1022, 115:17-23.
`
`Reply at 20-22; see also Ex. 1022, 122:3-123:9 (“It’s pretty confusing, the
`writing.”), 124:18-125:24 (noting several “confusing parts” of Grauel).
`
`36
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 36 of 47
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine MPT Specs
`and Their Interrelated Sections
`
`•
`
`Interrelated specifications, defining the same standards-compliant
`system, and that were expressly intended to be combined with each
`other
`
`• Heavily cross-reference one another
`
`• Explicit references to various sections and reference to “companion
`specifications” and “associated documents”
`
`• Other references also noted the relationship between the three MPT
`specifications (e.g., Ex. 1018 at 2; Ex. 1019 at 2)
`
`•
`
`It would have been obvious to combine various functionalities defined
`by the MPT Specifications to arrive at the claimed methods because a
`POSITA would have looked to each of the specifications to understand
`how to implement a standards-compliant system.
`
`Pet. at 17-19; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 169-171.
`
`37
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 37 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Discloses Claim 4, Preamble
`
`Claim 4, 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:”
`Proofs:
`Single Channel Hunt & Fallback Mode: See claim 1, step (c).
`
`Pet. at 46.
`
`38
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 38 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Discloses Claim 4, step (a)
`
`Claim 4, step (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”
`Single Channel Hunt: Ex. 1006, §§ 10.2.3, 14.1 (after
`Proofs:
`registration, RU can transmit short data message); Ex. 1005, §
`5.5.2.1 (describing acknowledgments relating to shot data
`messages, including an “overload” message); Ex. 1006, § 9.4.1
`(describing RU leaving the control channel if an overload
`message received); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 203-205.
`
`Pet. at 47-49.
`
`39
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 39 of 47
`
`
`
`MPT Discloses Claim 4, step (b)
`
`Claim 4, step (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”
`Single Channel Hunt: Ex. 1006, § 10.2.3 (after registration, RU can
`Proofs:
`transmit any message allowed by MPT); Ex. 1005, § 7.3.8 (RU awaits
`a response from TSC after sending random access message) &
`App’x 1 (pg. A1-1) (defining maximum number of transmission
`requests before time-out); Ex. 1006, §§ 9.3.1, 9.4.1 (RU enters
`control channel acquisition procedures after time-out to find a
`different control channel); Ex. 1001 at 6:41-47; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 206-
`209.
`
`Pet. at 49-51.
`
`40
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 40 of 47
`
`
`
`Claim 3: MPT Specs further in view
`of Zdunek and Dufresne
`
`Claim 3, 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 of said signalling data channels comprising the steps of”
`Single Channel Hunt: See claim 1, step (b).
`Proofs:
`
`Pet. at 51-52.
`
`41
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 41 of 47
`
`
`
`Claim 3: MPT Specs further in view
`of Zdunek and Dufresne
`
`Claim 3, step (a)
`“calculating the aggregate traffic load requirements of said plurality of signalling data
`channels in use”
`MPT Specifications: Ex. 1006, § 9.5.1 (dividing radio unit population to
`Proofs:
`allow load sharing); Ex. 1007, § 9.3.2.3 (allowing more than one control
`channel and “allow[ing] load sharing” between the control channels); Ex.
`1006, § 9.5.1 & 9.5.3 (LAB sub-field used to sub-divide RU population on
`control channels); Ex. 1007, § 9.3.2.3 (describing redistribution of RU
`population using MOVE messages if LAB sub-field is changed); Ex. 1005,
`§ 7.1 (designers can chose control algorithm); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 178-179.
`
`Zdunek: “network controller” that allows “superior access time and system
`performance” by performing “overall data traffic monitoring,” and
`determining “the data traffic load on a particular data channel.” See Ex.
`1008 2:39-44, 5:59-61; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 179-182.
`
`Pet. at 52-54.
`
`42
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 42 of 47
`
`
`
`Claim 3: MPT Specs further in view
`of Zdunek and Dufresne
`
`Claim 3, step (b)
`“monitoring the past collision count of said plurality of signalling data
`channels in use;”
`Proofs: MPT Specifications: Ex. 1006, § 9.4.1 (RU monitors conditions
`on control channel); Ex. 1005, § 1.3.3.2 (TSC can monitor
`control channel and vary framelength to prevent “excessive
`clashing”); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 183-184.
`
`Dufresne: Describes a “bidirectional transmission system” that
`can “detect[] collisions between signals received from” remote
`terminals and can count “the number of signal collision status
`signals received” and, based on the collision count, adjust
`system parameters based on the count. See Ex. 1009 at 1:5-16,
`2:25-30, 2:39-43, 2:51-55, 3:13-26, 3:36-51; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 185-
`190.
`
`Pet. at 55-57.
`
`43
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 43 of 47
`
`
`
`Claim 3: MPT Specs further in view
`of Zdunek and Dufresne
`
`Claim 3, step (c)
`“monitoring the transmission error count of said plurality of signalling data
`channels in use;”
`Proofs: MPT Specifications: Ex. 1007, § 9.4.4 (RU performs “error
`checking measurements”); Ex. 1006 §§ 9.3.4.3 (RU monitors
`codeword error rate and “count the codewords received with
`errors”), 9.4.1 (if error count exceeded, RU leaves control
`channel and returns to hunting procedures); Ex. 1002, ¶ 192.
`
`Pet. at 57-58.
`
`44
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 44 of 47
`
`
`
`Claim 3: MPT Specs further in view
`of Zdunek and Dufresne
`
`Claim 3, step (d)
`“sensing the status of said plurality of signalling data channels in use for
`failure.”
`Proofs: MPT Specifications: Ex. 1006, § 10.2.3 (once registered, RU is
`free to transmit); Ex. 1005, § 7.3.8 (RU must wait for response
`from TSC after sending request for access and needs to
`“abandon its access attempt” if exceeds a maximum number of
`attempts); App’x 1 (pg. A1-1) (defines maximum number of
`attempts); Ex. 1006, § 9.3.1 (after time-out, RU enters control
`channel acquisition procedures); Ex. 1001 at 6:41-47 (confirming
`that failure can be determined based on number of retries); Ex.
`1002, ¶¶ 193-195.
`
`Pet. at 58-60.
`
`45
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 45 of 47
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine MPT Specs,
`Zdunek and Dufresne
`
`• MPT teaches that it is up to “system designers” to chose appropriate
`“control algorithm[s]” (Ex. 1005, § 7.1)
`
`• Zdunek’s “network controller” allows “superior access time and system
`performance” by monitoring aggregate traffic load and load on each of
`the individual channels and would be an obvious addition to MPT’s
`TSC to improve network performance
`
`• Dufresne’s collision count system and methods would have allowed an
`MPT-complaint system to vary framelength based on collision count,
`as expressly contemplated by the MPT Specifications (i.e., to avoid
`“clashing”)
`
`• The MPT Specification acknowledges that modifying framelength
`based on “clashing” optimizes system performance and minimizes
`access times (Ex. 1005, § 1.3.3.2)
`
`Pet. at 54, 56-57; Ex. 1002, ¶ 182, 190, 196-197.
`
`46
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 46 of 47
`
`
`
`§ 42.6(e)—CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`In accordance with § 42.6(e)(1), the undersigned certifies that on the 19th
`
`day of April 19, 2016, the above PETITIONERS’ ORAL HEARING
`
`DEMONSTRATIVES was served, via electronic mail upon the following counsel
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Andrew R. Sommer/
`Andrew R. Sommer
`(Reg. No. 53,932)
`Counsel for Petitioner ARRIS Group,
`Inc.
`
`for Patent Owner,
`
`Walter E. Hanley, Jr.
`whanley@kenyon.com
`
`Sheila Mortazavi
`smortazavi@kenyon.com
`
`Dated: April 19, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`ARRIS Group, Inc. & Cox Communications, Inc. p. 47 of 47
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
