throbber
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
`
`EX. 1002
`
`Page 1 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Exhibits Referenced in This Declaration .............................................. v(cid:3)
`
`I.(cid:3)
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS ........................................... 1(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`Educational Background .................................................................... 2(cid:3)
`
`Career History and Relevant Industry Participation ...................... 2(cid:3)
`
`II.(cid:3)
`
`SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT, COMPENSATION ...................................... 5(cid:3)
`
`III.(cid:3) LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN MY ANALYSIS .................................... 6(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................... 6(cid:3)
`
`Prior Art ............................................................................................... 8(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3) Obviousness .......................................................................................... 8(cid:3)
`
`IV.(cid:3) SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS ............................................................... 10(cid:3)
`
`V.(cid:3)
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... 11(cid:3)
`
`VI.(cid:3) CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 11(cid:3)
`
`VII.(cid:3) THE ’883 PATENT ..................................................................................... 12(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`Background of the ’883 Patent ......................................................... 12(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3) Overview of the ’883 Patent – The Alleged Invention ................... 14(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3) Overview of Claims 1, 3, and 4 of the ’883 Patent ......................... 19(cid:3)
`
`VIII.(cid:3) OVERVIEW OF TRUNKED RADIO SYSTEMS ................................... 21(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`Trunked Radio Systems Generally .................................................. 21(cid:3)
`
`Signalling Data vs. Bearer Traffic in Multiple Access Systems .... 23(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3) Overview of MPT .............................................................................. 28(cid:3)
`
`IX.(cid:3)
`
`INVALIDITY OVER MPT ........................................................................ 38(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3) Claim 1 Would Have been Obvious Over MPT 1343 In View
`of MPT 1347 and MPT 1327 ............................................................ 38(cid:3)
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`1.(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`3.(cid:3)
`
`4.(cid:3)
`
`5.(cid:3)
`
`6.(cid:3)
`
`7.(cid:3)
`
`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(cid:3)
`
`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(cid:3)
`
`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(cid:3)
`
`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(cid:3)
`
`Limitation [D]: “determining whether a different and
`suitable signalling data channel is available other than said
`predetermined channel.” ........................................................... 74(cid:3)
`
`Limitation [E]: “reassigning by said central controller said
`remote terminal to a different and suitable signalling data
`channel for communication henceforward.” ............................. 82(cid:3)
`
`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(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`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(cid:3)
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`1.(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`3.(cid:3)
`
`4.(cid:3)
`
`5.(cid:3)
`
`6.(cid:3)
`
`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(cid:3)
`
`Limitation [A]: “calculating the aggregate traffic load
`requirements of said plurality of signalling data channels
`in use”........................................................................................ 90(cid:3)
`
`Limitation [B]: “monitoring the past collision count of said
`plurality of signalling data channels in use” ............................. 95(cid:3)
`
`Limitation [C]: “Monitoring the transmission error count
`of said plurality of signalling data channels in use” ............... 101(cid:3)
`
`Limitation [D]: “sensing the status of said plurality of
`signalling data channels in use for failure” ............................. 102(cid:3)
`
`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(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3) Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious Over MPT 1343 in view
`of MPT 1327 and MPT 1347 .......................................................... 105(cid:3)
`
`1.(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`3.(cid: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(cid:3)
`
`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(cid:3)
`
`Limitation [B]: “sensing the status of said predetermined
`signalling data channel which said terminal has been
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`assigned to for failure to determine whether said terminal
`needs to be reassigned to a different signalling data
`channel” .................................................................................. 110(cid:3)
`
`X.(cid:3) CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 113(cid:3)
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 6 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 7 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`1.
`
`I.
`
`2.
`
`I Stuart Lipoff hereby declare as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`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
`
`Page 8 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`A.
`
`Educational Background
`
`5.
`
`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
`
`6.
`
`I am currently the president of IP Action Partners Inc., which is a consulting
`
`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
`
`Page 9 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 10 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 11 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 12 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`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.
`
`A.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the ’883 Patent was filed on July 18, 1994. For the
`
`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
`
`Page 13 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 14 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`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.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that the law provides certain categories of information
`
`(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
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed that, even if every element of a claim is not found
`
`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
`
`Page 15 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 16 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 17 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 18 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 19 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 20 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`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
`
`Page 21 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`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).
`
`Figure 1
`
`41.
`
`Figure 1, above (Figure 2 of the ’883 Patent with added highlighting), shows
`
`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
`
`Page 22 of 121
`
`PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`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, r

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket