Paper No. _____
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`VERIZON SERVICES CORP., VERIZON SOUTH INC., VERIZON VIRGINIA
`LLC, VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., VERIZON FEDERAL INC.,
`VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES INC., AND MCI
`COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SPHERIX INCORPORATED
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564
`___________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT P. MCNAMARA, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Verizon Services Corp. et al.
`
`By: Dinesh N. Melwani (dmelwani@bookoffmcandrews.com)
`Roland G. McAndrews (rmcandrews@bookoffmcandrews.com)
`Aaron M. Johnson (ajohnson@bookoffmcandrews.com)
`BOOKOFF McANDREWS, PLLC
`2401 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Suite 450
`Washington, DC 20037
`Telephone: 202-808-3550
`Facsimile: 202-450-5538
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
` _________________
`
`Page 1 of 66
`
`VERIZON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 2
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS AND MATERIALS REVIEWED ................... 6
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 7
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE ’564 PATENT ..................................................... 8
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`“Network Interface Unit” ....................................................................15
`
`“Service Delivery Unit” ......................................................................18
`
`Family of Different Types of Service Delivery Units .........................21
`
`“Format” ..............................................................................................23
`
`“Media Control Module” ....................................................................24
`
`VII. CERTAIN REFERENCES TEACH OR SUGGEST ALL OF THE
`FEATURES OF CLAIMS 1-3 AND 5-9 OF THE ’564 PATENT .........................25
`
`A. Humpleman’s Teachings .....................................................................25
`
`B.
`
`Humpleman Teaches All of the Features of Claims 1-3 and 5-9 ........27
`
`1. Claim 1 ..........................................................................................27
`
`2. Claim 2 ..........................................................................................34
`
`3. Claim 3 ..........................................................................................38
`
`4. Claim 5 ..........................................................................................39
`
`5. Claim 6 ..........................................................................................39
`
`6. Claim 7 ..........................................................................................40
`
`7. Claim 8 ..........................................................................................41
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`8. Claim 9 ..........................................................................................41
`
`Kimbrough’s Teachings ......................................................................42
`
`Kimbrough Teaches All of the Features of Claims 1-3 and 5-9 .........44
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`1. Claim 1 ..........................................................................................44
`
`2. Claim 2 ..........................................................................................49
`
`3. Claim 3 ..........................................................................................50
`
`4. Claim 5 ..........................................................................................51
`
`5. Claim 6 ..........................................................................................51
`
`6. Claim 7 ..........................................................................................52
`
`7. Claim 8 ..........................................................................................53
`
`8. Claim 9 ..........................................................................................54
`
`VIII.
`
`Conclusion ...........................................................................................55
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`1.
`
`I, Robert P. McNamara, declare as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained by Verizon Services Corp., Verizon South Inc., Verizon
`
`Virginia LLC, Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Federal Inc., Verizon
`
`Business Network Services Inc., and MCI Communications Services, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Verizon” or “Petitioner”) as an independent expert consultant in this
`
`proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
`
`Although I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $300 per hour
`
`for the time I spend on this matter, no part of my compensation is dependent on the
`
`outcome of this proceeding or any other related proceeding. I have no other
`
`interest in the proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 6,980,564 (“the
`
`’564 patent”) (Ex. 1001). Based on a review of the front page of the ’564 patent, I
`
`understand that the application for the ’564 patent was filed on June 19, 2001, as
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 09/884,684, and issued on December 27, 2005. I also
`
`understand from the front page of the ’564 patent, that the ’564 patent is what is
`
`referred to as a “continuation application” of abandoned U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 09/753,014 (“the ’014 application”) filed on January 2, 2001.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 4 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to consider, among other things, whether certain
`
`references disclose or suggest the features recited in claims 1-3 and 5-9 of the ’564
`
`patent. My opinions are set forth below.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`I received Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees in Applied
`4.
`
`Physics from the California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) in 1973. In 1978,
`
`I received a Ph.D. from Caltech, also in Applied Physics.
`
`5.
`
`Aside from my academic expertise, I have extensive industry experience
`
`with broadband telecommunications technology products. Specifically, I have
`
`over 35 years of experience in telecommunications technology and the
`
`development and implementation of local network access products for the
`
`deployment of voice, data, video, and energy management in Fiber Optic, Hybrid
`
`Fiber Optic-Coax (“HFC”) and Wireless Networks. My experience spans digital
`
`network services, such as, e.g., Home Information Systems and Internet
`
`Applications, Digital Telephony, and Voice over IP (“VoIP”) Systems.
`
`6.
`
`Early in my career, I was employed by AT&T Bell Telephone Laboratories
`
`where I worked on developing network systems to provision telephone, data, and
`
`video services to the home over a fiber optic infrastructure.
`
`7.
`
`After Bell Labs, I was employed by GTE Service Corporation where I was
`
`responsible for developing GTE’s technical analysis of entry into the cellular
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 5 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`marketplace, worked with Hawaiian Telephone on a fiber in the loop project that
`
`was targeted for Honolulu, and worked on an analysis of a wireless, local loop
`
`access network based on the then-proposed Xerox XTEN technology.
`
`8.
`
`Starting in 1981, I was employed by Sytek Corporation, one of the first firms
`
`in the emerging local area network (“LAN”) marketplace. At Sytek, I was
`
`responsible for taking Sytek’s coax-cable-based LAN technology and, in
`
`cooperation with General Instruments Corporation, applying it to the local loop of
`
`cable Multiple-System Operators (MSOs). The goal of this product, designated
`
`MetroNet, was to develop a family of products capable of supporting two-way data
`
`services over a cable television based infrastructure, including the cabling,
`
`amplifiers, directional couplers, and connectors for the cable network commonly
`
`referred to as the “plant.”
`
`9.
`
`After Sytek, I founded my first company, Tsunami Technologies, which
`
`later became First Pacific Networks. There I developed a family of products for
`
`the office and the cable television based local loop environment. Among those
`
`products were a family of telephony, data, and demand side smart grid products
`
`designed to operate on an HFC network.
`
`10.
`
`In 1996, after leaving First Pacific Networks, I began working as a
`
`consultant and subsequently founded four more companies: a telecommunications
`
`product firm that focused on improving the performance of HFC networks, a
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 6 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`medical device company, a non-destructive optical sensor company, and a
`
`company working with photovoltaic solar panels.
`
`11. As a consultant, I have been providing technical and business support
`
`services (both full and part time) and, since 2001, I also have provided litigation
`
`support consulting to various law firms. The consulting projects that I have
`
`worked on include construction cost analysis of cable systems under different
`
`geographical conditions for a Multiple-System Operator (MSO) seeking to enter
`
`the California marketplace, business and technical support to an international MSO
`
`attempting to purchase the cable assets of Telecom Eiran, wireless communication
`
`systems and video-on-demand (VOD) systems for the cable marketplace, and an e-
`
`commerce-based internet and video application system. I also was brought in as
`
`the Chief Technical Officer for an early stage fiber optics product and technology
`
`company that provided secure fiber optic communications in the local loop. In
`
`addition to the above, I worked as the acting Vice President of Engineering for a
`
`software-based color FAX company as well as for a wireless local loop company.
`
`12.
`
`I am a named inventor on 14 U.S. patents, including 11 patents in the
`
`telecommunications field: U.S. Patent No. 4,533,948, titled “CATV
`
`Communication System,” issued August 6, 1985; U.S. Patent No. 5,084,903, titled
`
`“Modulation and Demodulation System Employing AM-PSK and QPSK
`
`Communication System Using Digital Signals,” issued January 28, 1992; U.S.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 7 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent No. 5,088,111, titled “Modulation and Demodulation System Employing
`
`AM-PSK and FSK Communication System Using Digital Signals,” issued
`
`February 11, 1992; U.S. Patent No. 5,255,267, titled “Apparatus for Combining
`
`Broadband and Baseband Signal Transmissions,” issued on October 19, 1993; U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,272,700, titled “Spectrally Efficient Broadband Transmission
`
`System,” issued December 21, 1993; U.S. Patent No. 5,408,507, titled “Extended
`
`Range Enhanced Skew Controller,” issued on April 18, 1995; U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,436,902, titled “Ethernet Extender,” issued on July 25, 1995; U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,487,066, titled “Distributed Intelligence Network Using Time and Frequency
`
`Multiplexing,” issued on January 23, 1996; U.S. Patent No. 5,528,507, titled
`
`“System for Utility Demand Monitoring and Control Using a Distribution
`
`Network,” issued June 18, 1996; U.S. Patent No. 5,805,458, titled “System for
`
`Utility Demand Monitoring and Control,” issued September 8, 1998; and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,818,725, titled “System for Utility Demand Monitoring and Control,”
`
`issued October 6, 1998. In addition to these U.S. patents, I am a named inventor
`
`on numerous foreign patents.
`
`13.
`
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions, but in the course of my
`
`work, I have had experience studying and analyzing patents and patent claims from
`
`the perspective of a person skilled in the art. My curriculum vitae, which includes
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 8 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`a more detailed summary of my background, experience, and publications, is
`
`attached as Appendix A to this Declaration.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS AND MATERIALS REVIEWED
`14. All of the opinions contained in this Declaration are based on the documents
`
`I reviewed and my knowledge and professional judgment. In forming the opinions
`
`expressed in this Declaration, I reviewed the documents mentioned in this
`
`Declaration, including the ’564 patent (Ex. 1001), excerpts from the prosecution
`
`history file of the ’564 patent (Ex. 1002), U.S. Patent No. 5,940,387 to Humpleman
`
`(“Humpleman”) (Ex. 1004), U.S. Patent No. 6,362,908 to Kimbrough et al.
`
`(“Kimbrough”) (Ex. 1005), excerpts from the 10th edition of the Merriam-
`
`Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Ex. 1006), while drawing on my experience in
`
`the development and operation of broadband telecommunication network
`
`architecture.1 My opinions are additionally guided by my appreciation of how a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claims of the ’564
`
`patent at the time of alleged invention, which I have been asked to assume is
`
`January 2001.
`
`
`1 In this Declaration, I refer to the written portion of a U.S. patent document by
`
`making reference to the column:line number of the patent. For all other
`
`documents, I refer to the page number of the exhibit.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 9 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
` I understand that certain issues relating to validity must be judged from the
`15.
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, as I will discuss below
`
`in my report.
`
`16. The invention of the ’564 patent relates to the provision of various network
`
`services over multiple telecommunications networks. At the time of the alleged
`
`invention in January 2001, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an
`
`undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related
`
`discipline, or would have become proficient in the art by self-study to a level
`
`equivalent to such a formal degree. In addition, the person would have had 2-3
`
`years of experience in developing products for telecommunications networks.
`
`More education can supplement relevant experience and vice versa.
`
`17.
`
`In determining the level of ordinary skill, I have been asked to consider, for
`
`example, the types of problems encountered in the field, prior solutions to those
`
`problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Active
`
`workers in the field would have had at least an undergraduate degree or graduate
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related discipline, as noted
`
`above. Depending on the level of education, it would have taken between 2-3
`
`years for a person to become familiar with the problems encountered in the field
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`and to become familiar with the prior and current solutions to those problems,
`
`including the delivery of differing networks services (e.g., cable television,
`
`telephone services, and high-speed data access) to a consumer over multiple
`
`network types, including, e.g., a cable plant, fiber optic lines, and telephone lines
`
`(conventionally known as “twisted pair”).
`
`V. BACKGROUND OF THE ’564 PATENT
`I understand the ’564 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No.
`18.
`
`09/884,684 filed on June 19, 2001, and that it is listed on the face of the patent as a
`
`“continuation” of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/753,014 filed on January 2, 2001.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1. I understand the ’014 application was abandoned before it became a
`
`patent. Id.
`
`19. The ’564 patent relates to a modular data communication equipment system,
`
`as indicated by its title. Id. To provide context for its invention, the ’564 patent
`
`describes conventional data communication equipment in the “Background of the
`
`Invention” section. See, e.g., id. at 1:22-67, 2:1-9. The patent discusses how
`
`different network services, such as cable television and telephone services,
`
`“traditionally have been developed for use over different types of networks.” Id. at
`
`1:22-24. In addition, the Background section explains that these different types of
`
`networks caused the network service industry to develop network access
`
`equipment, commonly known as “Data Communications Equipment” or “DCEs”
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`that connect only a particular type of network to a network device, e.g., a telephone
`
`or television. Id. at 1:29-45.
`
`20. The Background section goes on to state that there was a trend toward
`
`providing a single network service via multiple network types. See id. at 1:61-63.
`
`For example, telephone services could be provided via the public service telephone
`
`network (“PSTN”) or via a broadband network. See id. This would require that “a
`
`single DCE for use with the telephone services must be produced for use with each
`
`network/medium type. For example, a separate telephony DCE must be developed
`
`for use with each of cable networks, fiber optic networks, wireless networks, etc.”
`
`Id. at 1:66-2:6. The Background concludes by stating that such a duplication of
`
`devices is inefficient and costly. Id. at 1:61-2:9.
`
`21. The ’564 patent distinguishes a modularized access system 18, which may
`
`act as a DCE, from conventional DCEs that are specific to a network type. See,
`
`e.g., id. at 8:52-65. Figure 1 of the ’564 patent depicts an access system 18
`
`providing a local network device 12 access to the Internet 16 or other networks via
`
`a medium 22:
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 12 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`22. The local network device 12 may be, e.g., a computer system, an Internet
`
`Protocol (IP) telephone, or other network appliance. See id. at 4:8-9. The medium
`
`22 may be a broadband medium, such as a fiber optic line, cable line, or Digital
`
`Subscriber Line (“DSL”) technology provided over conventional twisted pair
`
`phone lines. See id. at 2:40-43, 4:17-28. The access system 18 and local network
`
`devices 12 are shown in Fig. 1 as being located at a customer’s premises, such as
`
`in a single office. Id. at 4:14-16. However, the ’564 patent also discloses use of
`
`the network “external to the user’s premises.” Id. at 7:59-62.
`
`23. The ’564 patent distinguishes the disclosed access system 18 from
`
`conventional prior art DCE by dividing the access system 18 into two functionally
`
`separate, modularized units: the network interface unit (“NIU”) and service
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 66
`
`

`
`delivery unit (“SDU”). See id. at 2:52-53, 4:45-52, 8:52-56, Fig. 2. Figure 2
`
`shows an access system 18 having functionally separated NIU 26 and SDU 28:
`
`
`
`
`
`24.
`
`In a typical implementation, the NIU connects with the network medium 22,
`
`the NIU 26 and SDU 28 are connected to each other via an interface 30, and the
`
`SDU 28 connects with a local network user device 12 or functions itself as “data
`
`termination equipment.” Id. at 2:57-60, Fig. 2. The ’564 patent states that such an
`
`arrangement can permit a single NIU 26 to connect to multiple SDUs 28 without
`
`requiring a customized access system device. Id. at 8:52-56, 8:60-63, Fig. 6. The
`
`’564 patent states that modularizing the NIU 26 and SDU 28 “eliminates the need
`
`for a multitude of specialized DCEs that each are specific to both one type of
`
`network and one type of network service, thus providing flexibility and saving
`
`equipment costs. If properly configured, the disclosed access system 18 should
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 14 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`permit any network interface unit 26 to couple with any type of service delivery
`
`unit 28.” Id. at 8:59-65.
`
`25. To appropriately regulate and control data communication between an
`
`external network and the SDU 28, the NIU may contain a medium module 32 and
`
`an interface 30. Id. at 4:62-5:9, Fig. 3. The medium module 32 and interface 30
`
`are depicted in Figure 3, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`26. The medium module 32 is configured to “process data for transmission
`
`between the given medium and the service delivery unit.” Id. at 9:16-20. The Fig.
`
`3 interface 30 is depicted as a module that is configured to “receive messages
`
`transmitted between the medium module and the service delivery unit, . . . [and]
`
`translate messages from the second format to the first format.” Id. at
`
`9:21-25.
`
`27. An example implementation of Fig. 3 is shown in Fig. 7 of the ’564 patent,
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`28. Figure 7 shows two example NIUs, namely the Cable Network Interface
`
`Module 26A and the Fibre Network Interface Module 26B, connected to a service
`
`delivery unit 28. Id. at 7:31-33. Within NIU 26A, a tuner 40 and a Data Over
`
`Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) module 42 act as the medium
`
`module 32. Id. at 7:54-56. The ’564 patent teaches that the interface 30 “shown
`
`schematically in FIG. 7 can be similar to any one of those shown in FIGS. 3-5.”
`
`Id. at 7:37-39. The Fig. 3 interface module 30 “must be preprogrammed to be
`
`usable with one or more different format types of network interface units 26 and
`
`service delivery units 28.” Id. at 6:20-22. For example, the Fig. 3 interface
`
`module 30 “may be preprogrammed to convert messages to/from a network
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`interface unit 26 for a cable network, and messages to/from a service delivery unit
`
`28 providing telephone services.” Id. at 6:23-26.
`
`29. The ’564 patent includes 27 claims, of which claims 1, 11, and 20 are
`
`independent. Claim 1 is directed to a network interface unit and reads in full:
`
`1. A network interface unit comprising:
`an interface for connecting a service delivery unit
`to a given medium, wherein the service delivery unit is
`any one type in a family of different types of service
`delivery units, each type of service delivery unit in the
`family providing a network service that is different than
`the network service provided by the other types of
`service delivery units in the family, the service delivery
`unit processing messages received in a first format;
`a medium module configured to process data for
`transmission between the given medium and the service
`delivery unit, the medium module transmitting messages
`toward the service delivery unit in a second format; and
`an
`interface module configured
`to
`receive
`messages transmitted between the medium module and
`the service delivery unit, the interface module being
`configured to translate messages from the second format
`to the first format.
`
`30. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1. The ’564 patent includes two additional
`
`independent claims, namely claims 11 and 20. Independent claim 11 is directed to
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 17 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`an SDU for providing a network service, and independent claim 20 is directed to a
`
`modular data communications equipment system including a family of different
`
`types of NIUs and a family of different types of SDUs. Thus, the ’564 patent
`
`includes a claim set directed to the NIU (claims 1-10), a claim set directed to the
`
`SDU (claims 11-19), and a claim set directed to a combination system of NIUs and
`
`SDUs (claims 20-27).
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I understand that in this proceeding, a patent claim receives the broadest
`31.
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears. I also understand that in these proceedings, any claim term that is not
`
`construed should be given its plain and ordinary meaning under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction. I have followed these principles in my analysis below.
`
`“Network Interface Unit”
`
`A.
`32. Claims 1-3 and 5-9 recite a “network interface unit.” In my opinion, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, after reviewing the ’564 patent, would understand the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “network interface unit” to mean “a device
`
`that forms a connection with a network.” This interpretation is consistent with the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of the word “interface” as it relates to the subject
`
`matter of the ’564 patent. For example, the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
`
`Dictionary defines the word “interface” to mean “the place at which independent
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 18 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`and often unrelated systems meet and act on or communicate with each other.” Ex.
`
`1006 at 6.
`
`33. The written description portion of the ’564 patent also is consistent with this
`
`interpretation. For example, the ’564 patent describes the network interface units
`
`as having “connection logic for connecting to a network medium” and including a
`
`medium module that “implements the underlying specification for transmitting
`
`data across the network medium 22 to which it is attached.” Ex. 1001 at 2:62-65,
`
`4:66-5:2. Further support in the ’564 patent is found in the statement that “[t]he
`
`appropriate network interface unit 26 then is selected for use in the access system
`
`18 based upon the network type 22 to which it is connected,” and in Fig. 2 of the
`
`’564 patent depicting the connection of the network medium 22 with the network
`
`interface unit 26. Id. at 5:17-20. Figure 3, reproduced below, shows network
`
`interface unit 26 connected to a network medium 22:
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 19 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`34.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner has recently stated that the “network
`
`interface unit” should mean “a functionally independent customer premises module
`
`that receives data from and transmits data to a given network medium.” Ex. 1007
`
`at 2. I, however, disagree with the Patent Owner’s interpretation. First, none of
`
`the claims of the ’564 patent requires the network interface unit to be located in a
`
`“customer premises.” Ex. 1001 at 9:7-12:18. Next, the Patent Owner’s
`
`interpretation also is incorrect because it is inconsistent with the way the phrase
`
`“network interface unit” is used in the ’564 patent. The specification makes only
`
`two references to a customer’s premises. Ex. 1001 at 4:14-16, 7:60-63. The first
`
`reference merely indicates that Fig. 1 depicts an example of the system used in a
`
`customer’s premises. Id. at 4:14-16, Fig. 1. Indeed, the ’564 patent specifically
`
`states that Fig. 1 shows an “exemplary network 10 that may be used in connection
`
`with the illustrative embodiments of the invention.” Id. 3:31-33, 4:3-5. The
`
`second reference cites to a “user’s premises” but references use of the network by
`
`multiple different users “external to the user’s premises.” Id. at 7:59-62 (emphasis
`
`added). Thus, this reference also does not require the network interface unit to
`
`necessarily be on a customer’s premises.
`
`35. Moreover, I also disagree with the Patent Owner’s interpretation because the
`
`network interface units disclosed by the ’564 patent are not “functionally
`
`independent.” First, none of the claims of the ’564 patent require the claimed
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 20 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`network interface units to be “functionally independent.” Id. at 9:7-12:18.
`
`Second, the specification of the ’564 patent uses the phrase “functionally
`
`independent” in only two instances. Id. at 3:60-62, 5:2-3, Fig. 2. In both cases, the
`
`’564 patent uses the phrase “functionally independent” to describe the benefits
`
`realized with the disclosed modular access system 18. Id. For example, the ’564
`
`patent describes that the type of network services a particular service delivery unit
`
`provides is not dependent on a particular network interface unit’s ability to
`
`communicate with a particular network medium. Id.
`
`36. Further, the Patent Owner’s interpretation is inconsistent with the teachings
`
`of the ’564 patent. For example, the specification of the ’564 patent teaches that
`
`network interface units cooperate with one or more service delivery units to
`
`provide a network service. Id. 2:56-60, 3:56-60, 4:46-55, 5:20-23, 8:52-59, Fig. 2.
`
`Thus, it is my opinion that the network interface units are not “functionally
`
`independent.”
`
`B.
`
`“Service Delivery Unit”
`
`37. Claims 1-3, 7, and 9 recite a “service delivery unit.” In my opinion, one of
`
`ordinary skill in art, after reviewing the ’564 patent, would understand the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of “service delivery unit” to mean “a device that delivers
`
`network services, where such delivery of network services can be directly to a user
`
`(e.g. via network devices such as a computer, IP telephone, or network appliance
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`(i.e., data termination equipment)), or indirectly to the user, such as via a cable
`
`conversion box that is connected to a television.”
`
`38. The specification of the ’564 patent is consistent with this interpretation.
`
`For example, the ’564 patent describes the service delivery units as “providing a
`
`network service [that] cooperates with a network interface unit to function as data
`
`termination equipment,” or cooperates with the network interface unit “to act as
`
`data communication equipment for data terminal equipment.” Ex. 1001 at 2:57-60,
`
`2:53-56 (emphasis added).
`
`39.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner recently has stated that the “service
`
`delivery unit” should mean only “a functionally independent customer premises
`
`module that communicates with a separate network device with which the end user
`
`interacts to receive a network service.” Ex. 1007 at 2. The Patent Owner’s
`
`interpretation is incorrect because it is inconsistent with the specification of the
`
`’564 patent. For example, as explained in Paragraph 36 above, the “service
`
`delivery unit” is described in the specification of the ’564 patent as either
`
`communicating with a separate network device or itself being part of the network
`
`device. Ex. 1001 at 2:57-60, 2:53-56. Thus, interpreting the phrase “service
`
`delivery unit” to necessarily require communication with a separate network
`
`device excludes examples of the service delivery unit functioning as a network
`
`device (i.e., data termination equipment). Id. at 1:29-35, 2:57-60.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 22 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`40.
`
`In addition, none of the claims of the ’564 patent require the service delivery
`
`unit to be located at a customer premises. As I explained above in Paragraph 34,
`
`the Specification makes only two references to a customer’s premises. Ex. 1001 at
`
`4:14-16, 7:60-63. The first reference merely indicates that Fig. 1 depicts an
`
`example of the system used in a customer’s premises. Id. at 4:14-16. Fig. 1 is
`
`expressly identified as an “exemplary” network that may be used in connection
`
`with the embodiments of the invention. Id. at 3:31-33, 4:3-5. The second
`
`reference cites to a “user’s premises” but references use of the network “external to
`
`the user’s premises.” Id. at 7:60-63. As with the network interface unit, this
`
`reference in the ’564 patent also does not require the service delivery unit to
`
`necessarily be on a customer’s premises.
`
`41. Furthermore, the Patent Owner’s interpretation is inconsistent with the
`
`specification because the disclosed service delivery units are not “functionally
`
`independent.” For example, even though the described service delivery units are
`
`modular, the ’564 patent expressly teaches that the service delivery units cooperate
`
`with at least one network interface unit to provide network services. Supra Section
`
`VI(A); see also 8:52-55. Indeed, as shown in Fig. 2, the service delivery units
`
`depend on the network interface units to interface with an external network. Id.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 23 of 66
`
`

`
`
`
`Family of Different Types of Service Delivery Units
`
`C.
`42. Claims 1, 3, and 7 recite “family of different types of service delivery units.”
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in art, after reviewing the ’564 patent, would
`
`understand the broadest reasonable interpretation of “family of different types of
`
`service delivery units” to mean “two or more types of service delivery units, where
`
`each type of service delivery unit delivers a network service that is different from
`
`the other service delivery units in some way, and where each service delivery unit
`
`includes a common characteristic, such as a connection with at least one network
`
`interface unit.”
`
`43. This interpretation is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`
`word “family” as it relates to the subject matter of the ’564 patent. For example,
`
`the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines the word “family” to mean a
`
`“group of things related by common characteristics.” Ex. 1006 at 4. The ’564
`
`patent describes various examples of service delivery units. For example, as
`
`described above, a service delivery unit may serve as Data Communication
`
`Equipment (DCE) such that it communicates with a network device (i.e., data
`
`