`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Case: IPR2015-____
`
`_________________
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Exhibits Referenced in This Declaration ............................................................ v
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS ........................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Educational Background ................................................................ 2
`
`Career History and Relevant Industry Participation ...................... 2
`
`II.
`
`SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT, COMPENSATION ................................... 6
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN MY ANALYSIS ................................. 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................ 8
`
`Prior Art .......................................................................................... 9
`
`C. Obviousness .................................................................................. 10
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS .......................................................... 12
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................... 13
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................... 13
`
`VII. THE ’883 PATENT ................................................................................ 15
`
`A. Background of the ’883 Patent ..................................................... 15
`
`B. Overview of the ’883 Patent – The Alleged Invention ................ 16
`
`C. Overview of Claims 1, 3, and 4 of the ’883 Patent ...................... 22
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF TRUNKED RADIO SYSTEMS ................................ 25
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Trunked Radio Systems Generally ............................................... 25
`
`Signalling Data vs. Bearer Traffic in Multiple Access
`Systems ......................................................................................... 27
`
`C. Overview of MPT ......................................................................... 33
`
`IX.
`
`INVALIDITY OVER MPT .................................................................... 44
`
`A.
`
`Claim 1 Would Have been Obvious Over MPT 1343 In
`View of MPT 1347 and MPT 1327 .............................................. 44
`
`1.
`
`Preamble: “In a multiple access communication
`system comprising a central controller, a shared
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`transmission means for signalling data and user
`information, and a plurality of remote terminals, a
`method of allocating signalling data channels
`between said entral controller and said plurality of
`remote
`terminals
`from
`a
`plurality
`of
`communication channels and of assigning remote
`terminals . . .” ................................................................... 45
`
`[A]: “establishing communications
`Limitation
`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” ................................................... 59
`
`the status of a
`Limitation [B]: “monitoring
`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” ............................................................................ 73
`
`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” ............................................................................. 79
`
`Limitation [D]: “determining whether a different
`and suitable signalling data channel is available
`other than said predetermined channel.” ............................ 85
`
`Limitation [E]: “reassigning by said central
`controller said remote terminal to a different and
`suitable signalling data channel for communication
`henceforward.” ................................................................... 94
`
`It would have Been Obvious to Modify MPT 1343
`to Provide for
`the Additional Features and
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`ii
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Capabilities Contained in MPT 1327 and MPT
`1327. ................................................................................... 99
`
`B.
`
`Claim 3 Would Have Been Obvious Over the Combined
`Teachings of the MPT 1343, MPT 1347, and MPT 1327,
`and Further In View of the Zudnek Patent and the
`Dufresne Patent .......................................................................... 102
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Preamble: “In a multiple access communication
`system according
`to claim 1, said step of
`monitoring the status of a plurality of the signaling
`data channels
`in use between said central
`controller and said plurality of remote terminals
`for usability of said signaling data channels” .................. 103
`
`Limitation [A]: “calculating the aggregate traffic
`load requirements of said plurality of signalling
`data channels in use” ........................................................ 103
`
`Limitation [B]: “monitoring the past collision
`count of said plurality of signalling data channels
`in use”............................................................................... 110
`
`Limitation [C]: “Monitoring the transmission error
`count of said plurality of signalling data channels
`in use”............................................................................... 116
`
`Limitation [D]: “sensing the status of said plurality
`of signalling data channels in use for failure” ................. 117
`
`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 ................. 120
`
`C.
`
`Claim 4 Would Have Been Obvious Over MPT 1343 in
`view of MPT 1327 and MPT 1347 ............................................ 122
`
`1.
`
`Preamble: “In a multiple access communication
`system according
`to claim 1, said step of
`
`iii
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`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” ........................... 123
`
`the status of said
`Limitation [A]: “sensing
`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” ................................................... 123
`
`the status of said
`Limitation [B]: “sensing
`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” ........... 128
`
`X. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 131
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibits Referenced in This Declaration
`
`COX EX. NO.
`1001
`
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`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, 2001) (excerpts)
`Radiocommunications Agency Home Page (last visited
`
`v
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COX EX. NO.
`
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION
`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
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I.
`
`I Stuart Lipoff hereby declare as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`2. My name is Stuart Lipoff. I am currently the president of IP Action
`
`Partners Inc. and have over 40 years of experience in a wide variety of
`
`technologies and industries relating to data communications, including data
`
`communications over wireless and cable systems networks.
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained by Cox Communications, Inc. (“Cox”) in
`
`connection with its request for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,563,883 (“the ’883 Patent”). I have been also been retained by ARRIS
`
`Group, Inc. (“ARRIS”) in connection with its request for inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883 (Case No. IPR2015-00635). 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,
`
`
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`3 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
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`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 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.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`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 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
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT, COMPENSATION
`
`17.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`on certain prior 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.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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.,
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`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 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
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`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 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
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1 and 4 would have been obvious over MPT 1343 in view
`of MPT 1327 and MPT 1347;
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`channel” and “said predetermined channel,” I have been asked to apply the
`
`plain 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.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`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 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
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 22
`
`
`
`
`
`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 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
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 23
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 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
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Cox Communications - Exhibit 1002 Page 24
`
`
`
`
`
`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 ver