UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Case: IPR2015-____
`
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,563,883
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ............................................... 2
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................ 2
`B.
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 2
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 3
`D.
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................... 3
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................... 4
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 A. ................................... 4
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................. 4
`B.
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 5
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b),
`42.104(b)(3) ........................................................................................... 6
`D. How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(4) ........................................................................................... 7
`Supporting Evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .......................... 8
`E.
`SUMMARY AND TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ’883
`PATENT .......................................................................................................... 8
`A.
`The Alleged Invention of the ’883 Patent ............................................. 8
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 9
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) .................... 9
`A. Overview of the MPT Specifications .................................................... 9
`1.
`Technical Overview of the MPT Specifications ......................... 9
`2.
`The MPT Specifications Are Printed Publications ................... 16
`3.
`The Functionalities Defined By the MPT Specifications
`Were Intended to be Combined ................................................ 17
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1 and 4 are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`As Obvious Over MPT 1343 In View of MPT 1347 and MPT
`1327 ..................................................................................................... 19
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 19
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Preamble: “In a multiple access communication
`system comprising a central controller, a shared
`transmission means for signalling data and user
`information, and a plurality of remote terminals, a
`method of allocating signalling data channels
`between said central controller and said plurality
`of remote terminals from a plurality of
`communication channels and of assigning remote
`terminals . . . .” ................................................................ 19
`Limitation [A]: “establishing communications
`between said central controller and said plurality
`of remote terminals via a plurality of signalling
`data channels, each of said remote terminals being
`initially assigned to a pair of predetermined
`signalling data channels” ................................................ 24
`i.
`Limitation [A], Example 1: Channel Hunt
`Sequence and Normal Operation on Control
`Channel ................................................................. 26
`Limitation [A], Example 2: Fall-back
`Procedures ............................................................ 29
`Limitation [B]: “monitoring the status of a
`plurality of signalling data channels in use between
`said central controller and said plurality of remote
`terminals for the usability of said signalling data
`channels” ......................................................................... 31
`i.
`Limitation [B], Example 1: Channel Hunt
`Sequence and Normal Operation on Control
`Channel ................................................................. 32
`Limitation [B], Example 2: Fall-Back
`Procedures ............................................................ 33
`Limitation [CJ: “determining whether one of said
`plurality of remote terminals needs to be
`reassigned to a different signalling data channel
`other than said predetermined signalling data
`channel” .......................................................................... 34
`
`ii.
`
`ii.
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`b.
`
`2.
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`ii.
`
`ii.
`
`Limitation [C], Example 1: Channel Hunt
`Sequence and Normal Operation on Control
`Channel ................................................................. 35
`Limitation [C], Example 2: Fall-Back
`Procedures ............................................................ 36
`Limitation [D]: “determining whether a different
`and suitable signalling data channel is available
`other than said predetermined channel” ......................... 38
`i.
`Limitation [D], Example 1: Channel Hunt
`Sequence and Normal Operation on Control
`Channel ................................................................. 38
`Limitation [D], Example 2: Fall-Back
`Procedures ............................................................ 42
`Limitation [EJ: “reassigning by said central
`controller said remote terminal to a different and
`suitable signalling data channel for communication
`henceforward” ................................................................. 43
`i.
`Limitation [E], Example 1: Channel Hunt
`Sequence and Normal Operation on Control
`Channel ................................................................. 43
`Limitation [E], Example 2: Fall-Back
`Procedures ............................................................ 45
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 46
`a.
`Preamble: “In a multiple access communication
`system according to claim 1, said step of
`determining whether one of said plurality of
`remote terminals needs to be reassigned to a
`different signalling data channel other than said
`predetermined signalling data channel comprising
`the steps of:” ................................................................... 46
`Limitation [A]: “sensing the status of said
`predetermined signalling data channel which said
`terminal has been assigned to for overloading to
`determine whether said terminal needs to be
`reassigned to a different signalling data channel
`because of overloading;” ................................................ 47
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`c.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Limitation [B]: “sensing the status of said
`predetermined signalling data channel which said
`terminal has been assigned to for failure to
`determine whether said terminal needs to be
`reassigned to a different signalling data channel
`because of failure.” ......................................................... 49
`C. Ground 2: Claim 3 is Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As
`Obvious Over MPT 1343 In View of MPT 1347 and MPT 1327
`as Applied to Claim 1, and Further In View of Zudnek and
`Dufresne .............................................................................................. 51
`1.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 51
`a.
`Preamble: “In a multiple access communication
`system according to claim 1, said step of
`monitoring the status of a plurality of the
`signalling data channels in use between said
`central controller and said plurality of remote
`terminals for the usability of said signalling data
`channels comprising the steps of” .................................. 51
`Limitation [A]: “calculating the aggregate traffic
`load requirements of said plurality of signalling
`data channels in use;” ..................................................... 52
`Limitation [B]: “monitoring the past collision
`count of said plurality of signalling data channels
`in use;” ............................................................................ 55
`Limitation [C]: “monitoring the transmission error
`count of said plurality of signalling data channels
`in use;” ............................................................................ 57
`Limitation [D]: “sensing the status of said plurality
`of signalling data channels in use for failure.” ............... 58
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Cox Ex. No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Brief Description
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,883 to Cheng
`Declaration of Stuart Lipoff
`Curriculum Vitae of Stuart Lipoff
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order from C-
`Cation Techs., LLC v. Comcast Corp., et. al., 2:11-CV-30-
`JRG-RSP, Dkt. 222 (Jul. 3, 2013)
`MPT 1327: A Signalling Standard for Trunked Private
`Land Mobile Radio Systems (Revised and reprinted
`November 1991) (“MPT 1327”)
`MPT 1343: Performance Specification; System Interface
`Specification for radio units to be used with commercial
`trunked networks operating in Band III sub-bands 1 and 2
`(Revised and Reprinted September 1991) (“MPT 1343”)
`MPT 1347: Radio interface specification; For commercial
`trunked networks operating in Band III, sub-bands 1 and 2
`(Revised and Reprinted September 1991) (“MPT 1347”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,870,408 to Zudnek
`U.S. Patent No. 4,920,533 to Dufresne et al.
`Radiocommunications Agency: 91-92 Annual Report
`William Stallings, LOCAL AND METROPOLITAN
`AREA NETWORKS (4th Ed. MacMillan Publishing Co.
`(1993))
`John Graham, The Facts on File Dictionary of
`Telecommunications (1983)
`C-Cation Technologies, LLC’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief in C-Cation Techs., LLC v. Comcast
`Corp., et al., No. 2:11-cv-00030-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 187 (filed
`Mar. 22, 2013)
`Robert I. Desourdis, Jr., et al., EMERGING PUBLIC
`SAFETY WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS
`(Artech House, 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
`v
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Cox Ex. No.
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`Brief Description
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Cox Communications, Inc. petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R., Part 42 of claims 1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,563,883 (“the ’883 Patent”) and shows herein that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it will prevail by proving those claims are invalid.
`
`The methods of “allocating signalling data channels,” Ex. 1001 at 14:30-32,
`
`based on various channel conditions recited in claim 1, 3, and 4 were well known
`
`to those having ordinary skill in the art by the July 18, 1994 filing date of the ’883
`
`Patent. As demonstrated below, the challenged claims are invalid under § 103(a)
`
`as being obvious over a collection of related technical specifications promulgated
`
`by the British Ministry of Post and Telecommunications (“MPT”) relating to
`
`trunked radio communications. See generally Exs. 1005-1007 (collectively “the
`
`MPT Specifications”).
`
`On July 31, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted-in-part the
`
`petition of ARRIS Group, Inc. for inter partes review of the ’883 patent in Case
`
`IPR2015-00635 (“ARRIS IPR”) finding there was “a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1, 3, and 4”
`
`on the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`A. Claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over MPT
`
`1343, MPT 1347, and MPT 1327; and
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`B.
`
`Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over MPT 1343,
`
`MPT 1347, MPT 1327, Zdunek, and Dufresne.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), Petitioner
`
`submits concurrently herewith a motion for joinder with the ARRIS IPR.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Cox Communications, Inc. is a real party-in-interest for the instant petition.
`
`CoxCom, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cox Communications, Inc., is also a
`
`real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`The ’883 Patent is asserted against Petitioner in C-Cation Techs., LLC v.
`
`Atlantic Broadband Group LLC, et al., C.A. No. 15-295 (RGA) (D. Del.). The
`
`’883 patent is also asserted in C-Cation Techs., LLC v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et
`
`al., No. 2:14-cv-00059 (E.D. Tex.). The ’883 Patent is also involved in pending
`
`inter partes review Nos. IPR2015-00635 filed by ARRIS Group, Inc. and
`
`IPR2015-01045 filed by Unified Patents Inc. Unified Patents Inc. has also filed an
`
`Unopposed Motion for Joinder (Paper No. 11) to join the ARRIS IPR.
`
`The ’883 Patent was asserted in the following actions: C-Cation Techs., LLC
`
`v. Cable One, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00030 (E.D. Tex.) (filed Jan. 25, 2011; terminated
`
`Jan. 21, 2014); Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. C-Cation, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-
`
`01922 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed Mar. 18, 2011; terminated Jan. 21, 2014). It was also the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`subject of IPR2014-00454 filed by Cisco Systems, Inc.1 and IPR2014-00746 filed
`
`by ARRIS Group, Inc.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Lead Counsel
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Registration No. 39,389
`
`1 The Board denied institution in IPR2014-00454. The petition in that proceeding
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Michael J. Turton
`Registration No. 40,852
`
`was based in part on the MPT Specifications relied on herein. The board found that
`
`the petition failed to “provide sufficient articulated reasoning with rational
`
`underpinning explaining why one with ordinary skill in the art would modify the
`
`teachings of the applied references to arrive at the claimed invention.” See Cisco
`
`Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 14-15
`
`(Aug. 29, 2014). ARRIS Group Inc.’s prior petition in IPR2014-00746 was based
`
`on a U.S. Patent to McNamara and institution against claims 1, 3, and 4 was denied
`
`because McNamara allegedly taught away from the claimed invention. Because:
`
`(1) the MPT Specifications are materially different from McNamara in that they do
`
`not include any alleged teaching away of a central controller as claimed; and (2)
`
`this petition and focuses on details of the MPT Specifications (alone or in
`
`combination with other references) that have never been addressed on the merits
`
`by the Office, the same, or substantially the same, prior art and arguments have not
`
`been presented to the Office before. Cf. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (2012).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`mstockwell@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta , GA 30309-4528 USA
`Telephone: (404) 815-6500
`Fax: (404) 541-3403
`
`
`mturton@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta , GA 30309-4528 USA
`Telephone: (404) 815-6500
`Fax: (404) 541-3403
`
`D.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Service via hand-delivery may be made at the postal mailing address of
`
`either lead or back-up counsel. Petitioner consents to service by e-mail.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`The required fee is being paid through the Patent Review Processing
`
`System.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR – 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 A.
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’883 Patent is available for IPR. Petitioner does
`
`not own the ’883 Patent. Neither Petitioner nor any real party-in-interest filed a
`
`civil action challenging the validity of a claim in the ’883 Patent other than
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Patent Owner’s complaint based on 35 U.S.C. §
`
`101. See C-Cation Techs., LLC v. Atlantic Broadband Group LLC, et al., C.A. No.
`
`15-295 (RGA) (D. Del.) (Dkt. 14). This Petition has been filed less than one year
`
`after the date on which Petitioner, a real party-in-interest, or a privy of the
`
`Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’883 Patent.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Neither Petitioner, any real parties-in-interest, nor any privies of Petitioner are
`
`estopped from challenging the claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`The timing of this Petition is also proper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). The
`
`ARRIS IPR for which joinder is requested was instituted less than one month ago
`
`on July 31, 2015, and this Petition is accompanied by a request for joinder filed as
`
`a motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.22.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1, 3, and 4 of the ’883 Patent in
`
`view of the following prior art references: (1) MPT 1327: A Signalling Standard
`
`for Trunked Private Land Mobile Radio Systems (“MPT 1327,” Ex. 1005); (2)
`
`MPT 1343: Performance Specification (“MPT 1343,” Ex. 1006); (3) MPT 1347:
`
`Radio Interface Specification (“MPT 1347,” Ex. 1007); (3) U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,870,408 to Zudnek (Ex. 1008) (“Zudnek”); and (4) U.S. Patent No. 4,920,533 to
`
`Dufresne et al. (Ex. 1009) (“Dufresne”).
`
`Each of these prior art references constitutes prior art under § 102 (pre-AIA)
`
`as demonstrated below.2 Based on these references, and as explained in detail
`
`below, Petitioner presents the following grounds for trial:
`
`
`2 Statutory citations are to Title 35 of the United States Code unless otherwise
`
`noted.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Ground 1: Claims 1 and 4 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) over MPT 1343 in view of MPT 1327, and MPT 1347.
`
`Ground 2: Claim 3 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over MPT 1343 in view of MPT 1327 and MPT 1347 and further in view of
`
`Zudnek and Dufresne.
`
`C. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b), 42.104(b)(3)
`The ’883 Patent has expired. The claims of an expired patent are construed
`
`according to the methodology set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`For the purposes of this proceeding, all terms should have their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning read in light of the ’883 Patent’s specification, as would have
`
`been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, except as otherwise
`
`discussed below.3 See, e.g., Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367,
`
`3 Claims may be held obvious under § 103(a) even where the scope of a claim is
`
`not reasonably certain as required by Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134
`
`S.Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014). In evaluating obviousness, what matters is whether a
`
`claim’s scope encompasses that which is obvious—not whether the full reach of
`
`the claim is reasonably certain, the latter requirement being one of definiteness. “If
`
`[a] claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103” and thus a showing
`
`that a claim extends at least as far as to cover “an obvious solution” to a recognized
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary
`
`meanings to one of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the
`
`specification and the prosecution history.”).
`
`In prior litigation, Magistrate Judge Payne construed certain terms of the
`
`’883 Patent. As relevant to this proceeding, Magistrate Judge Payne construed the
`
`phrases “said predetermined signalling data channel” and “said predetermined
`
`channel,” present in claims 1 and 4, to mean “one of the pair of predetermined
`
`signalling data channels,” Ex. 1004 at 41-44, which the Court found supported by
`
`Exhibit 1001 at 8:44-50. Therefore, to the extent that the scope of the claims using
`
`these phrases are reasonably certain despite a lack of antecedent basis, Petitioner
`
`proposes using Magistrate Judge Payne’s construction for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`D. How the Construed Claims are Unpatentable under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(4)
`
`An explanation of how construed claims 1, 3, and 4 are unpatentable under
`
`the grounds identified above, including the identification of where each element of
`
`the claim is found in the prior art patents and printed publications, is provided
`
`infra, § VII.
`
`
`problem in the art may prove that claim obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`
`U.S. 398, 419-20 (2007).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Supporting Evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)
`
`E.
`Each of the grounds for trial is supported by the Declaration of Mr. Stuart
`
`Lipoff, Ex. 1002 and the other exhibits filed herewith. Mr. Lipoff’s Declaration
`
`explains: the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art, how a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood scope and content of the prior art, and the
`
`conclusions that such a person would have made regarding the obviousness of the
`
`subject matter claimed.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY AND TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ’883
`PATENT
`
`The ’883 Patent relates to systems and methods for “facilitating the two-way
`
`multi-media communication based on a shared transmission media ….” See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:7-12; Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 36-37. This section summarizes some relevant
`
`aspects of the ’883 Patent.
`
`A. The Alleged Invention of the ’883 Patent
`The ’883 Patent “pertains generally to methods and apparatus for facilitating
`
`two-way multi-media communication based on a shared transmission media such
`
`as coaxial cable-TV network, and more specifically to methods and apparatus for
`
`signalling channel management and protocol.” Ex. 1001 at 1:7-12. After
`
`conceding that “[t]here are many proposals of means for dynamically adjusting the
`
`number of traffic-bearing channels according to varying traffic demands or the
`
`transmission quality in the radio telephony environment,” Ex. 1001 at 1:60-64, the
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`’883 Patent claims that its novelty relates to “a dynamic process . . . to adjust the
`
`number of signalling channels to meet the requirements of varying traffic demand
`
`and the system growth,” id. at 2:44-46. As had already been recognized in the
`
`prior art, this “aids in . . . redundancy for anomalies such as interference and
`
`component failure.” Id. at 2:49-52. In addition to signalling data, the signalling
`
`channels can carry “sporadic user data.” Id. at 3:52-55; 7:41-43.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`As of July 18, 1994, a person having ordinary skill in the art relevant to the
`
`’883 Patent would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, or
`
`have had an equivalent educational experience, and three or more years working in
`
`a relevant field employing digital communications
`
`technology
`
`to deliver
`
`telecommunication services, or alternatively a relevant field involving the
`
`manufacture of telecommunication products. See Ex. 1002, ¶ 31; Ex. 1003; Ex.
`
`1011 at viii; Ex. 1012 at 7 (discussing how telecommunications was being taught
`
`at the undergraduate level as of 1983). In this Petition, reference to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art refers to a person with these qualifications.
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`A. Overview of the MPT Specifications
`Technical Overview of the MPT Specifications
`
`1.
`
`The MPT Specifications are encyclopedic documents that describe system
`
`operations for the initiation and maintenance of communications in a standards-
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`compliant trunked radio network. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, Foreword; Ex. 1002, ¶65.
`
`The procedures used for establishing communications and maintaining those
`
`communications, as well as processes used during communication are described in
`
`various, interrelated sections. Each of the Specifications heavily references the
`
`others, and they are intended to be read together, as discussed in further detail
`
`below. The flowchart below illustrates how certain sections of the various MPT
`
`Specifications interrelate to one another to define specific system use cases.
`
`Starting with a user initially turning on a radio unit or selecting a trunking network
`
`to connect to, the radio unit attempts to “acquire a control channel emanated by the
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`selected network.” Ex. 1006, § 9.3.3.1; Ex. 1002, ¶ 114. Depending on the
`
`information retained in memory, the way the radio unit is configured, and the
`
`available control channels, the radio unit executes one or more control channel
`
`hunting procedure to “locate” an “appropriate control channel.” Id.
`
`For instance, when a radio that does not implement certain optional hunt
`
`stages is turned on and has a valid registration stored in memory from a prior use
`
`on the network, the radio unit executes the Single Channel Hunt Sequence and
`
`tunes to the channel indicated in the previous record. Id. at § 9.3.3.2.2; Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`71. If the Single Channel Hunt Sequence fails, the radio unit moves on to the
`
`Preferential Hunt Sequence, and so forth, until an appropriate control channel is
`
`located. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, § 9.3.3.2.2. (“Upon unsuccessful completion of the
`
`‘single channel hunt sequence’ the radio unit shall enter the ‘preferential hunt
`
`sequence’.”).
`
`Once a proper control channel has been located, the radio unit attempts to
`
`confirm that control channel by testing the channel in accordance with the
`
`procedures of MPT 1343 § 9.3.4 before any transmissions on the control channel
`
`are allowed. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, § 9.3.3.2.2. (“The radio unit shall not make any
`
`transmissions on a control channel until it has confirmed the channel in accordance
`
`with the procedure specified in 9.3.4 (including the error checking procedure
`
`specified in 9.3.4.4).”); Ex. 1002, ¶ 71. Control channel confirmation includes
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`several tests. Ex. 1002, ¶ 72. The radio unit determines that the control channel is
`
`appropriate to acquire by comparing the allowed category of radio units on that
`
`control channel (as contained in the LAB sub-field of the control channel’s system
`
`identification code) to its own categorization retained in the radio units read only
`
`memory. Ex. 1006, § 9.3.4.2.5. The radio unit also determines if the control
`
`channel will be suitable by monitoring the error rate of that control channel and
`
`comparing that against threshold requirements. Id. at § 9.3.4.3 (“Whilst receiving
`
`a control channel a radio unit shall monitor the codeword error rate and count the
`
`codewords received with errors . . . .”). If this error check fails then the radio unit
`
`leaves the control channel and returns to the control channel hunting procedures.
`
`Id. at § 9.4.1 (“Whilst active on a control channel, either prior to acquisition being
`
`confirmed or during activity subsequent to control channel confirmation, the radio
`
`unit shall monitor conditions on that channel and be prepared to leave the control
`
`channel and return to the control channel hunting procedures.”). If the testing
`
`succeeds then the hunt sequence is considered complete and the control channel
`
`confirmed. Id. at § 9.3.4.4; Ex. 1002, ¶ 72.
`
`Once a control channel is confirmed, the radio unit determines whether it is
`
`required to register before it is able to transmit freely. Ex. 1006, § 10.2.3; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 73. Registration is “a method of recording the area or group of areas
`
`where a radio unit is likely to be located within a network.” Ex. 1006, § 10.1.1.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Registration also “provides a means of restricting the service of individual radio
`
`units by allowing the network to deny registration requests.” Id.
`
`For basic registration, the radio unit determines if it is required to register
`
`based on the mode of the system (e.g., fall-back where registration is not required
`
`or normal operations where it may be), as well as based on the data retained in
`
`memory and broadcast on control channels. Id. at § 10.2.3 (“If the verified AREA
`
`code is zero, or the radio unit is personalised with a zero length AREA field, or the
`
`radio unit is in fall-back mode, the radio unit shall not seek to register by random
`
`access nor shall it create or alter any registration record.”); Ex. 1002, ¶ 72. If the
`
`radio unit determines registration is not required, it is free to transmit on the
`
`confirmed control channel. Ex. 1006, § 10.2.3 (“The radio unit shall note that
`
`registration is not required and that it is free to initiate calls.”).
`
`If registration is required, however, the radio unit checks to see if it holds a
`
`successful registration. Id. If not, the radio unit proceeds to execute the
`
`registration procedures of MPT 1343 § 10.2.4, which are either allowed, denied, or
`
`failed by the TSC. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, § 10.2.3; Ex. 1005, § 8.2.1.2; Ex. 1002, ¶
`
`74. If the registration is denied or failed, the radio unit defaults back to the control
`
`channel hunting procedures. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, §§ 10.2.4.1.2 & 10.2.4.1.3; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 74. If the registration is accepted the radio unit records a local copy of the
`
`registration record, Ex. 1006, § 10.2.4.1.1, and is free to transmit, id. at § 10.2.3
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`(“At any time that the radio unit holds a successful registration record relating to
`
`the verified AREA code, it is free to transmit . . . .”).
`
`Once registered, the radio unit enters normal operations on the network.
`
`This consists of making and receiving calls, Ex. 1006, § 11, sending and receiving
`
`data messages, id. at § 14, responding to subsequent registration demands by the
`
`TSC, id. at § 10.3.4.2, and monitoring of the control channels for inter alia errors,
`
`id. at § 11.3.2.3 & App’x A. Additionally, radio units may perform background
`
`searches for alternative control channels which “may offer greater spectral
`
`efficiency” or result in “improved quality of service to the user” while confirmed
`
`on a control channel. Id. at § 9.3.3.7; Ex. 1002, ¶ 156. The radio unit also
`
`monitors for a variety of conditions and receipt of specific messages that prompt
`
`the radio unit to re-enter the control channel hunting procedures as dictated by
`
`MPT 1343 § 9.4.1. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 140-141.
`
`In the event of a network failure, the network may implement a fall-back
`
`procedure to provide a reduced network capability until normal function is
`
`restored. See Ex. 1006, § 13; Ex. 1002, ¶ 80. This is a standard option for radio
`
`units and for standards-compliant MPT-based systems. Ex. 1006, § 13.1. When
`
`fall-back operation is signaled, “[e]ach radio unit . . . [relapses] to a pre-
`
`programmed channel” where “all members of a fleet [are] programmed with the
`
`same channel number.” Id. Modified procedures and limited call procedures are
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`utilized while in fall-back mode. Id. at § 13.4; Ex. 1002, ¶ 81. However, at least
`
`simple call messaging and data transfer messaging are allowed. Ex. 1006, § 13.4.1
`
`(“ALHF invites the following types of call request: RQS, RQX, RQT, RQE, RQQ
`
`and RQC” where “RQS” is a request for a simple call message and “RQC” is a
`
`request to transmit a short data message.); Ex. 1002, ¶ 135.
`
`Fall-back procedures may be terminated through either: (1) the network
`
`signalling the exit from fall-back, or (2) the user selecting to transfer to a different
`
`network. Ex. 1006, § 13.5. Additionally, the MPT Specifications recommend that
`
`“the radio unit hunts occasionally for a normal operation mode control channel,
`
`regardless of the quality of the channel and whether or not the radio unit is active.”
`
`Id.; Ex. 1002, ¶ 158. In each ca