HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC., a
`Delaware corporation, and SIERRA
`WIRELESS, INC., a Canadian corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. N0. 12-030-RGA
`
`OPENING EXPERT REPORT OF DR. RAY W. NE'l'TLE'l”ON
`OPINING Tl-[AT SIERRA WIRELESS‘ ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`SATISFY THE “PROGRAMMABLE INTERFACE” CLAIM LIMITATION
`
`4813-2292-7394.1
`
`SIERRA WIRELESS 1008
`SIERRA WIRELESS 1008
`
`

`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My understanding is that Defendants Sierra Wireless America, Inc. and Sierra
`
`Wireless, Inc. (collectively, “Sierra Wireless” or “Defendant”) are asserting the position in this
`
`case that certain of their accused products do not infringe particular asserted claims of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,094,010 (the ‘“0l0 patent”) because they allegedly fail to satisfy the following
`
`structural limitation present in all such asserted claims: “a programmable interface for
`
`establishing a communication link with at least one monitored technical device.” I have been
`
`informed that although this case is not currently on schedule to go to trial and will first require a
`
`claim construction appeal to the Federal Circuit, the Court has nevertheless granted permission to
`
`Sierra Wireless to potentially file a summary judgment motion directed to its aforementioned
`
`“programmable interface” non-infringement position.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order and the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure, I am required to disclose at this time in the form of an Opening Report
`
`submitted on behalf of M2M Solutions LLC (“M2M” or “Plaintiff’) my expected direct expert
`
`opinion testimony pertaining to the issue of whether and how certain of Sierra Wireless’ accused
`
`products satisfy the “programmable interface” claim limitation. If requested, in the future I will
`
`provide an additional Rebuttal Report on behalf of M2M to disclose my rebuttal expert opinion
`
`testimony responsive to facts and issues that may hereafter be raised in any expert opinions or
`
`reports advanced by Sierra Wireless.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I was awarded a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Purdue University in 1978, and
`
`a Master’s of Science in Electrical Engineering, also from Purdue University, in 1976.
`
`4.
`
`I also hold a Bachelor of Technology degree, magna cum laude, from the University
`
`of Dayton, which was awarded in 1974.
`
`5. My Ph.D. research focused on technology for wireless telecommunications. My
`
`doctoral thesis topic was entitled “Spectral Efficiency in Land-Mobile Communications: A
`
`4813-2292-7394 1
`
`

`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`Spread Spectrum Approach.” It was a seminal work of relevance to the later adoption and use of
`
`CDMA technology in 3G wireless networks.
`
`6.
`
`The primary focus throughout my career has been wirelesstelecommunications
`
`networks, and devices and circuits for use in those networks.
`
`7.
`
`As an Associate Professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and in other
`
`institutions, I have taught graduate-level courses in wireless local area networks, public
`
`networks, satellite, and other wireless communications technologies.
`
`I remain on the adjunct
`
`faculty of the University of Colorado.
`
`8.
`
`Presently, I am an independent telecommunications consultant with a specialty in
`
`wireless communications. I have been in the wireless telecommunications field for 35 years and
`
`have been a consultant for an aggregate of 16 years.
`
`9.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit A, which includes all the
`
`publications I have authored in the previous 10 years, among others.
`
`III.
`
`PRIOR EXPERT TESTIMONY AND COMPENSATION
`
`10.
`
`Also included in Exhibit A is a listing of all other cases in which, during the previous
`
`4 years, I have testified as an expert at trial or by deposition.
`
`1 1.
`
`The compensation for my time spent in working on issues in this case is $450 per
`
`hour.
`
`I am also compensated for my expenses in relation to this matter. My compensation is not
`
`dependent on or related in any manner to the outcome of the current litigation.
`
`I have no
`
`financial interest whatsoever in the outcome of this litigation.
`
`
`
`4813-2292-7394.1
`
`

`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`128.
`
`First, for at least the past three to four decades, it has been the general understanding
`
`in the art of POSITAS and others that peripheral interfaces having configurable control registers
`
`are “programmable.” Indeed, as applied to peripheral interfaces in the relevant field of art, the
`
`terms “configure” and “configurable” have been used synonymously and interchangeably with
`
`the terms “program” and “programmable.” When a microprocessor sends a control signal that
`
`causes a designated parameter value to be written into the control register of a peripheral
`
`interface, the microprocessor is customarily regarded as having “programmed” the control
`
`register and therefore “programmed” the interface itself.
`
`4813-2292-7394.1
`
`

`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`1. The Long-Held General Understanding In The Art Is That Peripheral Interfaces
`Are “Programmable” Where They Comprise Control Registers That Can Be
`Configured By Microprocessors
`
`131.
`
`By way of limited representative examples, in the next several paragraphs I identify
`
`several of the standard and best-known peripheral interfaces in the relevant field of art over the
`
`past few decades that demonstrate the general understanding of POSITAS and others that
`
`peripheral interfaces are “programmable” where they have control registers that can be
`
`configured by microprocessors.
`
`_
`
`132.
`
`The 8251A UART peripheral interface chip sold by Intel has been an industry
`
`standard UART designed for use with certain Intel microprocessor families that provides the
`
`same basic functionality as the accused UART peripheral interfaces contained in the Accused
`
`Products. See, e. g., (DEFPRIORART008637-61). The 8251A has been generally understood in
`
`the art to be directly “programmable” because it is able to be configured by control signals sent
`
`by a microprocessor that cause designated parameter values to be written into its control
`
`registers. As set forth in its data sheet, the 8251A is expressly referred to as a “Programmable
`
`Communication Interface” because it can be “programmed by the CPU.”
`
`(DEFPRIORART008637). Indeed, “[p]rogramming the 8251A” is accomplished by writing a
`
`“set of control words generated by the CPU” into its control registers which serves to “program
`
`its functional definition.” (DEFPRIORARTOOS63 8, 644). Throughout the data sheet, the
`
`control registers of the 8251A are described as being “programmed” with parameter values for
`
`controlling various operations of the UART. (DEFPRIORART008638, 640, 643, 645, 648).
`
`133.
`
`The SCC2692 UART peripheral interface chip sold by Philips has been an industry
`
`standard UART that provides the same basic functionality as the accused UART peripheral
`
`interfaces contained in the Accused Products. See, e. g., (M2M00l 1451-80). The SCC2692 has
`
`been generally understood in the art to be directly “programmable” because it is able to be
`
`configured by control signals sent by a microprocessor that cause designated parameter values to
`
`be written into its control registers. As explained in the “Programming” section of its product
`
`specification, the “operation of the [SCC2692] .
`
`.
`
`. is programmed by writing control words into
`
`4813-2292-7394.1
`
`33
`
`

`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`the appropriate registers.” (M2M0011463). Throughout the product specification, the control
`
`registers of the SCC2692 and the parameter values that they store are described as being
`
`“programmed” or “programmable” for purposes of controlling various operations of the UART.
`
`(M2M00l1452, 11458-60, 11463-64, 11467-68).
`
`134.
`
`The a8251 UART peripheral interface functional block sold by Altera has been a
`
`popular implementation of the standard Intel UART that provides the same basic functionality as
`
`the accused UART peripheral interfaces contained in the Accused Products. See, e.g.,
`
`(M2M001l302-22). The a8251 has been generally understood in the art to be directly
`
`“programmable” because it is able to be configured by control signals sent by a microprocessor
`
`that cause designated parameter values to be written into its control registers. As set forth in its
`
`data sheet, the a8251 is expressly referred to as a “Programmable Communications Interface”
`
`because it supports a “programming operation” and “programming sequence” in which a
`
`“microprocessor writes to” its control registers. (M2M00l1302, 11311-12). Throughout the
`
`product specification, the control registers of the a8251 and the parameter values that they store
`
`are described as being “programmed” or “programmable” for purposes of controlling various
`
`operations ofthe UART. (M2M001l302, 11305-09, 11311-12, 11315, 11317).
`
`135.
`
`The PC 16550D UART peripheral interface chip sold by National Semiconductor has
`
`been an industry standard UART that provides the same basic fiinctionality as the accused
`
`UART peripheral interfaces contained in the Accused Products. See, e.g. ,
`
`(DEFPRIORART008764-85). The PC 16550D has been generally understood in the art to be
`
`directly “programmable” because it is able to be configured by control signals sent by a
`
`microprocessor that cause designated parameter values to be written into its control registers. As
`
`set forth in its data sheet, a “CPU can write control words .
`
`.
`
`. into the selected UART
`
`register[s]” which constitutes “programming” of the PC 16550D. (DEFPRIORART008774-75).
`
`Throughout the data sheet, the PC 16550D is described as having a “programmable baud rate
`
`generator,” “fully programmable serial interface characteristics,” “interrupts that can be
`
`4813-2292-7394.1
`
`34
`
`

`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`programmed to the user’s requirements,” and “programmed trigger level[s]” for its FIFO.
`
`(DEFPRIORARTOOS764, 779, 782).
`
`136.
`
`The TL16C752C UART peripheral interface chip sold by Texas Instruments is a
`
`popular implementation of the standard National Semiconductor UART that provides that same
`
`basic functionality as the accused UART peripheral interfaces contained in the Accused
`
`Products. See, e. g., (M2MO011481-537). The TL16C752C has been generally understood in the
`
`art to be directly “programmable” because it is able to be configured by control signals sent by a
`
`microprocessor that cause designated parameter values to be written into its control registers.
`
`Indeed, its data sheet includes a “Programmer’s Guide” which provides information about how a
`
`microprocessor can be used for “programming all the registers.” (M2M001 1525-26).
`
`Throughout the data sheet, various parameter values stored in its control registers are
`
`characterized as being “programmed” and “programmable.” (M2M0Ol1481, 11486-87, 11489,
`
`11495,11518,11520).
`
`137.
`
`The 8255A GPIO peripheral interface chip sold by Intel has been an industry standard
`
`GPIO that provides the same basic functionality as the accused GPIO peripheral interfaces
`
`contained in the Accused Products. See, e.g., (M2M0O11391-414). The 8255A has been
`
`generally understood in the art to be directly “programmable” because it is able to be configured
`
`by control signals sent by a microprocessor that cause designated parameter values to be written
`
`into its control registers. As set forth in its data sheet, the 8255A is expressly referred to as a
`
`“Programmable Peripheral Interface” that gets programmed when a “CPU ‘outputs’ a control
`
`word to the 8255A .
`
`.
`
`. that initializes the functional configuration of the 8255A.”
`
`(M2M0011393). In this matter, the “I/O pins .
`
`.
`
`. [of the GPIO peripheral interface] may be
`
`individually programmed.” (M2M001 1391).
`
`138.
`
`The MC6821 GPIO peripheral interface chip sold by Motorola has been an industry
`
`standard GPIO designed for use with certain Motorola microprocessors that provides the same
`
`basic functionality as the accused GPIO peripheral interfaces contained in the Accused Products.
`
`See, e. g., (M2M0011441-50). The MC6821 has been generally understood in the art to be
`3 5
`
`4813-2292-7394.1
`
`

`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`“programmable” because it is able to be configured by control signals sent by a microprocessor
`
`that cause designated parameter values to be written into its control registers. As described in its
`
`data sheet, the “functional configuration of the .
`
`.
`
`. [MC6821] is programmed by the MPU during
`
`system initialization” by causing “control words” to be written into its “programmable control
`
`registers.” (M2M001 1441, 11450). The data sheet further indicates that “[e]ach of the
`
`peripheral data lines [of the MC6821] can be programmed to act as an input or output, and each
`
`of the four control/interrupt lines may be programmed for one of several control modes.”
`
`(M2M0011441, 11447-48).
`
`139.
`
`The MS82C55A GPIO peripheral interface chip sold by Intersil has been a popular
`
`implementation of the standard Intel GPIO that provides the same basic functionality as the
`
`accused GPIO peripheral interfaces contained in the Accused Products. See, e.g.,
`
`(MZMOOI 1415-40). The MS82C55A has been generally understood in the art to be directly
`
`“programmable” because it is able to be configured by control signals sent by a microprocessor
`
`that cause designated parameter values to be written into its control registers. As set forth in its
`
`data sheet, the MS82C55A is expressly referred to as a “Programmable Peripheral Interface” that
`
`gets programmed when a “CPU ‘outputs’ a control word to the 82C55A .
`
`.
`
`. that initializes the
`
`functional configuration of the 82C55A.” (M2M0011415, 11418).
`
`In this manner, the “I/O pins
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. [of the GPIO peripheral interface] may be individually programmed.” (M2M00l 1415).
`
`140.
`
`The PL061 GPIO peripheral interface functional block sold by ARM has been an
`
`industry standard GPIO that provides the same basic functionality as the accused GPIO
`
`peripheral interfaces contained in the Accused Products. See, e.g., (M2M0011323-90). The
`
`PL061 has been generally understood in the art to be directly “programmable” because it is able
`
`to be configured by control signals sent by a microprocessor that cause designated parameter
`
`values to be written into its control registers. Indeed, its technical reference manual contains a
`
`chapter entitled “Programmer’s Model” that “describes the .
`
`.
`
`. [PL061] registers and provides
`
`details needed when programming the peripheral.” (M2M0011357). This technical reference
`
`manual further indicates that the PL061 GPIO has “programmable input/output pins,” as well as
`36
`
`4813-2292-7394.1
`
`

`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`“programmable interrupt capability” that is invoked through the “programming of the interrupt
`
`control registers.” (M2M0011339, 11342, 11348, 11352).5
`
`4813-2292-7394.1
`
`

`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`XII. RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT
`
`175.
`
`I understand that the Court could in the future provide additional or different claim
`
`constructions from those which I have relied upon in this report. Should the Court ultimately
`
`modify the meaning of any claim term discussed in this report, or provide constructions for claim
`
`terms which the Court has not previously construed in this action, I reserve the right to
`
`supplement my opinions accordingly.
`
`176.
`
`I understand that experts on behalf of Sierra Wireless will respond to my report and
`
`provide their opinions regarding the “programmable interface” claim limitation.
`
`I reserve the
`
`right to supplement my opinions to respond to any issues or opinions rendered by Sierra
`
`Wireless’ expert witnesses.
`
`177. My opinions and analyses contained herein are based upon information that is
`
`presently available to me. However, I understand that additional information may become
`
`available to me that may affect my opinions and analyses. For example, Sierra Wireless may in
`
`the future attempt to supplement or correct the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony of‘
`
`who was unprepared to knowledgeably answer many of the basic technical questions posed at his
`
`deposition.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement or amend my opinions in light of any additional
`
`evidence, testimony, or information that may be provided to me after the date of this report,
`
`including any opinions expressed by Sierra Wireless’ expert or lay witnesses during testimony at
`
`deposition or at trial, if any.
`
`Date: February 13, 2015
`
`4813-2292-7394.1
`
`L\///.,/7:’-t:’7t.:TS.
`
`Dr. Ray W. Nettleton
`
`52
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`DR. RAY W. NETTLETON
`
`23301 RIDGE ROUTE, SPC 112
`LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653
`949 916 2960 HOME/OFFIC
`E
`
`303 809 4223 MOBILE
`
`ray@raynettleton.com
`www.raynettleton.com
`
`Dr. Nettleton is a consultant and expert witness in wireless technologies and networking. His
`career has included roles as an entrepreneur, corporate officer,
`international businessperson,
`engineer, educator, author, lecturer, and researcher. He is a life member of the IEEE.
`
`Expert Witness
`
`0 Expert witness in patent infringement and other civil, regulatory and criminal matters
`
`0
`
`0
`
`IP litigation firms include Nixon Peabody, Wilmer Hale, Keker Van Nest, Latham
`Watkins, McKool Smith, Orrick, Hogan & Hartson, Freebom & Peters, Patton Boggs,
`Kenyon & Kenyon, Finnegan Henderson, Alston Bird, Workman Nydegger, Ropes &
`Gray, Baker Botts, Wilson Sonsini
`
`Provided expert witness testimony to Government hearings in Colombia, Brazil, New
`Zealand, Poland, UK, Ireland, South Africa, Philippines, and the FCC
`
`International telecommunications businesperon & consultant
`
`0 Consulting clients include Ball Wireless, Milcom Technologies, MCI, Avantel de Mexico,
`United International Holdings, Wireless Spectrum Inc., Vesuvius Inc., Superconducting
`Core Technologies, iSherpa, Sequel, Motorola, NASA, U S Navy & Air Force, and others
`
`0
`
`Performed business and technical feasibility and due diligence, technical and market
`strategy, and regulatory affairs consulting in the UK, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador,
`Bolivia, Colombia, Argentina, South Africa, most of Europe, Korea, India, China, Japan,
`Philippines, etc.
`
`Entrepreneur and Corporate Oflicer
`
`0 Co-founder and Chief Technology Officer, Formus Communications, an international
`wireless CLEC with license coverage exceeding 200 million pops in Europe
`
`Innovative telecommunications engineer & Reearcher
`
`0 Awarded the first two patents in CDMA technology for cellular telephone systems, issued
`in 1978 (stemming flom PhD thesis research) and ultimately leading to the worldwide
`adoption of CDMA for 3G cellphone technology.
`
`0 Conducted research in system performance, power control and code design for CDMA, and
`in dynamic channel allocation for FDMA and TDMA systems.
`'
`
`0 Established the first LMDS cellular propagation and interference trials (Phoenix, Arizona)
`
`0 Created the Boulder Industry PCS Test Bed and conducted trials with multiple vendors
`
`0 Designed the first 60GHz radio modem to use a Fast Fourier Transform-based algorithm to
`track very wide Doppler dynamics created by fighter aircraft motion
`
`Educator, Author, Lecturer
`
`0
`
`Interdisciplinary
`Boulder,
`—
`Colorado
`of
`University
`Professor Adjunct,
`Telecommunications Program and the Colorado Center for Astrodynarnics Research
`
`0 Taught electrical engineering at Michigan State University, University of Maryland, Johns
`Hopkins University, and University of Denver
`
`0 Over 85 articles in industry publications, conference proceedings and technical journals
`
`
`
`Dr. Ray W. Nettleton
`
`Page 1
`
`

`
`
`
`EXPERIENCE
`
`February 1994 — Present: CONSULTANT; Clients ranging from Fortune 500 to nascent start-ups.
`Sample assignments:
`
`0 New product development for Pfizer Animal Health, Inc.
`
`0
`
`Technical and Regulatory Analysis for Wilson Electronics Inc.
`
`0 Regulatory engineering support to wireless network planning for Hawaiian Telcom
`
`0
`
`Provided technology and network consulting to Velocom, a major CLEC in Argentina, Brazil
`and Uruguay
`
`0 Advised Military Commercial Technologies (MILCOM) on two potential investments relating
`to the commercialization of military technology
`
`0 Wrote Wireless Services research report for RHK, a Silicon Valley telecom consulting house
`
`0 Advised Ball Wireless on future market strategy
`
`0 Network and wireless link analysis for ISCO International
`
`0
`
`0
`
`Investment advisor to Venture Capital Companies iSherpa (Denver) and Sequel (Boulder)
`
`Exposed fatal flaws in MCI’s proposed acquisition of Nextel stock (Nextel used the iDEN
`technology) and shut down the transaction
`
`0 Advised MCI on the technology and economics of LMDS and LEO satellite systems
`
`0 Created wireless local loop plan for Avantel de Mexico
`
`0
`
`Performed technical due diligence for United International Holdings on the acquisition of
`Wireless Ventures International of Brazil (later acquired by Nextel International)
`
`0 Wrote marketing plan “Cellular base station receiver front ends” for SCT
`
`0 Re-wrote network design plan for Motorola iDEN system in Beijing, China
`
`0 Wrote “Smart Convolution” fast computer algorithm to evaluate intermodulation products in a
`multi-tenant radio tower enviromnent, for UniSite
`
`0 Expert witness in intellectual property litigation and criminal matters (see appendix for public
`domain details.) Expert witness to Government wireless telecom-related hearings including the
`International Trade Commission and the Federal Communication Commission. See appendix
`for details.
`
`April 2002 - present: PROFESSOR ADJUNCT, Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program,
`College of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Colorado — Boulder. The Program
`offers a graduate degree in Interdisciplinary Telecommunications, combining instruction in the
`technical, economic, legal, regulatory and business aspects of the telecommunications industry.
`It
`also offers joint degrees with the College of Engineering, the Graduate School of Business, and the
`School of Law. Also teach courses at the Colorado Center for Astrodynarnics Research
`
`Teach courses in: local area networks, public networks, satellite, and wireless communications
`technologies.
`
`Performed research in: Ad Hoc Antenna Arrays, ad hoc network addressing, and core network
`aspects of cellular / Wi-Fi handoff.
`
`October 1996 — December 2000: CO-FOUNDER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT & CHIEF
`TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, Fonnus Communications Inc., a $lB international broadband
`connectivity and IP solutions company with license population coverage of 200 million.
`Responsible for technology policy, selection of network vendors and architectures, advising
`national
`telecommunications regulators. Chief spokesman at conferences. Regular strategy
`advisor in Formus Board meetings.
`
`
`
`Dr. Ray W. Nettleton
`
`Page 2
`
`

`
`
`
`0 One of three-executive team responsible for acquisition of Fixed Wireless Access Licenses in:
`USA, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Uruguay, Ecuador Norway, Ireland, Finland, Denmark,
`Poland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Spain Germany, Switzerland, and New Zealand
`0 Also participated in plarming for businesses in South Africa, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand,
`Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines.
`
`April 1991 - February 1994: DIRECTOR & DISTINGUISHED MEMBER, TECHNICAL STAFF,
`U S WEST Advanced Technologies, Inc., the R&D arm of U S WEST Communications (formerly
`acquired by Qwest, now CenturyLink). Directed 50 professionals in engineering, mathematics,
`computer science, economics etc.
`
`0 Directed creation of plans and new services to enter the wireless market at 1.9GHz
`0
`Produced plans for Wireless Local Loop to enter new markets abroad, to answer competitive
`threats at home, and to solve the "held-order" problems of un-served customers
`
`0
`
`Performed technical "due diligence" studies on wireless-related investment opportunities
`
`April 1989 - April 1991: SENIOR ASSOCIATE, Booz| Allen | Hamilton, Inc., a major technology
`and business-consulting house. Provided technical leadership to 28 professionals working on
`satellite
`communications.
`Built consulting business
`in cellular, personal and satellite
`communications; managed proposals, marketing and consulting projects.
`
`0 Brought in four new contracts to the firm totaling $1.5M
`0 Gave expert witness testimony before a hearing of the New Zealand Commerce Commission
`concerning a license dispute. The Commission found in favor of our client (First City Great
`Britain Ltd.)
`0 Advised on cellular spectrum regulatory plans for Booz|Allen’s clients Ofiel, the British
`telecommunications regulating board, and Austel, its Australian equivalent
`0 Designed and performed ground and airborne proof-of-concept tests. Wrote and presented
`technical sections of American SkyCell's pleadings before the FCC
`
`0
`
`Performed spacecrafi
`Spectrum Manager
`
`interference analyses and wrote analysis software for the NASA
`
`November 1986 - April 1989: PROJECT MANAGER, Stanford Telecommunications, Inc., a
`satellite communications manufacturing and consulting company (now part of Alcatel). Supervised
`seven professionals performing mathematical modeling, simulation and analysis of satellite
`communications systems.
`0 Built the analysis group from myself to seven, increasing the NASA funding level of one task
`by 400% and of a second by 100%
`Performed interference analyses and wrote analysis software for various NASA scientific
`spacecraft
`
`0
`
`Inc., a military
`July 1985 - October 1986: PRINCIPAL ENGINEER, McCreary Research,
`communications consulting firm. Responsible for technical analysis of various U S Navy
`communication systems
`
`I Authored communications plans and performed interference analyses for Navy satellite
`programs
`
`July 1983 - July 1985: MANAGER, Amecom Division of Litton Systems, Inc. (now part of
`Northrup Grumman), a telecommunications equipment and services provider to the U S Armed
`Forces. Supervised R&D in classified Government programs.
`0 Designed a 60GHz digital modem using a Fast Fourier Transform algorithm for demodulation
`and tracking ofthe very wide Doppler dynamics resulting from fighter aircrafi motion
`
`
`
`Dr. Ray W. Nettleton
`
`Page 3
`
`

`
`0 Designed signal processing algorithms and developed sofiware for a 200MHz-bandwidth
`optical film recorder used for electronic intelligence (ELINT) purposes
`
`1979 — 1983: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR of Electrical Engineering and Systems Science,
`Michigan State University. Taught graduate and undergraduate courses in communications, signal
`processing and signal theory, and probability and stochastic processes.
`
`0 Won research grants from the National Science Foundation and Hitachi. Performed and
`supervised research into power control and composite code design for CDMA cellular systems
`
`0
`
`Supervised PhD thesis "Power Control and Interference Management in a Spread Spectrum
`Cellular Mobile Radio System", by Hossein Alavi, 1984
`
`EDUCATION
`
`Ph.D.
`
`Purdue University, EE/Communications, December 1978
`
`"Spectral Efficiency in Land-Mobile Communications: A Spread-
`Thesis topic:
`Spectrum Approach", supervised by Dr. George R. Cooper.
`
`M.S.E.E.
`
`Purdue University, June 1976
`
`B.Tech.
`
`University of Dayton, Magna cum Laude, June 1974
`
`U.S. PATENTS
`4,222,115
`"Spread. Spectrum Apparatus for Cellular Mobile Communication Systems".
`George R. Cooper, co-inventor
`
`4,189,677
`
`"Demodulator Unit for Spread Spectrum Apparatus Utilized in a Cellular Mobile
`Communications System". George R. Cooper and David P. Grybos, co-inventors
`
`These patents have been cited in 291 other patents in the interval 1979 to 2014.
`
`PUBLICATIONS
`
`Reports for Client or Internal Use
`
`1.
`
`“Wireless equipment recommendations for Brazil and Argentina”, for Velocom, Inc., June
`200 1
`
`2.
`
`“Wireless Strategy Options”, for Ball Aerospace commercial wireless division, April 2001
`
`3.
`
`“Local Loop Replacement: A Report on Technology, Regulation, Economics and Business
`Issues”, confidential client, September 1995
`
`4.
`
`“A Primer on Low Earth Orbiting Satellites”, for MCI, January 1995.
`
`5.
`
`“Avantel Deployment Program Plan”, for Avantel de Mexico, December 1994.
`
`6.
`
`“Spectrum Policy Choices for Mexico”, white paper for Avantel de Mexico and the SCT
`(Mexico’s regulatory body), November 1994.
`
`7.
`
`“Nextel Technology Assessment”, due diligence report for MCI, June 1994
`
`8.
`
`"Wireless Approaches to Video and Broadband," white paper for U S WEST, January 1994.
`
`9.
`
`"PCS Overview and Strategies," white paper for U S WEST, Fall 1993.
`
`10. "Wireless Approaches to Fixed Loop Provisioning," white paper for U S WEST, Fall 1993.
`
`11. "Opporttmities in the Mobile Radio Marketplace," prepared for Hughes Network Systems,
`Germantown, Maryland, December 3, 1990.
`
`Dr. Ray W. Nettleton
`
`Page 4
`
`

`
`12. "Orbital Aspects of Interference Among S-Band Data Relay Satellite User Spacecraft,"
`Prepared under NASA Contract, December 1989.
`
`13. "Potential Interference between ATDRSS and DSCS," Prepared under NASA Contract, March
`10, 1989.
`
`14. "Comments on Interference Effects fi'om Japanese DRTS Spacecraft at 170 degrees," Prepared
`under NASA Contract, December 13, 1988.
`
`15. "FDMA Performance of the TDRS K“ Band Transponder," Technical Memo to Code 530,
`prepared under contract to NASA.
`
`16. "S-Band Frequency Sharing Among Research and Applications Satellites," 8th Annual
`Meeting of the Space Frequency Coordination Group, November 9-15, 1988, Buenos Aires,
`Argentina. Prepared under NASA Contract.
`
`17. "Properties of TDRSS Pseudonoise Sequences," STI/TR880l41, September 1988. Technical
`memo to the Space Network Interoperability Panel. (NASA, ESA, NASDA.) Prepared under
`NASA contract, September 1988.
`
`18. "Simultaneous Access of the two KSA Services of One TDRS by STS and SSF," Prepared
`under NASA contract, August 6, 1988.
`
`19. "Naval UHF SATCOM Systems Spectral Assessment." Prepared under contract to Space and
`Naval Warfare Systems Command, Navy Space Project Office, September 1985.
`
`20. "UHF Follow-On Satellite Communication Package Specification Analysis." Prepared under
`contract to Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Navy Space Project Office,
`September 1985.
`
`21. "Comparison of Risk in Services Offered by Two Computer Disaster Recovery Companies,"
`Prepared under contract to Manufacturers Hanover Bank, January 1985.
`
`22. "Anti-Jam Properties of Slow Frequency-Hopping Signals." Litton Amecom White Paper,
`proprietary, August 1983.
`
`23. "Civil Applications of Spread Spectrum, Phase 11, Volume 2; Composite Sequences for
`Pseudonoise Signaling." Prepared under contract to Hitachi Central Research Laboratories,
`July 1982.
`
`24. "Civil Applications of Spread Spectrum, Phase 11, Volume 1; Frequency Hopping Sequences."
`Prepared under contract to Hitachi Central Research Laboratories, January 1982.
`
`25. "Spectral Efficiency in Land-Mobile Communications: A Spread-Spectrum Approach,"
`technical report TR-EE 78-44, Purdue University, prepared under NSF contract. A reprint of
`the author's Ph.D. thesis, December 1978. With George R. Cooper.
`
`Publication, Presentations and Reports in the Public Domain
`
`26. “Push to Talk over Cellular (PoC): Business Opportunities and Challenges” published by
`Mindcommerce, February 2008
`
`27. “Solving the Last Mile Problem with Centimeter-Wave Fixed Broadband Wireless”,
`multiclient report published by RI-IK, Fall 2001
`
`
`Dr. Ray W. Nettleton
`
`Page 5
`
`

`
`
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`“Ultrawideband Interference and Pulse Repetition Frequency”, ex Qarte comments of the
`WCA, Docket 98-153, in the matter ofmodifying the Part 15 rules for ultrawideband
`emissions, August 2001
`
`“Eliminating the Truck Roll Problem in BW ”, WCAI Conference wireless Ngwl, Boston,
`MA, June 27-30, 2001
`
`“Millimeter Wave Equipment Outlook II”, IWPC conference Millimeter Wave Supply Chain
`
`Summit Washington, D.C., April 2001
`
`
`“Broadband Wireless Access in Europe”, KC Global Conference on Broadband Access
`Amsterdam, October 23"‘ 2000
`
`“The Outlook for Multipoint Broadband Wireless Access”, Keynote speech at the Broadband
`Solutions Conference, Dallas, April 10”‘ 2000;
`
`“Formus and Multipoint Systems”, IBC Broadband Summit at the Dorchester, London, April
`17"‘ 2000;
`
`“Formus and Multipoint Systems”, Convergence 2000 conference in Brussels, May 22"‘ 2000;
`
`“Economics of Broadband Wireless Access”, IBC Broadband Conference in Stockholm, June
`15"‘ 2000;
`
`“What Service Providers Want”, Wireless Communications Association’s WCA2000 at the
`New Orleans Convention Center, July 11”‘ 2000.
`
`“Standards in BW ”, Wireless Communications Association’s WCA2000 at the New Orleans
`Convention Center, July 10"‘ 2000.
`
`“Millimeter Wave Equipment Outlook”, IWP