UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ELBIT SYSTEMS LAND AND C4I LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00135
`Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Description
`Excerpt of Peterson & Davie, Computer Networks: A System
`Approach (2d ed. 2000) (page 412)
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 2001
`
`
`
`– i –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’874 PATENT ........................................................... 5
`
`SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES ASSERTED IN THE
`PETITION ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,459,708 to Cox ........................................................ 9
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`PCT Application No. WO 95/29576 to Arimilli ................................ 12
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,731,649 to Silverman ............................................ 15
`
`IV. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................. 16
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 17
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“Branch of a Cellular Telephone Network Based on a First
`Synchronous Data Communication Protocol” ................................... 18
`
`“Synchronous Data Communications Protocol” and
`“Asynchronous Data Communications Protocol” .............................. 20
`
`VI. PETITIONER HAS NOT SHOWN A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’874
`PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .................................................................. 20
`
`A.
`
`The Petition Lacks Articulated Reasoning Supported by
`Evidence for Multiple Claim Limitations .......................................... 21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Grounds 1–5: Petitioner Fails to Show that Arimilli
`Discloses the Claimed “synchronous data protocol [that]
`allows non-data carrying time slots” ....................................... 24
`
`Grounds 1–5: Petitioner Fails to Show that Arimilli
`Discloses “a non-data carrying time slot remover for
`removing said non-data carrying time slots during
`conversion into said asynchronous protocol” .......................... 33
`
`Ground 1: Petitioner Fails to Show that the Preamble of
`Claim 1 is Disclosed by the Combination of Cox and
`Arimilli ..................................................................................... 42
`
`– ii –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Ground 2: Petitioner Fails to Show that Claim 1 is
`Unpatentable over Cox in View of Silverman Further in
`View of Arimilli ....................................................................... 45
`
`Ground 3: Petitioner Fails to Show that Claims 8, 11 and
`12 are Unpatentable Over Cox in View of Silverman
`Further in View of Arimilli ...................................................... 48
`
`Ground 4: Petitioner Fails to Show that Claim 9 is
`Unpatentable Over Cox in View of Silverman Further in
`View of Arimilli Further in View of Henkel ........................... 53
`
`Ground 5: Petitioner Fails to Show that Claim 10 is
`Unpatentable Over Cox in View of Silverman Further in
`View of Arimilli Further in View of Houde ............................ 55
`
`B.
`
`Grounds 1–5: Petitioner Fails to Perform a Proper Graham
`Step-2 Analysis ................................................................................... 57
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`
`
`– iii –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases and Board Decisions
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ....................................... 21, 37
`
`Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc.,
`868 F.2d 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 18
`
`Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp.,
`323 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 19
`
`Fidelity Nat’l Info. Servs., Inc. v. Datatreasury Corp.,
`IPR2014-00489, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 13, 2014) ............................................... 43
`
`General Elec. Co. v. TAS Energy Inc.,
`IPR2014-00163, Paper 11 (PTAB May 13, 2014) ............................. 4, 27, 42, 44
`
`Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 23
`
`Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Gypsum Co.,
`195 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 19
`
`Google Inc. v. EveryMD.com LLC,
`IPR2014-00347, Paper 9 (PTAB May 22, 2014) ................................... 22, 58, 59
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ...................................................................................... 5, 21, 58
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................ 24, 33, 39, 42
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 17
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 22
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 17
`
`– iv –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01633, Paper 10 (PTAB Jan. 4, 2016) ............................................ 4, 27
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 53, 56, 57
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................................................. 1, 21, 33
`
`Marvel Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2014-00547, Paper 17 (PTAB Dec. 3, 2014) ............................................... 44
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 18
`
`Shopkick, Inc. v. Novitaz, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00277, -00278, Paper 7 (PTAB May 29, 2015) ................ 22, 45, 47, 59
`
`Tempur Sealy Int’l, Inc. v. Select Comfort Corp.,
`IPR2014-01419, Paper 7 (PTAB Feb. 17, 2015) .......................................... 31, 58
`
`Torrent Pharm. Ltd. v. Merck Frosst Canada & Co.,
`IPR2014-00559, Paper 8 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2014) ...................................... 23, 55, 57
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) .......................................................................... 21, 42, 44, 47
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a) ............................................................................................. 4, 27
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ........................................................................... 4, 23. 26, 29, 34
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ...................................................................................... 1, 21
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ..................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`– v –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`Patent Owner Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) provides
`
`the following preliminary response to the Petition (“Petition”) filed by Hughes
`
`Network Systems, LLC (“Petitioner”) on November 3, 2015, requesting inter
`
`partes review of claims 1 and 8-12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,245,874 (“the ’874
`
`Patent”). For at least the reasons set forth below, Patent Owner requests that the
`
`Board deny inter partes review as to all grounds presented in the petition.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Petition is deficient because the patchwork of references on which
`
`Petitioner relies to show obviousness fails to disclose multiple limitations of the
`
`claimed invention and, in fact, differs markedly from what is claimed. Petitioner
`
`ignores these differences. In addition, Petitioner fails to offer any substantive
`
`reasons for combining the deficient references beyond a recitation of KSR
`
`buzzwords and conclusory, unsupported expert opinion. Petitioner disregards
`
`KSR’s mandate that obviousness cannot be sustained by “mere conclusory
`
`statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
`
`underpinning,” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007), and the
`
`regulatory requirement to specify where each element of the challenged claims is
`
`found in the evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). As a result, Petitioner fails to
`
`meet its burden to show how its multiple-reference combinations lead to a
`
`reasonable likelihood that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`– 1 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`As discussed in more detail below, the claims of the ’874 Patent are directed
`
`to a novel interface in a cellular telephone network for converting between
`
`communication
`
`links using
`
`traditional
`
`telephony protocols (such as
`
`the
`
`synchronous T1/E1 protocol) and links using satellite-system protocols (such as
`
`the asynchronous TCP/IP protocol). Ex. 1001 at 1:53–62; 5:29–43; 6:53–7:32. In
`
`the ’874 Patent, synchronous protocols use time slots to preserve the temporal
`
`relationship among data. Asynchronous protocols in the ’874 Patent do not use
`
`time slots; instead they break data streams into multiple packets, each with a
`
`packet header that contains information that allows the receiver to reorganize the
`
`individual packets. Thus, links using traditional telephony protocols are not
`
`directly compatible with links using satellite-system protocols. The claimed
`
`interface of the ’874 Patent allows cellular networks to increase capacity and
`
`improve efficiency by adding the ability to convert the synchronous telephony data
`
`for transmission over asynchronous satellite links, to remove the non-data carrying
`
`time slots in the synchronous data before converting to, and transmitting over, the
`
`asynchronous satellite links, and to regenerate the time slots during reconstruction
`
`of synchronous protocol data at reception. Id. at 1:53–62.
`
`The documents cited by Petitioner, individually and in combination, do not
`
`disclose key claim limitations of the ’874 Patent. For example, the references do
`
`not disclose the “synchronous data protocol [that] allows non-data carrying time
`
`– 2 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`slots” or the “non-data carrying time slot remover for removing [and regenerating]
`
`said non-data carrying time slots during conversion into said asynchronous
`
`protocol” required by claim 1, the only independent claim. Id. at 15:19-31. The
`
`only reference that Petitioner argues fulfills these limitations is Arimilli,
`
`specifically its “silence detection algorithm.” Pet. at 23–28, 34. Critically,
`
`Petitioner’s evidence fails to show that Arimilli discloses, or has any need for, time
`
`slots in a synchronous protocol. This is because Arimilli’s “silence detection
`
`algorithm” has nothing to do with non-data carrying time slots, but instead
`
`measures the power content of a digitized sample of a voice signal. Ex. 1006 at
`
`28:7–11. Arimilli’s algorithm does not detect or even discuss time slots in a
`
`synchronous data protocol, let alone non-data carrying time slots in a synchronous
`
`data protocol that will be removed and regenerated as part of a conversion process
`
`for transmitting over asynchronous satellite links. (As discussed in more detail
`
`below, Arimilli’s synchronous protocols frame transmission as packets with
`
`headers; and its asynchronous protocols frame transmissions with start and stop
`
`bits. Ex. 1006 at 9:30–10:2.) It comes as no surprise, then, that Petitioner never
`
`explains why time slots would be inherent in Arimilli or otherwise understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill to be synonymous with these concepts.
`
`Further,
`
`although Arimilli uses
`
`the words
`
`“synchronous”
`
`and
`
`“asynchronous” in its disclosure, Petitioner has not shown that Arimilli uses those
`
`– 3 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`key terms in the same way that Petitioner itself construes them for the claims of the
`
`’874 Patent. In fact, a plain reading of Armilli shows that it uses the terms
`
`differently from Petitioner’s own constructions. The Petition should be denied in
`
`its entirety because this flawed analysis undergirds each of Grounds 1–5.
`
`The Petition also should be denied because its fails to articulate reasoning
`
`supported by evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reason
`
`to make the proposed combinations of references for each Ground. Instead, each of
`
`Petitioner’s combinations relies on conclusory attorney arguments, supported only
`
`by mirror image conclusory statements—down to the last typo—in the declaration
`
`of Dr. Raymond J. Leopold (the “Leopold Declaration”) (Ex. 1003). But these
`
`conclusory opinions do not find support in the disclosures of the references or by
`
`other evidence found in the prior art and, accordingly, are entitled to no weight and
`
`should be rejected. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (opinion testimony that does not
`
`disclose underlying facts or data “is entitled to little or no weight”); Johns Manville
`
`Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2015-01633, Paper 10, at 13 (PTAB Jan. 4,
`
`2016) (“Nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which are applicable to IPRs
`
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a)), or Federal Circuit jurisprudence, requires a fact finder to
`
`credit unsupported assertions of an expert witness.”); General Elec. Co. v. TAS
`
`Energy Inc., IPR2014-00163, Paper 11, at 11 (PTAB May 13, 2014) (giving an
`
`expert’s “statements little weight” when its “Declaration does not disclose
`
`– 4 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`sufficiently the underlying facts or data forming the basis for the opinion”).
`
`In addition, the Petition fails to perform a proper Graham analysis. The
`
`Petition does not meaningfully address “the difference between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art.” Nautique Boat Co. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, IPR2014-
`
`01045, Paper 13, at 14 (PTAB Nov. 26, 2014) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`
`383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)). Had it done so, Petitioner would have revealed the key
`
`gaps between each reference and the claimed invention.
`
`Because Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`
`any proposed ground under 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Petition should be denied.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’874 PATENT
`The ’874 Patent is titled “Infrastructure for Telephony Network” and is
`
`directed to a novel and non-obvious interface to convert between disparate links in
`
`the backbone of a cellular network. Specifically, the patent discloses and claims an
`
`interface for converting between links using traditional telephony protocols, such
`
`as the synchronous T1/E1 protocol, and links using satellite-system protocols, such
`
`as the asynchronous TCP/IP protocol. Ex. 1001 at 1:53–62; 5:29–43; 6:53–7:32.
`
`By removing the non-data carrying time slots from the synchronous protocol
`
`before transmitting over the asynchronous satellite links, id. at 1:53–62, this
`
`claimed interface also allows cellular networks to increase capacity and improve
`
`efficiency when converting data for transmission over the satellite links.
`
`– 5 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`The “Background of the Invention” explains that the backbones of cellular
`
`networks often transmit data using synchronous protocols, such as the T1 and E1
`
`protocols. Id. at 1:26–28. T1 and E1 protocols support the transfer of large
`
`amounts of data because they carry multiple transmissions that are multiplexed into
`
`time slots. Id. The ’874 Patent refers to these protocols as “strongly synchronous”
`
`because each individual multiplexed transmission “is assumed to belong” to a
`
`particular time slot. Id. at 1:28–30. A time slot is distinguished by “its temporal
`
`position amongst the other time slots.” Id. at 1:29–31. A receiver can demultiplex
`
`the transmissions as long as it knows the temporal relationship among time slots.
`
`But having to maintain this temporal relationship also presents disadvantages, in
`
`particular wasted capacity in the T1/E1 line. Capacity is wasted, for example, when
`
`any transmissions multiplexed on a T1/E1 line have no data to send during some of
`
`their exclusively allocated time slots. Because the temporal relationship among the
`
`time slots must be maintained, the empty time slots must be used even though no
`
`data are transmitted. Id. at 1:31–33.
`
`The ’874 Patent solves the problem of efficiently and reliably incorporating
`
`satellite links into a cellular network. Data can be “routed through the satellite
`
`link[s],” for example, when “the terrestrial TCP/IP link[s] 124 fail or run out of
`
`capacity.” Id. at 10:42–44. Satellite links also provide coverage where the legacy
`
`PSTN (or PSTN-like) infrastructure does not exist and would be too expensive to
`
`– 6 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`build, thus “limiting” the ability to “extend[] a cellular network to remote areas.”
`
`Id. at 1:21–25.
`
`Unlike T1/E1 links based on time slots, satellite links generally use
`
`asynchronous protocols such as TCP/IP. An asynchronous protocol like TCP/IP
`
`“does not preserve timing information” or “depend[] on the preservation of a
`
`temporal relationship between time slots.” Id. at 1:44–46. Instead of time slots, a
`
`single TCP/IP transmission “is [ ] broken down into numerous packets which are
`
`each sent out independently over the network” and reach the destination “in
`
`accordance with destination information contained in a packet header.” Id. at 1:34–
`
`39. In T1/E1 protocols, every transmission carried by a particular data stream will
`
`follow an identical route to its destination. By contrast, in a satellite link’s TCP/IP
`
`protocol, each packet can “be sent along different routes depending on
`
`availability.” Id. at 1:40–41. Accordingly, TCP/IP packets “may not [and do not
`
`have to] arrive in the order in which they have been sent.” Id. at 1:41. This is
`
`because the temporal relationship of the data can be restored using information in
`
`the packet headers, without needing to maintain an explicit temporal relationship
`
`among TCP/IP packets. Id. at 1:39–43.
`
`While the TCP/IP and T1/E1 protocols are independently acceptable means
`
`for transmitting data, the two protocols are not inherently compatible. Id. at 6:58–
`
`59. Accordingly, the inventors of the ’874 Patent realized that they could increase
`
`– 7 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`the effective capacity of a cellular network by creating an interface used to convert
`
`traditional telephony T1/E1 protocol links so that the data in these links could be
`
`sent over satellite links that use TCP/IP, and vice versa. Figure 2 discloses an
`
`embodiment of the claimed interface, referred to as an internet protocol
`
`multiplexer (IPMux):
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 2.
`
`When converting from the E1/T1 links to the TCP/IP links, the ’874 Patent
`
`explains that the IPMux filters out the non-data carrying timeslots from the E1/T1
`
`links, thereby increasing effective throughput (i.e., amount of useful, non-empty
`
`data) that will be carried by the satellite links. Id. at 5:29–43. The inventors were
`
`the first to appreciate that the asynchronous satellite links do not need to maintain
`
`the temporal relationship between the time slots in the T1/E1 data streams and,
`
`therefore, that the non-data carrying time slots could be removed when converting
`
`to the asynchronous satellite links. Id. at 7:6–32. As a result, the satellite links can
`
`– 8 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`be “incorporated into telephony networks as cellular infrastructure,” and, by
`
`removing the non-data carrying time slots, the effective data carrying capacity of
`
`the satellite links in the network’s backbone can be increased, thereby improving
`
`the efficiency and reliability of the entire cellular network. Id. at 5:29–42.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES ASSERTED IN THE PETITION
`Each ground in the Petition relies on combinations of at least two of the
`
`following cited documents: Cox (Ex. 1004), Arimilli (Ex. 1006), and Silverman
`
`(Ex. 1005). Pet. at 3. Each of these references differs markedly from each other
`
`and from the invention described and claimed by the ’874 Patent.
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,459,708 to Cox
`Unlike the ’874 Patent, which concerns cellular networks and a novel
`
`interface for converting between traditional synchronous E1/T1 telephony links
`
`and asynchronous TCP/IP satellite links, Cox does not address satellite or cellular
`
`communications. Instead, Cox focuses exclusively on the legacy central office
`
`switches that form “the backbone” of the traditional Public Switched Telephone
`
`Network (PSTN). See, e.g., Ex. 1004 at Fig. 1, 1:22–27.
`
`Cox focuses only on the existing T1(E1) trunks of the PSTN and discloses
`
`an “apparatus for implementing a T1(E1) trunk between two central office
`
`switches that utilizes a packet-switched data network as the transmission
`
`– 9 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`medium.”1 Id. at 4:5–9. Cox’s object is to allow “telephone service providers . . . to
`
`implement a T1(E1) trunk without having to change out their existing T1(E1)
`
`central office switches.” Id. at 4:29-33. Notably, however, and as Petitioner
`
`concedes, Cox does not discuss any ability to detect, remove, or regenerate non-
`
`data carrying time slots in T1 and E1 protocols at an interface to satellite links in a
`
`cellular network, as disclosed and claimed by the ’874 Patent. See Pet. at 23–24
`
`(citing only Arimilli (Ex. 1006)). In fact, Petitioner admits that Cox does not even
`
`discuss non-data carrying time slots in a T1 or E1 protocol datastream. See Pet. at
`
`23–24 (citing only Arimilli (Ex. 1006)).
`
`Because it is focused only on the traditional PSTN, Cox is also not
`
`concerned with cellular communications. Nevertheless, the Petition asserts that a
`
`person of ordinary skill would understand Cox to “refer to cellular telephony.” Pet.
`
`at 15. Cox does state—in a single sentence at the very end of the specification—
`
`that “[t]he present invention certainly comprehends” the “other telecommunication
`
`protocols [that] have been developed for wireless or RF networks, that work at
`
`speeds from 9 MHz up.” Ex. 1004 at 18:4–8. The only evidence that Petitioner
`
`cites to back-up its allegation of what a person of ordinary skill would understand
`
`
`1 Cox explains that a “trunk” is “[a] cable or other medium that interconnects
`
`telephone exchanges, or telecommunications switches.” Ex. 1004 at 1:48–51.
`
`– 10 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`from this sentence is the Leopold Declaration. Ex. 1003 ¶ 103. But Dr. Leopold
`
`offers nothing more in the cited paragraph than a conclusion: “Based on my
`
`experience at the field at the time of the alleged invention, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand Cox’s discussion to refer to cellular telephony,
`
`rather than other wireless telephony systems, such as in-home cordless phone or
`
`the microwave links that are part of the PSTN infrastructure.” Neither Petitioner
`
`nor Dr. Leopold explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`that “wireless or RF networks” means cellular communication rather than the more
`
`plausible interpretation: an “in-home cordless phone or the microwave links that
`
`are part of the PSTN infrastructure.” Id. The fact that Cox is concerned only with
`
`“legacy central office switches” in the public telephone network, Ex. 1004 at 1:22–
`
`27, which is not a cellular network, lends more credence to the cordless phone
`
`explanation and the Petition fails to explain why the less plausible interpretation of
`
`a cellular network is correct. It is particularly unlikely that Cox contemplated
`
`cellular networks because nowhere does Cox address how its PSTN-based solution
`
`would operate within the completely different infrastructure of a cellular network,
`
`which includes complex architecture built around thousands of base transceiver
`
`stations, base station controllers, mobile switching centers, authentication centers,
`
`and home and visitor location registers. See Ex. 1001 at 5:44–6:20.
`
`Cox is thus fundamentally different technology from the ’874 Patent, and it
`
`– 11 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`is not surprising that Petitioner concedes that Cox does not disclose multiple
`
`limitations of independent claim 1. See, e.g., Pet. at 23, 24, 28 (citing only Arimilli
`
`(Ex. 1006) for limitations 1[d]–1[f]), 34 (incorporating by reference prior cites). As
`
`discussed in more detail below, the Petition and the accompanying Leopold
`
`Declaration also fail to show that a person of ordinary skill would have reason to
`
`combine the teachings of Cox with those of Arimilli or Silverman, both of which
`
`are directed to entirely different technologies than Cox or the ’874 Patent.
`
`PCT Application No. WO 95/29576 to Arimilli
`
`B.
`Arimilli also differs markedly from the claimed subject matter of the ’874
`
`Patent, Cox, and the other cited documents. Arimilli discloses “a data multiplexing
`
`network which combines a plurality of asynchronous and synchronous data
`
`channels with an asynchronous data stream . . . onto a single synchronous data
`
`packet stream.” Ex. 1006 at 3:20–23. This single data stream is transmitted “over a
`
`composite link” by a “high speed statistical multiplexer . . . using a modified high-
`
`level synchronous data link control protocol.” Id. at 3:24–26. The composite link is
`
`either “an analog line such as a public telephone line [i.e., the lines in the PSTN]
`
`using synchronous modems, a private leased line using synchronous modems or a
`
`digital line using DSU (Digital Service Units).” Id. at 8:25–28. Unlike what is
`
`claimed by the ’874 Patent, Arimilli does not disclose that its multiplexer
`
`interfaces a T1/E1 data stream (which is already a multiplex data stream) to a
`
`– 12 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`satellite link. Instead, Arimilli’s object is to improve the “efficiency of a single
`
`telephone line connection” by transmitting over the composite link combinations
`
`of “voice grade telephone signals” with “both synchronous and asynchronous data
`
`signals.” Id. at 3:4–14 (emphasis added).
`
`The heart of Arimilli is the statistical multiplexer, which is markedly
`
`different from the subject matter of the ’874 Patent. As illustrated in Figure 3 of
`
`Arimilli, the multiplexer takes in data and information from telephone equipment,
`
`fax machines, and “data terminal equipment (DTE) devices,” such as PCs, printers,
`
`and modems. The multiplexer then “combine[s] this information and data for
`
`transmission over a single composite communications link.” Id. at 7:19–25. In
`
`contrast, the ’874 Patent teaches a unique interface between already multiplexed
`
`data streams carried by synchronous protocols, like T1/E1, which are converted at
`
`the interface into asynchronous protocols used in satellite links, like TCP/IP. See
`
`Section II.
`
`Thus, Arimilli is directed to entirely different technology from that claimed
`
`by the ’874 Patent. Arimilli’s multiplexer combines multiple, disparate, individual
`
`communication streams to create a composite data stream. The asynchronous data
`
`streams in the ’874 Patent are already multiplexed streams. Ex. 1001 at 6:64–7:1
`
`(describing
`
`the E1/T1 data streams as being “compris[ed of] numerous
`
`communications channels (transmissions) multiplexed together in different time
`
`– 13 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`slots within a continuous stream”). Moreover, Arimilli’s voice suppression
`
`algorithm operates on individual analog voice or fax streams. Ex. 1006 at 40:14–
`
`16. It does not operate over a “numerous communication channels (transmissions)
`
`multiplexed together in different time slots” in the synchronous protocols used in
`
`the ’874 Patent. See Ex. 1001 at 6:66–7:1.
`
`Much of the Petition’s flawed analysis can be traced to its failure to address
`
`crucial differences between, on the one hand, Arimilli’s use of the terms
`
`“synchronous” and “asynchronous” and, on
`
`the other hand, Petitioner’s
`
`construction of these terms in the context of the ’874 Patent. Petitioner and Dr.
`
`Leopold assume that Arimilli, simply because it uses the words “synchronous” and
`
`“asynchronous,” has used them identically to Petitioner’s constructions of those
`
`terms in the ’874 Patent. But, the fact that Arimilli uses the same terms is
`
`insufficient to prove that Arimilli uses them the same way. In fact, a person of
`
`ordinary skill would understand that these terms can “have significantly different
`
`meanings, depending on” the context. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, p. 412. Here, Petitioner
`
`construes “asynchronous” data based on a “temporal relationship between time
`
`slots.” Pet. at 12–13. In contrast, Arimilli defines “asynchronous data” as data
`
`“formatted by framing each character with a start and stop bit,” and says nothing
`
`about a temporal relationship or time slots. Ex. 1006 at 9:29–31. The Petition,
`
`therefore, fails to show the interface to a satellite link for converting data between
`
`– 14 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`first and second data communication protocols, as is claimed in the ’874 Patent.
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 6,731,649 to Silverman
`Grounds 2 through 5 in the Petition attempt to combine Cox and Arimilli
`
`with a third reference, U.S. Patent No. 6,731,649 to Silverman (Ex. 1005), a patent
`
`that also differs substantially from each of Cox, Arimilli, and the claimed subject
`
`matter of the ’874 Patent.
`
`Silverman discloses a system and method “for transferring TDM [Time
`
`Division Multiplexed] data over packet switched networks, such as IP networks.”
`
`Ex. 1005 at 1:8–11. Silverman describes his invention as a TDMoIP—TDM over
`
`IP—implementation and, importantly, discloses that his TDMoIP technique
`
`transmits “without any attempt at interpreting the data” and “is completely
`
`oblivious to such TDM internals as time slots” and “signaling channels.” Compare
`
`Ex. 1005 at 8:18–21 (emphasis added) with Ex. 1001 at 7:1–13.
`
`Instead of maintaining relationships among time slots and processing
`
`signaling information, Silverman’s TDMoIP method transmits data over IP
`
`networks by “encapsulating ATM [Asynchronous Transfer Mode] cells (packets)
`
`. . . within UDP [User Datagram Protocol] over IP frames.” Ex. 1005 at 4:61–65.
`
`As Silverman notes, UDP “is a connectionless protocol that, like TCP, runs on top
`
`of IP networks.” Id. at 1:46–50. But “[u]nlike TCP/IP,” UDP offers “a direct way
`
`to send and receive data grams over an IP network,” which is an object of
`
`– 15 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00135
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US01
`
`Silverman. Id. at 1:48–50. Silverman does not use the asynchronous TCP/IP
`
`protocol used in the satellite links of the ’874 Patent because “[t]he end-to-end
`
`reliability offered by TCP . . . is not useful for [the] voice packets” in Silverman’s
`
`system. Id. at 5:62–65. Instead, Silverman proposes UDP as “[a] more reasonable
`
`alternative.” Id. at 5:65–6:2.
`
`Unlike Silverman, the ’874 Patent needs the end-to-end reliability of TCP
`
`because, unlike Silverman, it is not oblivious to time slots and signaling channels.
`
`In fact, the ’874 patent identifies, removes, and regenerates, non-data carrying time
`
`slots, Ex. 1001 at 15:26–31, and maintains “associated control signaling,” id. at
`
`7:1–2. For example, Claims 8–12 require, and the written description d