`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF DR. RAYMOND LEOPOLD
`
`FOR
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,245,874
`
`
`
`
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 1
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 3
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................................................................... 4
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................................................... 8
`IV. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING .................................................................................................... 9
`V. THE ‘874 PATENT .................................................................................................................. 16
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................... 19
`VII. STATE OF THE ART .............................................................................................................. 23
`VIII. OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, and 8-12 OF THE ‘874 PATENT IN VIEW OF COX ...... 50
`A. Claim 1 .............................................................................................................................. 50
`B. Claim 8 .............................................................................................................................. 68
`C. Claim 9 .............................................................................................................................. 83
`D. Claim 10 ............................................................................................................................ 86
`E.
`Claim 11 ............................................................................................................................ 89
`F.
`Claim 12 ............................................................................................................................ 91
`IX. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 93
`
`
`
`
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 2
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I, Dr. Raymond J. Leopold, submit this declaration in support of a
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of United States Patent No. 7,243,874 (“the ‘874
`
`Patent”), owned by Elbit Systems Land (“Elbit”). I have been retained in this
`
`matter by Baker Botts L.L.P. (“Counsel”) on behalf of Hughes Network Systems,
`
`LLC (the “Petitioner”). I am aware that both this ‘874 patent and United States
`
`Patent 6,240,073 are subjects of a pending litigation.
`
`2.
`
`I make this declaration based upon my personal knowledge. I am over
`
`the age of 21 and am competent to make this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`The statements herein include my opinions and the bases for those
`
`opinions, which relate to at least the following documents of the pending inter
`
`partes review petition:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 - U.S. Patent No. 7,245,874 by Yehuda Rest et al. entitled
`
`“Infrastructure for Telephony Network” (the “’874 Patent”);
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1002 - File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,245,874;
`
`Ex. 1004 - U.S. Patent No. 6,459,708 to Cox (“Cox”);
`
`Ex. 1005 - U.S. Patent No. 6,731,649 to Silverman (“Silverman”);
`
`Ex. 1006 - Application No. WO/95/50 29576 to Arimilli (“Arimilli”);
`
`Ex. 1007 - U.S. Patent No. 7,113,780 to McKenna (“McKenna”);
`
`Ex. 1008 - Canadian Patent CA 2,290,967 A1 to Henkel (“Henkel”);
`
`- 3 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 3
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1009 - U.S. Patent No. 5,623,532 to Houde, et al. (“Houde”);
`
`Ex. 1019 - Excerpts of Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (14th ed.)
`
`4. My materials considered for forming my opinions herein have
`
`included at least the above-referenced documents.
`
`5.
`
` Although I am being compensated for my time at a rate of $480 per
`
`hour in preparing this declaration, the opinions herein are my own, and I have no
`
`stake in the outcome of the review proceeding. My compensation does not depend
`
`in any way on the outcome of the Petitioner’s petition
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I provide the following overview of my background as it pertains to
`
`my qualifications for providing expert testimony in this matter.
`
`7.
`
` I have over 40 years of experience in satellite system design and
`
`implementation and related fields, and am the named inventor on numerous issued
`
`patents in the field. I was a co-inventor of the Iridium System, an early and well-
`
`known personal communications system. The Iridium System supported the
`
`operation of subscriber units across the entire world, and allowed for
`
`interconnection of those subscriber units with any other Iridium phone, cell phone,
`
`or wired phone utilizing the global Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN).
`
`Iridium was put into operation on November 1, 1998 and has operated
`
`continuously since then. The backbone of the Iridium system is an operational
`
`- 4 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 4
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`constellation of 66 satellites that were put in orbit beginning in May 1997. These
`
`satellites have far exceeded their contracted lifetimes, due in no small part to the
`
`robustness we had built into their design. Generally, there was a flurry of
`
`technology development, in the area of satellite construction and communications,
`
`leading up to and around the time of the launch of the Iridium system in late 1998
`
`when it became operational commercially.
`
`8.
`
`The Iridium System was built and launched by Motorola, Inc., a
`
`company where I worked as an engineer developing and producing satellite
`
`communications and telecommunications systems. While at Motorola, I served as
`
`Chief Engineer of Motorola’s Satellite Communications Group, and was
`
`eventually promoted to the position of Vice President and Chief Technical Officer
`
`of that business unit. My primary responsibility while at Motorola was the design
`
`and implementation of the Iridium Satellite Program that culminated in the
`
`deployment of the Iridium System described above. This work led to the issuance
`
`of a number of the patents that I am named as an inventor on. In addition to my
`
`work at Motorola, I also served as an “unofficial member” of the United States
`
`delegation that attended the ITU (International Telecommunications Union’s)
`
`World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC’ 92) from Feb 3, 1992 to Mar 3,
`
`1992 in Torremolinos, Spain, where the world’s first allocation of electromagnetic
`
`spectrum for non-geostationary satellite systems (NGSSs) occurred. Later, I led
`
`- 5 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 5
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`the Motorola technical team at the FCC’s Negotiated Public Rulemaking (NPRM)
`
`event in Washington, DC, from Jan 6, 1993 to Apr 6, 1993 to write the rules for the
`
`use of that spectrum. Motorola’s Iridium System’s FCC license was eventually
`
`issued in 1995. The spectrum discussed at both WARC’92 and at the FCC’s
`
`NPRM included user links in both L-Band and S-Band, as well as feeder links and
`
`inter-satellite links in different portions of K-Band.
`
`9.
`
`Through my involvement at WARC’92, the FCC’s NPRM, as well as
`
`many technical forums around the world, I became intimately familiar with the
`
`Globalstar, GPS, GLONASS, and other satellite-based services and concepts. I
`
`also continued to make presentations on the Iridium System at industry events, and
`
`supported the development of broadband communications systems that could serve
`
`as next-generation replacements for Iridium. In recognition for our work on
`
`Iridium my co-inventors and I have received noteworthy recognition, including
`
`being named, with my two co-inventors, Aviation Week & Space Technology
`
`magazine’s Laureates for Space whereby we were installed into their Hall of Fame
`
`at the National Air & Space Museum, and where one of our satellites and my own
`
`laboratory notebook were on display for 12 years. The American Institute of
`
`Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) awarded us their Biennial Communications
`
`Award, and The Mobile Satellite Users Association presented us with their Pioneer
`
`Award. Motorola, Inc. also named the three of us Distinguished Innovators and in
`
`- 6 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 6
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`1995, conferred upon me their highest technical honor, The Title of Dan Nobel
`
`Fellow, “…for leadership in creative and innovative technical contributions and, in
`
`particular, for his role in co-inventing the overall Iridium satellite cellular
`
`communications system and in gaining its critical global backing.”
`
`10. Additionally, I was individually named as an IEEE Fellow in 1997.
`
`The IEEE, The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, is the world’s
`
`largest professional association for engineers, in recognition of, “…leadership and
`
`contributions to worldwide satellite communications and personal wireless.”
`
`Three years later, the IEEE also conferred upon me their Third Millennium Medal.
`
`11. Subsequent to being the VP and CTO for Motorola Satellite
`
`Communications, I became the Vice President and Chief Technical Officer of the
`
`Motorola Global Telecom Solutions Sector which had the responsibility for the
`
`development and production of all of Motorola’s cellular telephone infrastructure
`
`equipment.
`
`12. Prior to working at Motorola, I had a career in the US Air Force
`
`where I primarily worked as an engineer, involved with military communications
`
`programs. I was the Program Director of the Seek Talk Radio Program (aka the
`
`Enhanced Joint Tactical Information Distribution System) and then the Acting
`
`Director of the Milstar System Program Office (a military satellite-based system)
`
`- 7 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 7
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`at the Air Force Electronics System Division in Massachusetts. I also served in the
`
`Office of the Secretary of Defense in The Pentagon.
`
`13.
`
`I hold bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate degrees in electrical
`
`engineering from ABET-accredited institutions, and I have also served on, and led,
`
`ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) accreditation teams
`
`for engineering schools across our country. I have been an engineering professor
`
`at the US Air Force Academy, was an adjunct full engineering professor at The
`
`George Washington University, and I also served as the Jerome C. Hunsaker
`
`Visiting Professor in The Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at The
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I am currently the sole proprietor of a
`
`consulting business, and have served as an expert witness in matters involving
`
`satellite communications and telecommunications.
`
`14. My full CV is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`15.
`
`I understand that the content of a patent (including its claims) and
`
`prior art should be interpreted the way a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have interpreted the material at the time of invention.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the “time of invention” here is the date that the
`
`applicants for the ‘874 patent first filed their application in the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office, namely, August 1, 2001.
`
`- 8 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 8
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`17.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art
`
`disclosed and described in the ‘874 patent would possess at least a master’s degree
`
`in electrical engineering or a related communications or telecommunications field,
`
`along with three years of experience in wireless communications and/or a more
`
`advanced degree in the field with less experience but knowledge of wireless
`
`communication theory and telecommunications.
`
`18.
`
`In addition to my testimony as an expert, I am prepared to testify as
`
`someone who actually practiced in the field from 1969 to present, who actually
`
`possessed at least the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art in that time
`
`period, and who actually worked with others possessing at least the knowledge of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in that time period.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the person of ordinary skill is a hypothetical person
`
`who is assumed to be aware of all the pertinent information that qualifies as prior
`
`art. In addition, the person of ordinary skill in the art makes inferences and takes
`
`creative steps.
`
`IV. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`20.
`
`I have a general understanding of validity based on my experience
`
`with patents and my discussions with counsel.
`
`21.
`
`I have a general understanding of prior art and priority date based on
`
`my experience with patents and my discussions with counsel.
`
`- 9 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 9
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`22.
`
`I understand that inventors are entitled to a priority date up to one year
`
`earlier than the date of filing to the extent that they can show complete possession
`
`of particular claimed inventions at such an earlier priority date and reasonable
`
`diligence to reduce the claims to practice between such an earlier priority date and
`
`the date of filing of the patent. I understand that if the patent holder contends that
`
`particular claims are entitled to an earlier priority date than the date of filing of the
`
`patent, then the patent holder has the burden to prove this contention with
`
`specificity.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that an invention by another must be made before the
`
`priority date of a particular patent claim in order to qualify as “prior art” under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, that a printed publication or a product usage must be
`
`publicly available before the priority date of a particular patent claim in order to
`
`qualify as “prior art” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), that a printed publication or a
`
`product usage or offer for sale must be publicly available more than one year prior
`
`to the date of the application for patent in the United States in order to qualify as
`
`“prior art” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), or that the invention by another must be
`
`described in an application for patent filed in the United States before the priority
`
`date of a particular patent claim in order to qualify as “prior art” under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e). I understand that the Defendants have the burden of proving that any
`
`particular reference or product usage or offer for sale is prior art.
`
`- 10 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 10
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`24.
`
`I have a general understanding of anticipation based on my experience
`
`with patents and my discussions with counsel.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that anticipation analysis is a two-step process. The first
`
`step is to determine the meaning and scope of the asserted claims. Each claim
`
`must be viewed as a whole, and it is improper to ignore any element of the claim.
`
`For a claim to be anticipated under U.S. patent law: (1) each and every claim
`
`element must be identically disclosed, either explicitly or inherently, in a single
`
`prior art reference; (2) the claim elements disclosed in the single prior art reference
`
`must be arranged in the same way as in the claim; and (3) the identical invention
`
`must be disclosed in the single prior art reference, in as complete detail as set forth
`
`in the claim. Where even one element is not disclosed in a reference, the
`
`anticipation contention fails. Moreover, to serve as an anticipatory reference, the
`
`reference itself must be enabled, i.e., it must provide enough information so that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art can practice the subject matter of the reference
`
`without undue experimentation. However, I understand that a printed publication
`
`is presumed to be enabling and that if the patent holder contends that a particular
`
`printed publication prior art reference is not enabled, then the patent owner has the
`
`burden to prove that a printed publication prior art reference is not enabled.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that claim elements may be expressed as a means for
`
`performing a recited function as set out in 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. I further
`
`- 11 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 11
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`understand that for such a means-plus-function element, the element is to be
`
`construed to cover only the structure or structures described in the patent
`
`specification for performing the exact function recited by the element and
`
`structural equivalents thereof. Thus, in an infringement (or anticipation) analysis
`
`involving such claim elements, one is required to consult the patent specification in
`
`order to determine the composition of the specific relevant structures for
`
`performing the recited functions. I further understand that if a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and
`
`associate it with the corresponding function in the claim, a means-plus-function
`
`claim element is indefinite.
`
`27.
`
`I further understand that where a prior art reference fails to explicitly
`
`disclose a claim element, the prior art reference inherently discloses the claim
`
`element only if the prior art reference must necessarily include the undisclosed
`
`claim element. Inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.
`
`The fact that an element may result from a given set of circumstances is not
`
`sufficient to prove inherency. I have applied these principles in forming my
`
`opinions in this matter.
`
`28.
`
`I have a general understanding of obviousness based on my
`
`experience with patents and my discussions with counsel.
`
`- 12 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 12
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`being obvious only if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior
`
`art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time
`
`the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in that art. An obviousness
`
`analysis requires consideration of four factors: (1) scope and content of the prior
`
`art relied upon to challenge patentability; (2) differences between the prior art and
`
`the claimed invention; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention; and (4) the objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as commercial
`
`success, unexpected results, the failure of others to achieve the results of the
`
`invention, a long-felt need which the invention fills, copying of the invention by
`
`competitors, praise for the invention, skepticism for the invention, or independent
`
`development.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference is proper to use in an
`
`obviousness determination if the prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed
`
`invention. I understand that a prior art reference is analogous art if at least one of
`
`the following two considerations is met. First a prior art reference is analogous art
`
`if it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, even if the prior
`
`art reference addresses a different problem and/or arrives at a different solution.
`
`Second, a prior art reference is analogous art if the prior art reference is reasonably
`
`- 13 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 13
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, even if it is not in the same field of
`
`endeavor as the claimed invention.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that it must be shown that one having ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation that a
`
`modification or combination of one or more prior art references would have
`
`succeeded. Furthermore, I understand that a claim may be obvious in view of a
`
`single prior art reference, without the need to combine references, if the elements
`
`of the claim that are not found in the reference can be supplied by the knowledge
`
`or common sense of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art. However, I
`
`understand that it is inappropriate to resolve obviousness issues by a retrospective
`
`analysis or hindsight reconstruction of the prior art and that the use of “hindsight
`
`reconstruction” is improper in analyzing the obviousness of a patent claim.
`
`32.
`
`I further understand that the law recognizes several specific guidelines
`
`that inform the obviousness analysis. First, I understand that a reconstructive
`
`hindsight approach to this analysis, i.e., the improper use of post-invention
`
`information to help perform the selection and combination, or the improper use of
`
`the listing of elements in a claim as a blueprint to identify selected portions of
`
`different prior art references in an attempt to show that the claim is obvious, is not
`
`permitted. Second, I understand that any prior art that specifically teaches away
`
`from the claimed subject matter, i.e., prior art that would lead a person of ordinary
`
`- 14 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 14
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`skill in the art to a specifically different solution than the claimed invention, points
`
`to non-obviousness, and conversely, that any prior art that contains any teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to modify or combine such prior art reference(s) points
`
`to the obviousness of such a modification or combination. Third, while many
`
`combinations of the prior art might be “obvious to try”, I understand that any
`
`obvious to try analysis will not render a patent invalid unless it is shown that the
`
`possible combinations are: (1) sufficiently small in number so as to be reasonable
`
`to conclude that the combination would have been selected; and (2) such that the
`
`combination would have been believed to be one that would produce predictable
`
`and well understood results. Fourth, I understand that if a claimed invention that
`
`arises from the modification or combination of one or more prior art references
`
`uses known methods or techniques that yield predictable results, then that factor
`
`also points to obviousness. Fifth, I understand that if a claimed invention that arises
`
`from the modification or combination of one or more prior art references is the
`
`result of known work in one field prompting variations of it for use in the same
`
`field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces that
`
`yields predicable variations, then that factor also points to obviousness. Sixth, I
`
`understand that if a claimed invention that arises from the modification or
`
`combination of one or more prior art references is the result of routine
`
`optimization, then that factor also points to obviousness. Seventh, I understand that
`
`- 15 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 15
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`if a claimed invention that arises from the modification or combination of one or
`
`more prior art references is the result of a substitution of one known prior art
`
`element for another known prior art element to yield predictable results, then that
`
`factor also points to obviousness.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that a dependent claim incorporates each and every
`
`limitation of the claim from which it depends. Thus, my understanding is that if a
`
`prior art reference fails to anticipate an independent claim, then that prior art
`
`reference also necessarily fails to anticipate all dependent claims that depend from
`
`the independent claim. Similarly, my understanding is that if a prior art reference
`
`or combination of prior art references fails to render obvious an independent claim,
`
`then that prior art reference or combination of prior art references also necessarily
`
`fails to render obvious all dependent claims that depend from the independent
`
`claim.
`
`V.
`
`THE ‘874 PATENT
`
`34. The ‘874 Patent, entitled “Infrastructure for Telephony Network”
`
`purports to “provide a system in which the incompatibility between TCP/IP and E1
`
`is overcome” (see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 1:53-55).
`
`35.
`
`I note that the ‘874 Patent was filed on August 1, 2001. I am not
`
`aware at this time of any basis for an assertion of a priority date for the ‘874 Patent
`
`earlier than August 1, 2001.
`
`- 16 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 16
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`36. The ‘874 Abstract makes it clear that satellites are incidental (they can
`
`be part of the system, or not): “The network backbone comprises a satellite
`
`interface for a satellite connection and alternatively or additionally a backup
`
`backbone route.” Ex. 1001 at Abstract. This is also true of any other forms of
`
`wireless communications which a satellite may or may not, use, and although ‘874
`
`limits itself to a satellite and a cellular telephone system, as noted in the ‘874
`
`Abstract and throughout the teachings in that patent, there is significant prior art
`
`which is not limited in that same way.
`
`37. As an expert in the technologies represented in the ‘874 patent and as
`
`someone who is quite familiar with the context of what was occurring in these
`
`fields at the time of the application (August 2001) which resulted in the ‘874
`
`patent, there were a plethora of concepts to converge telecommunications,
`
`communications, satellite communications, the internet, broadcast services, etc.
`
`Among many of these concepts were the uses of geostationary satellites, and in
`
`other cases the uses of non-geostationary satellites, or constellations of satellites.
`
`These satellites in those concepts served as nodes in a variety of communications
`
`system and network concepts. As such, it would be obvious to recognize a
`
`communications satellite to be a node in such a system or network, or perhaps the
`
`satellite itself is more like the towers which serve as a platform to hold some
`
`electronics and antennas for a cellular phone infrastructure site, and my view is
`
`- 17 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 17
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`further supported by US Patent Examiners Alan T. Gantt and Nick Corsaro who in
`
`their correspondence to the ‘874 inventors and counsel on May 14, 2005
`
`constructed a similar argument in considering and combining the prior art of
`
`McKenna (who considers satellites) and Bjorkman (who does not consider
`
`satellites) in those examiner’s arguments, as noted in the case history file for this
`
`patent.
`
`38. The aim of ‘874 described is to overcome the incompatibility of the
`
`Internet (represented by TCP/IP) and the common PSTN trunk lines, (represented
`
`by E1 (in Europe) and T1 (in North America)) to perform the same functionality as
`
`those trunk lines. Ex. 1001 at 1:53-55.
`
`39. The ‘874 goes on to teach providing an IP-based backup for cellular
`
`telephony networks. Ex. 1001 at 1:56-62. The ‘874 was focusing upon the
`
`trunked backbone for cellular telephone networks which were the same types of
`
`backbones used in the rest of Public Switched Telephone Network (“PSTN”). The
`
`subsequent paragraph discusses using the ‘874 teachings as a backup for that
`
`backbone, or vice versa. Id. at 1:63-2:6. Well, backbones for the elements of the
`
`PSTN and backups for those backbones were well-established art, and whether the
`
`PSTN or the Internet provided that backbone and backup was a business decision
`
`at the time ‘874 was filed. As I will show below there were many known methods
`
`- 18 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 18
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`for interconnecting the Internet (or Internet-like packet-switched networks) and the
`
`PSTN. I will use prior art listed below to amplify this point.
`
`40.
`
` In the vernacular used often in the early- to mid-1990s, satellites
`
`functioned like very, very tall towers for antennas at a cellular base station, as such
`
`the towers and the satellites were not the pertinent part of the communications
`
`network but instead the antennas and electronics on the towers and satellites which
`
`are really the element of the communications network. A satellite’s structure is
`
`equivalent to the cellular towers, just a platform, and nothing more. Nowhere in
`
`the ‘874 patent do the inventors disclose the towers in cellphone systems, but like
`
`satellites, very tall towers also cover a wide range area.
`
`41. The ‘874 consists of one independent claim and a total of 12 claims
`
`from an original application which had ten independent claims and a total of 35
`
`claims. I have been informed by Counsel that Claims 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 are the
`
`subject of the Inter Partes Review petition. Note that for solely purposes of my
`
`analyses herein, I have denoted certain elements of Claims 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 as (a),
`
`(b), etc. even though such nomenclature does not appear in the ‘874 Patent.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`42.
`
`I understand that claim construction is a matter of law. However, I
`
`understand that in a review proceeding the claims are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the ‘874 Patent specification, and that
`
`- 19 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 19
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`specific claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`
`disclosure. I also understand that limitations from the specification are not to be
`
`read into the claims. The specification, however, can inform a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art as to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. In
`
`addition, I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to
`
`explanations and arguments made by the applicants during prosecution history to
`
`inform as to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims of the ‘874 Patent.
`
`Synchronous data communications protocol
`
`43. Claim 1 requires, “a first synchronous data communications protocol.”
`
`The ‘874 Patent provides examples of synchronous data communications
`
`protocols. For example, the ‘874 Patent states that:
`
`The telephony system including cellular networks and the
`PSTN, is generally based on the E1, or possibly T1,
`protocol for multiplexing transmissions into time slots.
`The protocol is strongly synchronous in that the
`individual transmission to which a time slot is assumed to
`belong to is determined from its temporal position
`amongst the other time slots. Thus an individual
`transmission which does not have current data creates
`blank slots to reserve its current position.
`
` .
`
` . .
`
`The E1 (and T1) protocol thus depends on the
`preservation of a temporal relationship between time
`slots whereas the TCP/IP protocol does not preserve
`timing information. Thus TCP/IP based capacity cannot
`
`- 20 -
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 20
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`be used to transport E1 data since synchronization is not
`preserved, rendering the E1 datastream irrecoverable.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:26-50.
`
`44. The ‘874 Patent’s use of the term “synchronous data communications
`
`protocol” is consistent with the usage in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`For example, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (14th Ed.) defines “synchronous,” in
`
`part, as:
`
`The condition that occurs when two events happen in a
`specific time relationship with each other and both are
`under the control of a master clock. Synchronous
`transmission means there is a constant time between
`successive bit