throbber
Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`T-MOBILE US, INC. and T-MOBILE USA, INC. and
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ADVANCED MEDIA NETWORKS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00347 and IPR2016-00349
`Patent No. 5,960,074
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. TIMOTHY WILKINSON IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,960,074
`
`
`Mail Stop: Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 1
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. TIMOTHY WILKINSON
`I, TIMOTHY WILKINSON, declare the following:
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained by Petitioners to provide my expert opinions
`
`regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,960,074 (the “’074 patent”). More specifically, I have
`
`been asked to give my opinion about the meanings of certain terms of the ’074
`
`patent claims, and to compare the ’074 patent claims to prior art patents and
`
`publications. I submit this declaration in support of Petitioners’ petitions for inter
`
`partes review of the ’074 patent.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate of $500 for consulting services. My compensation in no way depends
`
`on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`3. My qualifications are stated more fully in my curriculum vitae, a copy
`
`of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`4.
`
`I received my BSc in Physics with Electronics in 1984 and my PhD in
`
`Electronic Engineering in 1988 both from the University of Leeds UK. My PhD
`
`was in the area of mobile communications and was sponsored by Racal, the
`
`company that went on to found Vodafone--the UK based multi-national mobile
`
`operator.
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 2
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`
`5.
`
`I have worked in the general area of wireless network engineering
`
`research ever since and thus have nearly 30 years of experience in the field.
`
`6.
`
`I am the inventor or a co-inventor on over ten patents worldwide, all
`
`of which relate to wireless networking.
`
`7.
`
`I spent time working on satellite systems for data communication to
`
`mobiles while working on my Ph.D. at my sponsoring company, Racal, and shortly
`
`thereafter as a visiting researcher at the University of Sydney and Phillips
`
`Melbourne.
`
`8.
`
`In the early part of my career from 1990 to 1994 I worked in academia
`
`at the Universities of Leeds and Bradford researching into indoor wireless systems
`
`and the design of early wireless LANs. This initial work was sponsored by
`
`Symbionics, the company that developed the first IEEE standardized 802.11 MAC.
`
`Symbonics’s MAC was developed in parallel with the IEEE 802.11 standards
`
`themselves. The 802.11 standardization work had begun in earnest by 1992.
`
`9.
`
`In 1994 I moved to HP Labs in Bristol where I managed a team
`
`researching wireless connectivity solutions including local area and wide area
`
`connectivity for HP PCs, printers, laptops and handheld devices. This research
`
`covered areas from radio propagation to MAC protocols.
`
`10. This particular part of my experience in academia and industry gives
`
`me a unique perspective on the envisaged applications of wireless LANs in the
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 3
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`early days and how these networks would be interconnected. By 1996 there were
`
`several non-standards-based products on the market that provided wireless-bridge
`
`and/or wireless-LAN capability. There were also larger experimental networks
`
`being built by researchers in the field with these wireless-bridge and wireless-LAN
`
`components. By 1996 Internet use was becoming widespread and it was clear that
`
`LANs and wireless LANs would allow many users to share an Internet connection.
`
`Wireless LANs were, by 1996, the obvious choice in an environment either where
`
`cabling was difficult or expensive or where mobility was desirable. These
`
`motivations for moving from wired to wireless local area networking continue to
`
`this day.
`
`11. My research group at HP Labs also researched local area connectivity,
`
`such as Bluetooth, and wide area data connections, such as GPRS. My research
`
`work in the area of wireless connectivity in academia and HP Labs resulted in
`
`many publications and several patents. Some of the concepts developed continue to
`
`be utilized today in local area standards such as 802.11a/g/n/ac and cellular
`
`standards such as 3GPP 4G LTE. In 2001 I took up the position of VP of Technical
`
`Marketing in IPWireless, a start-up wireless equipment company. IPWireless was
`
`acquired by General Dynamics in 2012, where I continue to be Chief Technologist
`
`for LTE, in General Dynamics Mission Systems.
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 4
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`12.
`In preparing this Declaration, I considered the following materials:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`U.S. Pat. 6,175,717 to Rebec (Ex. 1004).
`
`EP 0 740 873 to Meier (Ex. 1036).
`
`The portions of Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, 3d ed.
`
`reproduced in Exhibit 1009. (Ex. 1009).
`
`U.S. Pat. 5,568,484 to Margis (Ex. 1005).
`
`Pahlavan, Wireless Data Communications (Ex. 1007).
`
`The portions of Comer, Internetworking With TCP/IP
`
`reproduced in Exhibit 1013 (Ex. 1013).
`
`g)
`
`The portions of “Data Communications and Networks”
`
`reproduced in Exhibit 1017 (Ex. 1017).
`
`h)
`
`Ruhl, The Increasing Role of Communication Satellites in
`
`Commercial Aircraft Operations (Ex. 1027).
`
`U.S. Pat. 5,463,656 to Polivka (Ex. 1028).
`
`The ’074 patent (Ex. 1001).
`
`Petitioners’ petitions for inter partes review of the ’074 patent
`
`i)
`
`j)
`
`k)
`
`and the claim charts therein.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`13.
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether certain claims
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 5
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`of the ’074 patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the alleged invention, in view of the prior art.
`
`14.
`
`I am an engineer by training and profession. The opinions I am
`
`expressing in this report involve the application of my engineering knowledge and
`
`experience to the evaluation of certain prior art with respect to the ’074 patent.
`
`Therefore, I have requested that attorneys who represent Petitioners, to provide me
`
`with guidance as to the applicable patent law in this matter. The paragraphs below
`
`express my understanding of how I must apply current principles related to
`
`patentability.
`
`15.
`
`It is my understanding that in determining whether an expired patent
`
`claim is obvious in view of the prior art, the Patent Trials and Appeals Board must
`
`construe a claim by giving the claim its ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of
`
`the specification and prosecution history. For the purposes of this review, I used
`
`the claim constructions that the Petitioners propose in their petitions.
`
`16.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 (i.e., obvious) if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness analysis takes into account the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, the differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 6
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`prior art, the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and
`
`objective evidence of nonobviousness.
`
`17.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, it is my
`
`understanding that a reference is considered appropriate prior art if it falls within
`
`the field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is prior art if it is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
`
`involved. A reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would have
`
`commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a
`
`reference relates to the same problem as the claimed invention, that supports use of
`
`the reference as prior art in an obviousness analysis.
`
`18. To assess the differences between prior art and the claimed subject
`
`matter, it is my understanding that 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires the claimed invention
`
`be considered as a whole. This “as a whole” assessment requires showing that one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same
`
`problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would
`
`have selected the elements from the prior art and combined them in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`19.
`
`It is my further understanding that, although there must be some
`
`reason or motivation to combine or modify elements of the prior art, there is no
`
`rigid rule or formula for proving obviousness. The Supreme Court has recognized
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 7
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show
`
`obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include:
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results; a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions; applying a known technique to a known device (method or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite number
`
`of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, when
`
`there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; and some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill
`
`to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to
`
`arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`20.
`It is my understanding that when interpreting the claims of the ’074
`
`patent I must do so based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`relevant priority date. My understanding is that the ’074 patent claims priority to
`
`an application filed on September 23, 1996. I also understand that Patent Owner
`
`contends that the inventor conceived of and reduced to practice the invention
`
`claimed in the ’074 patent before September 23, 1996. For the purposes of my
`
`analysis of the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, it does not matter whether
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 8
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`the priority date is September 1996 or any prior date in 1996.
`
`21. Generally, the challenged claims of the ’074 patent relate to a mobile,
`
`nomadic hub that connects a wireless local area network and a microwave
`
`communication system, using an “ethernet packet switching,” “the TCP/IP” or “an
`
`Internet” protocol. For example, the Abstract of the ’074 patent states:
`
`A telecomputer network is described. The network comprises a
`redundant digital microwave communication system, at least one
`mobile vehicle, and a wireless local area network (LAN). In one
`embodiment, the microwave communication system transfers
`information using ethernet packet switching. In one embodiment, the
`wireless LAN transfers information using the TCP/IP protocol. The
`mobile vehicle is configured to transfer information as a single
`nomadic transmission/reception point between the microwave
`communication system and the wireless LAN
`
`Ex. 1004 (’074 patent) Abstract.
`
`22.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the field of wireless
`
`networking in 1996 would have a bachelor’s of science degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering or Computer Engineering and at least a few years of experience
`
`designing wireless communication systems and computer systems, or the
`
`equivalent.
`
`23.
`
`I have formed my opinion regarding the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art for the ’074 patent by reviewing the patent and its file history, and based on my
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 9
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`knowledge of the level of skill of a large number of individuals in the field. Other
`
`factors relevant to my opinion regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`include (i) the nature of problems that the patents-in-suit were intended to solve,
`
`and (ii) the education level of active workers in this field.
`
`24. Based on this description, I possessed at least the ordinary skill in the
`
`art around the earliest claimed priority date of the ’074 patent. By the earliest
`
`claimed priority date of the ’074 patent, I had received my Ph.D in Electrical and
`
`Electronic Engineering in the area of mobile communications and had already been
`
`working for several years on various aspects of satellite, cellular and indoor
`
`wireless systems with a particular focus on MAC, PHY and system design for
`
`wireless local area networking.
`
`25.
`
`I am familiar with the knowledge, experience, and creativity of such a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’074 patent during the relevant time period.
`
`In arriving at my opinions and conclusions in this declaration, I have considered
`
`the issues from the perspective of this hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`VI. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`A. Internetworking
`1. The OSI Model
`
`26. Networking protocols are generally based on the abstraction of the 7-
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 10
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`layer OSI model. The OSI model was developed and widely used well before
`
`1996. Each “layer” provides a set of services to the layer above and uses the
`
`services provided by the layer below.
`
`27. Layers 1-3 of the OSI model (physical, link, and network) “are
`
`network-dependent and are concerned with the protocols associated with the data
`
`communication network being used to link the two communicating computers. In
`
`contrast, the three upper layers (5-7) [session, presentation, and application] are
`
`application-oriented and are concerned with the protocols that allow two end user
`
`application processes to interact with each other…The intermediate transport layer
`
`(4) masks the upper application-oriented layers from the detailed operation of the
`
`lower network-dependent layers.” Ex. 1017 (Data Communications and Networks)
`
`at 28. “The function of each layer is specified formally as a protocol that defines
`
`the set of rules and conventions used by the layer to communicate with a similar
`
`peer layer in another (remote) system.” Id.
`
`2. TCP/IP
`
`28. The TCP/IP protocol suite is made up of two protocols: Transmission
`
`Control Protocol is officially defined by IETF RFC 793, and Internet Protocol is
`
`officially defined by IETF RFC 791. TCP/IP was originally developed by the
`
`Advanced Research Projects Agency. By 1983, the Office of the Secretary of
`
`Defense mandated that all computers connected to long-haul networks must use
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 11
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`TCP/IP. See Ex. 1013 (Comer) at 6.
`
`29. The Internet Protocol is a layer-3 protocol designed to allow hosts to
`
`insert packets into any network and have them travel to their destination,
`
`independently of other packets. The protocol includes IP headers that allow for
`
`packet routing.
`
`30. The Transmission Control Protocol is a layer-4 protocol designed to
`
`allow peer entities on different networks to communicate. The TCP network layer
`
`is responsible for assembling or reassembling data packets into discrete messages.
`
`31. Network-layer protocols other than TCP can run over IP. For
`
`example, UDP (User Datagram Protocol) can run over IP.
`
`32. The TCP/IP protocol suite can run over a variety of lower layer
`
`protocols, including an IEEE 802.3 MAC layer.
`
`3. Internetworking devices
`
`33.
`
`Internetworking devices use the abstraction of the layered model to
`
`facilitate interconnection of networks. Repeaters, bridges, and routers are
`
`internetworking devices that were well-known by 1996.
`
`34. Repeaters worked at the physical layer (i.e. layer 1) and relayed
`
`physical layer units (e.g., bits).
`
`35. Bridges worked at the data link (i.e. layer 2) or MAC (media access
`
`control) layer. The MAC layer is a sublayer within layer 2 of the OSI model. In
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 12
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`IEEE 802 networks, the link layer is subdivided into MAC and LLC (logical link
`
`control) sublayers. A bridge stores and forwards data-link-layer protocol frames to
`
`other bridges.
`
`36. Routers worked at the network layer (i.e. layer 3). Routers used
`
`network addresses to relay packets to destinations in other networks. In 1996,
`
`routers commonly used the Internet Protocol and associated control information to
`
`route packets.
`
`37.
`
`In my opinion, the ’074 patent does not disclose a novel solution to
`
`any internetworking problem. Instead, it discloses only using prior art networking
`
`protocols and devices in a manner that was conventional as of 1996.
`
`B. MAC layer protocols as of 1996
`1. Wired protocols
`
`38. Wired networking with LANs was well established and in widespread
`
`usage in the early 1990’s and prior to 1996.
`
`39. The “Ethernet” was first conceived at Xerox in the early 1980’s and
`
`standardized by the IEEE as 802.3 by 1983. Other early IEEE LAN standards
`
`included Token bus (802.4) and Token ring (802.5). All of these protocols initially
`
`operated on shared transmission media (cables) with distributed medium access
`
`control for the stations connected to that media. This basically means that no one
`
`station controls the access to the medium and the protocol operates regardless of
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 13
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`which stations are present.
`
`40. Specifically, Ethernet (IEEE 802.3) used CSMA/CD (Carrier Sense
`
`Multiple Access/Collision Detection) for its MAC (Medium Access Control).
`
`CSMA is also known as “Listen-Before-Talk.” When a station has data to send, it
`
`listens to the media and waits until no other station is transmitting. It then sends the
`
`data but continues to listen to detect if another station has also started to transmit
`
`and a collision has occurred.
`
`41. Both Token Bus (802.4) and Token ring (802.5) were distributed
`
`medium access control protocols. They avoided data collisions by introducing the
`
`concept of a token that was passed from station to station sequentially and the
`
`possession of this token gave the station permission to transmit on the medium.
`
`2. Wireless protocols as of 1996
`
`42.
`
`IEEE had begun to work on a wireless LAN standard by the early
`
`1990’s. Standards for the wireless LAN MAC layer were proposed and widely
`
`circulated in 1992. The technical specifications were complete in 1996 and the
`
`IEEE formally ratified them in 1997. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have been aware of the general content of the 802.11 MAC standards at least as
`
`early as 1994. See, e.g., Ex. 1036 (Meier) at App’x A 9:36 (discussing 801.11
`
`networks).
`
`43. As of 1996, the IEEE working group was working on 802.11
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 14
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`specifications for various physical channels and transmission techniques, including
`
`direct-sequence spread spectrum, frequency-hopping spread spectrum, and infrared
`
`transmission.
`
`44. There were also several non-standards-based wireless LAN products
`
`on the market prior to 1996, such as WaveLAN and Aironet.
`
`45. WaveLAN, Aironet, and IEEE 802.11 all used a distributed MAC that
`
`derived from, and was similar to, the CSMA/CD MAC of wired Ethernet. These
`
`protocols were Ethernet-like but used “Collision Avoidance” rather than “Collision
`
`Detection” due to propagation characteristics of the radio medium.
`
`46. As mentioned above, Wireless LANs were, by 1996, the obvious
`
`choice in an environment where cabling was difficult or expensive or the
`
`convenience of mobility was desirable. The commercial availability of wireless
`
`LAN products and development of IEEE 802.11 standards made setup and
`
`implementation of a wireless LAN relatively simple.
`
`C. Wide area networks and long-range wireless transmission as of 1996
`47. By 1996, practitioners had long recognized the benefits of connecting
`
`LANs (whether wired or wireless) to other LANs and to larger networks such as
`
`the public switched telephone network or the Internet. These connections between
`
`networks might span long distances that made physical cabling impractical or
`
`undesirable. Practitioners also recognized that long-distance wireless links could
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 15
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`provide mobility for remote or temporary LANs.
`
`48. Satellite links or hubs were a common means of providing long-range
`
`wireless links in 1996. Satellite links generally used microwave-frequency
`
`transmissions.
`
`49. Microwave-frequency terrestrial point-to-point links also provided
`
`long-range wireless transmission.
`
`VII. DESCRIPTION OF THE ’074 PATENT
`50. Claim 1 of the ’074 patent claims:
`
`A telecomputer network system comprising:
`a redundant digital microwave communication system;
`a wireless local area network (LAN); and
`a mobile hub station configured to transfer information as a
`single nomadic transmission/reception point between the microwave
`communication system and the wireless LAN using an ethernet packet
`switching protocol.
`
`51. The other independent claims are slightly altered versions of Claim 1:
`
`52. Claim 14 (i) adds the limitation that communication system is
`
`“configured to operate as an intranet”; (ii) requires that the local area network
`
`“comprise[ ] a plurality of nodes with an individual personal computer at each of
`
`the plurality of nodes”; and (iii) replaces “an ethernet packet switching protocol”
`
`with “the TCP/IP protocol.”
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 16
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`
`53. Claim 24 is directed to a “secured private intranet” that transfers
`
`information “using an ethernet packet switching protocol,” and requires multiple
`
`“mobile vehicles.” The LAN includes at least one computer.
`
`54. Claim 28 is directed to a “communication subsystem” rather than a
`
`“redundant digital microwave communication system” and specifies that the
`
`information transferred is “broadband.” It is otherwise similar to claim 1.
`
`55. Claim 38 requires only one “mobile hub.” It is otherwise similar to
`
`Claim 24.
`
`56. Claim 128 is similar to claim 1 except that it specifies “an Internet
`
`protocol” rather than “an ethernet packet switching protocol.”
`
`57. Claim 148 recites all the elements of claim 28 but the mobile hub uses
`
`“an Internet protocol.”
`
`58. Claim 158 is a combination of claims 14 and 38 and further specifies
`
`that the communication system and LAN transfer information using “an Internet
`
`protocol.”
`
`59. Claim 159 is a combination of elements found in claims 14, 28, 38,
`
`and 158.
`
`60. Claim 160 is identical to claim 128 and further provides that the
`
`wireless LAN is “operable to connect to at least one computer.”
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 17
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`61. Although I have not been asked to provide an opinion regarding the
`
`proper claim constructions for the terms of the ’074 patent, I have reviewed
`
`Petitioners’ arguments regarding claim construction and have no reason to disagree
`
`with them in the context of the ’074 patent and its prosecution and litigation
`
`history, as described in the petitions. I do provide some technical background
`
`below regarding the development of IEEE 802 wireless standards, which I
`
`understand may have some relevance to claim construction.
`
`62.
`
`In 1996, I would have understood the term “ethernet” to refer to: (i) a
`
`physical transmission medium, i.e., an ethernet cable; (ii) the IEEE 802.3 standards
`
`defining the physical and MAC layer of wired Ethernet; or (iii) the 1970’s Xerox
`
`system upon which the 802.3 standards were based. None of the above related to
`
`or used wireless transmission.
`
`63. By 1996, however, the IEEE 802.11 working group had begun to
`
`work on standards for what could be called “wireless ethernet” by some persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1036 (Meier) 9:36-42. The 802.11 MAC
`
`and link layers were similar to the CSMA/CD schemes of the 802.3 protocols.
`
`64. The ’074 patent refers to IEEE 802.10, TCP/IP, and the Internet
`
`Protocol as “examples” of “ethernet packet switching” protocols. Outside the
`
`context of the ’074 patent specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 18
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`not have understood these to be examples of ethernet protocols. The 802.10
`
`protocol is a standard for security functions that could be used in networks based
`
`on IEEE 802 physical or data link layer protocols. TCP/IP and IP are layer 3 and 4
`
`protocols that can run over a variety of data-link and physical, including ethernet,
`
`ATM, FDDI, and T-1 for example. The term “ethernet” is directed to layers 1 and
`
`2 of the OSI stack, whereas TCP/IP and IP are directed to layers 3 and 4. At least
`
`with respect to TCP/IP and Internet Protocol, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`could have understood them to be examples of higher layer protocols that *run
`
`over* an Ethernet protocol, rather than being an Ethernet protocol in themselves.
`
`65.
`
`If “packet switching” is defined as “data to be transmitted is divided
`
`into formatted packets for individual transmission and subsequent reassembly at
`
`the intended destination,” than this modifier does not limit the term “ethernet.” All
`
`IEEE 802 networks transmitted data in formatted packets for individual
`
`transmission and subsequent reassembly.
`
`IX.
`’074 PATENT INVALIDITY
`A. Ground 1: obviousness in light of Rebec and Meier
`66.
`I have reviewed Petitioners’ claim charts and arguments concerning
`
`the obviousness of claims 1-6, 8-17, 19-33, 35-40, 42, 47, 56-58, 60-61, 63, 67, 71-
`
`73, 75-76, 78, 81, 83-85, 87-88, 93, 97, 101-103, 105-106, 110, 113, 115, 117,
`
`119-120, 123-132, 134-138, 144-155, 157-171 in light of Rebec and Meier. I rely
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 19
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`on those claim charts and the portions of the references cited therein, as well as my
`
`review of the references themselves, for my opinions. Based on my review of
`
`these materials and my knowledge as one of ordinary skill in the art in 1996, it is
`
`my opinion that these claims are obvious.
`
`67. Rebec describes “a mobile [van that] can transmit and receive
`
`broadcast quality video signals while in motion.” Ex. 1004 (Rebec) Abstract. The
`
`network that Rebec describes has three key components: (i) a portable suitcase
`
`unit; (ii) a mobile van; and (iii) an earth station network connected to a satellite
`
`relay. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 (Rebec) Fig. 5.
`
`68. One of ordinary skill in the art in 1996 would have understood the
`
`satellite link and earth stations described in Rebec to be part of a microwave
`
`communications system and/or a communications subsystem. For example, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood the satellite links described in
`
`Rebec (e.g., Ex. 1004 (Rebec) VSL and ESSL in Fig. 3B) to be “microwave” links.
`
`Rebec itself describes the links as “microwave signals in the C or Ku band.”
`
`69. One of ordinary skill in the art would also have understood the
`
`backbone network described in Rebec to be a communications system and/or
`
`subsystem. For example, Rebec describes audio and video communications being
`
`transmitted between a building, an earth station, and a satellite (e.g., Ex. 1004
`
`(Rebec) 319, 313, and 309 in Fig. 3B).
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 20
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`
`70. Rebec’s disclosure is not limited to any particular networking
`
`protocols for the transfer of information among its network components. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that some networking hardware and
`
`network communication protocols must be present in Rebec’s network for it to
`
`function. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art in 1996 would have understood
`
`that there were several options for networking protocols and associated data-
`
`transfer hardware and would have viewed the selection of such network and
`
`protocols as a design choice among finite, known alternatives.
`
`71. The OWL protocol described in Meier would have been one option
`
`for protocols to be used in Rebec’s network. One of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have been motivated to combine the teachings of Rebec and Meier because, as
`
`mentioned above, Rebec’s network would have required some networking
`
`protocols to function. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably anticipated
`
`success when combining the teachings of these two references, and specifically
`
`using Meier’s WDAPs as bridging devices in Rebec’s mobile van.
`
`72. One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that the wireless
`
`networking techniques described in Meier could be applied to different types of
`
`wireless communication channels, in different environments and over different
`
`distances, as the type of channel, environment, and distance of the link are
`
`insignificant details in the present context.
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 21
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`
`73. Although Meier describes the wireless links in the context of LANs,
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these wireless links could be
`
`used for longer-range communication, e.g. between a truck and a satellite, as well.
`
`In fact, it was well known by 1996 that networking protocols underlying a LAN
`
`could be used for long-range links as well. Thus, because Meier’s WDAPs could
`
`use “radio frequency wireless communication” as well as “other forms of wireless
`
`communication, such as infrared transmissions,” for interconnection Ex. 1036
`
`(Meier) 3:45-46, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have used the WDAPs
`
`as a bridge between a microwave/satellite link (which could have used the same
`
`protocols as Meier’s LAN) and a wired or wireless LAN.
`
`74. One of ordinary skill in the art could also have implemented Rebec’s
`
`backbone network, e.g., the links between a building, an earth station, and a
`
`satellite (Ex. 1004 (Rebec) 319, 313, and 309 in Fig. 3B), as an IEEE 802.3
`
`network or wireless 802 network as described in Meier. Meier’s WMAP wireless
`
`relay (and associated protocols) could be used in Rebec’s satellite relay station.
`
`75.
`
`It also would have been obvious to use Meier’s OWL protocols to
`
`carry TCP/IP packets. Meier’s protocols are lower-level, MAC-layer protocols.
`
`Meier’s MAC could have carried TCP/IP packets in its upper layers. Moreover, it
`
`was well known at the time that TCP/IP could run over an 802.3 MAC layer.
`
`76. The following illustration from Ex. 1017 (Data Communications and
`
`1007906
`
`Petitioners' Ex. 1039 - Page 22
`
`

`
`
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review of Patent 5,960,074
`
`Networks), provides a basic example of how IP datagrams are simply encapsulated
`
`within the lower-layer network headers.
`
`
`
`Id. at 115.
`
`77. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Rebec
`
`inherently disclosed a communication system that included “hubs” that had
`
`“wireless routers” and “relay stations.” For example, Figure 3 sho

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket