Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`
`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 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 ................................................................................... 26
`VIII. OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, and 2-7 OF THE ‘874 PATENT IN
`VIEW OF COX ............................................................................................. 53
`A. Claim 1 ................................................................................................... 54
`B. Claim 2 ................................................................................................... 71
`C. Claim 3 ................................................................................................. 106
`D. Claim 4 ................................................................................................. 112
`E. Claim 5 ................................................................................................. 114
`F. Claim 6 ................................................................................................. 127
`G. Claim 7 ................................................................................................. 136
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 141
`
`
`
`
`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 and C4I 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.);
`
`Ex. 1020 - U.S. Patent No. 7,065,321 to Lim (“Lim”)
`
`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
`4
`
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 4
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`continuously since then. The backbone of the Iridium system is an operational
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 5
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`spectrum for non-geostationary satellite systems (NGSSs) occurred. Later, I led
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`Pet., Exh. 1003, p. 6
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Raymond Leopold for Inter Parties Review of US Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`Award. Motorola, Inc. also named the three of us Distinguished Innovators and in
`
`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 2-7 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 2-7 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 bits, characters or events,. The timing is
`achieved by the sharing of a single clock. Each end of
`the transmission synchronizes itself with the use of
`clocks and information sent along with the trans
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
