UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ELBIT SYSTEMS LAND AND C4I LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00496
`Patent No. 7,245,874
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Description
`Excerpt of Peterson & Davie, Computer Networks: A System
`Approach (2d ed. 2000) (page 412)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of claims 1 and 8–12 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,245,874 by Petitioner Hughes Network Systems,
`LLC, IPR2016-00135, Paper No. 1
`Excerpts of Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (14th ed. 1998) (pages
`64–65)
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 2001
`
`Ex. 2002
`
`Ex. 2003
`
`
`
`– i –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’874 PATENT ........................................................... 6
`
`SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES ASSERTED IN THE
`PETITION .................................................................................................... 10
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,459,708 to Cox ...................................................... 10
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`PCT Application No. WO 95/29576 to Arimilli ................................ 13
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,731,649 to Silverman ............................................ 16
`
`D. U.S. Patent 7,065,321 to Lim ............................................................. 18
`
`IV. THE LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................. 19
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 19
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“Branch of a Cellular Telephone Network Based on a First
`Synchronous Data Communication Protocol” ................................... 20
`
`“Synchronous Data Communications Protocol,” “Asynchronous
`Data Communications Protocol,” “Central High-Capacity Data
`Trunking Region,” and “Peripheral Branches of a Telephone
`Network” ............................................................................................ 22
`
`VI. PETITIONER HAS NOT SHOWN A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’874
`PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .................................................................. 22
`
`A.
`
`The Petition Lacks Articulated Reasoning Supported by
`Evidence for Multiple Claim Limitations .......................................... 24
`
`1.
`
`Grounds 1–2: Petitioner Fails to Show that Arimilli
`Discloses the Claimed “synchronous data protocol [that]
`allows non-data carrying time slots” ....................................... 27
`
`a)
`
`Arimilli does not disclose time slots and does not
`use “synchronous” and “asynchronous” as
`Petitioner construes the terms as used in the ’874
`Patent ............................................................................. 28
`
`– ii –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Arimilli contrasts asynchronous computer data
`with synchronous computer data, not voice data ........... 31
`
`Petitioner Fails to Articulate Reasoning Supported
`by Evidence to Show Why a Person of Ordinary
`Skill in the Art Would Have Reason to Combine
`Cox, Silverman, and Arimilli ........................................ 33
`
`2.
`
`Grounds 1–2: Petitioner Fails to Show that Arimilli
`Discloses “a non-data carrying time slot remover for
`removing said non-data carrying time slots during
`conversion into said asynchronous protocol” .......................... 35
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Arimilli does not disclose time slots ............................. 36
`
`Arimilli does not disclose removing non-data
`carrying time slots “during conversion into said
`asynchronous protocol” ................................................. 36
`
`Petitioner Fails to Articulate Reasoning Supported
`by Evidence to Show Why a Person of Ordinary
`Skill in the Art Would Have Reason to Combine
`Cox and Silverman With Arimilli ................................. 37
`
`3.
`
`Grounds 1–2: Petitioner Fails to Show that Cox or Lim
`Disclose Claim 2’s “[t]he branch of claim 1, being one of
`peripheral branches of a telephone network” .......................... 43
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Neither Cox nor Lim disclose a peripheral branch
`of a cellular telephone network. .................................... 44
`
`Lim’s “wireless communications network” does
`not use a “synchronous data communications
`protocol” or allow for “non-data carrying time
`slots” as required by the claimed “peripheral
`branch[] of a telephone network” .................................. 46
`
`4.
`
`Grounds 1–2: Petitioner Fails to Show that Cox or
`Silverman Disclose Claim 2’s “wherein said second,
`asynchronous protocol is the TCP/IP protocol” ...................... 47
`
`– iii –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`5.
`
`Grounds 1–2: Petitioner Fails to Show that Lim Discloses
`Claim 2’s “wherein said high capacity trunking region
`comprises terrestrial high capacity trunking connection in
`parallel with said satellite connection such that said
`satellite connection is usable to back up said terrestrial
`connection” .............................................................................. 50
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Lim does not disclose the claimed “trunking
`region” ........................................................................... 51
`
`Lim does not disclose a “terrestrial high capacity
`trunking connection in parallel with said satellite
`connection” .................................................................... 53
`
`6.
`
`Grounds 1–2: Petitioner Fails to Present a Prima Facie
`Case that One of Skill in the Art Would Have Reason to
`Combine Cox in View of Silverman Further in View of
`Arimilli or Further in View of Lim .......................................... 54
`
`VII. Ground 2: Petitioner Fails to Show that Claim 3 is Unpatentable Over
`Cox in View of Silverman Further in View of Arimilli Further in
`View of Lim Further in View of Henkel ...................................................... 57
`
`VIII. Grounds 1–2: Petitioner Fails to Perform a Proper Graham Step-2
`Analysis ........................................................................................................ 58
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
`
`
`– iv –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases and Board Decisions
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) ....................................... 24, 38
`
`Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc.,
`868 F.2d 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 21
`
`Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp.,
`323 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 21
`
`General Elec. Co. v. TAS Energy Inc.,
`IPR2014-00163, Paper 11 (PTAB May 13, 2014) ................................... 5, 29, 43
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Inc.,
`IPR2015-01954, Paper 9 (PTAB Mar. 9, 2016) ........................................... 55, 56
`
`Genetics Inst., LLC v. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 26
`
`Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Gypsum Co.,
`195 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .............................................................. 21. 44. 46
`
`Google Inc. v. EveryMD.com LLC,
`IPR2014-00347, Paper 9 (PTAB May 22, 2014) ................................... 25, 59, 60
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .........................................................................................passim
`
`Hughes Network Sys., LLC v. Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd.,
`IPR2016-00135, Paper 8 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2016) ........................................passim
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................ 26, 34, 40, 43
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 19
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 24
`
`– v –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 19
`
`Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01633, Paper 10 (PTAB Jan. 4, 2016) ............................................ 5, 29
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 58
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................... 20, 21
`
`Printing Indus. of Am. v. CTP Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2013-00489, Paper 15 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2013) ............................................. 44
`
`Qualcomm, Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01822, Paper 8 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2016) ................................................. 42
`
`Shopkick, Inc. v. Novitaz, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00277, -00278, Paper 7 (PTAB May 29, 2015) ................ 25, 54, 56, 60
`
`Tempur Sealy Int’l, Inc. v. Select Comfort Corp.,
`IPR2014-01419, Paper 7 (PTAB Feb. 17, 2015) .......................................... 33, 59
`
`Torrent Pharm. Ltd. v. Merck Frosst Canada & Co.,
`IPR2014-00559, Paper 8 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2014) ............................................ 25, 26
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ................................................................................ 24, 43, 56
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a) ............................................................................................. 5, 29
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ..........................................................................................passim
`
`– vi –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ...................................................................................... 2, 24
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ..................................................................... 19
`
`– vii –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`Patent Owner Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) provides
`
`the following preliminary response to the Petition (“Petition”) filed by Hughes
`
`Network Systems, LLC (“Petitioner”) on January 22, 2016, requesting inter partes
`
`review of claims 2–7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,245,874 (“the ’874 Patent”). For at least
`
`the reasons set forth below, Patent Owner requests that the Board deny inter partes
`
`review as to all grounds presented in the petition.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This is Petitioner’s second request for inter partes review of the ’874
`
`Patent—the other being IPR2016-00135 (“the ’135 Petition”) filed on November 3,
`
`2015. See Ex. 2002. The ’135 Petition challenged claims 1 and 8 through 12. This
`
`second Petition argues only that dependent claims 2 through 7 are obvious over
`
`principally the same combinations of references identified in the ’135 Petition. Pet.
`
`at 15. On April 27, 2016, the Board correctly denied the ’135 Petition’s request for
`
`inter partes review of claims 1 and 8 through 12. Hughes Network Sys., LLC v.
`
`Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd., IPR2016-00135, Paper 8 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2016) (“the
`
`’135 Decision”). The present Petition’s analysis of independent 1 claim repeats the
`
`same flawed analysis of claim 1 in the ’135 Petition. Compare Pet. at 15–25 with
`
`Ex. 2002 at 14–34. Because the same prior art and arguments for claim 1 were
`
`previously presented to and rejected by the Board in the ’135 Decision, the present
`
`Petition can and should be denied institution without the Board addressing it on the
`
`– 1 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`merits. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). But, if the Board chooses to reach the merits of the
`
`present Petition, institution of trial here should be denied for the same reasoning in
`
`the ’135 Decision, and as set forth in detail below.
`
`The Petition is deficient because the patchwork of references on which
`
`Petitioner relies to show obviousness fails to disclose multiple limitations of the
`
`claimed invention and, in fact, differs markedly from what is claimed. Petitioner
`
`ignores these differences. In addition, Petitioner fails to offer any substantive
`
`reasons for combining the deficient references beyond a recitation of KSR
`
`buzzwords and conclusory, unsupported expert opinion. Petitioner disregards
`
`KSR’s mandate that obviousness cannot be sustained by “mere conclusory
`
`statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
`
`underpinning,” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Petitioner
`
`also ignores the regulatory requirement to specify where each element of the
`
`challenged claims is found in the evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). As a result,
`
`Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show how its multiple-reference combinations
`
`lead to a reasonable likelihood that any of the challenged claims is unpatentable.
`
`As discussed in more detail below, the claims of the ’874 Patent are directed
`
`to a novel interface in a cellular telephone network for converting between
`
`communication
`
`links using
`
`traditional
`
`telephony protocols (such as
`
`the
`
`synchronous T1/E1 protocol) and links using satellite-system protocols (such as the
`
`– 2 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`asynchronous TCP/IP protocol). Ex. 1001 at 1:53–62; 5:29–43; 6:53–7:32. In the
`
`’874 Patent, synchronous protocols use time slots to preserve the temporal
`
`relationship among data. Asynchronous protocols in the ’874 Patent do not use
`
`time slots; instead they break data streams into multiple packets, each with a
`
`packet header that contains information that allows the receiver to reorganize the
`
`individual packets. Thus, links using traditional telephony protocols are not
`
`directly compatible with links using satellite-system protocols. The claimed
`
`interface of the ’874 Patent allows cellular networks to increase capacity and
`
`improve efficiency by adding the ability to: (1) convert the synchronous telephony
`
`data for transmission over asynchronous satellite links, (2) remove non-data
`
`carrying time slots in the synchronous data before converting to, and transmitting
`
`over, the asynchronous satellite links, and (3) regenerate those time slots during
`
`reconstruction of synchronous protocol data at reception. Id. at 1:53–62.
`
`The documents cited by Petitioner, individually and in combination, do not
`
`disclose key claim limitations of the ’874 Patent. For example, as the Board held in
`
`the ’135 Decision, the references do not disclose the “synchronous data protocol
`
`[that] allows non-data carrying time slots” or the “non-data carrying time slot
`
`remover for removing [and regenerating] said non-data carrying time slots during
`
`conversion into said asynchronous protocol” required by claim 1, the only
`
`independent claim. Id. at 15:19-31; see ’135 Decision at 10–11. The only reference
`
`– 3 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`that Petitioner argues fulfills these limitations is Arimilli, specifically its “silence
`
`detection algorithm.” Pet. at 15–25. Critically, Petitioner’s evidence fails to show
`
`that Arimilli discloses, or has any need for, time slots in a synchronous protocol.
`
`This is because Arimilli’s “silence detection algorithm” has nothing to do with
`
`non-data carrying time slots, but instead measures the power content of a digitized
`
`sample of a voice signal. Ex. 1006 at 28:7–11. Arimilli’s algorithm does not detect
`
`or even discuss time slots in a synchronous data protocol, let alone non-data
`
`carrying time slots in a synchronous data protocol that will be removed and
`
`regenerated as part of a conversion process for transmitting over asynchronous
`
`satellite links. (As discussed in more detail below, Arimilli’s synchronous
`
`protocols frame transmission as packets with headers; and its asynchronous
`
`protocols frame transmissions with start and stop bits. Ex. 1006 at 9:30–10:2.) It
`
`comes as no surprise, then, that Petitioner never explains why time slots would be
`
`inherent in Arimilli or otherwise understood by a person of ordinary skill to be
`
`synonymous with these concepts.
`
`Further,
`
`although Arimilli uses
`
`the words
`
`“synchronous”
`
`and
`
`“asynchronous” in its disclosure, Petitioner has not shown that Arimilli uses those
`
`key terms in the same way that Petitioner itself construes them for the claims of the
`
`’874 Patent. In fact, a plain reading of Armilli shows that it uses the terms
`
`differently from Petitioner’s own constructions. The Petition should be denied in
`
`– 4 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`its entirety because this flawed analysis undergirds Grounds 1 and 2.
`
`The Petition also should be denied because its fails to articulate reasoning
`
`supported by evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reason
`
`to make the proposed combinations of references for each Ground. Instead, each of
`
`Petitioner’s combinations relies on conclusory attorney arguments, supported only
`
`by mirror image conclusory statements in the declaration of Dr. Raymond J.
`
`Leopold (the “Leopold Declaration”) (Ex. 1003). But these conclusory opinions do
`
`not find support in the disclosures of the references or by other evidence found in
`
`the prior art and, accordingly, are entitled to no weight and should be rejected. See
`
`’135 Decision at p. 9, n. 2 (“We do not find Dr. Leopold’s testimony helpful
`
`because it merely mimics Petitioner’s argument.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (opinion
`
`testimony that does not disclose underlying facts or data “is entitled to little or no
`
`weight”); Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2015-01633, Paper
`
`10, at 13 (PTAB Jan. 4, 2016) (“Nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which
`
`are applicable to IPRs (37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a)), or Federal Circuit jurisprudence,
`
`requires a fact finder to credit unsupported assertions of an expert witness.”);
`
`General Elec. Co. v. TAS Energy Inc., IPR2014-00163, Paper 11, at 11 (PTAB May
`
`13, 2014) (giving an expert’s “statements little weight” when its “Declaration does
`
`not disclose sufficiently the underlying facts or data forming the basis for the
`
`opinion”).
`
`– 5 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`In addition, the Petition fails to perform a proper Graham analysis. The
`
`Petition does not meaningfully address “the difference between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art.” Nautique Boat Co. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, IPR2014-
`
`01045, Paper 13, at 14 (PTAB Nov. 26, 2014) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`
`383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)). Had it done so, the Petition would have revealed the
`
`key gaps between each reference and the claimed invention.
`
`Because Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`
`any proposed ground under 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Petition should be denied.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’874 PATENT
`The ’874 Patent is titled “Infrastructure for Telephony Network” and is
`
`directed to a novel and non-obvious interface to convert between disparate links in
`
`the backbone of a cellular network. Specifically, the patent discloses and claims an
`
`interface for converting between links using traditional telephony protocols, such
`
`as the synchronous T1/E1 protocol, and links using satellite-system protocols, such
`
`as the asynchronous TCP/IP protocol. Ex. 1001 at 1:53–62; 5:29–43; 6:53–7:32.
`
`By removing the non-data carrying time slots from the synchronous protocol
`
`before transmitting over the asynchronous satellite links, id. at 1:53–62, this
`
`claimed interface also allows cellular networks to increase capacity and improve
`
`efficiency when converting data for transmission over the satellite links.
`
`The “Background of the Invention” explains that cellular network backbones
`
`– 6 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`often transmit data using synchronous protocols, such as the T1 and E1 protocols.
`
`Id. at 1:26–28. These protocols support the transfer of large amounts of data
`
`because they carry multiple transmissions that are multiplexed into time slots. Id.
`
`The ’874 Patent refers to these protocols as “strongly synchronous” because each
`
`individual multiplexed transmission “is assumed to belong” to a particular time
`
`slot. Id. at 1:28–30. A time slot is distinguished by “its temporal position amongst
`
`the other time slots.” Id. at 1:29–31. A receiver can demultiplex the transmissions
`
`if it knows the temporal relationship among time slots. But having to maintain this
`
`temporal relationship adds disadvantages, in particular wasted capacity in the
`
`T1/E1 line. Capacity is wasted, for example, when transmissions multiplexed on a
`
`T1/E1 line have no data to send during an exclusively allocated time slots. Because
`
`the temporal relationship among the time slots must be maintained, the empty time
`
`slots must be used even though no data are transmitted. Id. at 1:31–33.
`
`The ’874 Patent solves the problem of how to efficiently and reliably
`
`incorporate satellite links into a cellular network. Data can be “routed through the
`
`satellite link[s],” for example, when “the terrestrial TCP/IP link[s] 124 fail or run
`
`out of capacity.” Id. at 10:42–44. Satellite links also provide coverage where the
`
`legacy PSTN (or PSTN-like) infrastructure does not exist and would be too
`
`expensive to build, thus “limiting” the ability to “extend[] a cellular network to
`
`remote areas.” Id. at 1:21–25.
`
`– 7 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`Unlike T1/E1 links based on time slots, satellite links generally use
`
`asynchronous protocols such as TCP/IP. An asynchronous protocol like TCP/IP
`
`“does not preserve timing information” or “depend[] on the preservation of a
`
`temporal relationship between time slots.” Id. at 1:44–46. Instead of time slots, a
`
`single TCP/IP transmission is “broken down into numerous packets which are each
`
`sent out independently over the network” and reach the destination “in accordance
`
`with destination information contained in a packet header.” Id. at 1:34–39. In
`
`T1/E1 protocols, every transmission carried by a particular data stream will follow
`
`an identical route to its destination. By contrast, in a satellite link’s TCP/IP
`
`protocol, each packet can “be sent along different routes depending on
`
`availability.” Id. at 1:40–41. Accordingly, TCP/IP packets “may not [and do not
`
`have to] arrive in the order in which they have been sent.” Id. at 1:41. This is
`
`because the temporal relationship of the data can be restored using information in
`
`the packet headers, without needing to maintain an explicit temporal relationship
`
`among TCP/IP packets. Id. at 1:39–43.
`
`While the TCP/IP and T1/E1 protocols are independently suitable means for
`
`transmitting data, they are not inherently compatible. Id. at 6:58–59. Accordingly,
`
`the inventors of the ’874 Patent realized that they could increase the effective
`
`capacity of a cellular network by creating an interface used to convert traditional
`
`telephony T1/E1 protocol links so that the data in these links could be sent over
`
`– 8 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`satellite links that use TCP/IP, and vice versa. Figure 2 discloses an embodiment of
`
`the claimed interface, referred to as an internet protocol multiplexer (IPMux):
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 2.
`
`When converting from the E1/T1 links to the TCP/IP links, the ’874 Patent
`
`explains that the IPMux filters out the non-data carrying timeslots from the E1/T1
`
`links, thereby increasing effective throughput (i.e., amount of useful, non-empty
`
`data) that will be carried by the satellite links. Id. at 5:29–43. The inventors were
`
`the first to appreciate that the asynchronous satellite links do not need to maintain
`
`the temporal relationship between the time slots in the T1/E1 data streams and,
`
`therefore, that the non-data carrying time slots could be removed when converting
`
`to the asynchronous satellite links. Id. at 7:6–32. As a result, the satellite links can
`
`be “incorporated into telephony networks as cellular infrastructure,” and, by
`
`removing the non-data carrying time slots, the effective data carrying capacity of
`
`the satellite links in the network’s backbone can be increased, thereby improving
`
`the efficiency and reliability of the entire cellular network. Id. at 5:29–42.
`
`– 9 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`III. SUMMARY OF THE REFERENCES ASSERTED IN THE PETITION
`Each ground in the Petition relies on combinations of the following cited
`
`documents: Cox (Ex. 1004), Arimilli (Ex. 1006), Silverman (Ex. 1005), and Lim
`
`(Ex. 1020). Pet. at 3–4. Each of these references differs markedly from each other
`
`and from the invention described and claimed by the ’874 Patent.
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,459,708 to Cox
`Unlike the ’874 Patent, which concerns cellular networks and a novel
`
`interface for converting between traditional synchronous E1/T1 telephony links
`
`and asynchronous TCP/IP satellite links, Cox does not address satellite or cellular
`
`communications. Instead, Cox focuses exclusively on the legacy central office
`
`switches that form “the backbone” of the traditional Public Switched Telephone
`
`Network (PSTN). See, e.g., Ex. 1004 at Fig. 1, 1:22–27.
`
`Cox focuses only on the existing T1(E1) trunks of the PSTN and discloses
`
`an “apparatus for implementing a T1(E1) trunk between two central office switches
`
`that utilizes a packet-switched data network as the transmission medium.”1 Id. at
`
`4:5–9. Cox’s goal is to allow “telephone service providers … to implement a
`
`T1(E1) trunk without having to change out their existing T1(E1) central office
`
`switches.” Id. at 4:29–33. Notably, however, and as Petitioner concedes, Cox does
`
`1 Cox explains that a “trunk” is “[a] cable or other medium that interconnects
`
`telephone exchanges, or telecommunications switches.” Ex. 1004 at 1:48–51.
`
`– 10 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`not discuss any ability to detect, remove, or regenerate non-data carrying time slots
`
`in T1 and E1 protocols at an interface to satellite links in a cellular network, as
`
`disclosed and claimed by the ’874 Patent. See Pet. at 22–25 (citing only Arimilli
`
`(Ex. 1006)). In fact, Petitioner admits that Cox does not even discuss non-data
`
`carrying time slots in a T1 or E1 protocol datastream. See id. at 21–22 (citing only
`
`Arimilli (Ex. 1006) in claim chart and arguing only that Cox “may include non-
`
`data carrying time slots”). The Board in its April 27 decision on the ’135 Petition
`
`rejected Petitioner’s identical argument, holding that “Petitioner does not support
`
`sufficiently its contention that Cox allows ‘non-data carrying time slots.’” ’135
`
`Decision at 8.
`
`Because it is focused only on the traditional PSTN, Cox is also not
`
`concerned with cellular communications. Nevertheless, the Petition asserts that a
`
`person of ordinary skill would understand Cox to “refer to cellular telephony.” Pet.
`
`at 17. Cox does state—in a single sentence at the very end of the specification—
`
`that “[t]he present invention certainly comprehends” the “other telecommunication
`
`protocols [that] have been developed for wireless or RF networks, that work at
`
`speeds from 9 MHz up.” Ex. 1004 at 18:4–8. The only evidence that Petitioner
`
`cites to back-up its allegation of what a person of ordinary skill would understand
`
`from this sentence is the Leopold Declaration. Pet. at 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 109).
`
`But Dr. Leopold offers nothing more in the cited paragraph than a conclusion:
`
`– 11 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`“Based on my experience at the field at the time of the alleged invention, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand Cox’s discussion to refer to cellular
`
`telephony, rather than other wireless telephony systems, such as in-home cordless
`
`phone or the microwave links that are part of the PSTN infrastructure.” Neither
`
`Petitioner nor Dr. Leopold explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand that “wireless or RF networks” means cellular communication rather
`
`than the more plausible interpretation: an “in-home cordless phone or the
`
`microwave links that are part of the PSTN infrastructure.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 109. The fact
`
`that Cox is concerned only with “legacy central office switches” in the public
`
`telephone network, Ex. 1004 at 1:22–27, which is not a cellular network, lends
`
`more credence to the cordless phone explanation and the Petition fails to explain
`
`why the less plausible interpretation of a cellular network is correct. It is
`
`particularly unlikely that Cox contemplated cellular networks because nowhere
`
`does Cox address how its PSTN-based solution would operate within the
`
`completely different infrastructure of a cellular network, which includes complex
`
`architecture built around thousands of base transceiver stations, base station
`
`controllers, mobile switching centers, authentication centers, and home and visitor
`
`location registers. See Ex. 1001 at 5:44–6:20.
`
`Cox is thus fundamentally different technology from the ’874 Patent, and it
`
`is not surprising that Petitioner concedes that Cox does not disclose multiple
`
`– 12 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`limitations of independent claim 1. See, e.g., Pet. at 21–25 (citing only Arimilli
`
`(Ex. 1006) for limitations 1[d]–1[f]). As discussed in more detail below, the
`
`Petition and the accompanying Leopold Declaration also fail to show that a person
`
`of ordinary skill would have reason to combine the teachings of Cox with those of
`
`Arimilli or Silverman, both of which are directed to entirely different technologies
`
`than Cox or the ’874 Patent.
`
`PCT Application No. WO 95/29576 to Arimilli
`
`B.
`As confirmed by the Board’s April 27, 2016 decision on the ’135 Petition,
`
`Arimilli also differs markedly from the claimed subject matter of the ’874 Patent,
`
`Cox, and the other cited documents. Arimilli discloses “a data multiplexing
`
`network which combines a plurality of asynchronous and synchronous data
`
`channels with an asynchronous data stream … onto a single synchronous data
`
`packet stream.” Ex. 1006 at 3:20–23. This single data stream is transmitted “over a
`
`composite link” by a “high speed statistical multiplexer … using a modified high-
`
`level synchronous data link control protocol.” Id. at 3:24–26. The composite link is
`
`either “an analog line such as a public telephone line [i.e., the lines in the PSTN]
`
`using synchronous modems, a private leased line using synchronous modems or a
`
`digital line using DSU (Digital Service Units).” Id. at 8:25–28. Unlike what is
`
`claimed by the ’874 Patent, Arimilli does not disclose that its multiplexer interfaces
`
`a T1/E1 data stream (which is already a multiplex data stream) to a satellite link.
`
`– 13 –
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00496
`
`
`
`Docket No. 037023.0003-US04
`
`Instead, Arimilli’s object is to improve the “efficiency of a single telephone line
`
`connection” by transmitting over the composite link combinations of “voice grade
`
`telephone signals” with “both synchronous and asynchronous data signals.” Id. at
`
`3:4–14 (emphasis added).
`
`The heart of Arimilli is the statistical multiplexer, which differs markedly
`
`from the subject matter of the ’874 Patent. As illustrated in Figure 3 of Arimilli, the
`
`multiplexer takes in data and information from telephone equipment, fax machines,
`
`and “data terminal equipment (DTE) devices,” such as PCs, printer