UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. and
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ROSETTA WIRELESS CORP.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,149,511
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID L. COHN, PH.D.
`
`LG Electronics,lnc. et al.
`EXHIBIT 1008
`IPR Petition for
`U.S. Patent No. 7,149,511
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`Qualifications, Background, and Experience .................................................. 1 
`Scope of Assignment ....................................................................................... 3 
`II. 
`III.  Materials Considered ....................................................................................... 3 
`IV. 
`Summary of Opinions ...................................................................................... 5 
`V. 
`Legal Principles Used in Analysis ................................................................... 6 
`A. 
`Patent Claims in General ....................................................................... 7 
`B. 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 7 
`C. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 8 
`D. 
`Prior Art ................................................................................................. 9 
`E. 
`Patentability ........................................................................................... 9 
`VI.  A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Art ............................................. 13 
`A. 
`Relevant Field ...................................................................................... 13 
`B. 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 13 
`VII.  Background of the Relevant Technology ...................................................... 14 
`A.  History of Mobile Computing ............................................................. 14 
`Background of mobile computing personae and interrelation to mobile
`B. 
`computing field .............................................................................................. 17 
`VIII.  The ’511 Patent .............................................................................................. 23 
`A. 
`Prosecution History and Reexamination of the ’511 Patent ............... 25 
`B. 
`The Claims of the ’511 Patent ............................................................. 29 
`C. 
`Problem Addressed by the ’511 Patent ............................................... 31 
`D. 
`Solution Set Forth in the ’511 Patent .................................................. 32 
`IX.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 34 
`X. 
`Claims 1-12 and 58-67 are Unpatentable in View of Saldanha alone or in
`combination with Ditzik, Callaghan Patent, and/or Callaghan Book ...................... 38 
`A. 
`Summary of Opinion ........................................................................... 38 
`B. 
`Summary of Saldanha ......................................................................... 40 
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Comparison of terminology between Saldanha and the ’511 Patent .. 48 
`C. 
`Summary of Ditzik .............................................................................. 53 
`D. 
`Summary of Microsoft SMB ............................................................... 56 
`E. 
`Summary of Masden ........................................................................... 58 
`F. 
`Summary of NFS ................................................................................. 59 
`G. 
`Summary of Coda ................................................................................ 60 
`H. 
`Microsoft SMB, Masden, NFS, and Coda are exemplary file-system
`I. 
`62 
`art
`The Combination of Saldanha and Ditzik, Callaghan Patent, and/or
`J. 
`Callaghan Book ............................................................................................. 63 
`K. 
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 67 
`i. 
`“A wireless intelligent personal network server, comprising:”67 
`ii. 
`“a radio frequency (RF) receiver for receiving downstream
`data transmitted over a first wireless communications channel;” ..... 69 
`iii. 
`“a memory;” ............................................................................. 72 
`iv. 
`“a central processing unit (CPU);” ......................................... 73 
`v. 
`“a set of embedded machine language instructions within said
`personal network server, said set of embedded machine language
`instructions being executable by said CPU for processing said
`downstream data to provide at least one electronic file in said
`memory;” ............................................................................................. 75 
`vi. 
`“a first interface for allowing an application on an external
`display device to pick and open said at least one electronic file while
`said at least one electronic file remains resident on said personal
`network server,” .................................................................................. 78 
`vii. 
`“wherein said personal network server is hand-portable.” ..... 85 
`Claim 58 .............................................................................................. 86 
`L. 
`M.  Dependent Claims ............................................................................... 87 
`i. 
`Claims 2 and 59 ........................................................................ 87 
`ii. 
`Claims 3 and 60 ........................................................................ 89 
`iii.  Claims 4 and 61 ........................................................................ 91 
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Claims 5 and 62 ........................................................................ 92 
`iv. 
`Claims 6 and 63 ........................................................................ 93 
`v. 
`Claims 7 and 64 ........................................................................ 95 
`vi. 
`vii.  Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 95 
`viii.  Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 97 
`ix. 
`Claims 10 and 65 ...................................................................... 98 
`x. 
`Claims 11 and 66 ....................................................................... 99 
`xi. 
`Claims 12 and 67 ....................................................................101 
`Claim Charts ......................................................................................102 
`H. 
`XI.  Claims 1-12 and 58-67 are Unpatentable in View of Kato alone or in
`combination with one or more of Ditzik, Windows SMB, and Masden ...............102 
`A. 
`Summary of Opinion .........................................................................102 
`B. 
`Summary of Kato ..............................................................................103 
`C. 
`Comparison of terminology between Kato and the ’511 Patent .......105 
`D. 
`Summary of Ditzik ............................................................................109 
`E. 
`Summary of Microsoft SMB .............................................................109 
`F. 
`Summary of Masden .........................................................................109 
`G. 
`Summary of NFS ...............................................................................109 
`H.  Microsoft SMB, Masden, NFS, and Coda are exemplary file-system
`art
`109 
`I. 
`The Combination of Kato and Ditzik, Microsoft SMB, and Masden
`
`110 
`J. 
`Claim 1 .............................................................................................. 112 
`i. 
`“A wireless intelligent personal network server, comprising:”
`
`112 
`ii. 
`“a radio frequency (RF) receiver for receiving downstream
`data transmitted over a first wireless communications channel;” ... 114 
`iii. 
`“a memory;” ........................................................................... 117 
`iv. 
`“a central processing unit (CPU);” ....................................... 117 
`
`iv
`
`

`
`K. 
`L. 
`
`“a set of embedded machine language instructions within said
`v. 
`personal network server, said set of embedded machine language
`instructions being executable by said CPU for processing said
`downstream data to provide at least one electronic file in said
`memory;” ........................................................................................... 118 
`vi. 
`“a first interface for allowing an application on an external
`display device to pick and open said at least one electronic file while
`said at least one electronic file remains resident on said personal
`network server,” ................................................................................122 
`vii. 
`“wherein said personal network server is hand-portable.” ...128 
`Claim 58 ............................................................................................129 
`Dependent Claims .............................................................................130 
`i. 
`Claims 2 and 59 ......................................................................130 
`ii. 
`Claims 3 and 60 ......................................................................132 
`iii.  Claims 4 and 61 ......................................................................132 
`iv. 
`Claims 5 and 62 ......................................................................133 
`v. 
`Claims 6 and 63 ......................................................................134 
`vi. 
`Claims 7 and 64 ......................................................................135 
`vii.  Claim 8 ....................................................................................136 
`viii.  Claim 9 ....................................................................................137 
`ix. 
`Claims 10 and 65 ....................................................................137 
`x. 
`Claims 11 and 66 .....................................................................139 
`xi. 
`Claims 12 and 67 ....................................................................140 
`Claim Charts ......................................................................................141 
`H. 
`XII.  Conclusion ...................................................................................................142 
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`1. My name is David L. Cohn. I understand that my declaration is being
`
`submitted in connection with a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,149,511 (the “’511 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`I.
`
` Qualifications, Background, and Experience
`
`2.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering in 1966, a
`
`Master of Science in Electrical Engineering in 1966, and a Ph.D. in Electrical
`
`Engineering in 1970, all from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
`
`3.
`
`I have authored three scientific and technical books and authored or
`
`co-authored over one hundred scientific and technical journal articles; I am listed
`
`as an inventor on ten U.S. patents, and I have over 40 years of experience with the
`
`computing industry including work with mobile devices and distributed
`
`computing.
`
`4.
`
`After I received my doctorate, I worked as an Assistant Professor in
`
`the field of Electrical Engineering, first at Southern Methodist University from
`
`1970 through 1973 and then at the University of Notre Dame from 1973 through
`
`1976 when I became an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering. I worked as
`
`an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering through 1986 when I became a
`
`full Professor of Electrical Engineering. I worked as a Professor of Electrical
`
`Engineering from 1986 through 1998, also serving as a Professor of Computer
`
`Science and Engineering. From 1984 to 1998, I also had the role of Director of the
`
`1
`
`

`
`Distributed Computing Research Laboratory at the University of Notre Dame.
`
`While I led the Distributed Computing Research Laboratory, it was involved in
`
`researching distributed computing and its intersection with file servers and mobile
`
`computing.
`
`5. My research interests included, among other things, information
`
`theory, speech digitization and distributed computing. I developed a substantial
`
`research program that included managing over $4 million in grants, sponsored
`
`primarily by IBM. I have supervised twelve doctoral dissertations and thirty-one
`
`masters theses, and have taught widely in Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science and Engineering. In 1996 I moved from academia to industry. This began
`
`as a temporary move (I remained a Professor until 1998), and then it became
`
`permanent. I worked for IBM from 1996 to 2014 in a variety of roles and subject
`
`areas related to information integration, business process management and cloud
`
`computing.
`
`6.
`
`A more complete recitation of my professional experience including a
`
`list of my journal publications, patents, conference proceedings, book authorship,
`
`and committee memberships may be found in my Curriculum Vitae, attached to
`
`my declaration as Appendix A.
`
`2
`
`

`
`II.
`
` Scope of Assignment
`
`7.
`
`I have been retained in this matter by Rothwell, Figg, Ernst &
`
`Manbeck, P.C. (“Rothwell Figg”) as a technical expert in the field of network
`
`computing, including wireless communications and distributed file systems. I am
`
`being compensated for my work in this matter at $500/hour. I have no personal or
`
`financial stake or interest in the outcome of the Petition for Inter Partes Review or
`
`any related action. My compensation in no way depends upon my testimony or the
`
`outcome of the Petition for Inter Partes Review.
`
`8.
`
`I have been advised that Rothwell Figg represents LG Electronics,
`
`Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “LG” or “Petitioners”) in this
`
`matter and that Rosetta Wireless Corp. (“Rosetta Wireless,” “Rosetta,” or “Patent
`
`Owner”) owns the ’511 patent. I have no personal or financial stake or interest in
`
`LG, Rosetta Wireless, or the ’511 patent.
`
`III. Materials Considered
`
`9.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, in additional to my personal
`
`education, background, and experience, and understanding of the state of the art, I
`
`considered the following documents:
`
`(1) The ’511 patent and its entire file history including Reexamination
`
`90/011,569 (Exs. 1001, 1015, 1016)
`
`3
`
`

`
`(2)
`
`“A New File System for Mobile Computing” by John Saldahna,
`
`Dissertation, Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
`
`University of Notre Dame (November, 1996) (“Saldanha”) (Ex. 1002)
`
`(3)
`
`“Mobile Computing Personae” by A. Banerji, D.L. Cohn, and D.C.
`
`Kulkarni, Proc. 4th Workshop on Workstation Operating Systems, Napa,
`
`CA, October 1993, pp. 21-29 (Ex. 1003)
`
`(4)
`
`Presentation given at IBM Mobile Computing Workshop on January 24,
`
`1994 by David Cohn. (Ex. 1004)
`
`(5)
`
`“Realizing Mobile Computing Personae,” by Michael Raymond Casey,
`
`Dissertation, Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
`
`University of Notre Dame (April, 1995) (Ex. 1005)
`
`(6)
`
`“A hybrid model for mobile file systems,” by Saldanha, John, and David
`
`L. Cohn, Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, 1994
`
`Proceedings, IEEE (1994) (Ex. 1006)
`
`(7)
`
`“A File System for Mobile Computing,” by John Saldanha, A
`
`Dissertation Proposal, Technical Report 93-17, University of Notre
`
`Dame, December 1993 (Ex. 1007)
`
`(8) U.S. Patent No. 5,983,073 (filed Apr. 4, 1997) (issued Nov. 9, 1999)
`
`(“Ditzik”) (Ex. 1011)
`
`4
`
`

`
`(9) Microsoft Networks, SMB File Sharing Protocol, Document Version
`
`6.0p (Jan. 1, 1996) (“Microsoft SMB” or “SMB”) (Ex. 1012)
`
`(10) WIPO Publication No. WO 91/003024 (filed Aug. 14, 1990) (published
`
`Mar. 17, 1991) (“Masden”) (Ex. 1013)
`
`(11) “A File System for Mobile Computing,” by Carl Downing Tait,
`
`Dissertation, 1993 Columbia University (Ex. 1014)
`
`(12) U.S. Patent No. 6,088,730 (filed Jan. 12, 1998) (issued Jul. 11, 2000)
`
`(“Kato”) (Ex. 1021)
`
`(13) U.S. Patent No. 5,737,523 (issued Apr. 7, 1998) (“Callaghan Patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1020)
`
`(14) NFS Illustrated by Brent Callaghan (ISBN 0-201-32570-5) (“Callaghan
`
`Book”) (Ex. 1027)
`
`(15) Disconnected Operation in the Coda File System, by James J. Kistler and
`
`M. Satyanarayanan, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, Vol. 10,
`
`No. 1, February 1992, Pages 3-25 (“Coda”) (Ex. 1022)
`
`IV. Summary of Opinions
`
`10. Based on my investigation and analysis and for the reasons set forth
`
`below, it is my opinion that the subject matter recited in claims 1-12 and 58-67 was
`
`known prior to the time that the ’511 patent was filed. For example, the subject
`
`matter recited in claims 1-12 and 58-67 of the ’511 patent is disclosed by Saldanha
`
`5
`
`

`
`and the purported inventions at least would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in view of Saldanha alone or in combination with other references.
`
`11.
`
`It is also my opinion that the subject matter recited in claims 1-12 and
`
`58-67 of the ’511 patent is disclosed by Saldanha and/or Kato in combination with
`
`at least one or more of Ditzik, Microsoft SMB, Masden, NFS (Callaghan Patent
`
`and/or Callaghan Book), and Coda, such that the purported inventions at least
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view thereof.
`
`12.
`
`It is my opinion that the skilled person would have readily understood
`
`the teachings in the prior art discussed herein and would have had no trouble
`
`combining the teachings in order to arrive at the subject matter recited in claims 1-
`
`12 and 58-67 of the ’511 patent without any undue experimentation. That is, the
`
`prior art is in the same field of endeavor and/or reasonably analogous so that the
`
`skilled person would have been motivated to reference the same and would have
`
`expected the same to be combinable successfully.
`
`V.
`
` Legal Principles Used in Analysis
`
`13.
`
`I am not a patent attorney nor have I independently researched the law
`
`on patentability. Rather, LG’s attorneys have informed me of the legal principles
`
`outlined below, which I have relied on and applied in forming my opinions set
`
`forth in this declaration.
`
`6
`
`

`
`A. Patent Claims in General
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed that patent claims are the numbered sentences at
`
`the end of each patent. I have been informed that the claims are important because
`
`the words of the claims define what a patent covers. I have also been informed that
`
`the figures and text in the rest of the patent provide a description and/or examples
`
`and help explain the scope of the claims, but that the claims define the breadth of
`
`the patent’s coverage.
`
`15.
`
`I have also been informed that an “independent claim” expressly sets
`
`forth all of the elements that must be met in order for something to be covered by
`
`that claim. I have also been informed that a “dependent claim” does not itself
`
`recite all of the elements of the claim but refers to another claim for some of its
`
`elements. In this way, the claim “depends” on another claim and incorporates all
`
`of the elements of the claim(s) from which it depends. I also have been informed
`
`that dependent claims add additional elements. I have been informed that, to
`
`determine all the elements of a dependent claim, it is necessary to look at the
`
`recitations of the dependent claim and any other claim(s) on which it depends.
`
`B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the person of ordinary skill in the art is a
`
`hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of
`
`the invention. Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary
`
`7
`
`

`
`skill in the art may include: (A) the type of problems encountered in the art; (B)
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; (C) rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made; (D) sophistication of the technology; and (E) educational level of active
`
`workers in the field. In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or
`
`more factors may predominate.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person
`
`of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. I further understand that the hypothetical
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed subject matter pertains
`
`would, of necessity, have the capability of understanding the scientific and
`
`engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`18.
`
`I understand that, in an inter partes review, claim terms are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and that, under
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the words of a claim are generally
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention in the context of the
`
`entire disclosure.
`
`19.
`
`I also understand that, in determining the meaning of a disputed claim
`
`limitation, the intrinsic evidence of record is considered by examining the claim
`
`language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history. I further
`
`8
`
`

`
`understand that a patentee may act as its own lexicographer and depart from the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning by defining a term with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness and precision, but that there is a presumption that a claim term
`
`carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`D. Prior Art
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed that the law provides categories of information
`
`(known as “prior art”) that may be used to anticipate or render obvious patent
`
`claims. I have been informed that, to be prior art with respect to a particular
`
`patent, a reference must have been made, known, used, published, or patented, or
`
`be the subject of a patent application by another, before the priority date of the
`
`patent.
`
`21. Further, I have been informed that statements by a patent applicant or
`
`patentee, including statements in the patent that something is in the “prior art,” can
`
`constitute prior art that can be used to anticipate or render obvious patent claims.
`
`That is, prior art can be created by admissions of the patent applicant or patentee.
`
`22.
`
`I also understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed
`
`to have knowledge of all prior art.
`
`E. Patentability
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that a determination of whether the claims of a
`
`patent are rendered obvious by prior art is a two-step analysis: (1) determining the
`
`9
`
`

`
`meaning and scope of the claims, and (2) comparing the properly construed claims
`
`to the prior art. I have endeavored to undertake this process herein.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed and understand that, even if every element of a
`
`claim is not found explicitly or implicitly in a single prior art reference, the claim
`
`may still be unpatentable if the differences between the claimed elements 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 the art.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is obvious
`
`when it is only a combination of old and known elements, with no change in their
`
`respective functions, and that these familiar elements are combined according to
`
`known methods to obtain predictable results. I have been informed and understand
`
`that the following four factors are considered when determining whether a patent
`
`claim is obvious: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claim; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`(4) additional considerations of objective evidence, sometimes referred to as
`
`“secondary considerations,” tending to prove obviousness or non-obviousness.
`
`The additional considerations include: unexpected, surprising, or unusual results;
`
`nonanalogous art; teachings away from the invention; substantially superior
`
`results; synergistic results; long-standing need; commercial success; copying by
`
`others; and nearly-simultaneous invention by others. I have also been informed
`
`10
`
`

`
`and understand that there must be a connection between these additional factors
`
`and the scope of the claim language.
`
`26.
`
`In determining obviousness based on a combination of prior art
`
`references, I also understand that evidence of some reason to combine the
`
`teachings is required to make the combination, and thus such evidence must be
`
`considered, along with any evidence that one or more of the references would have
`
`taught away from the claimed invention at the time of the invention.
`
`27.
`
`I have also been informed and understand that some examples of
`
`rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
`
`(A) combining prior art elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
`(B) simply substituting one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`(C) using known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`(D) applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(E) choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success—in other words, whether
`
`something is “obvious to try;”
`
`11
`
`

`
`(F) using work in one field of endeavor to prompt variations of that
`
`work for use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`(G) arriving at a claimed invention as a result of 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.
`
`I have also been informed that other rationales to support a conclusion of
`
`obviousness may be relied upon, for instance, that common sense (where
`
`substantiated) may be a reason to combine or modify prior art to achieve the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`28.
`
`I am also informed that a basis to combine teachings need not be
`
`stated expressly in any prior art reference. However, I understand that there must
`
`be some evidence showing an articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to
`
`support a motivation to combine teachings and to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness.
`
`29.
`
`In addition, I am informed and understand that in order to establish
`
`that an element of a claim is “inherent” in the disclosure of a prior art reference, it
`
`must be clear to one skilled in the art that the missing element is the inevitable
`
`12
`
`

`
`outcome of the process and/or thing that is explicitly described in the prior art, and
`
`that it would be recognized as necessarily present by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. I understand that to establish inherency, it is not enough that a certain
`
`result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art, nor may inherency
`
`be established by probabilities or possibilities.
`
`VI.
`
` A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Art
`
`30.
`
`I understand that my assessment and determination of the patentability
`
`of the challenged claims of the ’511 patent must be undertaken from the
`
`perspective of what would have been known or understood by someone of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant field as of the earliest possible priority date of the ’511 patent
`
`— August 31, 2000.
`
`A. Relevant Field
`
`31.
`
`In my opinion, the field relevant to the claims of the ’511 patent is
`
`mobile computing, including, but not limited to, mobile computing devices,
`
`network and wireless communications, computer operating systems, and
`
`distributed file systems.
`
`B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`32.
`
`I understand that in IPR2016-00616 and IPR2016-00622, Rosetta
`
`offered a description of one of ordinary skill in the art as someone who would have
`
`an undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or a
`
`comparable field of study, and at least two years of professional experience in the
`
`13
`
`

`
`areas of portable computing and wireless telecommunications. Based on my
`
`review of the asserted patents and my own training and experience, I am
`
`comfortable adopting this description of one of ordinary skill in the art. My
`
`opinions herein are based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as
`
`described above.
`
`33. With over 40 years of experience working in mobile computing and
`
`related fields, I am well acquainted with the level of ordinary skill that would have
`
`been required to design, develop, and/or implement the subject matter of the ’511
`
`patent. I have direct experience with the relevant subject matter and am capable of
`
`rendering an informed opinion regarding what the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`was for the relevant field as of August 31, 2000. I am also capable of rendering an
`
`informed opinion regarding what one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood as of August 31, 2000.
`
`VII. Background of the Relevant Technology
`
`A. History of Mobile Computing
`
`34. Mobile computing and communications devices were known nearly
`
`three decades before the August 31, 2000, filing date of the ’511 Patent. It is
`
`widely accepted that Motorola developed the first handheld mobile phone in 1973.
`
`In the 1980s, first generation (1G) systems were available using the 1G network
`
`then recently launched in the United States. By the 1990s, second generation (2G)
`
`14
`
`

`
`systems had been developed and introduced. Portable computers were available
`
`commercially as early as the 1980s, including the Osborne 1 in 1981, the Compaq
`
`Portable in 1982, the Commodore SX-64 in 1984, and others. Mobile laptop
`
`computers, a more easily carried portable computer, became common in the 1990s,
`
`as Apple introduced its PowerBook series in 1991 and IBM introduced its
`
`ThinkPad 700 machine in 1992. Portable digital assistants, known also as PDAs,
`
`were also available in the 1980s and 1990s. For example, Psion released its
`
`Organizer in 1984 and its Series 3 in 1991. The Apple Newton was available by
`
`1992, the IBM Simon (with full mobile phone capability) was available by 1994,
`
`and the Nokia 9000 communicator was available by 1996. Palm Computing
`
`introduced its Pilot in 1996.
`
`35. By the late 1990s, prior to the August 31, 2000, filing date of the ’511
`
`Patent, these devices were quite advanced. Those in the industry were particularly
`
`interested in making devices smaller, cheaper, faster and especially, more portable.
`
`Work progressed therefore to reduce the size of the devices, to increase the
`
`processing power and available memory (allowing for greater functionality), to
`
`decrease power consumption (for battery life) and to make them more affordable
`
`(increasing their general availability to consumers).
`
`36. As these mobile devices were being made smaller, cheaper, and faster,
`
`another design goal that the industry was moving towards was for better
`
`15
`
`

`
`communications. This search for better communications led to improvements in
`
`communications protocols (e.g., less overhead, error correction) as well as
`
`improvements in hardware (e.g., radio and cellular technology). Some of the
`
`improvements in communications protocols that occurred before the August 31,
`
`2000 filling date of the ’511 Patent include the development of Bluetooth (later
`
`standardized as IEEE 802.15.1), the 1997 introduction of the original 802.11
`
`protocol (later called WiFi) and the improved 802.11a and 802.11b protocols (in
`
`1999). By 1999, the WiFi Alliance had been formed to promote this technology.
`
`Improvements in antenna technology had also taken place, principally allowing for
`
`more and smaller antennas to be used in mobile devices. Cellular telephone
`
`technology was also improving.
`
`37. Work also progressed on allowing access to files from remote devices.
`
`It was apparent, even during the 1980s and 1990s, that users wanted to access their
`
`files while they were away from the office. Programs such as telnet had been
`
`available since the 1970s, and the X Window System had been available since the
`
`1980s. These systems allowed users to access computers from remote terminals.
`
`Other systems such as the RFB Protocol developed by Tristan Richardson and
`
`Kenneth R. Wood in 1998 provided other protocols for remote access to graphical
`
`user interfaces. Distributed file systems provided the framework for allowing
`