Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ChanBond, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,941,822 B2
`Filing Date: Feb. 1, 2008
`Issue Date: May 10, 2011
`
`Title: INTELLIGENT DEVICE SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTION
`OF DIGITAL SIGNALS ON A WIDEBAND SIGNAL DISTRIBUTION
`SYSTEM
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANTHONY WECHSELBERGER IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,941,822
`
`Inter Partes Review No. ______
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 1
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ChanBond, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,941,822 B2
`Filing Date: Feb. 1, 2008
`Issue Date: May 10, 2011
`
`Title: INTELLIGENT DEVICE SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTION
`OF DIGITAL SIGNALS ON A WIDEBAND SIGNAL DISTRIBUTION
`SYSTEM
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANTHONY WECHSELBERGER IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,941,822
`
`Inter Partes Review No. ______
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 1
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`I, Anthony Wechselberger, declare as follows:
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration, and
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`could and would testify to these facts under oath if called upon to do so.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`A. Engagement Overview
`3.
`I have been retained by counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc. (Petitioner) in
`
`this case as an expert in the relevant art. I am being compensated for my work at
`
`the rate of $350 per hour. No part of my compensation is contingent upon the
`
`outcome of this petition.
`
`4.
`
`I was asked to study U.S. Patent No. 7,941,822 (“the ‘822 patent”), its
`
`prosecution history, and the prior art and to render opinions on the obviousness or
`
`non-obviousness of the claims of the ‘822 patent in light of the teachings of the
`
`prior art, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the 2000 time
`
`frame. I understand that the claims being challenged in the Petition are claims 1-2,
`
`5-6, 13-14, 19, 20, 23, and 29 (“the challenged claims”).
`
`B.
`5.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`
`After studying the ‘822 patent, its file history, and the prior art, and
`
`considering the subject matter of the claims of the ‘822 patent in light of the state
`
`of technical advancement in the area of electrical engineering and modulated RF
`
`
`
`2
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`signal transmission in the 2000 time frame, I reached the conclusions discussed
`
`herein.
`
`6.
`
`In light of these general conclusions, and as explained in more detail
`
`throughout this declaration, it is therefore my opinion that each of the challenged
`
`claims of the ‘822 patent addressed in this declaration were invalid as obvious in
`
`the 2000 time frame in light of the knowledge of a person of skill in the art at that
`
`time and the teachings, suggestions, and motivations present in the prior art. This
`
`declaration, and the conclusions and opinions herein, provide support for the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ‘822 patent filed by Petitioner. I have
`
`reviewed the Petition in its entirety as well as its corresponding exhibits.
`
`C. Qualifications and Experience
`7.
`I possess the knowledge, skills, experience, training and the education
`
`to form an expert opinion and testimony in this matter. My areas of expertise
`
`include broadband
`
`content distribution networks
`
`and
`
`communication
`
`infrastructures (Internet, broadcast, cable, satellite, and wireless mediums)
`
`including one-way and two-way interactive architectures, computer networks,
`
`communications-systems
`
`technologies and equipment, various content and
`
`information distribution and merchandising channels, digital television, digital
`
`cinema, interactive media/multimedia systems, Internet technologies (including but
`
`not limited to delivering content via the Internet, communications standards and
`
`
`
`3
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`protocols), digital-rights management, physical media and file-based and streaming
`
`content delivery, and other areas of expertise relevant to the technologies of this
`
`matter.
`
`Education
`
`1.
`I have a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in electrical
`
`8.
`
`engineering from the University of Arizona in 1974 and San Diego State
`
`University in 1979, respectively. I also completed the Executive Program for
`
`Scientists and Engineers at the University of California at San Diego in 1984.
`
`Career
`
`2.
`I am currently the President of Entropy Management Solutions, a
`
`9.
`
`position I have held since I founded the company in 1999. In this capacity I
`
`perform consulting services related to technology and business development,
`
`content management, distribution and merchandizing, systems engineering, and
`
`product design in the areas of industrial and consumer broadband and multimedia
`
`technologies and associated commercial systems.
`
`10.
`
`I have over forty years of experience working with high-technology
`
`systems related to military, commercial, and consumer communication systems
`
`and networks. I have held various design, leadership, and executive positions in,
`
`for example, engineering, operations, sales and marketing, and product
`
`management at leading companies in those fields, such as TV/COM International,
`
`
`
`4
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 4
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`Inc. (“TV/COM”) and Oak Communications, Inc. (“Oak”). Over many years I
`
`have published and presented a number of articles and papers related to
`
`content/information creation, transmission/distribution and reception/consumption
`
`in various media sectors, including cable, satellite, broadcast/wireless, Internet, and
`
`digital cinema.
`
`11.
`
`I specialize in the areas of analog and digital communications and
`
`signal processing as applied in content delivery systems, including the associated
`
`network command and control. “Command and control” refers to the technical
`
`oversight and management of communication systems and equipment within a
`
`distribution network to direct the equipment as to its set-up and operation in order
`
`to perform required functions. In the types of networks associated with the
`
`technology of this case, command and control typically operate in the background
`
`(i.e., invisible to consumers) to enable the system operator to manage the delivery
`
`of content to a set-top box (STB), television or other consumer appliance according
`
`to the on-demand or subscription service(s) for which the consumer is authorized.
`
`With respect to being authorized, “rights management” refers to control over the
`
`delivery and consumption of programming according to defined rules on behalf of
`
`the network operator and/or content-rights owner. As today’s delivery processes
`
`have become more digitally enabled, the term “Digital Rights Management”
`
`(DRM) has been adopted to refer to these processes.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`In many instances the implementation of content distribution channels
`
`12.
`
`and the associated command-and-control and DRM solutions involve the use of
`
`what are referred to as “in-band” and “out-of-band” communications channels for
`
`content and/or command and control. This terminology typically refers to a main
`
`content distribution path or channel (in-band channel) and one or more external or
`
`non-main paths
`
`(out-of-band channel(s)) used
`
`for a variety of other
`
`communications functions, depending upon the application. This is of particular
`
`importance in the matters of this case, which include both two-way command-and-
`
`control functionality between consumer appliances and a cable headend video-on-
`
`demand (VOD) system, as well as different content distribution paths. My
`
`personal experience with such multiple information distribution architectures for
`
`television and data delivery systems and networks dates back to 1980, and my
`
`familiarity with the types of equipment and applications implementing such
`
`technologies dates back to the early 1970s.
`
`13. Further, my background includes much experience with interactive
`
`television systems and interactive program guides, as well as client-server
`
`technologies such as those used in computer systems and Internet-focused
`
`networks. This includes having technical oversight and management of the
`
`systems engineering for and the development of equipment for distribution systems
`
`having transmission equipment (e.g., network infrastructures, servers, hubs, nodes,
`
`
`
`6
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`cable headends, and/or satellite uplinks etc.) and receiving equipment (e.g.,
`
`personal computer, television, set-top box, handset/mobile device, or other
`
`consumer appliance). This is important because the technologies of the challenged
`
`claims revolve around interactive consumer applications for entertainment content
`
`delivery in client-server architectures. In addition to the research and development
`
`aspects, I have also been involved in the installation, customer training,
`
`maintenance, and operations of such systems.
`
`14. As Vice President at Oak (1980s) and Chief Technology Officer at
`
`TV/COM (1990s), I was involved in the development of terrestrial broadcast,
`
`satellite uplink, and cable headend
`
`industrial equipment
`
`for
`
`television
`
`transmissions, as well as consumer appliance equipment such as STBs and other
`
`home-based or home-networked devices. All of these architectures included
`
`computer control systems for network and associated network-device command
`
`and control, and for management of content distribution and consumer appliance
`
`functions. For example, these systems were all addressable. “Addressability”
`
`enables the system operator to control the delivery of content and network services,
`
`network sourcing, receiving devices (e.g., servers and transmission equipment, and
`
`PC or STB receivers), and the consumer experience. Examples include delivery of
`
`software or data files, control of available subscription services and content
`
`
`
`7
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 7
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`delivery, and providing a la carte functions such as pay-per-view (PPV) and video-
`
`on-demand (VOD).
`
`15.
`
`I was involved from the start with the development and evolution of
`
`modern consumer digital audio and video communications systems and
`
`technologies. In 1980, Oak was developing and demonstrating high fidelity digital
`
`audio transmission systems for broadcast applications. This was the same time as
`
`consumer electronics companies such as Philips, Sony, and others were doing
`
`research that eventually led to the audio compact disc. Oak and I had several
`
`meetings with such companies in our research labs sharing ideas and information
`
`about sampling rates, analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog conversion, and
`
`compatibility between consumer storage/playback and broadcast applications. In
`
`1991, my employer, TV/COM, and I began to participate in the newly-formed
`
`International Organization for Standardization (ISO) MPEG-2 digital television
`
`standards initiatives and, in the following year, both the European Digital Video
`
`Broadcast (DVB) and U.S. Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC)
`
`forums (which were based upon MPEG-2). I was an active participant and
`
`contributor to the first two standard-setting bodies, and was a voting member of the
`
`ATSC. As Chief Technology Officer of TV/COM, I developed a business strategy
`
`based on supporting open international standards for digital television (DTV).
`
`
`
`8
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 8
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`In the mid-1990s, as the technologies and standards in support of
`
`16.
`
`DTV moved towards implementation, the dawn of the Internet age arrived. This
`
`had a dramatic impact on the way broadband systems engineers like me began to
`
`plan for the future. This is because the concept of convergence—the melding of
`
`traditional broadband communications systems and equipment, computers and
`
`computer networks, and the telecommunications worlds—was changing the
`
`communications infrastructure and technology landscape. When television
`
`distribution went all-digital, the information of television became simply “data”—
`
`and it became possible for the technologies of digital television, computers,
`
`computer networks, and the telephony industry (which was in the midst of its
`
`transition to digital infrastructure that began in the 1970s) to coalesce. Support for
`
`online and Internet services demanded a high performance two-way data
`
`transmission capability, and so broadband network providers began to upgrade
`
`their distribution infrastructures accordingly.
`
`17.
`
`In conjunction with
`
`this convergence, as TV/COM’s Chief
`
`Technology Officer, I directed the expansion of our network products into
`
`broadband data communications generally, from its initial focus on digital
`
`television. Networks became more advanced in order to support real-time
`
`interaction between consumers and information sources within the network.
`
`Interactive and online applications led to rapid adoption of client-server
`
`
`
`9
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 9
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`information-access approaches (typical of the computer industry) in the products
`
`and technologies I worked with for content delivery and network command-and-
`
`control functions. By the mid-1990s, the ubiquitous set-top box began to evolve
`
`from a minimalist appliance towards its current status as a communications hub of
`
`the consumer’s media room. In this same time period, the PC also become a
`
`ubiquitous consumer appliance, and with the Internet age came much innovation in
`
`electronic-information distribution and electronic merchandising (i.e., art related to
`
`complementing physical information media and brick-and-mortar institutions with
`
`all-electronic digital alternatives). This was an explosive period of so-called
`
`digital-rights management (DRM) art. TV/COM and I were part of this evolution
`
`until TV/COM was purchased in 1999.
`
`18.
`
`In my consulting work I have continued to work with technologies
`
`and network infrastructures for content distribution and management. My current
`
`work involves both traditional and newly-developing architectures and distribution
`
`channels. As an example of the latter, I am the chief security systems architect on
`
`behalf of the six major Hollywood studios for their “Digital Cinema Initiatives”
`
`(DCI) consortium. DCI develops and evolves the requirements and specifications
`
`for transitioning first-run theatrical movie releases from film to digital files for
`
`
`
`10
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`distribution and exhibition display.1 I am responsible for all elements of command
`
`and control and information security for the digital cinema system design and
`
`implementation. I also represent DCI at the Society of Motion Picture and
`
`Television Engineers (SMPTE), which is developing the set of internationally-
`
`recognized standards for global adoption of digital cinema. In this capacity I am a
`
`contributing member to SMPTE, and have chaired several digital cinema
`
`technology groups, and authored or co-authored more than half a dozen SMPTE
`
`standards. In addition to theatrical release, the migration to all-digital distribution
`
`impacts other content distribution channels and release windows for hospitality,
`
`airplane, and cable/satellite pay-per-view (PPV) and video-on-demand (VOD), as
`
`well as newer so called “over-the-top” (OTT) distribution channels based on
`
`Internet distribution. I have been a strategy and technology consultant to content
`
`management and distribution entities in these areas.
`
`19. My consulting practice today includes a balance of technology and
`
`systems-engineering services and assistance to the legal community as a
`
`technology consultant and expert witness. I have been accepted to provide, and
`
`have provided, expert testimony in the areas of content distribution and access
`
`control involving many different kinds of multimedia technologies and the
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
` See: http://www.dcimovies.com
`
`11
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 11
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`associated networks as used for content management and delivery on many
`
`occasions
`
`Publications
`
`3.
`I am a named inventor on two patents: U.S. Patent No. 4,531,020,
`
`20.
`
`“Multi-layer Encryption System for the Broadcast of Encrypted Information,” and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,113,440, “Universal Decoder.”
`
`21.
`
`I am also the author of several journal and conference publications. A
`
`list of all my publications in the last ten years is provided in the attached Exhibit.
`
`[Ex. 1003.]
`
`4.
`Curriculum Vitae
`22. Additional details of my education and employment history and
`
`patents, are set forth in my current curriculum vitae, which is provided as Ex.
`
`1003. A list of all the cases within the last five years for which I have provided
`
`testimony is included in Ex. 1003.
`
`D. Materials Considered
`23. My analysis is based on my education and experience as set out above
`
`and in my CV [Ex. 1003], including the documents I have read and authored and
`
`systems I have developed and used since then.
`
`24. Furthermore, I have reviewed the various relevant publications from
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention and the claim charts that are included in
`
`
`
`12
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 12
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`the Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ‘822 patent, to which this Declaration
`
`relates. I have also reviewed the Petition in its entirety. Based on my experience
`
`as a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention, the references accurately characterize the state of the art at the relevant
`
`time. Specifically, I have reviewed the following:
`
`1007
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,941,822
`1003 Curriculum Vitae of Mr. Anthony Wechselberger
`1004
`J. A. C. Bingham, "Multicarrier modulation for data transmission: an
`idea whose time has come," in IEEE Communications Magazine,
`vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 5-14, May 1990.
`1005 M. G. Anderson, “Wired: Cable TV's. Unlikely Beginning,” Spring
`2010.
`1006 Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specifications DOCSIS 1.0 Radio
`Frequency Interface Specification.
`Jhong Sam Lee and Leonard E. Miller, CDMA Systems Engineering
`Handbook (1998).
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 980,359 (Squier)
`1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,859,840 (Tiedemann)
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,103,459 (Gilhousen)
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,081,536 (Gorsuch)
`1012 U.S. Patent No. 5,487,069 (O’Sullivan)
`1013
`ITU-T Recommendation Q.931, May 1998.
`1014 Robert G. Winch, Telecommunication Transmission Systems (2nd
`ed. 1998)
`Steve Steinke and Network Magazine, Network Tutorial (5th ed.
`2003)
`1016 Business Wire, Sierra Wireless’ AirCard Receives 1997 Top Product
`Award from Wireless for the Corporate User, Sept. 16, 1997
`1017 Qualcomm Data Connectivity Kit User Guide, 1999
`1018
`Telecommunications Industry Association IS-95B Standard
`
`1015
`
`
`
`13
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1019
`IBM Dictionary of Computing (10th ed. 1993)
`1020
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,941,822
`1021 Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (21st ed. 2005)
`1022
`Philip E. Margolis, Computer & Internet Dictionary (3rd ed. 1999)
`1023
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms
`(6th ed. 1996)
`1024 Qualcomm Enters into CDMA and HDR Modem Card License
`Agreement with GTRAN Incorporated, Nov. 3, 1999
`1025 Qualcomm Unveils “pdQ” CDMA Digital Smartphone, Sept. 21,
`1998
`1026 U.S. Patent No. 4,901,307 (Gilhousen II)
`1027
`IEEE Standard 802.11, June 1997
`1028
`John C. Welch, Wireless Networking and the Airport, MacTech, The
`journal of Apple technology, vol. 15 (1999), issue 12
`1029 U.S. Patent No. 5,504,773 (Padovani)
`1030 U.S. Department of Commerce, United States Frequency
`Allocations, The Radio Spectrum, Oct. 2003
`1031 UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access Network (UTRAN); Architecture
`Description; Stage 2; (UMTS ZZ.01 version 1.0.0), 3GPP Technical
`Specification Group, Radio Access Network Meeting #2, March
`1999
`1032 Russ Smith, IP Address: Your Internet Identity, March 1997
`1033
`John S. Belrose, Fessenden and Marconi: Their Differing
`Technologies and Transatlantic Experiments During the First Decade
`of this Century, Sept. 1995
`1034 Mukta Kar, et al., Cable Headend Architecture for Delivery of
`Multimedia Services, NCTA Technical Papers 1999
`1035 Oleh Sniezko, et al., HFC Architecture in the Making, NCTA
`Technical Papers 1999
`1036 Qualcomm Introduces New CDMA Digital Phone Accessories, Feb.
`1999
`Standards for Personal Communications in Europe and the United
`States, David J. Goodman, April 1998, P-98-1
`ITU-T Recommendation I.330
`ITU-T Recommendation E.164
`14
`
`1038
`1039
`
`1037
`
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 14
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1040 Qualcomm pdQ Basics Handbook
`
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN THE ANALYSIS
`25.
`I am not a patent attorney, nor have I independently researched the
`
`law on patent validity. Attorneys for the Petitioner explained certain legal
`
`principles to me that I have relied upon in forming my opinions set forth in this
`
`report.
`
`A.
`26.
`
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)
`
`I understand that I must undertake my assessment of the claims of the
`
`‘822 patent from the perspective of what would have been known or understood by
`
`a POSITA as of the earliest-claimed priority date of the patent claim, which I
`
`understand is December 27, 2000. The opinions and statements that I provide
`
`herein regarding the ‘822 patent and the references that I discuss are made from the
`
`perspective of the person of ordinary skill in the art in the late 2000 time frame.
`
`27. Counsel has advised me that, to determine the appropriate level of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, I may consider the following factors: (a) the types of
`
`problems encountered by those working in the field and prior art solutions thereto;
`
`(b) the sophistication of the technology in question, and the rapidity with which
`
`innovations occur in the field; (c) the educational level of active workers in the
`
`field; and (d) the educational level of the inventor.
`15
`
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 15
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`28. The
`relevant
`technology
`field for
`the
`‘822 patent
`
`is data
`
`communications over modulated RF carrier signals, especially as pertains to using
`
`multiple channels to carry voice, data, or video data. Based on this, and the four
`
`factors above, it is my opinion that a POSITA would hold a bachelor’s degree or
`
`the equivalent in electrical engineering (or related academic fields, such as a
`
`telecommunications-related field) and at least three years of industry experience in
`
`the fields of analog and digital communications, inclusive of exposure to
`
`telecommunications standards as applied in wired and wireless broadband
`
`networks, or equivalent work experience.
`
`29. Unless otherwise specified, when I mention a POSITA or someone of
`
`ordinary skill, I am referring to someone with at least the above level of knowledge
`
`and understanding.
`
`30. Based on my experiences, I have a good understanding of the
`
`capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. Indeed, in addition to
`
`being a person of at least ordinary skill in the art, I have worked closely with many
`
`such persons over the course of my career.
`
`31. Although my qualifications and experience exceed those of the
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art defined above, my analysis and
`
`opinions regarding the ‘822 patent have been based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in the December 2000 time frame.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 16
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`32. My opinions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are based
`
`on, among other things, the content of the ‘822 patent, my years of experience in
`
`the field of electrical engineering, my understanding of the basic qualifications that
`
`would be relevant to an engineer tasked with investigating methods and systems in
`
`the relevant area, and my familiarity with the backgrounds of colleagues and co-
`
`workers, both past and present.
`
`33. My opinions herein regarding the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and my other opinions set forth herein would remain the same if the person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art were determined to have somewhat more or less education
`
`and/or experience than I have identified above.
`
`B.
`34.
`
`Prior Art
`
`I understand that the law provides categories of information that
`
`constitute prior art that may be used to anticipate or render obvious patent claims.
`
`To be prior art to a particular patent under the relevant law, 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. I also understand that
`
`the POSITA is presumed to have knowledge of the relevant prior art.
`
`35. As discussed below, I understand that the Petitioner has determined
`
`that the challenged claims of the ‘822 patent are entitled to a December 27, 2000
`
`priority date.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 17
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`C. Broadest Reasonable Interpretations
`36.
`I understand that, in Inter Partes Review (IPR), the claim terms are to
`
`be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In performing my analysis and rendering my opinions,
`
`I have interpreted claim terms for which the Petitioner has not proposed a BRI
`
`construction by giving them the ordinary meaning they would have to a POSITA,
`
`reading the ‘822 Patent with its earliest priority filing date (December 27, 2000) in
`
`mind, and in light of its specification and file history.
`
`37.
`
`I have also been advised that the Supreme Court is currently
`
`reviewing whether BRI or the claim constructions standard set forth in Philips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) is the proper standard to be
`
`applied during IPR. I understand that, under Philips, the claim terms are given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a POSITA in light of the
`
`specification at the time of the invention (i.e., December 27, 2000).
`
`D. Legal Standards for Anticipation & Obviousness
`38.
`I have been provided the following instruction from the Model Patent
`
`Jury Instructions for the Northern District of California (June 17, 2014) for
`
`anticipation, and instructions from the Federal Circuit Bar Association Model
`
`Instructions regarding obviousness, which is reproduced in part below. I apply this
`
`understanding in my analysis, with the caveat that I have been informed that the
`
`
`
`18
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 18
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`Patent Office will find a patent claim invalid in inter partes review if it concludes
`
`that it is more likely than not that the claim is invalid (i.e., a preponderance-of-the-
`
`evidence standard), which is a lower burden of proof than the “clear-and-
`
`convincing” standard that is applied in United States district court (and described
`
`in the jury instruction below):
`
`4.3a1 ANTICIPATION
`
`A patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not
`new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all
`of its requirements must have existed in a single device
`or method that predates the claimed invention, or must
`have been described in a single previous publication or
`patent that predates the claimed invention. In patent law,
`these previous devices, methods, publications or patents
`are called “prior art references.” If a patent claim is not
`new we say it is “anticipated” by a prior art reference.
`
`The description in the written reference does not have to
`be in the same words as the claim, but all of the
`requirements of the claim must be there, either stated or
`necessarily implied, so that someone of ordinary skill in
`the field of [identify field] looking at that one reference
`would be able to make and use the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 19
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`Here is a list of the ways that [alleged infringer] can
`show that a patent claim was not new [use those that
`apply to this case]:
`
`[– if the claimed invention was already publicly known
`or publicly used by others in the United States before
`[insert date of conception unless at issue];]
`
`[– if the claimed invention was already patented or
`described in a printed publication anywhere in the world
`before [insert date of conception unless at issue]. [A
`reference is a “printed publication” if it is accessible to
`those interested in the field, even if it is difficult to
`find.];]
`
`[– if the claimed invention was already made by someone
`else in the United States before [insert date of conception
`unless in issue], if that other person had not abandoned
`the invention or kept it secret;]
`
`[– if the claimed invention was already described in
`another issued U.S. patent or published U.S. patent
`application that was based on a patent application filed
`before [insert date of the patent holder’s application
`filing date] [or] [insert date of conception unless at
`issue];]
`
`
`
`20
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 20
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`[– if [named inventor] did not invent the claimed
`invention but instead learned of the claimed invention
`from someone else;]
`
`[– if the [patent holder] and [alleged infringer] dispute
`who is a first inventor, the person who first conceived of
`the claimed invention and first reduced it to practice is
`the first inventor. If one person conceived of the claimed
`invention first, but reduced to practice second, that
`person is the first inventor only if that person (a) began to
`reduce the claimed invention to practice before the other
`party conceived of it and (b) continued to work diligently
`to reduce it to practice. [A claimed invention is “reduced
`to practice” when it has been tested sufficiently to show
`that it will work for its intended purpose or when it is
`fully described in a patent application filed with the
`PTO].]
`
`[Since it is in dispute, you must determine a date of
`conception for the [claimed invention] [and/or] [prior
`invention]. Conception is the mental part of an inventive
`act and is proven when the invention is shown in its
`complete form by drawings, disclosure to another or
`other forms of evidence presented at trial.]
`
`(Model Patent Jury Instructions for the Northern District of California at 30-31,
`
`§ 4.3a1 (July 1, 2015).)
`
`4.3a2 STATUTORY BARS
`21
`
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Exhibit 1002
`Page 21
`
`
`
`Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 7,941,822
`A patent claim is invalid if the patent application was not
`filed within the time required by law. This is called a
`“statutory bar.” For a patent claim to be invalid by a
`statutory bar, all of its requirements must ha
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
