IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`Case No. (Not Yet Assigned)
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,438,221
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)))
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF RANDALL A. SNYDER
`
`DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`ENVISIONIT, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.  Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 
`II.  Professional Background and Qualifications ...................................................... 1 
`A.  Education ...................................................................................................... 1 
`B.  Experience .................................................................................................... 1 
`C.  Publications .................................................................................................. 3 
`D.  Prior Testimony ............................................................................................ 3 
`E.  Compensation ............................................................................................... 4 
`III.  Understanding Of Patent Law ............................................................................ 4 
`A.  Anticipation .................................................................................................. 4 
`B.  Obviousness .................................................................................................. 5 
`IV.  Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................................... 8 
`V.  Materials Considered .......................................................................................... 9 
`VI.  List of Exhibits .................................................................................................... 9 
`VII. Background ....................................................................................................... 10 
`A.  Telecommunications Standards .................................................................. 10 
`B.  Communications Protocols ......................................................................... 12 
`C.  The Cell Broadcast Services (“CBS”) Standard Protocol .......................... 14 
`D.  Cell Broadcast Services (“CBS”) Standard Reference Model ................... 15 
`VIII. 
`State of the Art at the Time of the Patent ................................................... 19 
`A.  Cell Broadcast Standards, Services and Applications ................................ 19 
`B.  Protocol Messaging, Parameters, Verification and Validation .................. 23 
`C.  Recording and Logging of Communications and Data .............................. 26 
`D.  Cell Broadcast Geographic Area ................................................................ 28 
`E.  System Access Control, User Roles and Permissions ................................ 31 
`IX.  Summary of Opinions ....................................................................................... 33 
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page ii
`X.  U.S. Patent No. 8,438,221 ................................................................................ 34 
`XI.  The Asserted Claims of the ‘221 Patent are Invalid as Being Obvious over the
`Prior Art ................................................................................................................... 36 
`A.  Description of the Patent ............................................................................ 36 
`B.  Introduction to the 3GPP Standard ............................................................. 37 
`C.  Introduction to Gundlegård ........................................................................ 38 
`D.  Introduction to Mani ................................................................................... 38 
`E.  Introduction to Zimmers ............................................................................. 38 
`F.  Introduction to Sandhu ............................................................................... 38 
`G.  Introduction to Rieger ................................................................................. 39 
`XII. § 103 Obviousness Prior Art Analysis ............................................................. 39 
`A.  Gundlegård in View of the 3GPP Standard, Sandhu and Rieger in View of
`Zimmers ............................................................................................................ 39 
`B.  Mani in View of the 3GPP Standard, Sandhu and Rieger in View of
`Zimmers ............................................................................................................ 53 
`XIII.  Motivation to Combine Prior Art References ............................................ 60 
`A.  Motivation to Combine Gundlegård with the 3GPP Standard ................... 61 
`B.  Motivation to Combine Gundlegård with Sandhu ..................................... 62 
`C.  Motivation to Combine Gundlegård with Rieger in View of Zimmers ..... 63 
`D.  Motivation to Combine Mani with the 3GPP Standard ............................. 68 
`E.  Motivation to Combine Mani with Sandhu ................................................ 69 
`F.  Motivation to Combine Mani with Rieger in View of Zimmers ............... 70 
`XIV.  Conclusion .................................................................................................. 73 
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 1
`
`I.
`[1]
`
`INTRODUCTION
`My name is Randall A. Snyder. I have been retained by the Civil
`
`Division Department of Justice to provide expert analysis in the above-referenced
`
`matter concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,438,221 (“the ‘221 Patent”) assigned to
`
`EnvisionIT, LLC. (Ex. 1001.)
`
`II.
`[2]
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`I have over 30 years of experience in mobile telecommunications
`
`network and system architecture, engineering, design and technology.
`
`[3]
`
`I consider myself to be an expert in the field of cellular and wireless
`
`telecommunications and networking technology per my qualifications described
`
`below. A true and correct copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Ex. 1012, along
`
`with a list of cases where I served as a testifying or consulting expert.
`
`A. Education
`
`[4]
`
`I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Mathematics from Franklin and Marshall
`
`College. More detail regarding my education may be found in my curriculum vitae.
`
`(Ex. 1012.)
`
`B. Experience
`
`[5]
`
`I have experience in the fields of both wireline and wireless
`
`telecommunications networking technology. I have taught many classes and
`
`seminars on both wireline and wireless telecommunication network technologies
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 2
`and have been a panelist and speaker at numerous conferences at the Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”), the Personal Communication Society
`
`(“PCS”), and the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (“CTIA”).
`
`I spent seven years developing standards within the American National Standards
`
`Institute’s subsidiary organization, the Telecommunications Industry Association
`
`(“TIA”), providing
`
`technical contributions and authoring and editing
`
`telecommunications proposed standards documents. Most notably, I authored and
`
`oversaw the standardization of Interim Standard 93, providing interconnection
`
`technology between wireline and wireless networks, which is a fully accredited
`
`national standard of the American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”).
`
`[6]
`
`I am
`
`the co-author of
`
`the McGraw-Hill books “Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Networking with IS-41,” and “Wireless Telecommunications
`
`Networking with ANSI-41, 2nd edition” published in 1997 and 2001, respectively.
`
`Each of these books contains an extensive chapter on cellular text messaging
`
`technology. I have been issued 29 patents myself on telecommunications networking
`
`technology. I have been hired as a consultant by the CTIA, as well as by many
`
`wireline and wireless telecommunications companies, including Bell Laboratories,
`
`McCaw Cellular, AirTouch, AirTouch International, AT&T Wireless, AT&T
`
`Mobility, Lucent, Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola, Samsung, Siemens, Nextwave, MCI,
`
`Daewoo, Globalstar, T-Mobile, Sprint, U.S. Cellular, Teleglobe Canada, Teledesic
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 3
`and other telecommunications technology vendors and service providers. I was also
`
`nominated in 2006 for a National Television Arts Emmy Award for Outstanding
`
`Achievement in Advanced Media Technology for unique wireless content
`
`distribution technology I designed while employed at Entriq, Inc.
`
`[7]
`
`In addition, in 2002, I was co-founder of m-Qube, Inc., the first text
`
`message-based mobile marketing and carrier aggregation company in North
`
`America (now known as Mobile Messenger, Inc.). m-Qube established the
`
`technology and methodology for the use of text message based common short codes
`
`as well as text message marketing guidelines and rules now used globally.
`
`[8]
`
`Moreover, I have been issued ten patents on SMS technology, including
`
`the invention of short code technology, and my books have been cited in four
`
`additional issued patents on SMS technology.
`
`C. Publications
`
`[9]
`
`Details of publications that I have authored or co-authored within at
`
`least the past 10 years are provided in the attached copy of my curriculum vitae. (Ex.
`
`1012.)
`
`D. Prior Testimony
`
`[10]
`
`During the past ten years, I have been retained as a testifying or
`
`consulting expert in over 130 cases regarding cellular telecommunications
`
`technology, including 74 cases regarding cellular messaging technology. (Ex. 1012.)
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 4
`
`E. Compensation
`
`[11]
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $500 per hour for my study,
`
`analysis and testimony in this case. I have no financial interest in the outcome of this
`
`case, nor do I have any financial interest in, or fiduciary relationship to the
`
`Department of Justice, its attorneys or the Patent Owners.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`[12]
`I understand that claims in U.S. patents may be deemed to be invalid
`
`under the laws and regulations governing patent practice. I have been asked to
`
`provide my opinions as to whether claim 19 of the ‘221 Patent is anticipated or would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the pertinent date. I
`
`have been told that the pertinent date to apply in this matter is before February 13,
`
`2004, the filing date of earliest application that gave rise to the ’221 Patent. Thus,
`
`the resulting pertinent date is on or before February 12, 2004.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`[13]
`
`It is my understanding that under 35 U.S.C. § 102 a claim may be found
`
`to be “anticipated,” and therefore invalid, when a single prior art reference discloses
`
`each and every limitation of the claim.
`
`[14]
`
`Determining whether a prior art reference discloses each and every
`
`limitation of a claim is a two-step analysis: (i) determining the meaning of the claim
`
`limitations; and (ii) comparing those limitations (according to their determined
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 5
`
`meaning) with the prior art.
`
`[15]
`
`The disclosure of a limitation in a prior art reference may be explicit or
`
`inherent. Explicit means that the limitation or feature is expressly described in the
`
`reference. Inherent means that the limitation or feature is necessarily present in the
`
`disclosure (i.e., the feature is a deliberate or necessary consequence of the
`
`reference’s disclosure) even if the reference does not expressly describe the feature.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art must recognize that the feature is inherent to the
`
`disclosure, but inherency does not require that the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have necessarily recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of the
`
`reference. Thus, a prior use of an invention that was accidental, unrecognized, or
`
`unappreciated can still be an invalidating anticipation.
`
`[16]
`
`To anticipate, the reference must also enable a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art to make and use the claimed invention. In other words, it must sufficiently
`
`describe the claimed invention to have placed the public in possession of it.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`[17]
`
`It is my understanding that under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claim may be found
`
`to be “obvious,” and therefore invalid, when the differences between the claim and
`
`the prior art reference or references would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was filed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the patent
`
`pertains. I understand that in these proceedings, the facts in support of anticipation
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 6
`
`or obviousness must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`[18]
`
`Obviousness is determined based on an analysis of four factors: (i) the
`
`scope and content of the prior art; (ii) the differences between the prior art and the
`
`claims at issue; (iii) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (iv) secondary
`
`considerations of nonobviousness.
`
`[19]
`
`The use of this four–factor test is designed to prevent the tendency of a
`
`later reviewer, in hindsight, to believe an invention was obvious.
`
`[20]
`
`With respect to the first factor, the scope and content of the prior art
`
`includes references in the relevant art, and analogous arts.
`
`[21]
`
`Determining the differences between the prior art and claims (as
`
`discussed above with regard to anticipation) is a two–step analysis: (i) determining
`
`the meaning of the claim elements; and (ii) comparing those terms with the prior art.
`
`[22]
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is determined by analyzing such
`
`things as: (i) the prior art; (ii) the types of problems encountered in the art; (iii) the
`
`rapidity with which innovations are made; (iv) the sophistication of the technology
`
`involved; and (v) the educational background of those actively working in the field,
`
`as well as the inventors.
`
`[23]
`
`Secondary
`
`considerations
`
`include
`
`evidence
`
`regarding
`
`the
`
`circumstances surrounding the inventive process including, but not limited to: (i)
`
`whether the claimed invention met a long–felt need; (ii) the inventors’ success
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 7
`despite the failure of others; (iii) commercial success; (iv) copying of the claimed
`
`invention by others; (v) praise and recognition for the invention; (vi) unexpected
`
`results; and (vii) significant effort and serendipity. I have been told that the burden
`
`of presenting evidence of secondary considerations is on the Patent Owner. I have
`
`not been presented with any evidence of secondary considerations relating to
`
`the ’221 Patent. (Ex. 1001.)
`
`[24]
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. I also understand that
`
`an obviousness analysis takes into account the scope and content of the prior art, the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`[25]
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, it is my
`
`understanding that a reference is considered relevant prior art if it falls within the
`
`field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is prior art if it is reasonably
`
`pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. A
`
`reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would have commended itself to an
`
`inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a reference relates to the same
`
`problem as the claimed invention, that supports use of the reference as prior art in
`
`an obviousness analysis.
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 8
`To assess the differences between prior art and the claimed subject
`
`[26]
`
`matter, it is my understanding that 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires the claimed invention
`
`to be considered as a whole. This “as a whole” assessment involves showing that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same
`
`problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would
`
`have selected the elements from the prior art and combined them in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`[27]
`
`It is my further understanding that several rationales may be applied for
`
`combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness of claimed
`
`subject matter. These rationales include: (i) combining prior art elements according
`
`to known methods to yield predictable results; (ii) simple substitution of one known
`
`element for another to obtain predictable results; (iii) a predictable use of prior art
`
`elements according to their established functions; (iv) applying a known technique
`
`to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable
`
`results; (v) choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and (vi) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify a prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`[28]
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 9
`subject matter of the ‘221 Patent (Ex. 1001) at the time of the invention would have
`
`a computer science, engineering, physics, mathematics or other technical degree at
`
`the undergraduate level. In addition, I would expect this individual to have at least
`
`three to five years of practical cellular network and protocol design and software
`
`development experience, along with an understanding of cellular network
`
`architecture, standardized protocol specifications and text messaging technologies,
`
`all of which was very-well understood by the early 1990s. I am a person of at least
`
`ordinary skill in the art and was so at the time of the purported invention, i.e., on or
`
`before February 12, 2004.
`
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`[29]
`My opinions herein are based on my personal knowledge and
`
`experience with cellular telecommunications, my knowledge of the methods by
`
`which inventions are patented in the U.S. and a review of various materials, as
`
`discussed below.
`
`VI. LIST OF EXHIBITS
`[30]
`The following table is a list exhibits considered and cited within this
`
`report:
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1012
`Ex. 1013
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,438,221
`File History (excerpts) for U.S. Patent No. 8,438,221
`CV of Randall Snyder
`Gundlegård Thesis
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 10
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1014
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`Ex. 1018
`Ex. 1019
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent Application Publ. No. 2002/0184346 A1 to Mani
`U.S. Patent Application Publ. No. 2002/0188725 A1 to Mani
`REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTER NOTICE OF
`PROPOSED RULE MAKING (FCC Report No. 94-288) (“FCC
`Report”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publ. No. 2002/0103892 A1 to Rieger
`U.S. Patent No. 6,816,878 to Zimmers
`3GPP Standard (4.2.0)
`R. Sandhu et al., “Access Control: Principles and Practice,”
`IEEE Communications Magazine September 1994, Vol. 32 No.
`9, pp. 40-48.
`Excerpts from Christensen et al., “Wireless Intelligent
`Networking” Artech House, Inc., 2001
`E112 - Wireless Emergency Services Whitepaper, CMG
`Wireless Data Solutions, November 2001
`Report of the Ministry of Interior, Finland “Information to the
`Ex. 1024
`Public – Warning and Alarm System” 2000
`Ex. 1025 Wood, M. “Disaster Communications” APCO Institute, Inc.,
`June 1996
`Excerpts from UNIX System V, RELEASE 4, User’s Guide,
`UNIX System Laboratories, Inc., Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1990
`U.S. Patent No. 6,112,075 Weiser
`3GPP Website Portal – First Release Cell Broadcast Standard
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`Ex. 1027
`Ex. 1028
`
`
`VII. BACKGROUND
`A. Telecommunications Standards
`
`[31]
`
`Standards for
`
`the design and function of
`
`telecommunications
`
`equipment are no different in goal and purpose from those for any other type of
`
`technical standard. Telecommunications standards are prescribed for the design and
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 11
`function of equipment as simple as a telephone keypad to the design and function of
`
`the complex and sophisticated computer equipment and services provided by a
`
`wireless telecommunications network.
`
`[32]
`
`In tangible terms, a telecommunications standard is simply a document
`
`that establishes engineering and technical requirements for processes, procedures
`
`and methods that have been decreed by authority or adopted by consensus. The
`
`primary goal of the telecommunications standards process is to encourage the
`
`interconnectivity of telecommunications equipment and services by establishing and
`
`promoting technical recommendations in these areas. The telecommunications
`
`industry achieves this goal by creating and maintaining voluntary specifications that
`
`can optimize equipment compatibility. Standards are typically considered to be
`
`recommendations; i.e., they are prescribed as purely voluntary. However, business
`
`needs usually show that it may not be very lucrative to stray from standardized
`
`designs and functions.
`
`[33]
`
`Standards encompass many areas of engineering and technical
`
`requirements. They can be very brief and promote an existing engineering solution
`
`to a new problem (usually by reference), or they can be quite extensive (hundreds to
`
`thousands of pages) and establish the details for the processes and methods for
`
`developing an entire system. The primary goal of telecommunications standards is
`
`to establish and promote
`
`technical
`
`recommendations
`
`that enable
`
`the
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 12
`interconnectivity of equipment and services. However, standards do not dictate an
`
`implementation or the methods for developing an individual solution to provide an
`
`equipment or service. Thus, business competition among manufacturers is preserved
`
`while enabling interoperation of their equipment and services.
`
`[34]
`
`Telecommunications standards can include many aspects of the design
`
`and function of equipment. They include network reference models used for
`
`developing network architectures; descriptions of functions as perceived by an end-
`
`user and as provided within and between networks; descriptions of protocols or the
`
`methods of communication within and between functional and network entities;
`
`testing procedures for establishing equipment compatibility and standards
`
`compliance; and any procedures that assist in achieving the goals of the
`
`standardization process.
`
`B. Communications Protocols
`
`[35]
`
`A communications protocol is a specialized set of rules that govern the
`
`communications of a system. A computerized communications protocol is generally
`
`defined by the following three criteria:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Syntax, i.e., how to construct the information.
`
`Semantics, i.e., what the information means.
`
`Procedures, i.e., what to do with the information.
`
`[36]
`
`The protocol enables the effective use of the information to provide
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 13
`meaningful communications within a network. Protocols have become complex,
`
`especially when used to govern telecommunications and the sophisticated services
`
`they provide. These advanced protocols provide for the transmission of information
`
`among network entities that enables intelligence to be distributed throughout the
`
`network. Standardized specifications are often developed to prescribe the precise
`
`structure of the elements that comprise the information to be transmitted from one
`
`network function to another network function.
`
`[37]
`
`For communications protocols to operate properly, the syntax of the
`
`transmitted information is verified at the receiving end of the transmission. This
`
`means that the prescribed structure of each information element is checked for
`
`correctness according to the standardized specification. For example, in message
`
`based communications protocols, the entire message structure, along with each and
`
`every included parameter, is checked for errors in format, length, type, order and
`
`other syntactical characteristics. If an error is discovered, the message may be
`
`rejected and a failure indication is sent back to the source of the transmission.
`
`[38]
`
`Similarly, the semantics of the transmitted information is validated at
`
`the receiving end of the transmission. This means that the prescribed values each
`
`information element can assume are checked for correctness according to the
`
`standardized specification. Again, if an error is discovered, the message may be
`
`rejected and a failure indication is sent back to the source of the transmission.
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 14
`
`C. The Cell Broadcast Services (“CBS”) Standard Protocol
`
`[39]
`
`Cell broadcast is a cellular telecommunications network service
`
`enabling the network to transmit a number of unacknowledged short messages to all
`
`cellular telephones within a defined geographical area. It is a one-way transmission
`
`broadcast that enables a short textual communication to be received by any capable
`
`cellular device that is (or can be) tuned to the cell broadcast channel.
`
`[40]
`
`Cell broadcast messaging technology was originally documented in the
`
`worldwide cellular network system standardized as the Global System for Mobile
`
`(“GSM”) communications in 1989 and is also known as Short Message Service –
`
`Cell Broadcast (“SMS-CB”). As GSM technology standards evolved, the
`
`committees authorized to issue the standard specifications decided to change the
`
`name of the overall technology to the more comprehensive Universal Mobile
`
`Telecommunications System (“UMTS”). UMTS was simply the next incarnation of
`
`cellular technology, wholly based on GSM, and became the basis for what’s more
`
`commonly known as “3G” or third-generation services technology. Today, the latest
`
`incarnation of this standardized technology is known “LTE” for Long Term
`
`Evolution or “4G” services technology.
`
`[41]
`
`As cell broadcast is a “cellular” technology, a geographic area must be
`
`interpreted as one or more radio “cell” areas. A cell is simply an individual
`
`geographic area that is the topological component of a cellular network. The cell
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 15
`area is defined by the radio coverage of the equipment located at the cell site. In a
`
`particular cellular network, cells are identified by unique identification numbers on
`
`a per-network basis. A cell broadcast area can be one or more cell areas (denoted as
`
`one or more cell ID numbers) or can be the entire cellular network of a particular
`
`operator (denoted as all cell ID numbers). The entire cellular network coverage area
`
`of a particular operator is generically known as the public land mobile network
`
`(“PLMN”). A cell broadcast message can be transmitted to a particular geographic
`
`area within a particular network, defined by the PLMN ID along with a list of cell
`
`IDs, at a specified periodic rate, for a specified period of time and for a specified
`
`number of times.
`
`[42]
`
`In addition, short messages can be broadcast to a “location area” in
`
`GSM and to a “service area” in UMTS. A location area is simply a predefined group
`
`of cells that a particular network operator uses to define a particular market coverage
`
`area within its network. A service area serves the same purpose in UMTS networks.
`
`D. Cell Broadcast Services (“CBS”) Standard Reference Model
`
`[43]
`
`The GSM standardized specification depicts the network reference
`
`model to be used by designers and developers to implement the cell broadcast
`
`function (Fig. 1 below). (Ex. 1019, at 8.)
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 16
`
` Figure 1
`
`[44]
`
`This network reference model is designated as an “architecture” in the
`
`standard but this is a misnomer. As described above, the reference model is used to
`
`design and develop the actual physical architecture of the network by defining the
`
`procedures and protocols enabling communications among the network functional
`
`entities via the identified interfaces. In a standard, the reference model only
`
`prescribes the logical functions and the required means of communicating among
`
`those functions; it does not prescribe a physical implementation, where functions
`
`can reside, business implications of a particular architecture, division of
`
`responsibilities among involved functional entities or other implementation-
`
`dependent considerations. A true network architecture would certainly consider
`
`these aspects to properly implement and deploy such a system in the real world, but
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 17
`
`that is beyond the scope of a standard.
`
`[45]
`
`The functional entities for the procedures and protocols for cell
`
`broadcast are well defined within the Third Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”)
`
`Standard. (Ex. 1019.) 3GPP is the international standards making body responsible
`
`for the GSM-based cellular system specifications. The cell broadcast service entities
`
`include the Cell Broadcast Center (“CBC”), the Base Station Controller (“BSC”),
`
`the Base Transceiver Station (“BTS”) and the Mobile Station (“MS”) also known as
`
`the cellular telephone. Outside the scope of the standard specification is the Cell
`
`Broadcast Entity (“CBE”). This is because the CBE represents any type or number
`
`of applications containing service logic that can transfer messages to the
`
`standardized CBC for subsequent broadcast to cellular telephones within the
`
`specified cell coverage areas. The standard specifications prescribe the way in which
`
`technology is used; however, to spur innovation and market competition, the
`
`standards do not prescribe what the technology is used for. However, because the
`
`standards prescribe the required message content, geographic area and associated
`
`message control parameters, these required data must be provided to the
`
`standardized functional entities so that the broadcast messaging service can operate
`
`properly. Providing these data to the standardized procedures would be the minimum
`
`requirements of a CBE and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Thus, the CBE functional entity is considered to be external to the standardized core
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 18
`cellular network, but supports some obvious and known capabilities. The CBE is
`
`only really defined as a functional entity that acts as the originator of a cell broadcast
`
`message.
`
`[46]
`
`The CBC is the heart of the cell broadcast messaging system. The CBC
`
`is essentially a store-and-forward message repository. The CBE logical application
`
`originates a message with certain text content, specifies a certain geographic area
`
`and specifies control information describing when and how often to broadcast the
`
`message. The CBC receives the broadcast message, stores the message and forwards
`
`the message to a specified geographic area, represented by a cellular coverage area.
`
`It also forwards the message to be broadcast at a time and repetition interval
`
`according to the control parameters received from the CBE.
`
`[47]
`
`The 3GPP Standard clearly requires that a cell broadcast service use
`
`message content of a certain type, length and format. It also requires that the service
`
`use a geographic area and control parameters of a certain type, length and format.
`
`(Ex. 1019, at 15.)
`
`[48]
`
`A cellular network has no inherent knowledge of geographic context;
`
`rather, a cellular network only has knowledge of its own identity and its own
`
`associated cell identities. Thus, a specified geographic area must be converted to the
`
`corresponding cell coverage areas required by the cell broadcast service. This is so
`
`the message can be transmitted to cell phones in a meaningful geographic area
`
`
`
`

`
`Expert Report of Randall A. Snyder
`Page 19
`represented by specified cell coverage areas. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would certainly understand this basic correspondence of descriptive geographic
`
`context, such as a city or county, to the list of cell identities that overlay that