IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of: Pinter
`
`U.S. Pat. No.:
`
`5,894,506
`Issue Date:
` Apr. 13, 1999
`Appl. Serial No.: 08/708,696
`Filing Date:
` Sep. 5, 1996
`Title:
` METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING AND
`COMMUNICATING MESSAGES BETWEEN
`SUBSCRIBERS TO AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGING
`NETWORK
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 19473-0348IP1
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MR. PETER RYSAVY
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE 1003
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. ASSIGNMENT .................................................................................................... 3
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................................... 3
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ...................................................................................... 6
`A. Anticipation ................................................................................................... 6
`B. Obviousness ................................................................................................... 7
`C. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 8
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 11
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ....................................................................... 11
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE ’506 PATENT .................................................... 13
`A. Subject Matter Overview............................................................................. 13
`B.
`File History of the ’506 Patent .................................................................... 15
`C.
`Invention Date of the ’506 Patent ............................................................... 16
`VII. BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE ONE OF SKILL IN THE ART WOULD
`HAVE HAD PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE ’506 PATENT ........................... 20
`VIII.
`INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ’506 PATENT CLAIMS AT ISSUE ...... 24
`IX. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED AND PRIOR ART
`REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 30
`X. ANALYSIS OF LAPORTA IN VIEW OF ISE AND TETT WITH
`RESPECT TO CLAIMS 1-7 AND 15-17 (GROUND 1) ........................................ 38
`XI. ANALYSIS OF LAPORTA IN VIEW OF ISE, TETT, AND WILL WITH
`RESPECT TO CLAIMS 18 (GROUND 2) ...........................................................116
`XII. ADDITIONAL REMARKS .........................................................................138
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`I, Peter Rysavy, of Hood River, Oregon, declare that:
`I.
`ASSIGNMENT
`1.
`I have been retained as a technical expert by counsel on behalf of
`
`Google Inc. (“Google” or “Petitioner”). I understand that Google is requesting that
`
`the Patent Trial and Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) institute inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) proceedings of U.S. Patent No. 5,894,506 (“the ’506 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent analysis of the ’506
`
`patent in light of the prior art publications cited below.
`
`3.
`
`I am not, and never have been, an employee of Google. I received no
`
`compensation for this declaration beyond my normal hourly compensation based
`
`on my time actually spent analyzing the ’506 patent, the prior art publications cited
`
`below, and the issues related thereto, and I will not receive any added
`
`compensation based on the outcome of any IPR or other proceeding involving
`
`the ’506 patent.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`I have more than thirty-five years of technical experience working and
`
`teaching in the field of wireless communication technologies and other disciplines
`
`of electrical and computer engineering.
`
`5.
`
`In 1979, I graduated from Stanford University with both a Bachelor’s
`
`of Science degree in electrical engineering (BSEE) and a Master’s of Science
`
`degree in electrical engineering (MSEE).
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`6.
`
`Following graduation from Stanford, I was employed at the Fluke
`
`Corporation, where I gained extensive experience developing data-acquisition
`
`products and touchscreen technologies.
`
`7.
`
`After seven years at Fluke Corporation, I moved to Traveling
`
`Software, where, from 1988 to 1993, I held the position of Vice President of
`
`Engineering and Technology. While at Traveling Software (later renamed
`
`LapLink), I managed development of a range of products, including LapLink,
`
`LapLink Wireless, and connectivity solutions for a wide variety of mobile
`
`platforms. During this period, I was responsible for evaluating wireless
`
`technologies for use with the LapLink file transfer and synchronization product
`
`family. I also managed the development of a short-range wireless modem called
`
`LapLink Wireless that replaced a serial-data cable connection between computers.
`
`8.
`
`In 1993, I founded a consulting firm, Rysavy & Associates, later
`
`renamed to Rysavy Research LLC. I have worked as a consultant in the field of
`
`wireless communications since that time, and am currently President of Rysavy
`
`Research LLC. Beginning in 1994, while continuing my work as a consultant, I
`
`also began teaching public courses on wireless technologies. For example, I taught
`
`courses at Portland State University and the University of California in Los
`
`Angeles. These courses included content about paging, cellular, mobile-data
`
`networks, mobile-browser technologies, and mobile-application architectures.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`9.
`
`Past projects have included evaluation of wireless technology
`
`capabilities, reports on the evolution of wireless technology, strategic
`
`consultations, system design, articles, courses and webcasts, network performance
`
`measurement, test reports, and involvement in multiple patent litigation cases.
`
`This included analysis of the functionality of pagers in use during the mid-1990s,
`
`such as units offered by Motorola and SkyTel. See
`
`http://www.rysavy.com/Articles/1997_01_Two_Way_Paging.pdf. My past and
`
`current clients include more than ninety-five organizations.
`
`10.
`
`I am an author or co-author of more than 160 articles, reports, and
`
`papers, and I have taught more than 40 public courses and webcasts about topics in
`
`wireless technology. I have also performed technical evaluations of many wireless
`
`technologies including mobile browser technologies, wireless email systems,
`
`municipal/mesh Wi-Fi networks, Wi-Fi hotspot networks, cellular-data services,
`
`and social networking applications.
`
`11. Since 2000, as part of my consulting practice, I have been the
`
`executive director of the Portable Computer and Communications Association
`
`(PCCA), which was formally incorporated in May of 1993. The PCCA currently
`
`operates as the Wireless Technology Association. The PCCA’s mission has been
`
`to promote the interoperability of wireless-data systems, and its initial work was to
`
`develop interfaces between computer and wireless modems, as described, for
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`example, at http://www.wirelesstechnologyassociation.org. In my over two
`
`decades of experience consulting on wireless technologies, I have studied or
`
`worked on many different wireless technologies and standards, e.g., for cellular
`
`networks and wireless local-area networks.
`
`12. Further detail on my background and work experience, along with a
`
`list of my publications and the cases in which I have given testimony in the past
`
`four years, is contained in my curriculum vitae (“CV”), which I have attached as
`
`Appendix A of this declaration.
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`13.
`In forming my analysis and conclusions expressed in this declaration,
`
`I have applied the legal principles described in the following paragraphs, which
`
`were provided to me by counsel for the Petitioner.
`
`A. Anticipation
`14.
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if each and every element of a claim, as properly construed,
`
`is found either explicitly or inherently in a single prior art reference. Under the
`
`principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or
`
`includes the claimed limitations, it anticipates.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`
`if the claimed invention was known or used by others in the U.S., or was patented
`
`or published anywhere, before the Applicant’s invention. I further have been
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`informed that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if the invention was
`
`patented or published anywhere, or was in public use, on sale, or offered for sale in
`
`this country, more than one year prior to the filing date of the patent application
`
`(critical date). And a claim is invalid, as I have been informed, under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e), if an invention described by that claim was described in a U.S. patent
`
`granted on an application for a patent by another that was filed in the U.S. before
`
`the date of invention for such a claim.
`
`B. Obviousness
`16.
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of one or more prior art references if it would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`(“POSITA”), taking into account (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, and (4) any so called “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness,
`
`which include: (i) “long felt need” for the claimed invention, (ii) commercial
`
`success attributable to the claimed invention, (iii) unexpected results of the claimed
`
`invention, and (iv) “copying” of the claimed invention by others. For purposes of
`
`my analysis here, I have applied a date of September 5, 1996 (the filing date of
`
`the ’506 patent), as the date of the alleged invention in my obviousness analyses,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`although in many cases the same analysis would hold true even if the date of the
`
`alleged invention occurred earlier than September 5, 1996.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`prior art reference or multiple prior art references. To be obvious in light of a
`
`single prior art reference or multiple prior art references, there must be a reason
`
`that would have prompted a POSITA to modify the single prior art reference, or
`
`combine two or more references, in a manner that provides the elements of the
`
`claimed invention. This reason may come from a teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine, or may come from the reference(s) themselves, the
`
`knowledge or “common sense” of a POSITA, or from the nature of the problem to
`
`be solved, and this reason may be explicit or implicit from the prior art as a whole.
`
`I have been informed that, under the law, the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
`
`yield predictable results. I also understand it is improper to rely on hindsight in
`
`making the obviousness determination.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`18.
`I have been informed by Petitioner’s counsel that the ’506 patent has
`
`expired, and therefore the claim terms are to be interpreted according to their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a POSITA at the time of the
`
`invention. Importantly, under this standard applied here (which is sometimes
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`referred to as the Phillips standard), the POSITA is deemed to read the claim term
`
`not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears,
`
`but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. When claim
`
`terms are in dispute, I understand that the intrinsic record of a patent, including the
`
`claim language, the written description, and the file history, should first be
`
`consulted to construe the disputed terms. I understand that extrinsic evidence may
`
`be considered along with the intrinsic record to further help construe disputed
`
`terms.
`
`19.
`
`I also understand that the words of the claims should be interpreted as
`
`they would have been interpreted by a POSITA at the time the invention was made
`
`(not today). Because I do not know at what date the invention as claimed was
`
`made, I have used the filing date of the ’506 patent as the point in time for claim
`
`interpretation purposes, which as I previously explained, was September 5, 1996.
`
`However, the interpretations that I provide below would have also been correct if
`
`the date of invention was anywhere within the early to mid-1990s.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that claim elements may be expressed as a means or step
`
`for performing a specified function without recital of the structure for performing
`
`such function. When a claim element is expressed in this manner, I understand
`
`that the claim is construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
`
`for performing the specified function described in the patent’s specification and
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`equivalents thereof. I understand that construing a claim element expressed as a
`
`means or step for performing a specified function involves a two-step process.
`
`First, the claimed function must be identified from the language of the claim.
`
`Second, the decision maker must determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the
`
`specification corresponds to the claimed function. For purposes of construing
`
`means-plus-function elements in which the claimed function is performed by
`
`software of a computing device, I have been informed that the corresponding
`
`structure in the specification must include an algorithm for performing the
`
`function, and that a simple recitation of “software” without providing some detail
`
`about the means to accomplish the function is not enough. EON Corp. IP
`
`Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 621-22 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2008). I
`
`understand that, if the specification fails to describe adequate corresponding
`
`structure for the claimed function, then the claim is not amenable to construction
`
`(and is therefore invalid as indefinite). See Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-41; see also
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1351-54 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Space
`
`Exploration Tech. Corp. v. Blue Origin LLC. See IPR2014-01378, Pap. No. 6 at
`
`pp. 8-9 (PTAB March 3, 2015) (determining that “[b]ecause [the claim at issue]
`
`lacks adequate structural support for some of the means-plus function limitations,
`
`it is not amenable to construction”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`21. Based on my knowledge and experience in the field and my review of
`
`the ’506 patent and file history, I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the ’506 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering, or a related discipline, and at least two years of experience working
`
`with wireless communication technologies, or an equivalent advanced education.
`
`My analysis and conclusions as expressed herein are thus based on the perspective
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art having this level of knowledge and skill at
`
`the time of the ’506 patent.
`
`22. Because I do not know at what date the alleged invention as claimed
`
`was made, I have used the filing date of the ’506 patent as the point in time from
`
`which my opinions from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art are
`
`based. Again, as previously explained, that date was September 5, 1996.
`
`However, my analysis of the prior art and the conclusion herein would also apply
`
`even if the date of the alleged invention as claimed was anywhere within the early
`
`to mid-1990s after the dates of the prior art references cited here.
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`23. My analyses set forth in this declaration are informed by my
`
`experience in the field of wireless communications and associated technologies.
`
`Based on my above-described experience in the field of wireless communications,
`
`I believe that I am considered to be an expert in the field. Also, based on my
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`experiences, I understand and know of the capabilities of persons of ordinary skill
`
`in this field during the early to mid-1990s and specifically during the time before
`
`the September 1996 priority date for the ’506 patent (described in ¶¶ 21-22, 35-39),
`
`and I taught, participated in organizations, and worked closely with many such
`
`persons in the field during that time frame.
`
`24. As part of my independent analysis for this Declaration, I have
`
`considered the following: the background knowledge/technologies that were
`
`commonly known to persons of ordinary skill in this field during the time before
`
`the priority date for the ’506 patent (described below in ¶¶ 35-39); my own
`
`knowledge and experiences gained from my work experience in the fields of
`
`wireless communications and electrical engineering generally; my experience in
`
`teaching and advising others in those subjects; and my experience in working with
`
`others involved in those fields. In addition, I have analyzed the following
`
`publications and materials:
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 5,894,506 to Pinter (“the ’506 patent”) (Ex. 1001)
`
` Select Portions of the Prosecution History of the ’506 patent (Serial No.
`
`08/708,696) (Ex. 1002)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,970,122 to LaPorta et al. (“LaPorta”) (Ex. 1004)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,257,307 to Ise (“Ise”) (Ex. 1005)
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,635,918 to Tett (“Tett”) (Ex. 1006)
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,588,009 to Will (“Will”) (Ex. 1007)
`
` Claim Construction Order in Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`
`LLC, v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00002 (E.D. Tex) (Ex. 1008)
`
` MTEL’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in Mobile
`
`Telecommunications Technologies, LLC, v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2:16-
`
`cv-0002 (E.D. Tex) (Ex. 1011)
`
` MTEL’s alleged evidence of earlier conception presented in IPR2014-
`
`01033 and IPR2014-01034 (Exs. 1014-1019; “alleged conception
`
`documents”)
`
`25. Although this Declaration refers to selected portions of the cited
`
`references for the sake of brevity, it should be understood that these are examples,
`
`and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the references cited
`
`herein in their entirety and in combination with other references cited herein or
`
`cited within the references themselves. The references used in this Declaration,
`
`therefore, should be viewed as being incorporated herein in their entireties.
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE ’506 PATENT
`A.
`Subject Matter Overview
`26. The ’506 patent is directed to “exchange of electronic messages
`
`among subscribers to an electronic messaging network,” such as a network for a
`
`paging system. Ex. 1001 at 1:7-10. The ’506 discloses communication of text
`
`messages between user devices (such as pagers) in which a user selects from a file
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`of “canned messages” that represent “common phrases” stored at the user’s device
`
`which causes the user’s device to transmit a “message code” representative of the
`
`canned message to a “network operations center” which routes the selected
`
`message to a “receiving party terminal” for display to a recipient user. Id. at 1:38-
`
`67. The ’506 patent discloses that the network operations center (“NOC”) contains
`
`a file of canned messages that corresponds to the file of canned messages stored at
`
`the user device that sent the message code. Id. at 5:64-6:6.
`
`27. Message codes transmitted by the user device to the NOC can be used
`
`by the NOC to retrieve the text of a canned message from the message code file
`
`stored at the NOC such that the NOC then transmits the message in text form to the
`
`receiving device. Ex. 1001 at 6:7-24. In some cases, if the receiving device is
`
`capable of receiving messages in message code form, the NOC transmits a
`
`message code indicative of the canned message to the receiving device rather than
`
`the full text of the message. Id. The receiving device then retrieves the text of the
`
`canned message from one or more files stored at the receiving device and displays
`
`the message to the user of the receiving device. Id. at 6:25-41. The system of
`
`the ’506 patent also allows users to customize canned messages by including
`
`“desired parameter(s), such as, for example, time, date, phone number, etc.” or
`
`“response options” along with the canned message for transmission to the NOC
`
`and ultimately another user device. Ex. 1001 at 3:59-4:55. The ’506 patent
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`indicates that messages can include any combination of message codes, numeric
`
`parameters, response options, response codes, and text. Id. at 4:33-55; 6:7-24.
`B.
`File History of the ’506 Patent
`28. As part of my preparation of this declaration, I reviewed select
`
`portions of the file history of the ’506 patent (Ex. 1002). I understand that the
`
`application that led to the ’506 patent was filed on September 5, 1996, and that this
`
`date is also the earliest effective filing date of the patent. The ’506 patent
`
`eventually issued on April 13, 1999. See Ex. 1001 at Cover Page.
`
`29. The USPTO mailed an office action on February 26, 1998. See Ex.
`
`1002 at pp. 75-82. In that Office Action, the Examiner rejected each of claims 1-7
`
`and 15-21 as either anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,327,486 to Wolff et al.
`
`(“Wolff”), as obvious over Wolff in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,381,466 to
`
`Shibayama et al. (“Shibayama”), or as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
`
`Id. I note that none of the references that I have listed above and which I analyze
`
`below with respect to the claims of the ’506 patent were cited by the Examiner
`
`during prosecution. In response to the rejections raised in the February 26, 1998
`
`Office Action, the Applicant amended claims 1, 15, 16, and 19 and added in new
`
`independent claim 22 (issued claim 21). Ex. 1002 at pp. 84-90. Following this
`
`response to the Office Action, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance on
`
`September 29, 1998 that included an Examiner’s Amendment to correct a
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`typographical error in claim 19, but provided no reasons for allowance. Id. at pp.
`
`102-105.
`
`30. As explained in detail below, I do not agree that claims 1-7 and 15-18
`
`are patentable over the prior art. The LaPorta reference (Ex. 1004), for example,
`
`does in fact provide a straightforward teaching of a paging communication system
`
`that allows for transmission of a message code representative of a canned message
`
`from a pager to a network operations center (LaPorta’s User Agent) for ultimate
`
`transmission to a receiving device that also allows for addition of “dynamic
`
`components such as embedded replies, choices, predefined variables, etc.” Ex.
`
`1004 at 5:16-26; 5:55-58; 1:62-2:12; 2:13-27; 13:18-38; 7:38-42; 1:66-2:4.
`
`Furthermore, when LaPorta is taken in view of the Ise, Tett, and Will references,
`
`the obvious and predictable combination provides for a system that includes every
`
`element of claims 1-7 and 15-18 including transmission of a canned message code
`
`from a transmitting pager to a central station and ultimately to a receiving pager.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at 7:54-61; 6:3-23; Ex. 1006 at 4:40-59; 2:14-27; 3:53-4:9.
`Invention Date of the ’506 Patent
`I have been informed that, in earlier IPR proceedings against the ’506
`
`C.
`31.
`
`patent (IPR2014-01033 and IPR2014-01034), the Patent Owner alleged some
`
`claims of the ’506 patent were entitled to an invention date that is earlier than the
`
`filing date of the ’506 patent, and submitted several documents in support of this
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`allegation. I have reviewed these documents (“alleged conception documents,”
`
`cited here as exhibits 1014-1019) submitted by the Patent Owner in the earlier
`
`IPR2014-01033 and IPR2014-01034 cases, and I understand what a POSITA
`
`would have recognized from these documents in 1995. Based on my knowledge
`
`and experience in this field and my review of these alleged conception documents,
`
`it is plain to see that a POSITA would have recognized that these alleged
`
`conception documents fail to show that the inventor had possession of all elements
`
`in each of claims 1-7 and 15-18.
`
`32.
`
`In particular, Exhibits 1014-1019 imply that other people employed
`
`by the Patent Owner (in some cases, persons other than the listed inventor of
`
`the ’506 patent, Gregory J. Pinter, (see Ex. 1015 at 1; Ex. 1016 at 1)) had
`
`contemplated the traditional practice of storing “canned messages” at a first
`
`messaging device and the ability to respond to a “multiple choice response
`
`message,” (Ex. 1015 at 1-2; Ex. 1017 at 4-5), but these alleged conception
`
`documents plainly fail to show that the inventor was in possession of at least
`
`several specific elements expressly recited in independent claims 1 and 15 prior to
`
`the filing date of the ’506 patent. Regarding independent claims 1 and 15, a
`
`POSITA would have recognized that Exhibits 1014-1019 do not include any
`
`description of the conception (and certainly not a reduction to practice) of at least
`
`claim elements [1.5]-[1.7] and [15.3]-[15.5]:
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`[1.5] retrieving the selected canned message from the first file using
`
`the message code received from the first terminal;
`
`[1.6] determining whether the second terminal can receive the
`
`canned message in a text form or message code form; and
`
`[1.7] communicating the selected canned message to the second
`
`terminal in either message code form or text code form in response to
`
`the determination
`
`[15.3] means responsive to the received message code for retrieving
`
`from the memory the canned message assigned thereto;
`
`[15.4] means for determining whether a receiving terminal in the
`
`net-work can receive the canned message in text form or message
`
`code form; and
`
`[15.5] a transmitter for transmitting the retrieved canned message in
`
`text form or message code form in response to the determining
`
`means.
`
`For example, Ex. 1015 recites that a “[s]ubscriber can send any of these special
`
`canned message [sic] to NOC” but goes on to indicate that the “canned message is
`
`addressed to the NOC” and not to a second personal messaging unit. Ex. 1015 at 1.
`
`Further, although Ex. 1017 states “[t]o save airtime a token message identifier
`
`(special character and a number) is broadcast instead of the entire text,” (Ex. 1017
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`at 42), there is no description of using the “token message identifier” to “retriev[e]
`
`the selected canned message from the first file” of the NOC as required by claim
`
`element [1.5] and there is certainly no description of “determining whether the
`
`second terminal can receive the canned message in a text form or message code
`
`form” and then communicating the message “in either message code form or text
`
`code form in response to the determination” as required by claim elements [1.6]-
`
`[1.7].
`
`33. The testimony of Mr. Pinter (Ex. 1014) and the newspaper articles
`
`(Exs. 1018-1019) also do not show conception (and certainly not a reduction to
`
`practice) of at least claim elements [1.5]-[1.7] and [15.3]-[15.5]. In his testimony,
`
`Mr. Pinter indicated that, at best, the high level concept of “canned messages” was
`
`conceived at a date earlier than the filing of the ’506 patent. Ex. 1014 at 31:3-
`
`32:14. Similarly, the newspaper articles previously cited by the Patent Owner only
`
`indicate a generically high level concept of originating a message at a beeper
`
`device using “ready-made replies” stored at the device (which as explained below,
`
`was a traditional practice known to others in this field), but the newspaper articles
`
`never show the inventor’s possession of the use of message codes for transmitting
`
`messages—and certainly not the specifically recited features related to “message
`
`codes” in claim elements [1.5]-[1.7] and [15.3]-[15.5]. Ex. 1018 at 2; Ex. 1019 at
`
`1.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`34.
`
` Further, in addition to their dependency from independent claims 1
`
`or 15, numerous features recited in dependent claims 2-7 and 16-18 are also not
`
`contemplated by the alleged conception documents in Exhibits 1014-1019. For
`
`example, a POSITA would have recognized the fact that the alleged conception
`
`documents do not include any description of transmitting a parameter or multiple
`
`response options along with a message in message code form (e.g., as recited in
`
`claims 4-6 and 18). Exhibit 1017 tersely mentions “the capability for a subscriber
`
`to respond to a Multiple Choice Response (MCR) message with an MCR response
`
`and with a canned response,” but it never shows that the “Multiple Choice
`
`Response (MCR) message” is communicated in message code form or that either
`
`of the “MCR response” or the “canned response” are communicated along with a
`
`message code. Numerous other features of claims 1-7 and 15-18 are also lacking
`
`any mention in Exhibits 1014-1019. Therefore, based on my knowledge and
`
`experience and my review of Exhibits 1014-1019, it is plain to see that a POSITA
`
`would have recognized that these documents do not show conception (and most
`
`certainly not a reduction to practice) for the entirety of the subject matter of claims
`
`1 and 15 and their respective dependent claims.
`VII. BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE ONE OF SKILL IN THE ART
`WOULD HAVE HAD PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE ’506 PATENT
`35. A POSITA would have known paging networks to have been in
`
`existence for many decades prior to the filing of the ’506 patent, with the first
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`commercial network for paging becoming available in the 1960s.
`
`(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pager). A POSITA would have known that paging
`
`networks were initially one-way systems, with pagers able to receive messages but
`
`not send them. In a typical one-way system, as shown in the figure below and
`
`understood by a POSITA, a control center transmits messages to a satellite, which
`
`relays them to transmitters, which then transmit to the pager in a simulcast fashion.
`
`
`
`36. A POSITA would have known that several paging protocols that
`
`defined the radio interface between the transmitter and pager were in wide use by
`
`the early 1990’s. The POSITA would also have known that in the early 1990s,
`
`Motorola developed the ReFLEX protocol, which enabled two-way paging. This
`
`system, as a POSITA would have known, used a separate network of receivers so
`
`that a pager could also initiate paging messages. See figure below.
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`
`37. A POSITA would have known that paging networks (including those
`
`in popular use in the early to mid-1990’s) have always had limited bandwidth, their
`
`design goals including low device cost, long battery life, working well inside
`
`buildings, and working well with small amounts of radio spectrum. In radio
`
`systems, data bandwidth in bits per second (bps) is proportional to the amount of
`
`radio spectrum used. Paging networks, compared to cellular networks, use radio
`
`channels that are very narrow. For example, a paging network operator in the mid-
`
`1990s would have had a license for spectrum that ranged from 50 KHz to 200
`
`KHz, when provided for by Narrowband Personal Communications Service (PCS)
`
`spectrum, for which the Federal Communications Commission announced service
`
`rules in 1993. (See https://www.fcc.gov/general/narrowband-personal-
`
`communications-service-pcs.) In contrast, cellular licenses for Broadband PCS at
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`that same time were for 10 MHz or 30 MHz of spectrum. (See
`
`https://www.fcc.gov/general/broadband-personal-communications-service-pcs.) A
`
`30 MHz license represents 150 times the capacity of a 200 KHz license. General-
`
`purpose data communications operates well in cellular networks, but in paging
`
`systems, data capabilities are highly constrained.
`
`38. Not only did paging systems in the mid-1990’s have much less
`
`capacity due to less available spectrum, but their architecture was fundamentally
`
`different from cellular systems. First, paging systems use larger coverage areas for
`
`each base station. Second, base stations in a paging area, such as a city,
`
`simultaneously transmit (simulcast) messages. The simulcast results in excellent
`
`in-building signal penetration, because a pager can receive the signal from multiple
`
`directions. But the consequence is further reduced capacity, because the network
`
`has to support a large number of devices in the coverage area. In contrast, each cell
`
`in a cellular network is much smaller than in a paging coverage area, and so the
`
`spectrum capacity is divided across a much smaller number of users. The net effect
`
`of less spectrum and larger coverage areas for pa