Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`United States Patent No.: 5,915,210
`Inventors: Dennis Wayne Cameron, et al.
`Formerly Application No.: 08/899,476
`Issue Date: Jun. 22, 1999
`
`Filing Date: Jul. 24, 1997
`Former Group Art Unit: 2649
`Former Examiner: Thanh Cong Le
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`109109-0017-652
`Customer No. 28120
`
`Petitioners: Aruba Networks,
`Inc.; Hewlett Packard
`Enterprise Co.; HP Inc.; ARRIS
`Group, Inc.; Juniper Networks,
`Inc.; Brocade Communications
`Systems, Inc.; Ruckus Wireless,
`Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING MULTICARRIER
`SIMULCAST TRANSMISSION
`
`
`
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Post Office Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANTHONY ACAMPORA, Ph.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`THE PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,915,210
`
`
`
`
`
`Aruba Networks et al. Exhibit 1003 Page 00001
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 1
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 7
`IV. MATERIALS RELIED UPON .................................................................. 10
`V. ANALYSIS OF THE ’210 PATENT ............................................................. 10
`A. OVERVIEW OF THE ’210 PATENT ..................................................................... 10
`B. OVERVIEW OF THE ’210 PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY .............................. 16
`C. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF THE ’210 PATENT CLAIMS .................................... 18
`VI. BACKGROUND ON THE STATE OF THE ART .................................. 20
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID .................................... 33
`A. LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................ 33
`B. CLAIMS 1, 7-8, 10, 15-17, AND 19 ARE OBVIOUS OVER RAULT IN VIEW OF THE
`KNOWLEDGE OF A POSA (GROUND 1); CLAIMS 7, 8, 15, AND 19 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER RAULT IN VIEW OF MOJOLI (GROUND 2) ...................................................... 37
`1. Overview of Rault ...................................................................................... 38
`2. Overview of Mojoli .................................................................................... 42
`3. Motivation to Combine Rault with Mojoli ................................................ 44
`4. Claim 1 ....................................................................................................... 45
`5. Claim 7 ....................................................................................................... 54
`6. Claim 8 ....................................................................................................... 58
`7. Claim 10 ..................................................................................................... 61
`8. Claim 15 ..................................................................................................... 64
`9. Claim 16 ..................................................................................................... 65
`10. Claim 17 ..................................................................................................... 65
`11. Claim 19 ..................................................................................................... 66
`C. CLAIMS 1, 7-8, 10, 15-17, AND 19 ARE OBVIOUS OVER NAKAMURA IN VIEW
`OF SAALFRANK (GROUND 3) .................................................................................. 76
`1. Overview of Nakamura .............................................................................. 76
`2. Overview of Saalfrank ............................................................................... 80
`3. Motivation to combine Nakamura with Saalfrank ..................................... 81
`4. Claim 1 ....................................................................................................... 82
`5. Claim 7 ....................................................................................................... 90
`6. Claim 8 ....................................................................................................... 93
`7. Claim 10 ..................................................................................................... 94
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 00002
`
`Page 00002
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`
`
`8. Claim 15 ..................................................................................................... 98
`9. Claim 16 ..................................................................................................... 98
`10. Claim 17 ..................................................................................................... 99
`11. Claim 19 ...................................................................................................100
`D. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS .....................................................................105
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................106
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 00003
`
`Page 00003
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
` I have been retained on behalf of Petitioners and real parties in interest, Aru-
`1.
`
`ba Networks, Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, HP Inc., ARRIS Group,
`
`Inc., Juniper Networks, Inc., Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., and Ruckus
`
`Wireless, Inc. to offer statements and opinions generally regarding the invalidity,
`
`novelty, application of prior art, obviousness considerations, and understanding of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the industry as it relates to U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,915,210 (“the ’210 Patent”). Attached hereto as Appendix A is a true
`
`and correct copy of my Curriculum Vitae describing my background and experi-
`
`ence in the field of telecommunications.
`
` I have personal knowledge of the facts and opinions set forth in this declara-
`2.
`
`tion, and believe them to be true. If called upon to do so, I would testify compe-
`
`tently thereto. I have been warned that willful false statements and the like are
`
`punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
` I received my Bachelor of Science, Master of Science, and Doctor of Philos-
`3.
`
`ophy degrees, all in Electrical Engineering, from the Polytechnic Institute of
`
`Brooklyn in 1968, 1970, and 1973, respectively. Both my master’s thesis and my
`
`Ph.D. dissertation involved theoretical aspects of electromagnetic wave propaga-
`
`tion in plasma and gaseous media. From June 1968 through September 1988, I
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 00004
`
`Page 00004
`
`

`
`
`was employed at AT&T Bell Laboratories in various engineering, research, and
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`managerial positions, all in the general area of telecommunications.
`
` My initial work at Bell Laboratories (1968-1974) involved high power radar
`4.
`
`design and development, and signal design and processing for extraction of perti-
`
`nent information from radar target returns, both focused on anti-ballistic missile
`
`defense applications. A modern radar system operates by transmitting carefully
`
`designed radio signals toward a target, and processing the reflected radio signals
`
`arriving back at the radar, to determine target location, velocity, and key features.
`
`For ballistic missile defense applications, it is also important to distinguish real
`
`warheads from decoys.
`
` My next assignment at Bell Laboratories (1974-1981) was in the Radio Re-
`5.
`
`search Laboratory, an organization responsible for basic research, where I was in-
`
`volved in new discovery and proposals involving novel approaches for communi-
`
`cation satellite systems. Communication satellites are radio systems, often world-
`
`wide in scope, intended to enable wireless communications among terrestrial users
`
`from a platform of one or more Earth-orbiting satellites. My contributions to the
`
`communication satellite state-of-the-art included (1) strategies to efficiently encode
`
`and recover digital information sent to and from the satellites via high capacity ra-
`
`dio beams; (2) novel systems and on-board satellite switching approaches that use
`
`multiple radio beams (so-called spot beams), each focused on a small portion of
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 00005
`
`Page 00005
`
`

`
`
`Earth, to vastly increase the capacity of a communication satellite by enabling the
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`radio spectrum to be re-used among the spot beams; (3) strategies to acquire and
`
`maintain synchronization of radio signals sent to and from a satellite; and (4) a
`
`novel approach to overcome the effects of rain-induced attenuation of radio beams
`
`that dynamically assigns available radio resources to those spots on Earth where
`
`rain attenuation is instantaneously most severe.
`
` I was promoted to Supervisor of the Data Theory Group at Bell Laboratories
`6.
`
`in 1981, with responsibility for exploratory development of local area data net-
`
`works. These are packet-switching networks intended to enable very high speed
`
`computer, voice, and video communications via on-demand capture of a shared
`
`transmission channel. Several new approaches were suggested and studied.
`
` In 1984, I was promoted to Head of the Network Systems Research Depart-
`7.
`
`ment (one of several departments within the Radio Research Laboratory, later to
`
`become the Communications Systems Research Laboratory, at Bell Laboratories)
`
`with responsibility for new architectures for packet switching and multiwavelength
`
`optical networks, wireless networks for broadband local access, and integrated
`
`voice/data wireless networks. My contributions included (1) a system architecture
`
`for using a raster of focused radio beams to deliver broadband service to a large
`
`number of buildings from a central location within a city; (2) a novel packet
`
`switching architecture for Internet-like wide area packet networks; and (3) a wide
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 00006
`
`Page 00006
`
`

`
`
`area multimedia networking strategy to enable access to the enormous information-
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`bearing capacity potential of optical fiber cabling.
`
` In 1987, I was promoted to Director of the Transmission Technology Labor-
`8.
`
`atory, a group of approximately 80 people with broad charter for exploratory de-
`
`velopment of (1) transmission and switching systems for next-generation Internet-
`
`like packet-based networks and (2) applications for digital signal processing in tel-
`
`ecommunications.
`
` I left AT&T Bell Laboratories in September 1988 to become Professor of
`9.
`
`Electrical Engineering and Director of the Center for Telecommunications Re-
`
`search at Columbia University. Here, my responsibilities were three-fold: (1) ed-
`
`ucation of students in the field of telecommunications, (2) pursuit of a program of
`
`independent research in the area of telecommunications, and (3) management of a
`
`National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center devoted to many as-
`
`pects of telecommunications and founded for the express purpose of improving
`
`American economic competitiveness through research, education, and transfer of
`
`relevant technical findings from academia to the telecommunications industry. Re-
`
`search programs at the Center for Telecommunications Research were focused on
`
`multiwavelength fiber optical networks, wireless communications, image and vid-
`
`eo communications, network management and control, and underlying photonic
`
`and electronic devices and materials. My contributions included (1) laboratory
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 00007
`
`Page 00007
`
`

`
`
`implementation and feasibility demonstration of the world’s first multiwavelength
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`packet switched optical network; (2) new approaches for randomly accessing a
`
`shared radio channel; (3) strategies for enabling rapid handoff among radio cells in
`
`a high capacity cellular network; (4) a rigorous understanding of multiwavelength
`
`optical network capabilities and limitations; and (5) algorithms for the efficient re-
`
`source management and control of packet based multimedia networks.
`
` In August 1995, I left Columbia University to become Professor of Electri-
`10.
`
`cal and Computer Engineering and Director of the Center for Wireless Communi-
`
`cations at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). Again, my responsibil-
`
`ities were threefold: (1) education of students in the field of wireless communica-
`
`tions, (2) pursuit of a program of independent research in the area of wireless
`
`communications, and (3) management of an industrially funded research center de-
`
`voted exclusively to wireless communications. Contributions included (1) strate-
`
`gies for allowing the use of so-called “smart” antennas in cellular-based packet ra-
`
`dio networks; (2) a proposal for a new city-wide network based on a wireless
`
`mesh-based approach using either focused wireless beams of light or focused radio
`
`beams, intended to deliver broadband services to buildings and/or to connect wire-
`
`less radio cells with the world-wide fiber-optic backbone network; and (3) mobility
`
`management strategies for high speed packet-based wireless networks. The second
`
`of these contributions has served as the technical foundation for at least two new
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 00008
`
`Page 00008
`
`

`
`
`venture-backed telecommunications equipment companies, one of which I co-
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`founded.
`
` In December 1999, I resigned as Director of the Center for Wireless Com-
`11.
`
`munications to pursue full-time research and education as a Professor of Electrical
`
`and Computer Engineering at UCSD and on January 1, 2008, I became Professor
`
`of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Emeritus, maintaining an active research
`
`program.
`
` At UCSD, I have taught courses on (1) probability, (2) random processes,
`12.
`
`and (3) wireless networks. Courses in probability and random processes are tech-
`
`nically essential in the study of wireless communication systems in order to ana-
`
`lyze and understand the effects of random errors that occur in noisy wireless chan-
`
`nels. My current research is focused on (1) broadband wireless networks for local
`
`access to homes, schools, and businesses; (2) wireless spaces to enable ubiquitous
`
`voice, data, and video wireless communications within buildings, and (3) so-called
`
`ad-hoc (self-organizing) networks of wireless sensor nodes for business and home-
`
`land security applications.
`
` Over the course of my career, I have published (individually or with collabo-
`13.
`
`rators) over 170 original papers in scholarly journals and professional conference
`
`proceedings, and I am the named inventor or co-inventor on 40 U.S. patents.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 00009
`
`Page 00009
`
`

`
`
`
` I wrote one of the world’s first textbooks devoted to broadband telecommu-14.
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`
`
`nications, titled “An Introduction to Broadband Networks.” I have lectured exten-
`
`sively on telecommunications in general and wireless communications in particu-
`
`lar, and I have regularly attended, and continue to attend, numerous world-wide
`
`professional conferences. I have chaired several major telecommunications con-
`
`ferences, and I have chaired numerous professional conference technical sessions.
`
`I read the technical literature extensively, and subscribe to several leading journals
`
`in the field of telecommunications in general and wireless communications in par-
`
`ticular. Over the years, I have delivered many 3 to 5 day intensive short courses on
`
`telecommunications and wireless communications to professional audiences of
`
`practicing engineers and others. In 1988, I was elected to the grade of Fellow of
`
`the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, cited for contributions to high
`
`capacity digital satellite systems and broadband local communication networks.
`
` Additional details of my background are set forth in my curriculum vitae
`15.
`
`(Appendix A), which provides a more complete description of my background and
`
`work experience, and lists the presentations, articles and other publications I have
`
`authored or to which I have contributed.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
` I understand that the factors considered in determining the ordinary level of
`16.
`
`skill in a field of art include the level of education and experience of persons work-
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 00010
`
`Page 00010
`
`

`
`
`ing in the field; the types of problems encountered in the field; and the sophistica-
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`tion of the technology at the time of the purported invention, which I understand is
`
`asserted to be November 12, 1992. I understand that a POSA is not a specific real
`
`individual, but rather is a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected by
`
`the factors above. I understand that a POSA would also have knowledge from the
`
`teachings of the prior art, including the art cited below.
`
` In my opinion, on or before November 1992, a POSA would likely have
`17.
`
`been a person familiar with wireless communications networks by way of experi-
`
`ence and schooling. That person would have had a working knowledge of the pro-
`
`tocols and architecture of a wireless communication network. That person would
`
`likely have either (1) earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering or its
`
`equivalent, and had at least four1 years of professional experience in wireless
`
`
`1 I understand that petitioners’ expert in prior petitions for inter partes review of
`
`the ’210 patent (e.g., in IPR2014-01036, IPR2015-00015, IPR2015-01724,
`
`IPR2015-01725, IPR2016-00765, IPR2016-00769) agreed with me that a POSA
`
`would have a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering or a related field, but
`
`suggested that a POSA would have had two—rather than four—or more years of
`
`industry experience in wireless communications systems. E.g., IPR2014-01036,
`
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 10. My opinions regarding the patentability of the challenged claims
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 00011
`
`Page 00011
`
`

`
`
`communications networks; or (2) earned a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineer-
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`ing or its equivalent, and had at least two years of professional experience in wire-
`
`less communications networks.
`
` My opinions are based on my educational background, my commercial ex-
`18.
`
`perience in the field of art, the technical training required to reduce to practice the
`
`system described in the ’210 patent, the relevant prior art, my reading of the ’210
`
`patent and technical literature, and my experience consulting in many cases involv-
`
`ing related technology.
`
`19.
`
` I understand that a POSA is presumed to have knowledge of all relevant pri-
`
`or art. Therefore, a POSA would have been familiar with each of the references
`
`cited herein and the full range of teachings they contain
`
` Well before November 12, 1992, my level of skill in the art was at least that
`20.
`
`of a POSA, as discussed above. I am qualified to provide opinions concerning
`
`
`would be the same even if prior petitioners’ definition of a POSA were adopted. I
`
`further understand that MTEL’s expert in prior proceedings on the ’210 patent
`
`agreed with me that a POSA would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical En-
`
`gineering or its equivalent, and about four years working in the field of wireless
`
`telecommunications networks. E.g., IPR2016-00765, Ex. 2001 ¶ 9.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 00012
`
`Page 00012
`
`

`
`
`what a POSA would have known and understood at that time, and my analysis and
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`conclusions herein are from the perspective of a POSA as of November 12, 1992.
`
`IV. MATERIALS RELIED UPON
` In reaching the conclusions described in this declaration, I have relied on the
`21.
`
`documents and materials cited herein as well as those identified in Appendix B at-
`
`tached to this declaration. These materials comprise patents, file histories, records
`
`of previous IPR proceedings, and other prior art documents. Each of these materi-
`
`als is a type of document that experts in my field would reasonably rely upon when
`
`forming their opinions.
`
`22.
`
` My opinions are also based upon my education, training, research,
`
`knowledge, and personal and professional experience.
`
`V. ANALYSIS OF THE ’210 PATENT
`A. Overview of the ’210 Patent
` The ’210 patent is titled “Method and System for Providing Multicarrier
`23.
`
`Simulcast Transmission,” and claims priority to an application filed on November
`
`12, 1992. The ‘210 patent relates to systems for providing communication capabil-
`
`ity between a central network and a mobile unit located somewhere in a geographic
`
`region. Ex. 1001 Abstract, 1:11-16. According to the ’210 patent, its “primary ob-
`
`ject [is] to provide a communication system with wide area coverage and high
`
`message throughput while minimizing frequency bandwidth usage.” Ex. 1001
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 00013
`
`Page 00013
`
`

`
`
`4:44-48. The ‘210 patent explains that Fig. 6, reproduced below, illustrates the
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`major elements of the communication system. Ex. 1001 8:46–48.
`
`
`
`
` The ‘210 patent explains that, as depicted by Fig. 6, the communication sys-24.
`
`tem includes a network operations center 600 connected to a satellite uplink 602,
`
`which in turn provides data to satellite 606. Ex.1001 8:46–51. According to the
`
`‘210 patent, satellite 606 communicates the received data to several satellite down-
`
`link stations, including stations 608 and 610. Ex.1001 8:52-53. Then, satellite
`
`downlink stations 608 and 610 send the data to spatially separated base transmit-
`
`ters 612 and 614, which transmit the data for reception by a mobile unit 624. Ex.
`
`1001 8:62 – 9:11. Fig. 6 also shows dashed line 660, which indicates the boundary
`
`between zones 1 and 2. Ex. 1001 9:42-43.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 00014
`
`Page 00014
`
`

`
`
`
` According to the ’210 patent, in one embodiment of the alleged invention, 25.
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`
`
`base transmitters 612 and 614 receive a data signal from satellite 606 via downlink
`
`stations 608 and 610, and then transmit the data in simulcast, i.e., transmitters op-
`
`erate on substantially the same frequency and transmit the same information. Ex.
`
`1001 10:35-41; see also id. 1:52-55; 9:66-10:3. The ’210 patent explains that this
`
`embodiment is “useful to deliver the message, if, for example, the location of mo-
`
`bile unit 624 in zone 1 or zone 2 is unknown and broad coverage is desired.” Id.
`
`10:41-44. In another embodiment, if mobile unit 624 is known to be in zone 1,
`
`base transmitter 614 can transmit a data signal in zone 1, while, at the same time,
`
`base transmitter 612 transmits a different message to a different mobile unit. Id.
`
`10:45-59.
`
`26.
`
` The ‘210 patent further explains that the base transmitters 612 and 614 pref-
`
`erably utilize a multi-carrier modulation format, i.e., the simultaneous transmission
`
`of several closely spaced carrier frequencies with a desired frequency band, each
`
`individually modulated to covey an information signal. Id. at 13:3-27. According
`
`to the ’210 patent, multi-carrier modulation allows high data transfer rates while
`
`keeping below baud rate limitations of simulcast transmission techniques. Id.
`
`13:10-14.
`
`27.
`
` I have considered claims 1, 7-8, 10, 15-17, and 19, which read as follows:
`
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 00015
`
`Page 00015
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`[1.pre] A multi-carrier simulcast transmission system for transmitting in a de-
`
`sired frequency band at least one message contained in an information signal,
`
`the system comprising:
`
`[1.1(a)] a first transmitter configured to transmit a first plurality of carrier sig-
`
`nals within the desired frequency band,
`
`[1.1(b)] each of the first plurality of carrier signals representing a portion of the
`
`information signal substantially not represented by others of the first plurality
`
`of carrier signals; and
`
`[1.2(a)] a second transmitter, spatially separated from the first transmitter, con-
`
`figured to transmit a second plurality of carrier signals in simulcast with the
`
`first plurality of carrier signals,
`
`[1.2(b)] each of the second plurality of carrier signals corresponding to and
`
`representing substantially the same information as a respective carrier signal of
`
`the first plurality of carrier signals.
`
`Claim 7
`
`[7.1] The multi-carrier simulcast transmission system of claim 1, wherein the
`
`first transmitter comprises means for modulating the first plurality of carrier
`
`signals using a modulation scheme, and
`
`[7.2] the second transmitter comprises means for modulating the second plural-
`
`ity of carrier signals using the modulation scheme.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 00016
`
`Page 00016
`
`

`
`
`Claim 8
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`The multi-carrier simulcast transmission system of claim 7, wherein the modu-
`
`lation scheme is selected from the group including: modulated on/off keying,
`
`binary frequency shift keying, M’ary frequency shift keying, and quadrature
`
`amplitude modulation.
`
`Claim 10
`
`[10.pre] In a multi-carrier simulcast transmission system, a method for trans-
`
`mitting in a desired frequency band at least one message contained in an in-
`
`formation signal, the method comprising the steps of:
`
`[10.1(a)] generating a first plurality of carrier signals within the desired fre-
`
`quency band,
`
`[10.1(b)] each of the first plurality of carrier signals representing a portion of
`
`the information signal substantially not represented by others of the first
`
`pluarlity [sic] of carrier signals;
`
`[10.2] generating a second plurality of carrier signals within the desired fre-
`
`quency band, each of the second plurality of carrier signals corresponding to
`
`and representing substantially the same information as a respective carrier sig-
`
`nal of the first plurality of carrier signals;
`
`[10.3] transmitting the first plurality of carrier signals from a first transmitter;
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 00017
`
`Page 00017
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`[10.4] transmitting the second plurality of carrier signals from a second trans-
`
`mitter in simulcast with transmission of the first plurality of carrier signals
`
`from the first transmitter.
`
`Claim 15
`
`The method of claim 10, wherein at least one of the first and second pluralities
`
`of carrier signals is modulated according to a modulation scheme selected from
`
`the group including: modulated on/off keying, binary frequency shift keying,
`
`M’ary frequency shift keying, and quadrature amplitude modulation.
`
`Claim 16
`
`The method of claim 10, wherein the step of generating the first plurality of
`
`carrier signals comprises the substep of modulating the first plurality of carrier
`
`signals using a modulation scheme.
`
`Claim 17
`
`The method of claim 10, wherein the step of generating a second plurality of
`
`carrier signals comprises the substep of modulating the second plurality of car-
`
`rier signals using a modulation scheme.
`
`Claim 19
`
`[19.pre] A multi-carrier simulcast transmission system for transmitting in a de-
`
`sired frequency band at least one message contained in an information signal,
`
`the system comprising:
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 00018
`
`Page 00018
`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`[19.1(a)] means for transmitting a first plurality of carrier signals within the
`
`desired frequency band,
`
`[19.1(b)] each of the first plurality of carrier signals representing a portion of
`
`the information signal substantially not represented by others of the first plural-
`
`ity of carrier signals; and
`
`[19.2(a)] means for transmitting a second plurality of carrier signals in simul-
`
`cast with the first plurality of carrier signals,
`
`[19.2(b)] each of the second plurality of carrier signals corresponding to and
`
`representing substantially the same information as a respective carrier signal of
`
`the first plurality of carrier signals.
`
`B. Overview of the ’210 Patent Prosecution History
` The application leading to the ’210 patent was filed as U.S. Application No.
`
`28.
`
`08/899,476 on July 24, 1997, as a continuation of abandoned U.S. Appl’n No.
`
`08/760,457. Ex. 1002 270-76.
`
` The ‘457 application—a continuation of U.S. Application No. 07/973,918,
`29.
`
`which issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,590,403—was filed on December 6, 1996 with
`
`preliminary amendments prior to examination. Ex. 1002 64-259. The examiner
`
`did not issue any office actions and issued a notice of allowability noting that “the
`
`prior art of record fails to show a multi-carrier simulcast transmission system com-
`
`prising the first and second transmitters for simultaneously transmitting the same
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 00019
`
`Page 00019
`
`

`
`
`information signals. The system comprises a plurality of carrier signals in each of
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`the transmitters wherein each of the carrier signals represent a portion of the in-
`
`formation signal not represented by others of the plurality of carrier signals.” Ex.
`
`1002 262. The list of references cited by the examiner does not include the Rault,
`
`Mojoli, Nakamura or Saalfrank references discussed below. The examiner subse-
`
`quently issued a notice of abandonment for failure to timely correct drawings or
`
`submit new drawings. Ex. 1002 267.
`
` The applicant then filed the ’476 application that led to the ’210 patent along
`30.
`
`with a preliminary amendment. Ex. 1002 270-280. The applicant amended the
`
`preambles of claims 2 (issued claim 1) and 16 (issued claim 10) as follows (addi-
`
`tions underlined, deletions in strikethrough): “[In a] multi-carrier simulcast trans-
`
`mission system, [a method] for transmitting in a desired frequency band a at least
`
`one message contained in an information signal . . . .” The applicant further added
`
`claim 25 (issued claim 19), which claims a similar multi-carrier simulcast system
`
`using means-plus-function recitations. Id. 277-79. The application submitted an
`
`information disclosure statement identifying certain prior art. Id. 281-86. None of
`
`Rault, Mojoli, Nakamura or Salfraank appears on the face of the patent.
`
`31.
`
` Again, the examiner did not issue any office actions and issued a notice of
`
`allowability identifying the same reasons for allowance as with the abandoned ’457
`
`application: “As to claims 2 and 16 [issued claims 1 and 10], the prior art of record
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 00020
`
`Page 00020
`
`

`
`
`fails to show a multi-carrier simulcast transmission system comprising the first and
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`second transmitters for simultaneously transmitting the same information signals.
`
`The system comprises a plurality of carrier signals in each of the transmitters
`
`wherein each of the carrier signals represent a portion of the information signal not
`
`represented by others of the plurality of carrier signals.” Ex. 1002 288.
`
`C. Claim Construction of the ’210 Patent Claims
` For purposes of this Petition, I have been asked to assume that the claim
`32.
`
`terms have their plain and ordinary meaning. It is my understanding that in con-
`
`struing claims, terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning in
`
`the context of the intrinsic evidence of record, including the claims of the patent,
`
`the written description, and the prosecution history, unless examination of the in-
`
`trinsic evidence indicates that the inventor intended otherwise. I have also been
`
`told that I may also rely on Patent Owner’s implicit or explicit statements regard-
`
`ing the claim terms at issue. I offer no opinion herein on the merits of the parties’
`
`respective claim construction positions in the district court case, but reserve my
`
`right to do so in the future. I have been asked to assume th