`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00394
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`
`________________
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH, PH.D.
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1031/ IPR2018-00394
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`A. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3
`B. The context of an “interrogation” message needs to be examined to
`determine if the message is broadcast or unicast .......................................... 3
`C. Ben-Ze’ev’s interrogation signal ......................................................................... 8
`D. Declaration ......................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1031/ IPR2018-00394
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Introduction
`I, Henry H. Houh, Ph.D., declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this supplemental declaration at the request of Apple Inc.
`
`in the matter of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,622,018 (“the ’018
`
`Patent”) to Erekson.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter. My compensation
`
`in no way depends upon the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`(1) Exhibit APPL-1001 through Exhibit APPL-1026 of this proceeding;
`
`(2) Mr. Easttom’s declaration, Exhibit Ex. 2001;
`
`(3) U.S. Patent No. 6,097,301, Exhibit APPL-1032;
`
`(4) U.S. Patent No. 6,714,133, Exhibit APPL-1033;
`
`(5) U.S. Patent No. 5,493,694, Exhibit APPL-1034; and
`
`(6) U.S. Patent No. 6,313,783, Exhibit APPL-1035.
`
`B. The context of an “interrogation” message needs to be examined to
`determine if the message is broadcast or unicast
`4.
`I note that Mr. Easttom cites to several dictionary definitions of
`
`“interrogation” in his declaration. These dictionary definitions state that
`
`“interrogation” is:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1031/ IPR2018-00394
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
` Oxford Dictionary of Computer Science: “[t]he sending of a signal that will
`
`initiate a response;”
`
` Merriam-Webster: “to give or send out a signal to (a device, such as a
`
`transponder) for triggering an appropriate response;” and
`
` Oxford’s Learners Dictionary: “to obtain information from a computer or
`
`other machine.” Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 46-48.
`
`5.
`
`I understand from counsel that these dictionary definitions in Mr.
`
`Easttom’s declaration have not been filed in this proceeding. I also note that Mr.
`
`Easttom did not indicate the dates that the dictionaries containing these definitions
`
`were published. As such, I don’t know whether they were published before or
`
`after the filing date of the ’018 Patent, which I understand is April 24, 2000. Even
`
`though I can’t tell what year the definitions are from, I do generally agree that
`
`interrogation generally means to initiate a response, and that this is the general
`
`understanding a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had in April 2000. I
`
`note that none of these definitions specify how an interrogation signal is
`
`transmitted, for example via a broadcast transmission or a unicast transmission.
`
`(By unicast, I mean transmitted to a single recipient.) These definitions only
`
`characterize the purpose of the interrogation, which is to initiate a response.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`Even though I agree that interrogation generally means to initiate a
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1031/ IPR2018-00394
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`response, I disagree with paragraph 49 of Mr. Easttom’s declaration, which states
`
`that the “plain and ordinary definition of interrogate (in relation to computer
`
`science) is to communicate with an individual machine, one at a time.” Ex. 2001, ¶
`
`49.
`
`7.
`
`It is my opinion that a POSITA at the time of the ’018 Patent would
`
`not have understood the terms “interrogate” and “interrogation” to require
`
`communication with an individual machine, one at a time (i.e., unicast
`
`communication). An “interrogation” message is not limited to any particular type
`
`of transmission method (broadcast, unicast, etc.) or number of recipients. In other
`
`words, when a POSITA read the term “interrogation” in association with a
`
`message, he or she would not have known whether the message is a unicast or
`
`broadcast message without looking at the surrounding context. I base this opinion
`
`on the way the terms “interrogation” and “interrogate” were used by POSITAs in
`
`computer science literature around the time of the ’018 Patent. Specifically,
`
`POSITAs were using the terms to describe broadcast messages intended for
`
`multiple recipients. I’ve provided a few examples below.
`
`8.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,097,301 describes the detection of RFID tags on
`
`pieces of luggage. It teaches an RFID interrogator that broadcasts an interrogation
`
`message to a plurality of RFID tags that individually reply:
`
`The present invention is a method of adjusting the 2-way
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1031/ IPR2018-00394
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`communication range of an RFID system to assist a human
`operator to individually handle and interrogate a plurality of
`tagged objects, such as suitcases, which each include an RFID tag
`transceiver. An RFID interrogator transceiver, preferably mounted
`on the operator, periodically broadcasts interrogation messages.
`Any tag transceiver which is within 2-way communication range
`of the interrogator receives the broadcasted message and
`responds by transmitting an identifying message containing data
`identifying the tagged object.
`APPL-1032, 1:59-2:2 (emphasis added).
`
`9.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,714,133 describes a short range wireless
`
`interrogator meant to be worn on a person. APPL-1033, Abstract. This patent
`
`describes transmitting an interrogation signal to multiple transponders in either a
`
`sequential or broadcast manner:
`
`Implementations of the short-range communication method may
`include one or more of the following features. The interrogator
`may generate interrogation signals in a status reporting mode to
`determine which transponders are within range of the coupling
`ports. The interrogation signals may be transmitted along a
`predetermined or assigned set of communication lines and
`associated coupling ports in a sequential or broadcast manner.
`An anti-collision protocol may be used if at least two
`transponders respond to the same interrogation signal.
`
`APPL-1033, 2:59-3:1 (emphasis added).
`
`10. U.S. Patent No. 5,493,694 describes broadcasting an interrogation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1031/ IPR2018-00394
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`signal to a group of vehicles requesting that each vehicle respond with its location:
`
`At a selected time, the central station broadcasts an interrogation
`signal in a time slot of length Tc (≈1 sec), requesting that
`vehicles number n=n1, n2, . . . in a selected group of k(q) vehicles
`respond with the present location and status of each vehicle.
`Using a protocol known by the central station and by each of the
`vehicle transceivers, the central station then ceases its broadcast
`and waits a certain time interval of length Tv for the vehicle
`responses.
`APPL-1034, 4:29-36 (emphasis added).
`
`11. U.S. Pat. No. 6,313,783 describes an aircraft collision avoidance
`
`system in which a ground-based interrogator broadcasts an interrogation signal to
`
`any aircraft in the area—where the aircraft reply with their identification:
`
`According to the second technique, each ground based Mode-S
`interrogator broadcasts an ATCRBS/Mode-S “All-Call”
`interrogation signal which has a wave form that can be
`understood by both ATCRBS and Mode-S transponders. When
`an aircraft equipped with a standard ATCRBS transponder enters
`the airspace served by an ATC Mode-S interrogator, the
`transponder responds to the with a standard ATCRBS reply
`format, while the transponder of a Mode-S equipped aircraft
`replies with a Mode-S format that includes a unique 24-bit address
`code, or identity tag.
`
`APPL-1035, 3:35-44.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1031/ IPR2018-00394
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Ben-Ze’ev’s interrogation signal
`12. Ben-Ze’ev teaches that the interrogation signal includes two
`
`components: (1) “the remote controller device code,” and (2) “an interrogation
`
`code asking the device to identify itself”:
`
`According to one embodiment of the invention, the remote
`controller periodically interrogates the existence of all appliances
`in its vicinity. More particularly, the remote controller initiates a
`signal containing the remote controller device code, and an
`interrogation code asking the device to identify itself. Upon
`receipt and identification of the signal, the appliance sends to the
`remote controller an identification signal including the device
`code of the remote controller and the appliance identification
`section 41. The interrogation signal is generally sent periodically
`to all appliances, and the appliances respond with their
`identification, in the fashion dictated by the networking protocol
`in use.
`
`APPL-1007, 10:49-60 (emphasis added).
`
`Based on this passage, the “remote controller device code” is the identification of
`
`the remote controller that is sending the interrogation signal. The “interrogation
`
`code asking the device to identify itself” is the code that corresponds to a
`
`command that asks that any appliance receiving the signal to reply with its
`
`identification. Neither of these two components in Ben-Ze’ev’s interrogation
`
`signal is an address of the recipient. Ben-Ze’ev explains that the remote controller
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1031/ IPR2018-00394
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`receives the identifications of the appliances in response to the interrogation signal.
`
`APPL-1007, 10:49-60.
`
`13.
`
`It is my opinion that a POSITA would have understood that a wireless
`
`message must include an address or other identifier of a recipient in order for the
`
`message to be directed to that individual recipient. For example, the Haartsen
`
`article I referenced in my first declaration (APPL-1013) teaches how a Bluetooth
`
`message is broadcast rather than sent to a specific device—the message is given an
`
`“all-zero address” rather than the address of an individual device:
`
`M_ADDR: This field represents a member address used to
`distinguish the active participants on the piconet. With the
`M_ADDR, the master can separate the different slave active on
`the piconet. This M_ADDR is assigned temporarily to a unit for
`the time it is active on the channel. Packets exchanged between
`the master and the active slave all carry the M_ADDR of this
`slave. The all-zero address is reserved for broadcasting purposes.
`
`APPL-1013, p. 6. A POSITA would have understood that a Bluetooth message
`
`must include an address of a specific recipient when the message is intended for
`
`the specific recipient, and that when a Bluetooth message is not intended to be sent
`
`to any specific recipient, but to all devices listening, the message is broadcast using
`
`the all-zero broadcast address (i.e., not the address of any specific device).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1031/ IPR2018-00394
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`D. Declaration
`
`14.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledgeare
`
`true andthat all statements made on information andbelief are believed to be true,
`
`and further, that these statements were made with the knowledgethat willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Date:
`
`_|
`
`| [Z} | %
`
`Executed:
`
`ih
`
`if
`
`ah
`
`Henry H. Houh,Ph.D.
`
`APPL-1031/ IPR2018-00394
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 10 of 10
`
`APPL-1031/ IPR2018-00394
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 10 of 10
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
