`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00395
`Patent 6,622,018 B1
`
`________________
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH, PH.D.
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1042/ IPR2018-00395
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 1 of 13
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`A. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3
`B. Leichiner’s description of plural “polling messages” is consistent with
`broadcasting .................................................................................................. 4
`C. “Polling” .............................................................................................................. 7
`D. Declaration ......................................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1042/ IPR2018-00395
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
`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-1002;
`
`(2) Exhibit APPL-1004 through Exhibit APPL-1006;
`
`(3) Exhibit APPL-1008 through Exhibit APPL-1030;
`
`(4) Mr. Easttom’s declaration, Exhibit Ex. 2001;
`
`(5) Rescigno, Adele A., “Optimal Polling in Communication Networks,”
`
`IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS, VOL.
`
`8, NO. 5, MAY 1997. (“Rescigno”), Exhibit APPL-1037;
`
`(6) U.S. Patent No. 5,213,555, Exhibit APPL-1039;
`
`(7)
`
`J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves and Asimakis Tzamaloukas, “Reversing the
`
`Collision-Avoidance Handshake in Wireless Networks,” IEEE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1042/ IPR2018-00395
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`TRANSACTIONS ON PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS, Vol. 8, No.
`
`5, May 1997 (“Garcia”), Exhibit APPL-1040; and
`
`(8) U.S. Patent No. 4,667,193, Exhibit APPL-1041.
`
`B. Leichiner’s description of plural “polling messages” is consistent with
`broadcasting
`4.
`I note that Leichiner describes that its remote controller transmits a
`
`“polling message” or “polling signal” (singular), and also describes that its remote
`
`controller transmits “polling messages” (plural), as illustrated in the following
`
`paragraphs:
`
`In operation, controller 10 generates polling messages to all of
`the controlled devices in the immediate vicinity thereof. The
`polling message is generated periodically upon request of the
`user, or in response to an external signal received from the
`controller environment. The controlled device available in the
`vicinity of the controller is capable of recognizing the polling
`message, and is capable of responding with the information
`regarding the identification thereof.
`
`APPL-1027, ¶ [0022] (emphasis added).
`
`For example, when the user has carried adaptive remote
`controller 282 from one room to another, the controller detects
`the presence of a new device, such as lamp 252 which is located
`in another room stated above. The reason for the above is that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1042/ IPR2018-00395
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`the controller which is programmed for the lamp responds to the
`polling signal of the adaptive remote controller.
`
`APPL-1027, ¶ [0065] (emphasis added).
`
`5.
`
`Leichiner’s reference to both a singular “polling message” and plural
`
`“polling messages” is not inconsistent with its overall description of the remote
`
`controller broadcasting the polling message “to a number of the controlled devices
`
`at the same time.” APPL-1027, ¶ [0012]. For example, a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have understood that when a message is broadcast, each receiving
`
`device gets a copy of the message. In other words, multiple messages are received
`
`as a result of the broadcast. This concept is illustrated in Figure 6 of the ’018
`
`Patent (reproduced below), where a single Broadcast Message 640 is transmitted,
`
`but Remote Device A receives a copy of Broadcast Message 640, Remote Device
`
`B receives a copy of Broadcast Message 640, and Remote Device C receives a
`
`copy of Broadcast Message 640:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1042/ IPR2018-00395
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`In other words, the system 100 generates broadcasting messages 640 (plural) to all
`
`three of the remote devices 630. This is what Leichiner is referring to when it
`
`states “[i]n operation, controller 10 generates polling messages to all of the
`
`controlled devices in the immediate vicinity thereof.” APPL-1027, ¶ [0022]
`
`(emphasis added). Specifically, the very next sentence explains that a single
`
`“polling message” is generated upon request of the user:
`
`In operation, controller 10 generates polling messages to all of
`the controlled devices in the immediate vicinity thereof. The
`polling message is generated periodically upon request of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1042/ IPR2018-00395
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`user, or in response to an external signal received from the
`controller environment.
`
`APPL-1027, ¶ [0022] (emphasis added). A POSITA would therefore understand
`
`that Leichiner’s description of plural “polling messages” is consistent with its
`
`overall description of broadcasting.
`
`C. “Polling”
`6. Mr. Easttom provides a definition of polling that includes:
`
`“interrogates its connected terminals in a round robin sequence.” Ex. 2001, ¶ 48.
`
`Patent Owner cites to this definition and relies upon it in the to differentiate
`
`Leichiner’s polling function from the claimed “broadcasting a message.” Response
`
`at 7-8. I disagree that a POSITA would apply this definition of “polling” in the
`
`context of Leichiner.
`
`7.
`
`For example, I note that the purpose of Leichiner’s polling function is
`
`to discover the “presence of a new device” when entering a room, as discussed in
`
`the following paragraph:
`
`For example, when the user has carried adaptive remote
`controller 282 from one room to another, the controller detects
`the presence of a new device, such as lamp 252 which is located
`in another room stated above. The reason for the above is that
`the controller which is programmed for the lamp responds to the
`polling signal of the adaptive remote controller.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1042/ IPR2018-00395
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 7 of 13
`
`
`
`APPL-1027, ¶ [0065]. I note that when the user brings the remote controller into
`
`another room, as described, it is not yet “connected” to any device. This is because
`
`the controller does not yet know which devices are present in the room before the
`
`polling function is performed. Any connection between the remote controller and
`
`the devices in the room occurs after the devices are discovered with the polling
`
`function. Id. I base this opinion on how persons of ordinary skill in the art
`
`generally understood wireless device discovery at the time of the ’018 Patent. As
`
`an example, the Haartsen article I referenced in my first declaration (APPL-1013)
`
`teaches how Bluetooth devices are first discovered with a broadcast inquiry
`
`message and then a connection is formed. APPL-1013, pp. 4-5. This is illustrated
`
`in Fig. 3 of the article:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1042/ IPR2018-00395
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`Device is
`unconnected
`
`Device is
`discovered with
`broadcast
`inquiry message
`
`Device is
`connected
`
`
`
`Based on the above, it’s my opinion that a POSITA would not apply Patent
`
`Owner’s definition of the term “polling” in the context of Leichiner.
`
`8.
`
`It is also my opinion that a POSITA in computer science at the time of
`
`the ’018 Patent generally understood that a “polling” message could be broadcast.
`
`I base this opinion on the way the terms “polling”, “polled”, and “poll” were used
`
`by POSITAs in the relevant literature around the time of the ’018 Patent. While
`
`there may be examples of POSITAs using the term “polling” to refer to unicast
`
`signals or messages, POSITAs were also using the term to describe broadcast
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1042/ IPR2018-00395
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 9 of 13
`
`
`
`messages intended for multiple recipients. I’ve provided a few examples below.
`
`9.
`
`The Rescigno article describes polling in communications networks. It
`
`teaches that polling is a process where a node “broadcasts a query to every other
`
`node in the network and waits to receive a unique response from each of them.”
`
`APPL-1037, p. 1.
`
`Abstract—Polling is the process in which an issuing node of a
`communication network (polling station) broadcasts a query to
`every other node in the network and waits to receive a unique
`response from each of them.
`APPL-1037, p. 1 (emphasis added).
`
`Broadcasting in a communication network is the process of
`information dissemination in which a message is routed from a
`special node, called the originator, to every other node in the
`network. Scattering is the process in which the originator wishes
`to route a different message to each of the other nodes in the
`network. Gathering is the inverse process of scattering, that is,
`every node has its own unique message that must be routed to a
`specified node called the destination. Polling combines both
`broadcasting and gathering for a specified node, called the
`polling station. The polling station broadcasts a query to
`every other node in the network and waits to receive a
`unique response from each of them.
`APPL-1037, p. 1 (emphasis added).
`
`10. U.S. Patent No. 5,213,555 describes the polling of networked exercise
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1042/ IPR2018-00395
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 10 of 13
`
`
`
`bikes. It teaches a broadcast poll that is received by multiple bikes:
`
`The polling cycle of FIG. 18 starts with the broadcast poll 92
`which is received by all of the bikes 31-35 that have been
`activated with the login sequence (using the start and asterisk
`keys). The broadcast poll 92 occurs in the first slot (Slot 0) of the
`polling cycle. The broadcast poll 92 signals the bikes 31-35 to
`lock down their data for the subsequent poll of the data. This
`procedure ensures that data is captured and interpreted in a
`manner guaranteeing a fair race. During each of the next six slot
`times the next bike will be polled and the receipt of a response
`from the previous bike checked. This continues until all bikes
`have been polled and their responses received.
`APPL-1039, 6:26-38 (emphasis added).
`
`11. The Garcia article entitled “Reversing the collision-avoidance
`
`handshake in wireless networks” describes “broadcast polling” in the context of
`
`wireless nodes transmitting ready-to-receive (RTR) packets to neighboring nodes:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1042/ IPR2018-00395
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 11 of 13
`
`
`
`APPL-1040, p. 5 (highlighting added).
`
`12. U.S. Patent No. 4,667,193 describes simultaneously polling a plurality
`
`of remote stations:
`
`
`
`The present invention relates to a data communication system in
`which a central controller can simultaneously poll a plurality of
`remote stations and can resolve any contentions which occur
`when more than one remote station transmit messages in
`response to the poll request. More particularly, the present
`invention relates to a poll request which contains an address
`portion specifying the group of remote stations to be polled
`wherein the address portion is not required to have any more bits
`than are in the addresses identifying the remote stations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1042/ IPR2018-00395
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 12 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1041, 1:6-17 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`D.Declaration
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13.I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true,
`
`
`
`
`
`and further, that these statements were made with the knowledge that 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: H /zJf '8 Executed:
`
`Henry H. Houh, Ph.D.
`
`APPL-1042/ IPR2018-00395
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 13 of 13
`
`