`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
`
`
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
