IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Johannes Maria van Loon et al.
`In re Patent of:
`9,014,667
` Attorney Docket No.: 19688-0152IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`April 21, 2015
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 12/919,965
`Filing Date:
`February 19, 2009
`Title:
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK ANDMETHOD
`FOR TIME-BASED NETWORK ACCESS
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`DECLARATION OF CRAIG BISHOP
`
`I, Craig Bishop, declare as follows. All statements in this Declaration made of my
`
`own knowledge are true, and all statements in this Declaration made on
`
`information and belief are believed to be true. I understand that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of the Title 18 of the United States Code, and that such willful
`
`false statements may jeopardize the result of this proceedings.
`
`1
`
`HTC EXHIBIT 1003
`
`Page 1 of 76
`
`
`
`Johannes Maria van Loon et al.
`In re Patent of:
`9,014,667
` Attorney Docket No.: 19688-0152IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`April 21, 2015
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 12/919,965
`Filing Date:
`February 19, 2009
`Title:
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK ANDMETHOD
`FOR TIME-BASED NETWORK ACCESS
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`DECLARATION OF CRAIG BISHOP
`
`I, Craig Bishop, declare as follows. All statements in this Declaration made of my
`
`own knowledge are true, and all statements in this Declaration made on
`
`information and belief are believed to be true. I understand that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of the Title 18 of the United States Code, and that such willful
`
`false statements may jeopardize the result of this proceedings.
`
`1
`
`HTC EXHIBIT 1003
`
`Page 1 of 76
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of LG Electronics Inc., LG
`
`Electronics, U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. in the
`
`matter of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667 (“the ’667 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work. My compensation does not
`
`depend on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether certain references render
`
`obvious claims of the ’667 Patent, either alone or in combination with each other.
`
`4.
`
`I have been advised that a patent claim may be invalid as obvious if
`
`the differences between the subject matter patented and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention
`
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art. I have also been advised that several
`
`factual inquiries underlie a determination of obviousness. These inquiries include
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, the level of ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`invention, the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and any
`
`objective evidence of non-obviousness.
`
`5.
`
`I have been advised that objective evidence of non-obviousness
`
`directly attributable to the claimed invention, known as “secondary considerations
`
`of non-obviousness,” may include commercial success, satisfaction of a long-felt
`
`but unsolved need, failure of others, copying, skepticism or disbelief before the
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 76
`
`
`
`
`invention, and unexpected results. I am not aware of any such objective evidence
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`of non-obviousness that is directly attributable to the subject matter claimed in the
`
`’667 Patent at this time.
`
`6.
`
`In addition, I have been advised that the law requires a “common
`
`sense” approach of examining whether the claimed invention is obvious to a person
`
`skilled in the art. For example, I have been advised that combining familiar
`
`elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
`
`than yield predictable results. I have further been advised that this is especially true
`
`in instances where there are limited numbers of possible solutions to technical
`
`problems or challenges.
`
`7.
`
`I have been informed that claims 31, 33, and 35 of the ’667 Patent are
`
`subject to this inter partes review.
`
`II.
`
`MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`8.
`
`In forming the opinions, I express below, I considered my own
`
`knowledge of the art and at least the following references:
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667 to van Loon, et al. (“the ’667 Patent”)
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’667 Patent (“the
`
`Prosecution History”)
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 76
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Mr. Bishop
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,275,695 to Obhan et al. (“Obhan”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0220740 to Shatzkamer et al.
`
`(“Shatzkamer”)
`
`1007
`
`E.P. Patent Publication No. EP1009176 A2 to Budka et al.
`
`(“Budka”)
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,505,755 to Taniguchi et al. (“Taniguchi”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0183427 to Nylander et al.
`
`(“Nylander”)
`
`1010
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0268838 A1 to Larsson et al.
`
`(“Larsson”)
`
`1011
`
`GSM technical specification No. 04.08 version 5.0.0, titled
`
`“Digital cellular telecommunications system (Phase 2+); Mobile
`
`radio interface layer 3 specification (GSM 04.08),” and dated
`
`December 1995
`
`1012
`
`GSM technical specification No. 03.60 version 7.2.0, titled
`
`“Digital cellular telecommunications system (Phase 2+); General
`
`Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service description; Stage 2,” and
`
`dated 1999
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`1013
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order, from Case No.
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`2:14-cv-1165-JRG E.D. Tex., May 6, 2016 (“Markman Order”)
`
`1014
`
`3GPP TS 23.060 version 7.0.0, titled “3rd Generation Partnership
`
`Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System
`
`Aspects; General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service
`
`description; Stage 2 (Release 7)” and dated March 2006
`
`1015
`
`3GPP TS 23.015 version 7.0.0, titled “3rd Generation Partnership
`
`Project; Technical Specification Group Core Network; Technical
`
`realization of Operator Determined Barring (ODB) (Release 7)”
`
`and dated March 2007
`
`1016
`
`Excerpts from G. Camarillo and M. Garcia-Martin, “The 3G IP
`
`Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), (Wiley, 2d ed. 2006)”
`
`(“Camarillo”)
`
`1017
`
`Excerpts from Regis J. “Bud” Bates, “GPRS General Packet
`
`Radio Service, (McGraw-Hill, 2002)” (“Bates”)
`
`
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`9.
`
`I summarize my relevant knowledge and experience below. My
`
`Curriculum Vitae contains additional information and is included as Ex. 1004.
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 76
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`
`
`10.
`
`In 1989, I received a Bachelor of Engineering (with Honors) in
`
`Electronic Engineering from the Polytechnic of Central London. In 2005, I
`
`received a Master of Science in Computer Science with Distinction from the
`
`University of Kent. The title of my Master’s thesis was Roles Variables and
`
`Program Analysis.
`
`11. After completing my first degree, I worked for nearly 28 years on a
`
`range of telecommunications topics including equipment in a broadcast chain,
`
`Private Mobile Radio (PMR) technology, and 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Generation
`
`Telecommunications Standards Development and Implementation.
`
`12. After graduating with my first degree I worked as an operations
`
`engineer at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for 4 years, then as a civil
`
`servant at the UK Radiocommunications Agency until 1996, during which time I
`
`first became involved in telecommunications standardization in the European
`
`Telecommunication Standards Institute (“ETSI”), working in particular in
`
`Technical Committee TC RES 2 concerned with the standardization of Private
`
`Mobile Radio (PMR). During that time, I acted as Rapporteur for voice and data
`
`related PMR standards ETS 300 086, ETS 300 113, ETS 300 219 and ETS 300
`
`390.
`
`13.
`
`In 1996 I joined Samsung Electronic Research Institute as a Senior
`
`Standards Engineer where I worked for 16 years, eventually becoming Director of
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 76
`
`
`
`
`Standards and Industry Affairs in 2011. My work at Samsung mainly focused on
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`the standardization of GSM/GPRS, UMTS, and LTE/EPS systems. In particular, I
`
`participated in ETSI SMG committees SMG1, SMG2, SMG4, SMG5, SMG9 and
`
`relevant UMTS related sub-committees until 1999, working on the air interface,
`
`radio access network protocols, service, and terminal aspects of UMTS and
`
`GSM/GPRS. I was actively involved in the ETSI SMG meetings leading up to
`
`selection of WCDMA as the radio access technology for Frequency Division
`
`Duplex mode of UMTS. Beginning in 1998, I worked as a Principal Standards
`
`Engineer in 3GPP on UMTS, attending RAN1, RAN2, SA1, T2, and other working
`
`group and plenary meetings covering the same technical aspects as in my previous
`
`work in ETSI. During this time, in addition to authoring and presenting technical
`
`contributions for the 3GPP standard, I acted as rapporteur for 3GPP Technical
`
`Reports covering User Equipment (“UE”) capability requirements (3GPP TR
`
`21.904) from 1999-2000, and the Evolution of the 3GPP System (3GPP TR
`
`21.902) in 2003 (the first Study Item to consider the 3GPP system beyond UMTS
`
`towards LTE/EPS).
`
`14. From September of 2004 to September of 2005, I worked as a
`
`standards consultant at SERI while obtaining my Masters in Computer Science
`
`from the University of Kent. In 2005, I became Head of Advanced Technologies,
`
`Standards and Regulation at Samsung. I continued to work on 3GPP
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 76
`
`
`
`
`standardization issues in addition to my managerial duties. From 2005 until 2008,
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`I worked in 3GPP SA2, mainly on the IP Multimedia Subsystem, attending 25 SA2
`
`working group and ad hoc meetings. The work required a sound working
`
`knowledge of the broader 3GPP system including the CS and GPRS core network
`
`domains, IMS, and IETF SIP in order to ensure effective participation in meeting
`
`discussions, assessment of third party contributions, and provision of
`
`implementation guidance to Samsung developers. From 2008 until 2011, I worked
`
`at Samsung as a delegate to 3GPP SA1, initially focusing on IMS related issues,
`
`though later contributing across all topics of relevance to Samsung. 9. In 2011, I
`
`became Director of Standards and Industry Affairs at Samsung, and in November
`
`of that year I was elected to the Board of the ETSI for a term of 3 years. I left
`
`Samsung in January 2013, but continued to server on the ETSI Board with
`
`Samsung’s support until the end of my term.
`
`15.
`
` Since 2013, I have worked as an Independent Telecommuncations
`
`Standards and Intellectual Property Consultant at Bishop Communications Ltd.,
`
`where I have been providing standards consultancy services, intellectual property
`
`analysis, and expert technical support.
`
`16. A complete list of my qualifications is set forth in my curriculum
`
`vitae, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1004.
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 76
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART AND STATE OF THE
`ART
`
`17.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the
`
`’667 Patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer
`
`Engineering, or Computer Science, and at least 3 years of experience working in
`
`the field of wireless communication, or equivalent post graduate academic
`
`experience. I believe this to be a reasonable statement of the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art for the patent and claims at issue. I also believe that I was at least one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest possible priority date of the ’667
`
`Patent.
`
`18. The opinions that I provide in this declaration are consistent with the
`
`knowledge and experience of one of ordinary skill in the art at the priority date of
`
`the ’667 Patent.
`
`V. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`19. Wireless communications started in the late 1800s and early 1900s. In
`
`the first half of the 20th century AM radio and FM radio were developed. Mobile
`
`radio, such as police radio, became available in 1928. Cellular communication
`
`became commercially available from around 1980. The 2G GSM phase 1 standard
`
`was completed in 1990 and the first commercial networks launched in 1992. The
`
`first commercial GPRS services were launched around 2000.The first release 3G
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 76
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`
`UMTS standard was completed in 2000 with commercial network launched in
`
`2002. By 2000, methods of gaining access to mobile communication networks,
`
`such as Global System for Mobile communications (GSM) networks, had been
`
`long standardized, for example in GSM technical specification 04.08 version 5.0.0.
`
`Ex. 1011.
`
`20. GSM technical standard 04.08 describes methods of gaining access to
`
`a mobile communication network. Specifically, GSM technical standard 04.08
`
`discloses a procedure for mobile-originated calls, which involves a request to
`
`establish a “MM connection.” Ex. 1011, p. 108. “MM connection” is established
`
`by sending a “CM SERVICE REQUEST” message to the network as an access
`
`request from the terminal, which is a “message is sent by the mobile station to the
`
`network to request a service for the connection management sublayer entities, e.g.
`
`circuit switched connection establishment, supplementary services activation, short
`
`message transfer.” Ex. 1011, pp. 89, pp. 226. CM SERVICE REQUEST message
`
`contains a “mobile identity.” The mobile identify includes a unique identifier
`
`associated with the terminal, for example an international mobile subscriber
`
`identity (IMSI). Ex. 1011, pp. 226, pp. 303.
`
`21. As such, it is well known in the industry at the time of the ’667 Patent
`
`that to originate a call in the GSM network, a message (e.g., a CM SERVICE
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 76
`
`
`
`
`REQUEST message) including a unique identifier (e.g., IMSI) is sent to request
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`access.
`
`22.
`
`In addition, General Packet Radio Service (GPRS), a packet-oriented
`
`mobile data service for GSM networks, had also been developed at the time to
`
`provide mobile data services for 2G and 3G cellular networks. The 3rd Generation
`
`Partnership Project (3GPP), a partnership of multiple telecommunications standard
`
`development organizations, had standardized and evolved various aspects of the
`
`cellular technology (mobile communications technology) including GPRS
`
`services.
`
`23. At the time of the invention of the ’667 Patent (around 2008), mobile
`
`communications technology was well-developed. The 3rd Generation Partnership
`
`Project (3GPP) had standardized various aspects of the mobile communications
`
`technology, including methods for gaining access to GPRS services for mobile
`
`data services, and controlling access to mobile communications networks. For
`
`example, 3GPP technical specification TS 23.060 describes, among others,
`
`procedures for accessing GPRS services:
`
`In order to use GPRS services, an MS shall first make its presence known
`
`to the network by performing a GPRS attach. This makes the MS available
`
`for SMS over GPRS, paging via the SGSN, and notification of incoming
`
`packet data. In order to send and receive packet data by means of GPRS
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`services, the MS shall activate the Packet Data Protocol context that it
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`wants to use. This operation makes the MS known in the corresponding
`
`GGSN, and interworking with data networks can commence. Ex. 1014, p.
`
`18.
`
`24. Another technical specification from 3GPP, 3GPP TS 23.015,
`
`describes “Operator Determined Barring (ODB) [that] allows a network operator
`
`or service provider to regulate access by subscribers to services (Circuit/Packet
`
`Oriented and Interworking WLAN), by the barring of certain categories of
`
`incoming or outgoing calls/ Packet Oriented Services or of roaming.” Ex. 1015, p.
`
`5.
`
`25. As such, a POSITA at the time of the ’667 Patent would have known
`
`that to originate a data call in a GSM network, GPRS attach is performed. The
`
`GPRS attach procedure includes sending an attach request by the terminal to the
`
`network to request access. Ex. 1014, pp. 18, 47-52. The attach request includes
`
`the IMSI (or P-TMSI) of the terminal. Ex. 1014, p. 47. Furthermore, access to
`
`mobile communications network can be controlled at the subscriber level. Ex.
`
`1015, p. 5.
`
`26. A POSITA at the time of the ’667 Patent would have also known that
`
`hardware architecture used to implement the mobile communications network and
`
`terminals attached the mobile communications network generally included
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 76
`
`
`
`
`computer processors that executed software stored in memory to achieve various
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`network-related functions including access request and access control.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’667 PATENT
`
`27.
`
` The ’667 Patent relates to “permitting access” to a plurality of
`
`terminals of a telecommunications network. Ex. 1001, 1:16-40. Due to “an ever
`
`increasing demand for data capacity,” the ’667 Patent describes a need for a
`
`“telecommunications network and method for regulating the use of network
`
`resources.” Id. Prior to the European Priority Date (02/29/2008) of the ’667
`
`Patent, the “steps of accessing a telecommunications network [were]
`
`standardized,” for example in 3GPP TS 23.060 (Ex. 1014, pp. 18, 47-52). Ex.
`
`1001, 2:24-25. Furthermore, “operator determined barring (ODB) … to deny
`
`access to particular destinations for certain subscribers” was also standardized in
`
`3GPP TS 23.015 (Ex. 1015, p. 5). Ex. 1001, 2:38-43.
`
`28. A schematic of the wireless network proposed by the ’667 Patent is
`
`shown in FIG. 1 (reproduced below with annotations), in which terminals A-D
`
`access the external network 8 through the base station 3, the serving controller
`
`entity 5, and the gateway 7. Ex. 1001, 3:55-65, FIG. 1. To gain access, the
`
`terminals A-D send access requests to the serving controller entity 5 through the
`
`base station 3. Ex. 1001, 3:66-4:6, 5:50-52.
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`29.
`
` To regulate the use of network resources, the ’667 Patent describes
`
`“[d]enying or blocking access during time intervals.” Ex. 1001, 2:44-50.
`
`Specifically, the ’667 Patent describes a “register” that stores grant or deny access
`
`time intervals used by the serving controller entity 5 to permit or deny access
`
`requests. Ex. 1001, 4:7-8, 4:49-5:6. The ’667 Patent discloses that the register
`
`may be a home location register (HLR) or another register such as a Home
`
`Subscriber Server (HSS), and the serving control entity 5 may be a serving GPRS
`
`support node (SGSN). Ex. 1001, 3:66-4:8. This is analogous to the prior art
`
`Operator Determined Barring information which is also stored in the HLR. Ex.
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 76
`
`
`
`
`1015, p. 6 (“If barring of outgoing calls … is applied to a subscription …, the HLR
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`will update the subscription information accordingly.”).
`
`30. FIG. 2 (reproduced below with annotations) shows an example of the
`
`content of the register 6. Ex. 1001, 4:54-5:6, FIG. 2.
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 2 (annotated)
`
`
`
`31.
`
` For each terminal A-D, the ’667 Patent’s register 6 “contains a
`
`unique identifier” and an assigned “time interval” during which access to the
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 76
`
`
`
`
`telecommunications network will be granted (grant access time interval) or denied
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`(deny access time interval). Ex. 1001, 4:54-5:6.
`
`32. The specification describes international mobile subscriber identity
`
`(IMSI) as an example of the unique identifier stored in the register. Ex. 1001,
`
`1:46-49, 4:54-57. Storing IMSI in a register is disclosed in the 3GPP standards.
`
`Ex. 1014, p. 169 (“IMSI is the prime key to the subscription data stored in the
`
`HLR”).
`
`33. The time intervals can be dynamic and implicit. Ex. 1001, 2:65-3:1.
`
`For example, as shown in FIG. 2, the deny access time interval for terminal D has a
`
`variable beginning time (x) and a variable ending time (y) depending on
`
`experienced or expected network load. Ex. 1001, 4:65-5:2. The serving controller
`
`entity 5 monitors the “network load” of the telecommunications network (in real
`
`time or from historical data) and may adjust time intervals based on the network
`
`load. Ex. 1001, 5:39-46. Additionally, in the ’667 Patent, terminals involved in
`
`“machine-to-machine (M2M) applications” may be denied access to the network
`
`during peak load hours. Ex. 1001, 2:48-60.
`
`34. FIG. 3A (reproduced below with annotations) shows an example
`
`operation of a terminal attempting to access the network. Ex. 1001, 5:47-6:42,
`
`FIG. 3A (annotated).
`
`16
`
`Page 16 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`35. The ’667 Patent acknowledges these access operations as being
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`standardized in the 3GPP standards prior to the invention of the ’667 Patent: “The
`
`steps of accessing a telecommunications network are standardized in e.g.
`
`3GGP TS 23.060 (Release 7).” Ex. 1001, 2:24-25; “Access for the terminals A-D
`
`to the telecommunications network 1 involves a number of access phases. The first
`
`phase involves the phase during which a terminal A-D performs an attach to the
`
`telecommunications network 1. In this phase, various communication steps
`
`are performed, including authentication steps, as exemplified in 3GGP TS
`
`23.060 (Release 7).” Ex. 1014, 4:15-20. The acknowledged 3GGP TS 23.060
`
`standard contains steps that are analogous to several of the steps described by the
`
`’667 patent, as explained below. Ex. 1014, pp. 47-52.
`
`17
`
`Page 17 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 3A (annotated)
`
`
`
`36. As shown in FIG. 3A, in step 30, a terminal A transmits an attach
`
`request to the serving controller entity to access the network. Ex. 1001, 5:50-52.
`
`This step has been specified in the 3GPP TS 23.060 standard: “the MS initiates the
`
`attach procedure by the transmission of an Attach Request (IMSI or P TMSI and
`
`old RAI, Classmark, CKSN, Attach Type, DRX Parameters, old P TMSI
`
`Signature) message to the SGSN.” Ex. 1014, p. 50. In step 31, which is an
`
`“authentication check,” the serving controller entity uses the identifier to retrieve
`
`an access time interval from the register. Ex. 1001, 5:63-6:4. This step has also
`
`been specified in the 3GPP TS 23.060 standard as an “Authentication” step. Ex.
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 76
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`
`1014, pp. 49, 56-58. The serving controller entity then uses the access time
`
`interval to determine that the access request was not received at a time where the
`
`terminal was granted access, and denies access to the terminal in step 36. Ex.
`
`1001, 6:19-23.
`
`37. Although the ’667 Patent uses grant access time intervals in
`
`describing these examples of access control operations, the ’667 Patent makes it
`
`clear that “[i]t should be appreciated that an equivalent of the grant access time
`
`interval includes a deny access time interval identifying a time interval during
`
`which an access request for access to the telecommunications network is to be
`
`denied.” Ex. 1001, 2: 17-21. In other words, denying access because the access
`
`request is received outside of a grant access time interval is equivalent to denying
`
`access because the access request is received within a deny access time interval.
`
`Furthermore, the ’667 patent describes that “the time intervals may also relate to
`
`time slots during which access to the telecommunications network 1 is denied, i.e.
`
`access deny time intervals,” providing further support to the notion that the
`
`described time intervals of the ’667 patent can be either grant access time interval
`
`or deny access time intervals. Ex. 1001, 5:3-6.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF OBHAN’S DISCLOUSRE OF ALLEDGED
`
`NOVEL FEATURES OF THE ’667 PATENT
`
`19
`
`Page 19 of 76
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`
`
`38. Similar to the ’667 Patent, Obhan relates to access control in a
`
`wireless communication network, such as a GSM network. Ex. 1005, 9:16-21,
`
`9:45-56; Section XII-i, infra. Obhan recognized problems caused by the variable
`
`load experienced by a wireless communication network and proposed a solution
`
`“for effectively managing spectrum in a wireless communication system to
`
`maximize usage of the wireless spectrum.” Ex. 1005, 1:15-19. Specifically,
`
`Obhan’s system monitors the “current demand” of the network and “provides
`
`feedback” to network entities that manage access control. Ex. 1005, 15:47-51,
`
`16:15-22; Ground 1, [31.1], infra.
`
`39. For example, Obhan discloses grouping terminals in different access
`
`classes and associating the access classes with deny access time intervals. Ex.
`
`1005, 14:52-15:9; Section XII-i, infra. Obhan denies terminal access to the
`
`network based on the deny access time intervals associated with the access classes.
`
`Ex. 1005, 16:14-22; Section XII-i, infra. FIG. 9B (reproduced below with
`
`annotations) illustrates Obhan’s Admission Control Block (register) that lists a
`
`“good till” time period (deny access time interval) with the access classes
`
`(identifiers) of terminals.
`
`20
`
`Page 20 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 9B (annotated)
`
`
`
`40. Obhan’s Admission Control Block (ACB) is updated based on
`
`monitored load of the wireless network: “Using current demand … the SYM
`
`system provides feedback to the wireless network entities in the form of an
`
`updated ACB.” Ex. 1005, 15:47-51, 7:66-8:7, 17:31-40, 18:12-23, 14:57-15:3.
`
`Through these updates to the ACB, Obhan updates its time intervals based on
`
`monitored network load. Ground 1, Claim [31.6], infra.
`
`41. Additionally, FIG. 15 (reproduced below with annotations) illustrates
`
`how Obhan’s system monitors the load of a Base Station Transceiving Subsystem
`
`(BTS) over the course of a day and compares the load to historical usage
`
`watermarks to identify a peak load time interval. Ex. 1005, 16:30-32, 20:64-21:7,
`
`21:22-29, 5:23-32; Ground 1, claim [31.8], infra.
`
`21
`
`Page 21 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 15 (annotated)
`
`42. Obhan also provides various other examples of peak load time
`
`interval, including “working hours” in “down town area,” “commuting hours”
`
`during in “commuter corridors,” time of the day when “subscribers are shopping,
`
`heading home” in “urban corridors,” and at night in residential areas.” Ex. 1005,
`
`11:4-11.
`
`43. During the peak load time interval, Obhan’s system denies access to
`
`“low priority data users,” including terminals performing machine-to-machine
`
`applications, such as vending machines or billboards. Ex. 1005, 18:47-61, 6:17-
`
`24; Ground 1, claim [31.8], infra. Indeed, to preserve access resources for higher
`
`priority users during peak load, Obhan’s system “preclude[s] access to the base
`
`22
`
`Page 22 of 76
`
`
`
`
`station” for these low priority machine terminals. Ex. 1005, 17:31-40; Ground 1,
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`claim [31.8], infra. By precluding machine terminals from accessing the network
`
`during peak load, Obhan’s system denies access to machine-to-machine
`
`applications during peak load time intervals. Id.
`
`44. For these reasons, as explained in more detail in Grounds 1 and 2,
`
`Obhan discloses the very features of claims 31, 33, and 35 that the examiner relied
`
`on in justifying allowance of the ’667 Patent. Thus, Obhan serves as the basis for
`
`the challenges set forth in Grounds 1 and 2, combining with Shatzkamer (unique
`
`identifiers), Budka (access requests), and Taniguchi (notifications) to address
`
`trivial features that were well-known, but not explicitly described by Obhan. Ex.
`
`1005, 14:52-15:9; Ground 1, infra;
`
`VIII. SHATZKAMER (GROUND 1)
`
`45. As noted above, Obhan uses class identifiers to control terminal
`
`access, rather than unique identifiers. Ex. 1005, 14:52-15:9. Shatzkamer
`
`demonstrates that using unique identifiers to control terminal access was well-
`
`known prior to the ’667 Patent. Ex. 1006, [0012], [0025]. To provide finer access
`
`control on the terminal, rather than class, level, a POSITA would have found it
`
`obvious to substitute Obhan’s class identifiers with Shatzkamer’s unique identifiers
`
`or at least include Shatzkamer’s unique identifiers in addition to Obhan’s class
`
`identifiers.
`
`23
`
`Page 23 of 76
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`
`
`46. Like Obhan, Shatzkamer relates to access control in a wireless
`
`communication network, such as a GSM network. Ex. 1006, [0041]; Ground 1,
`
`infra. Specifically, Shatzkamer discloses associating terminals with unique
`
`identifiers, and denying terminal access to the network based on the unique
`
`identifiers. Ground 1, infra; Ex. 1006, [0025]. In this regard, both Obhan and
`
`Shatzkamer relate to performing access control in a wireless communication
`
`network by denying terminal access to the network during certain time periods:
`
`“Mobile node 104 may be blacklisted for a certain period of time.” (Ex. 1006,
`
`[0035]). Ex. 1005, 14:52-15:9, 16:15-22; Ex. 1006, [0025]; Ground 1, infra.
`
`47. With this background, a POSITA would have found it obvious to
`
`replace Obhan’s access class identifiers with Shatzkamer’s unique identifiers if
`
`more flexibility and increased resolution of Obhan’s access control operations by
`
`enabling terminal specific control were required. A POSITA would have
`
`recognized that such substitution would increase the granularity of Obhan’s
`
`access control procedure by enabling the Obhan’s system to deny terminal access
`
`to the network based on the unique identifier associated with the terminal. Such a
`
`recognition would have directly followed from a POSITA’s common-sense
`
`knowledge because it was a well-known that substituting an access class based
`
`access control method with a unique identifier based access control method could
`
`24
`
`Page 24 of 76
`
`
`
`
`provide finer and more specific access control. Such substitution would have
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`produced predictable results without undue experimentation.
`
`48. Nylander confirms a POSITA’s motivation to replace Obhan’s class-
`
`based access control with Shatzkamer’s terminal-based access control. Ex. 1009,
`
`[0033], [0063]. For example, Nylander explained that access control based on
`
`access class “cannot be used for fine-grained Access Control,” as there are “only
`
`[a limited number of] different Access Control Classes." Ex. 1009, [0033]. “With
`
`such a limited number of Access Control Classes, it is impossible to build any
`
`logic for access control.” Id. Nylander then proposes providing finer and more
`
`specific access control by disclosing a list of “allowed user equipment units which
`
`are to be permitted access” to the network, identifying the user equipment units
`
`using the “International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) of the user equipment
`
`units.” Ex. 1009, [0063]. With recognition of the benefits of finer access control
`
`achieved by replacing class-based access control with terminal-based access
`
`control, Nylander confirms that a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`substitute an access class based access control method with a unique identifier
`
`based access control method to provide finer and more specific access control.
`
`IX. BUDKA (GROUNDS 1 AND 2)
`
`49. As discussed above, Obhan manages “call originations” in a GSM
`
`network. Ex. 1005, 18:47-61. Obhan does not explicitly disclose that “call
`
`25
`
`Page 25 of 76
`
`
`
`
`originations” in the GSM network include receiving an access request and a unique
`
`Attorney Docket No. 19688-0152IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,014,667
`
`identifier associated with the terminal. Id. However, Budka (referencing the
`
`GSM/GPRS standard at the time) confirms that it was well-known that call
`
`originations in a GSM network involve receipt of an access request with a unique
`
`identifier. Ex. 1007, [0042], [0062]; Ex. 1010, [0049]; Ex. 1011, pp. 89, 108; Ex.
`
`1014, p. 50. In particular, Budka describes that, to originate a data call in the GSM
`
`network using the GPRS standard, a terminal initiates an access procedure by
`
`sending an access request that includes a unique identifier, such as an international
`
`mobile subscrib
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
