`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CHARLES D. KNUTSON
`IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1003
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`VI.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 4
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ................................................................ 4
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .................................................... 5
`IV. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ......................................................................... 10
`V.
`LEGAL UNDERSTANDINGS ...................................................................... 10
`THE ’049 PATENT ........................................................................................ 13
`VII. RELEVANT FIELD AND LEVEL OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL
`IN THE ART ................................................................................................ 15
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 16
`A.
`“inquiry message[s]” .......................................................................... 16
`IX. OVERVIEW OF LARSSON ....................................................................... 19
`A.
`LARSSON AND LARSSON IN VIEW OF BT CORE
`EACH RENDER CLAIM 11 OBVIOUS .......................................... 22
`LARSSON AND LARSSON IN VIEW OF BT CORE
`EACH RENDER CLAIM 12 OBVIOUS .......................................... 45
`X. OVERVIEW OF IrOBEX ............................................................................ 46
`IrOBEX RENDERS CLAIM 11 OBVIOUS ..................................... 51
`A.
`IrOBEX RENDERS CLAIM 12 OBVIOUS ..................................... 59
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 60
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`2
`
`
`
`DECLARATION EXHIBITS
`
`APPLE-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049 to Davies (“’049 Patent”)
`
`APPLE-1002
`
`Prosecution History of the ’049 Patent (“the Prosecution
`History”)
`
`APPLE-1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles Knutson
`
`APPLE-1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Charles Knutson
`
`APPLE-1005
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,704,293 (“Larsson”)
`
`APPLE-1006
`
`
`
` IrDA Object Exchange Protocol (“IrOBEX”)
`
`APPLE-1007
`
`
`
` Prosecution History of the 7,587,207 Patent (“207 Prosecution
`History”)
`
`APPLE-1008
`
`
`
` Second Declaration of Dr. Charles Knutson
`
`APPLE-1009
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,587,207 (“Davies” or the “’207 Patent”)
`
`APPLE-1010
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,570,857 (“Haartsen”)
`
`APPLE-1011
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,480,505 (“Johansson”)
`
`APPLE-1012
`
`APPLE-1013
`
`Specification of the Bluetooth System: Wireless connections
`made easy, Profiles, Vol. 2, Bluetooth, Dec. 1, 1999 (“BT
`Profiles”)
`
`The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical
`Principles, Vol. 1, Clarendon Press, 1993 (“Oxford
`Dictionary”)
`
`APPLE-1014
`
`Specification of the Bluetooth System: Wireless connections
`made easy, Core, Vol. 1, Bluetooth, Dec. 1, 1999 (“BT Core”)
`
`APPLE-1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,683,886 (“Tuijn”)
`
`3
`
`
`
`I, Charles D. Knutson, hereby declare the following:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Fish & Richardson P.C., counsel for Apple
`
`Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”), to analyze certain issues relating to the validity of
`
`certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049 (“’049 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`In forming the opinions I have expressed in this declaration, I have
`
`reviewed the ’049 patent, its file history, the Petition for Inter Partes Review from
`
`Apple, and any documents cited or listed in this declaration. Furthermore, my
`
`opinions are also based on my experience and knowledge (as detailed further
`
`below).
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Apple Inc., and am being
`
`compensated for my work on this matter. My compensation is not contingent upon
`
`the outcome of this matter.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
`
`4.
`
`As explained below, my opinion is that a POSITA would have viewed
`
`claims 11 and 12 of the ’049 patent as being obvious in view of the following
`
`grounds.
`
`Ground
`Ground 1
`Ground 2
`
`’049 Patent Claims
`Claims 11 and 12
`Claims 11 and 12
`
`Basis for Unpatentability
`§103: Obviousness over Larsson
`§103: Obviousness over Larsson in view
`of BT (Bluetooth) Core
`4
`
`
`
`Ground
`Ground 3
`
`’049 Patent Claims
`Claims 11 and 12
`
`Basis for Unpatentability
`§103: Obviousness over IrOBEX
`
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`
`5.
`
`I received my Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in the field of
`
`Computer Science from Oregon State University in 1998. I received my Master of
`
`Science (M.S.) and Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degrees in Computer Science from
`
`Brigham Young University.
`
`6.
`
`Since 1986, I have been engaged in engineering, management,
`
`research, and instructional positions. During my undergraduate education at
`
`Brigham Young University between 1985 and 1988, I focused on operating
`
`systems, leading to my employment as a development engineer at Hewlett-Packard
`
`between May, 1988, and February, 1989. During that time, I developed low-level
`
`system software for the HP Vectra personal computer.
`
`7.
`
`I was employed as a development engineer, test engineer, and
`
`manager at Novell, Inc. between March, 1989, and September, 1994. During that
`
`time, I became very familiar with the theory and operation of data communication
`
`systems and system software. As a system test manager at Novell, I pioneered the
`
`creation of cutting edge system test tools for automated validation of network
`
`protocols.
`
`5
`
`
`
`8.
`
`I was founder of ComSoft Consulting in Corvallis, Oregon. In this
`
`capacity, between September, 1994, and October, 1996, I did consulting work for
`
`clients including Intel and Novell. My consulting work for Novell included
`
`creating functional and test specifications for the installation of certain Novell
`
`software products in the context of a Novell NetWare local area network. My
`
`consulting work for Intel included design and implementation of multi-protocol
`
`network communication mechanisms.
`
`9.
`
`I was Vice President of Research and Development for Counterpoint
`
`Systems Foundry, Inc. (acquired in 1997 by Extended Systems, Inc., later spun off,
`
`and currently operating as OpenSynergy, Inc.) from September, 1996, to
`
`September, 1999. My development group created the infrared beaming capability
`
`that 3Com Corporation employed in their PalmOS handheld devices. My
`
`development group also created infrared and Bluetooth development platforms
`
`(including commercial Bluetooth protocol stacks for embedded platforms and
`
`products) that have become de facto standards in the embedded/handheld device
`
`market worldwide.
`
`10.
`
`I was Chair of the Test and Interoperability Committee of the Infrared
`
`Data Association (IrDA) from February, 1998, to October, 1999, and served as a
`
`member of the IrDA Architecture Council from February 1998 to April 2008. I
`
`was also a member of the Infrared Object Exchange (IrOBEX) Working Group
`
`6
`
`
`
`from January 2002 to December 2005, helping to define standards for data object
`
`exchange in IrDA and Bluetooth. In addition, I was a member of the IrDA
`
`Financial Messaging Working Group (February, 2001 to December, 2005),
`
`Convenor of the IrDA Digital Imaging SIG (October, 1997 to October, 1999), Co-
`
`Convenor of the IrOBEX Interoperability Working Group (February, 1998 to
`
`October, 1998), Convenor of the IrDA Test Frames Working Group (February,
`
`1998), and member of the IrDA Interoperability Test Council (July, 1997 to
`
`February, 1998).
`
`11.
`
`I created and presented short courses on embedded systems, data
`
`communications, software quality, and software engineering at the Embedded
`
`Systems Conference, Portable by Design Conference, Wind River Developers
`
`Conference, and other industry venues over a nine-year period from 1997 to 2005.
`
`12.
`
`Since July, 1987, I have taught college-level courses on computer
`
`organization and assembly
`
`language programming, operating
`
`systems,
`
`programming languages, databases, networking, wireless data communications,
`
`systems performance analysis, software quality, and software engineering.
`
`13.
`
`I have authored or co-authored two books on networking and data
`
`communications, 57
`
`academic papers
`
`(21 of which
`
`involved data
`
`communications), six standards documents for the Infrared Data Association, and
`
`7
`
`
`
`43 trade journal and magazine publications (including articles on network
`
`administration, network product installation, and data communications).
`
`14.
`
`I have served
`
`in
`
`leadership positions,
`
`including Organizing
`
`Committee, Technical Program Committee, Panel Moderator, Session Chair,
`
`Tutorial Instructor, and Reviewer, at academic conferences focused on data
`
`communications and software quality. These conferences include the ACM
`
`SIGMOBILE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, the
`
`ACM Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking & Computing, the IEEE
`
`GLOBECOM General Symposium, the IEEE International Conference on
`
`Computer Communications and Networks, the IEEE Symposium on Ad Hoc
`
`Wireless Networks, the IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference Symposium on
`
`Integrated Heterogeneous Wireless Networks, the IEEE Wireless Communications
`
`and Networking Conference, the International Conference on Evaluation and
`
`Assessment in Software Engineering, the International Symposium on Empirical
`
`Software Engineering and Measurement, and the International Conference on
`
`Open Source Systems.
`
`15.
`
`I have served as a reviewer for academic journals focused on data
`
`communications and mobile computing
`
`including IEEE Transactions on
`
`Information Technology in Biomedicine and IEEE Transactions on Wireless
`
`Communications. I have also served as a reviewer for academic journals focused
`
`8
`
`
`
`on software engineering, including IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
`
`and Methodology, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Empirical
`
`Software Engineering, and Information and Software Technology.
`
`16.
`
`I was a faculty member in the Computer Science Department at
`
`Brigham Young University from July, 2000, to December, 2014, as an Assistant
`
`Professor and then as a tenured Associate Professor.
`
`17.
`
`I was the founder and Director of the Mobile Computing Laboratory
`
`in the Computer Science Department of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah
`
`from 2000
`
`to 2008, conducting
`
`research
`
`in short-range wireless data
`
`communications, with emphasis on infrared and Bluetooth data communications.
`
`During my tenure as Director of the Brigham Young University Mobile Computing
`
`Laboratory, I advised twelve graduate students (11 master of science candidates
`
`and one doctoral candidate) whose research focused on data communications.
`
`18.
`
`In 2006, I founded the SEQuOIA (“Software Engineering Quality:
`
`Observation, Insight, Analysis”) Lab at Brigham Young University and established
`
`a graduate research program in empirical software engineering. During my tenure
`
`as Director of the SEQuOIA Lab, I advised nine graduate students (eight master of
`
`science candidates and one doctoral candidate) whose research focused on
`
`empirical software engineering.
`
`9
`
`
`
`19.
`
`In 2013, I received the Brigham Young University Technology
`
`Transfer Award. I am currently an Emeritus Professor of Computer Science at
`
`Brigham Young University.
`
`20.
`
`In August, 2018, I joined the faculty at Utah Valley University as an
`
`Associate Professor of Computer Science,
`
`teaching courses
`
`in computer
`
`organization and assembly language programming, and analysis of programming
`
`languages.
`
`21. Additional details concerning my professional qualifications,
`
`experience, and publications are set forth in my curriculum vitae (“CV”) provided
`
`as Exhibit 1004.
`
`IV. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
`
`22.
`
`I have reviewed the exhibits listed on page 3 of this declaration, as
`
`well as any other documents referenced herein but not included on the exhibit list.
`
`V. LEGAL UNDERSTANDINGS
`
`23.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Petitioner and understand that
`
`statutory and judicially created standards must be considered to determine the
`
`validity of a patent claim. I have reproduced standards relevant to this declaration
`
`in this section, as provided to me by counsel for Petitioner and as I understand
`
`them.
`
`10
`
`
`
`24.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Petitioner and understand that a
`
`claim is unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 “if the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`
`pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. I am informed by counsel for the Petitioner and
`
`understand that obviousness may be based upon a single reference or a
`
`combination of references. I am informed by counsel for the Petitioner and
`
`understand that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods
`
`is
`
`likely
`
`to be obvious when
`
`it does no more
`
`than yield predictable
`
`results. However, I am informed by counsel for the Petitioner and understand that
`
`a patent claim composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.
`
`25.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Petitioner and understand that when
`
`a patented invention is a combination of known elements, a court must determine
`
`whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the
`
`fashion claimed by the patent at issue by considering the teachings of prior art
`
`references, the effects of demands known to people working in the field or present
`
`in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`11
`
`
`
`26.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Petitioner and understand that a
`
`patent claim composed of several limitations is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each of its limitations was independently known in the prior
`
`art. I am informed by counsel for the Petitioner and understand that identifying a
`
`reason those elements would be combined can be important because inventions in
`
`many instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed
`
`discoveries almost of necessity tend to be combinations of what, in some sense, is
`
`already known. I am informed by counsel for the Petitioner and understand that it
`
`is improper to use hindsight in an obviousness analysis, and that a patent's claims
`
`should not be used as a “roadmap” to combine prior art references.
`
`27.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Petitioner and understand that an
`
`obviousness inquiry requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope
`
`and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claims and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) any objective indicia of
`
`non-obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved need,
`
`failure of others, industry recognition, copying, and unexpected results. I
`
`understand that the foregoing factors are sometimes referred to as the “Graham
`
`factors.”1
`
`1 See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406-07 (2007) (quoting Graham v.
`John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966)).
`
`12
`
`
`
`28.
`
`I am informed by counsel for Petitioner that objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness can be evidence of nonobviousness in the record, and enables the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) and the courts to avoid the trap of
`
`hindsight. I am further informed that such evidence must always be present when
`
`considered in connection with an obviousness determination. Further, to be
`
`afforded substantial weight, the objective indicia of nonobviousness must be tied to
`
`the novel elements of the claims at issue, but the objective indicia need only be
`
`reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims. I am not aware of
`
`evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness relevant to the ’049 patent.
`
`29.
`
`I am informed by counsel for the Petitioner and understand that all
`
`prior art references are to be looked at from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Furthermore, obviousness is analyzed from the perspective of one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`VI. THE ’049 PATENT
`
`30.
`
`The ’049 patent, entitled “Communication System,” was filed on June
`
`7, 2001, and issued on January 31, 2006.
`
`31.
`
`The ’049 Patent generally relates to a wireless communication system
`
`in which devices, such as Human/Machine Interface Devices (HIDs), are
`
`connected to a wireless network, such as Bluetooth. Ex. 1001, 1:3-7, 1:27-32. The
`
`’049 Patent describes an HID as “an input device such as a keyboard, mouse,
`
`13
`
`
`
`games controller, graphics pad or the like” that “do[es] not typically require a link
`
`having high data throughput, but do[es] require a very responsive link.” Ex. 1001,
`
`1:29-33.
`
`32. However, HIDs have several potential problems when setting up a
`
`link with a wireless communication network. For example, to set up a link, a HID
`
`has to execute connection procedures (e.g., inquiry and page procedures) that are
`
`performed over tens of seconds, resulting in delays for the HID to join the network.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:34-61. Inefficiencies also occur if the HID is designed to connect to
`
`the network automatically when a host system is turned on, because the HID has
`
`“to be regularly waking up to look for … inquiry bursts, thereby consuming power,
`
`or it will need to be manually woken up by the user.” Ex. 1001, 1:62-2:3.
`
`33.
`
`To address the above-noted problems, the ’049 Patent proposed a
`
`spoofing solution that utilizes an additional data field for polling HIDs. Ex. 1001,
`
`2:18-35. Specifically, “[t]he applicants … recognized that it is possible to piggy-
`
`back a broadcast channel on the inquiry messages issued by the master,” where
`
`“[t]he broadcast channel can be used to poll HIDs at regular intervals.” Ex. 1001,
`
`4:15-18.2
`
`2 All emphasis added, unless otherwise noted.
`
`14
`
`
`
`34. As shown in FIG. 5 (reproduced below), a “standard inquiry packet is
`
`an ID packet (ID PKT) 502.” Ex. 1001, 4:59-66. To enable faster polling, the
`
`“inquiry messages issued by [a] base station have an extra field 504 appended to
`
`them, capable of carrying a HID poll message.” Id.
`
`additional data
`field for polling
`
`’049 Patent at FIG. 5 (with annotations in red)
`
`35.
`
`“The extended field 504 may carry a header that signifies a HID poll
`
`to distinguish it from other applications of extended field information, such as
`
`context-aware services or broadcast audio.” Ex. 1001, 4:59-66. “By adding the
`
`field to the end of the inquiry message, … non-HID receivers can ignore it without
`
`modification” while the HID receiver being polled can respond. Ex. 1001, 5:6-9.
`
`VII. RELEVANT FIELD AND LEVEL OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL
`IN THE ART
`
`36.
`
`In my remarks below, I may use the acronym “POSITA” to refer to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at or preceding the date of June 26, 2000. In my
`
`opinion, a POSITA would have had Master of Science Degree (or a similar
`
`technical Master’s Degree, or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing
`
`electrical engineering or computer engineering with a concentration in wireless
`
`15
`
`
`
`communication systems or, alternatively, a Bachelor of Science Degree (or higher
`
`degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical or computer engineering and
`
`having two or more years of experience in wireless communication systems.
`
`37. Additional education in a relevant field, or industry experience may
`
`compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated
`
`above. I am at least a POSITA, and my opinions herein are from the standpoint of
`
`a POSITA during the relevant time frame.
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`38.
`
`I have been informed that in an IPR, a claim “shall be given its
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`it appears.”3 I have been instructed by Petitioner to provide opinion s regarding
`
`“inquiry message[s]” as discussed below.
`
`A. “inquiry message[s]”
`
`39.
`
`In my opinion, under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,
`
`a POSITA would have viewed an “inquiry message” as encompassing a “message
`
`seeking information or knowledge.”
`
`40. My opinion is based on the description of an inquiry message in the
`
`’049 Patent and an understanding of this term that a POSITA would have under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`3 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2012).
`
`16
`
`
`
`41.
`
`The ’049 Patent describes the use of an inquiry message in
`
`communications between a primary station and a secondary station. Ex. 1001,
`
`2:22-67, 4:25-30, claims 1-12. As an example, the ’049 Patent describes the use of
`
`a Bluetooth inquiry message. Ex. 1001, 1:11-55, 4:11-28. In Bluetooth, an inquiry
`
`message “allows a would-be slave to find a base station and issue a request to join
`
`the piconet.” Ex. 1001, 1:54-57, 4:11-13 (“The Bluetooth inquiry procedure
`
`allows a would-be slave 101 to find a base station and issue a request to join its
`
`piconet”); see also Ex. 1012, pp 37, 38. Specifically, in Bluetooth, a master device
`
`sends an inquiry message to seek one or more “inquiry response messages” from
`
`one or more nearby devices. Ex. 1001, 4:48-58; Ex. 1012, pp 29, 31, 37-39. The
`
`inquiry response messages include information needed by the master device to
`
`“page” and connect with one or more nearby devices. Ex. 1001, 4:48-58; Ex.
`
`1012, pp 29, 31, 37-39, 89, 90, 185. In this way, a device sends a Bluetooth
`
`inquiry message to seek information or knowledge needed to communicate with
`
`another device.
`
`42.
`
`Further, the ’049 Patent is clear that its “inquiry message” is not
`
`limited to Bluetooth. Specifically, the ’049 Patent describes that “the inquiry
`
`procedure is not restricted to Bluetooth devices and is applicable to other
`
`communications arrangements.” Ex. 1001, 3:24-29, 1:6-8.
`
`17
`
`
`
`43.
`
`I have also looked at a related U.S. Patent No. 7,587,207 (“Davies”)
`
`and its prosecution history. The ’207 Patent and the ’049 Patent have the same
`
`inventor and assignee, and were filed on the same day (i.e., June 7, 2001). See Ex.
`
`1001; Ex. 1009. A POSITA also would have viewed the ’207 Patent and the ’049
`
`Patent as having similar claims and similar disclosure. For instance, FIGS. 3-5 of
`
`the ’049 Patent, which relate to inquiry messages, are the same as FIGS. 3-5 of the
`
`’207 Patent. Ex. 1001, FIGS. 3-5; Ex. 1009, FIGS. 3-5. Portions of the
`
`specification related to FIGS. 3-5 in the ’049 Patent are identical to portions of the
`
`specification related to FIGS. 3-5 in the ’207 Patent. Ex. 1001, 4:21-47; Ex. 1009,
`
`6:60-7:23. Also, the independent claims in both patents identically recite “a series
`
`of inquiry messages, each in the form of a plurality of predetermined data fields
`
`arranged according to a first communications protocol.” Ex. 1001, 7:28-8:50; Ex.
`
`1009, 11:52-12:50. Furthermore, both the ’207 Patent and ’049 Patent claim
`
`priority to the same British application, GB 0015454.
`
`44.
`
`In addition to the overwhelming similarities between the two patents
`
`and similar subject matter, my review of the ’207 Patent and the ’049 Patent
`
`indicates that both patents use the word “inquiry message” in the same manner.
`
`And, in examining the use of “inquiry message” in the ’207 Patent, the Board
`
`construed an “inquiry message” as “a message seeking information or knowledge.”
`
`Ex. 1007, 41, 44.
`
`18
`
`
`
`45. Keeping in mind the similarity of the ’049 Patent and ’207 Patent, I
`
`am persuaded that the Board’s construction of an “inquiry message” in Davies is
`
`also applicable for the ’049 Patent. In particular, the Board’s construction of an
`
`“inquiry message” as “a message seeking information or knowledge” is consistent
`
`with an understanding that a POSITA would have had. Ex. 1007, 41, 44 . For
`
`instance, the Oxford Dictionary defines “inquire” as “seek knowledge of (a thing)
`
`by asking a question” and an “inquiry” as “the putting of a question, asking,
`
`interrogation.” Ex. 1013, 1376 . Furthermore, the Board’s construction is also
`
`consistent with the disclosure of an “inquiry message” in the specification of the
`
`’049 Patent. Ex. 1001, 1:54-61; see also Ex. 1012, pp 29, 31, 37-39, 89, 90, 185.
`
`46.
`
`Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, a
`
`POSITA would have understood an “inquiry message” as encompassing a
`
`“message seeking information or knowledge.”
`
`IX. OVERVIEW OF LARSSON
`
`Larsson
`
`47.
`
`I have reviewed Larsson extensively. In my opinion, a POSITA
`
`would have viewed Larsson’s disclosure as being related to updating and
`
`maintaining route information in wireless ad hoc networks, such as Bluetooth
`
`networks. Ex. 1005, 1:14-40. In particular, Larsson reveals a method to: 1) speed
`
`up the signaling required to configure a route between a source and destination
`
`19
`
`
`
`node, and 2) minimize the “number of broadcast messages required for setting up a
`
`route from [the] source node to [the] destination node when employing reactive
`
`protocols currently being used for transmitting in an ad-hoc network.” Ex. 1005,
`
`2:25-50, 3:64-4:10, 4:32-36.
`
`48.
`
`The above-noted objectives are achieved in Larsson by a “route
`
`discovery technique for use in a Bluetooth scatternet” in which “broadcast
`
`messages [for] which the source node expects a reply message [are combined] with
`
`broadcast messages for route discovery. In so doing, the broadcast messages for
`
`which a source node expects a reply message can also be used to support route
`
`discovery.” Ex. 1005, 5:35-50.
`
`49.
`
`FIGS. 6A (reproduced below) and 6B provide an overview of one
`
`implementation of Larsson’s route discovery technique. As shown in FIG. 6A, a
`
`source node in a Bluetooth scatternet generates a broadcast message and
`
`determines whether a reply is expected to the broadcast message. Ex. 1005, FIG.
`
`6A, 5:60-6:2. If the source node does expect a reply, “the source node piggybacks
`
`the broadcast message in a request for route broadcast message.” Ex. 1005, FIG.
`
`6A, 6:2-8. Next, the source node broadcasts the request for route message with the
`
`piggybacked broadcast message to its neighbor nodes. Ex. 1005, FIG. 6A, 6:10-
`
`15.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 6A (partly shown)
`
`50.
`
`“[B]roadcast messages [are] processed by some or all of the neighbor
`
`nodes at the same time or during similar time periods.” Ex. 1005, 10:32-38. In
`
`particular, a neighbor node receives the request for route message and determines
`
`whether the node has already processed the request for route message. Ex. 1005,
`
`FIG. 6A, 6:18-25. Turning to FIG. 6B (reproduced below), after “the node
`
`determines that the request for route message has not been previously processed,”
`
`“the node determines whether the piggybacked data indicates that the node is the
`
`destination node. If the piggybacked data does not indicate that the node is the
`
`destination node,” “the node replaces its address in the request for route message.”
`
`21
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 6B, 6:45-62. “If the piggybacked data indicates that the node is the
`
`destination node,” “the node will piggyback a reply message in the route response
`
`message.” Ex. 1005, FIG. 6B, 6:45-62.
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 6B (partly shown)
`
`51.
`
`In FIGS. 7A and 7B, Larsson discloses a similar method for obtaining
`
`route information in IP networks by piggybacking DHCP, name resolution, or ARP
`
`broadcast messages onto request for route messages. Ex. 1005, 7:37-10:31.
`
`A. LARSSON AND LARSSON IN VIEW OF BT CORE EACH
`RENDER CLAIM 11 OBVIOUS
`
`Claim 11 - [11.1]: “A method of operating a communication system comprising
`a primary station and at least one secondary station”
`
`52. As I noted in my overview of Larsson above, Larsson discloses a
`
`route discovery technique for use in a communication system, such as a Bluetooth
`
`scatternet. Ex. 1005, 5:35-50. Bluetooth scatternets were well-known in the art at
`
`the time the ’049 patent was filed, and Larsson provides a general overview of
`22
`
`
`
`such networks. For example, Larson notes that a “scatternet is formed by multiple
`
`independent and unsynchronized piconets.” Ex. 1005, 1:65-67; see supra Section
`
`IX. “A piconet is a collection of digital devices … connected using Bluetooth
`
`technology in an ad-hoc fashion.” Ex. 1005, 1:47-56. Larsson’s FIG. 3 depicts
`
`piconets 1, 2, and 3 that include master nodes 303, 305, 309 and slave nodes 301,
`
`302, 304, 306, 307, 308, 310, and 311. Ex. 1005, 1:66-2:7.
`
`53.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA would have viewed the disclosure of
`
`Bluetooth piconets with master and slave devices in Larsson as describing the
`
`same type of communication system with primary and secondary stations as
`
`described by the ’049 Patent.
`
`23
`
`
`
`54. Also, as I noted in my overview of Larsson above, Larsson discloses a
`
`method of operating the communication system by performing route discovery
`
`between a source node (e.g., a master) and a destination node (e.g., a slave) and
`
`transmitting broadcast messages from the source node (primary station) to
`
`neighboring nodes (at least one secondary station). Ex. 1005, Abstract, FIGS. 6A-
`
`7B, 5:35-67, 11:19-26. By virtue of describing a method for route discovery and
`
`message transmission in a wireless communication system that includes a source
`
`node and neighboring nodes, a POSITA would have viewed Larsson as disclosing
`
`“a method of operating a communication system comprising a primary station and
`
`at least one secondary station,” as recited in claim 11 of the ’049 Patent.
`
`[11.2]: “the method comprising the primary station broadcasting a series of
`inquiry messages,”
`
`55. As I noted in my overview of Larsson above, Larsson’s source node
`
`(primary station) broadcasts messages for route discovery to neighboring nodes in
`
`the communication system. Ex. 1005, 5:35-65. Specifically, the source node
`
`broadcasts the request for route message with the piggybacked broadcast message
`
`(for which a source node expects a reply) to its neighboring nodes. Ex. 1005, FIG.
`
`6A, 6:10-15. In response to receiving the request for route message, a destination
`
`node identified by the piggybacked broadcast message transmits a route response
`
`message. Ex. 1005, FIG. 6B, 6:45-65. If a node receiving the request for route
`
`message with the piggybacked broadcast message is not the destination node, the
`
`24
`
`
`
`non-destination receiving node rebroadcasts the request for route message to its
`
`own neighboring nodes. Ex. 1005, FIG. 6B, 6:45-65. Thus, a series of request for
`
`route messages are broadcast to multiple neighboring nodes including destination
`
`nodes and non-destination nodes. Ex. 1005, 10:32-38.
`
`56.
`
`I am also convinced by additional disclosure in Larsson that Larsson
`
`reveals a primary station broadcasting a series of inquiry messages. For instance,
`
`Larsson describes a redundancy operation in which a source node broadcasts a
`
`series of request for route messages when it fails to receive a response to its initial
`
`request for route message. Ex. 1005, 8:50-55. In this situation, Larsson’s source
`
`node broadcasts a series of request for route messages by initially broadcasting the
`
`request for route message (first message in the series) and then broadcasting the
`
`request for route message again (second message in the series).
`
`57.
`
`Even if this redundancy operation were not disclosed by Larsson
`
`(which it is), such a redundancy operation would have been obvious to a POSITA
`
`in dynamic, ad hoc networks such as the type disclosed in Larsson. Ad hoc
`
`networks, such as a Bluetooth network, are dynamic and have changing
`
`infrastructure, devices, and device locations. Ex. 1005, 1:14-46; Ex. 1012, pp. 327,
`
`331, 507; Ex. 1015, 4:25-5:5. Corroborating my understanding of an ad hoc
`
`network is the disclosure in U.S. Patent No. 6,683,886 (“Tuijn”). Tuijn explains
`
`that the “status of a single communication device as a slave unit, a master unit, or a
`
`25
`
`
`
`slavemaster unit may dynamically change during operation of [a] communication
`
`system” “supported by the Bluetooth protocol” and that “[s]lave units can