IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Bernard Hunt
`In re Patent of:
`6,868,079 Attorney Docket No.: 39521-0060IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`March 15, 2005
`
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 09/455,124
`
`Filing Date:
`December 6, 1999
`
`Title:
`Radio Communication System With Request Re-
`Transmission Until Acknowledged
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. PAUL G. STEFFES
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............. 3
`II.
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES .......................................................................... 8
`A. Anticipation ........................................................................................ 8
`B. Obviousness ....................................................................................... 9
`III. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED ................................... 10
`IV. BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE ONE OF SKILL IN THE ART
`WOULD HAVE HAD PRIOR TO THE PRIORITY DATE OF THE ’079
`PATENT
` ............................................................................................................. 11
`A. Overview of the ’079 Patent ............................................................ 11
`B.
`Prosecution History Summary of the ’079 Patent ........................... 16
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................. 17
`V.
`INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ‘079 PATENT CLAIMS AT ISSUE ..
` ............................................................................................................. 18
`VI. GROUND 1: WOLFE IN VIEW OF BOUSQUET AND
`PATSIOKAS RENDERS CLAIMS 17 AND 18 OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`103
` ............................................................................................................. 25
`Technical Background of Radio System Technology ..................... 25
`A.
`B. Wolfe ................................................................................................ 28
`C.
`Bousquet .......................................................................................... 35
`D.
`Combination of Wolfe and Bousquet .............................................. 36
`E. Motivation to Combine Wolfe and Bousquet .................................. 38
`F. Patsiokas .............................................................................................. 46
`G.
`Combination of Wolfe, Bousquet, and Patsiokas ............................ 47
`H. Motivation to Combine Wolfe, Bousquet, and Patsiokas ................ 49
`I. Claim 17 .............................................................................................. 51
`J. Claim 18 .............................................................................................. 68
`VII. GROUND 2: Wolfe in view of Bousquet, Everett, and Patsiokas
`Renders Claims 17 and 18 Obvious ......................................................................... 84
`A. Overview of Everett ......................................................................... 84
`B.
`Combination of Wolfe, Bousquet, Everett, and Patsiokas .............. 85
`C. Motivation to Combine Wolfe, Bousquet, Everett, and Patsiokas .. 86
`VIII. ADDITIONAL REMARKS ............................................................ 88 
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`I, Paul G. Steffes, Ph.D., of Atlanta, Georgia, declare that:
`
`
`I.
`1.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
`I am currently a Professor and former Associate Chair for Research in
`
`the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the Georgia Institute of
`
`Technology ("Georgia Tech"). I began teaching at Georgia Tech in 1982 and have
`
`served on the academic faculty at Georgia Tech for over 36 years.
`
`2.
`
`I received a Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering from Stanford
`
`University in 1982, and S.M. and S.B. degrees in Electrical Engineering from
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1977, as shown in my curriculum vitae.
`
`See Exhibit-1004.
`
`3.
`
`I have worked extensively in the area of radio systems and
`
`communications and initiated the graduate course in satellite communications at
`
`Georgia Tech. I have lectured on the topic of satellite communications for about
`
`20 years. I have also taught courses in antennas, radio wave propagation,
`
`electromagnetics, and electromagnetic design. I believe that my technical area of
`
`my knowledge pertains directly to the technical material in this proceeding
`
`4.
`
`In addition to my teaching duties described above, I have been a
`
`principal investigator for numerous research activities and programs, including:
`
`3
`
`

`

` National Science Foundation Grant, “A Spectrum Study and
`
`Demonstration of the Role of “Smart Radios” in the Protection of
`
`Passive Scientific Radio Services”;
`
`
`
` NASA Planetary Atmospheres Program, “Laboratory Evaluation and
`
`Application of Microwave Absorption Properties under Simulated
`
`Conditions for Planetary Atmospheres”;
`
` GTE Spacenet Program, “Satellite Interference Location System
`
`(SILS)”;
`
` NASA Pioneer Venus Guest Investigator Program, “Pioneer Venus
`
`Radio Occultation (ORO) Data Reduction: Profiles of 13 cm
`
`Absorptivity”;
`
` NASA High Resolution Microwave Survey;
`
` NASA Advanced Communications Technology Satellite Propagation
`
`Experiments Program;
`
` Science Team Member and Mission Co-Investigator for the NASA
`
`Juno (Jovian Polar Orbiter) Mission (2006-2021)
`
`5.
`
`I have been elected a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers (IEEE, the leading international organization in Electrical
`
`and Electronics Engineering). Additionally, I have been elected a Fellow of the
`
`American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
`
`4
`
`

`

`6.
`
`I have served as Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences
`
`Committee on Radio Frequencies.
`
`7.
`
`I have received the following awards:
`
` IEEE Judith Resnik Award for Space Engineering
`
` The NASA Group Achievement Award (3X times)
`
` The Metro Atlanta Young Engineer of the Year Award
`
` Named a Lifetime National Associate of the National Academy
`
`of Sciences
`
` Georgia Tech School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
`
`Distinguished Faculty Achievement Award
`
`8.
`
`I am the author or co-author of sixty-two refereed journal articles,
`
`which are listed in Exhibit-1004.
`
`9.
`
`I have been the presenter or co-presenter of 162 conference
`
`presentations with published proceedings or abstract, which are also shown in
`
`Exhibit-1004.
`
`10.
`
`In writing this Declaration, I have considered the following: my own
`
`knowledge and experience, including my work experience in the fields of satellite
`
`and terrestrial radio communications systems; my experience in teaching those
`
`subjects; and my experience in working with others involved in those fields. In
`
`5
`
`

`

`addition, I have analyzed the following publications and materials, in addition to
`
`other materials I cite in my Declaration:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079 (Exhibit-1001), and its accompanying
`
`prosecution history (Exhibit-1002);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,763,325 to Wolfe et al. (“Wolfe”, Exhibit-1005);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,298,052 to Bousquet et al. (“Bousquet”, Exhibit-
`
`1006);
`
` PCT Publication WO 1992/021214 to Patsiokas et al. (“Patsiokas”,
`
`Exhibit-1007);
`
` John L. Everett, Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSATs), Institution of
`
`Electrical Engineers (IEE), Telecommunication Series 28, First
`
`Edition (1992) (“Everett”; Exhibit-1008);
`
` C. Retnadhas, Satellite Multiple Access Protocol, IEEE
`
`Communications Magazine, 1980 (“Retnadhas”, Exhibit-1009);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,212,360 to Fleming, III et al. (“Fleming”, Exhibit
`
`1010);
`
` ITU-T G.114, Transmission Systems and Media, General
`
`Recommendations on the Transmission Quality for an Entire
`
`International Telephone Connection: One-Way Transmission Time,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Telecommunication Standardization Sector of ITU, 1994 (“ITU
`
`Standards”, Exhibit-1011);
`
` Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, District Court
`
`Case No. 2-18-cv-00042 (“Joint CC”, Exhibit-1012);
`
` Exhibit A of Joint CC (“Exh-A of Joint CC”, Exhibit-1013);
`
` Fredrick J. Hill & Gerald R. Peterson, Introduction to Switching
`
`Theory and Logical Design, Second Edition (1968) (select portions)
`
`(“Hill”, Exhibit-1014);
`
` Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology (1992) (select
`
`portions) (Exhibit-1015);
`
` The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronic Terms,
`
`Sixth Edition (1996) (select portions) (Exhibit-1016).
`
`11. Each of these foregoing references (not including the legal documents
`
`or patents) were published in publications or libraries with which I am familiar,
`
`and which would have been available to and disseminated to members of the
`
`general technical community prior to December 10, 1998.
`
`12. Although this Declaration refers to selected portions of the cited
`
`references for the sake of brevity, it should be understood that these are examples,
`
`and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the references cited
`
`herein in their entirety and in combination with other references cited herein or
`
`7
`
`

`

`cited within the references themselves. The references used in this Declaration,
`
`therefore, should be viewed as being incorporated herein in their entirety.
`
`13.
`
`I am not, and never was, an employee of the Petitioners in this
`
`proceeding, Apple Inc., LG Electronics Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively “Petitioners”). I have been
`
`engaged in the present matter to provide my independent analysis of the issues
`
`raised in the petition for inter partes review of the ’079 Patent. I received no
`
`compensation for this Declaration beyond my normal hourly compensation based
`
`on my time actually spent studying the matter, and I will not receive any added
`
`compensation based on the outcome of this inter partes review of the ’079 Patent.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`A.
`
`Anticipation
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated
`
`14.
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if each and every element of a claim, as properly construed,
`
`is found either explicitly or inherently in a single prior art reference. Under the
`
`principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or
`
`includes the claimed limitations, it anticipates.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`
`if the claimed invention was known or used by others in the U.S., or was patented
`
`or published anywhere, before the applicant’s invention. I further have been
`
`8
`
`

`

`informed that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if the invention was
`
`patented or published anywhere, or was in public use, on sale, or offered for sale in
`
`this country, more than one year prior to the filing date of the patent application.
`
`And a claim is invalid, as I have been informed, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), if an
`
`invention described by that claim was described in a U.S. patent granted on an
`
`application for a patent by another that was filed in the U.S. before the date of
`
`invention for such a claim.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” under
`
`16.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of one or more prior art references if it would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the
`
`’079 Patent (“POSITA”), taking into account (1) the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, and (4) any so called “secondary considerations” of non-
`
`obviousness, which include: (i) “long felt need” for the claimed invention, (ii)
`
`commercial success attributable to the claimed invention, (iii) unexpected results
`
`of the claimed invention, and (iv) “copying” of the claimed invention by others.
`
`For purposes of my analysis, and because I know of no indication from the patent
`
`owner or others to the contrary, I have applied a date of December 10, 1998 (the
`
`9
`
`

`

`“Critical Date”), as the date of invention in my analyses, although in many cases
`
`the same analysis would hold true even at a time earlier than December 10, 1998.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`prior art reference or multiple prior art references. To be obvious in light of a
`
`single prior art reference or multiple prior art references, there must be a reason to
`
`modify the single prior art reference, or combine two or more references, in order
`
`to achieve the claimed invention. This reason may come from a teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine, or may come from the reference or
`
`references themselves, the knowledge or “common sense” of one skilled in the art,
`
`or from the nature of the problem to be solved, and may be explicit or implicit
`
`from the prior art as a whole. I have been informed that the combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
`
`no more than yield predictable results. I also understand it is improper to rely on
`
`hindsight in making the obviousness determination.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED
`18. This Declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed based on
`
`my analysis. Based upon my knowledge and experience and my review of the
`
`prior art publications listed above, a POSITA would have found that claims 17 and
`
`18 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’079 Patent are rendered obvious by Wolfe in
`
`10
`
`

`

`view of Bousquet and Patsiokas, or, alternatively, by Wolfe in view of Bousquet,
`
`Everett, and Patsiokas.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE ONE OF SKILL IN THE ART
`WOULD HAVE HAD PRIOR TO THE PRIORITY DATE OF
`THE ’079 PATENT
`19. The technology in the ’079 Patent at issue generally relates to a
`
`method of operating a radio communication system. Prior to the filing date of the
`
`’079 Patent, there existed products, publications, and patents that implemented or
`
`described functionality claimed in the ‘079 Patent. Thus, the methodology of the
`
`’079 Patent was known in the prior art. Further, to the extent there was any
`
`problem to be solved in the ’079 Patent, it had already been solved in prior art
`
`systems before the filing date of the ’079 patent.
`
`A. Overview of the ’079 Patent
`20. The ’079 Patent “relates to a method of operating a radio
`
`communication system.” Ex. 1001, 1:8-8. Claims 17 and 18 of the ’079 Patent are
`
`directed to techniques for re-transmitting a request for a service and determining
`
`whether the request has been received.
`
`21. Referring to annotated FIG. 1 (reproduced below), one embodiment of
`
`a radio communication system includes a primary station (shown in blue) and a
`
`plurality of secondary stations (only one secondary station, shown in red, depicted
`
`in FIG. 1). EX1001, 1:17-19, 3:10-21; FIG. 1. The secondary station (or,
`
`11
`
`

`

`alternatively, the primary station) can be either a mobile station (MS) and a base
`
`station (BS). EX1001, 1:17-19, 5:49-55. Communication from the primary station
`
`to the secondary station takes place on a downlink channel 122, while
`
`communication from the secondary station to the primary station takes place on an
`
`uplink channel 124. EX1001, 3:19-22.
`
`
`
`Annotated FIG. 1 of ’079 Patent
`
`22.
`
`In another exemplary embodiment, Figure 2 (reproduced below)
`
`provides an illustration of a possible frame format for an uplink signaling channel
`
`124, which transmits a request for a service by the secondary station to the primary
`
`station. EX1001, 2:55-57, 3:23-30. Uplink channel 124 is divided into a
`
`succession of frames 202, where each secondary station is registered with the
`
`primary station is allocated a time slot 204 in each frame.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`FIG. 2 of the ’079 Patent
`
`23. When more secondary stations are registered with a primary station
`
`than there are available time slots in each frame, the primary station can either
`
`make another uplink channel 124 available for fast signaling purposes or increase
`
`the available capacity of the existing channel by not allocating a time slot for every
`
`secondary station. Ex. 1001, 3:33-41.
`
`24. FIG. 3 (reproduced below) shows a process of a secondary station
`
`requesting a service from a primary station. EX1001, 3:54-55, FIG. 3. At 302, the
`
`secondary station determines that it requires a service from the primary station.
`
`EX1001, 3:55-57. At 304, the secondary station makes a request for a service 304
`
`in the next time slot 204 (FIG. 2) allocated to it. EX1001, 3:57-59. The secondary
`
`station continues to make requests 304 in successive allocated time slots 204 until
`
`a first test 306 determines that no further requests should be made, for example by
`
`examining the value of a flag. EX1001, 3:61-65.
`
`13
`
`

`

`FIG. 3 of the ’079 Patent
`
`
`
`25. A second test 308 determines whether the secondary station has
`
`received an acknowledgement from the primary station. EX1001, 3:66-67. When
`
`an acknowledgement has been received, the secondary station at 310 stops further
`
`requests from being sent, for example by setting the flag checked in first test 306 to
`
`false. EX1001, 3:67-4:4. The secondary station then begins negotiations 312 with
`
`the primary station to define fully the required services. Finally, at 314, the
`
`required services are set up by the primary station. EX1001, 4:4-7.
`
`14
`
`

`

`26.
`
`If the primary station does not correctly receive a request, the
`
`secondary station can repeat the request in every allocated time slot. EX1001, 4:8-
`
`12. In a traditional scheme, it is not guaranteed that the primary station receives
`
`and processes a request sufficiently rapidly for an acknowledgement to be
`
`scheduled for the immediately following frame. EX1001, 4:12-17. Accordingly,
`
`the time that the secondary station has to wait before re-transmitting a failed
`
`request may be relatively long if it waits for acknowledgement. Id. To increase
`
`the speed of re-transmission, the process performs re-transmission without waiting
`
`for acknowledgement. Although this process results in at least some inefficient re-
`
`transmissions for successful requests, the process increases the speed for handling
`
`a request where a failure does occur. Id., 4:8-12.
`
`27. Additionally, the primary station determines whether a request for
`
`services has been received and sends an acknowledgement after assessing signal
`
`strength of received requests. EX1001, 2:9-14. Specifically, the primary station
`
`determines a signal strength of a received request and compares the determined
`
`signal strength to a threshold value. Id. If the signal strength exceeds the threshold
`
`value, the primary station determines that it has received a request for services and
`
`sends an acknowledgement to secondary station. Id. If not, the primary station
`
`discards the signal and awaits re-transmission. Id., 5:34-37. In some
`
`15
`
`

`

`embodiments, the base station functions as a secondary station by retransmitting.
`
`Id., 5:49-55.
`
`28. The claimed features of the ’079 Patent describing that a primary
`
`station determines whether a request for a service has been transmitted by a
`
`secondary station by determining whether a signal strength of the respective
`
`transmitted request exceeds a threshold value were known in the prior art before
`
`the Critical Date. Id., 8:12-52.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History Summary of the ’079 Patent
`I have studied the prosecution history of the’079 Patent and have
`
`29.
`
`noted that multiple rounds of Office Actions and amendments to the claims were
`
`needed before the Patent Office ultimately allowed claims 17 and 18 of the ’079
`
`Patent. See Ex. 1002, 32.
`
`30.
`
`I have noted that in the response dated July 20, 2004, Patent Owner
`
`amended claims 14 and 15 (now claims 17 and 18) to be rewritten in independent
`
`form, taking allowable subject matter related to determining whether a primary
`
`station received a request for a service. Id., 19-20. The Examiner stated in a
`
`Notice of Allowance on November 5, 2004, that “a method of operating a radio
`
`communication system where the primary station determines whether a request for
`
`a service has been transmitted by a secondary station by determining whether a
`
`signal strength of the respective transmitted request exceeds a threshold value was
`
`16
`
`

`

`neither found, suggested, nor made evident by the prior art.” Id., 7. Subsequently,
`
`the ’079 Patent issued on March 15, 2005, where claims 14 and 15 of the
`
`application issued as claims 17 and 18 of the ’079 Patent. Ex. 1001, Cover. As
`
`described below, these features that led to allowance are disclosed by the prior art
`
`known prior to the Critical Date (e.g., Patsiokas, Wolfe, Bousquet, and Everett)
`
`render obvious all limitations of the Challenged Claims of the ’079 Patent.
`
`C.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`31. Based on the foregoing and upon my experience in this area, a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in this field at the relevant time frame (“POSITA”)
`
`would have had experience and/or education in telecommunications systems. This
`
`typically would consist of a minimum of a Master of Science Degree in an
`
`academic area emphasizing telecommunications systems, or an equivalent field (or
`
`a similar technical Master’s Degree, or higher degree) with a concentration in
`
`telecommunications systems. In some cases, a POSITA would have had a
`
`Bachelor’s Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing
`
`telecommunications systems with two or more years of work experience in
`
`telecommunications systems. Additional education in a relevant field, or relevant
`
`industry experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the
`
`requirements stated above.
`
`17
`
`

`

`32. Based on my experiences, I have a good understanding of the
`
`capabilities of a POSITA. Indeed, I have taught, participated in organizations, and
`
`worked closely with many such persons over the course of my career, including
`
`during the 1980’s and 1990’s and certainly before the filing date of the ’079 patent.
`
`All of my analysis set forth herein has been provided from the perspective of a
`
`POSITA as of the Critical Date.
`
`V.
`
`33.
`
`INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ‘079 PATENT CLAIMS AT
`ISSUE
`I understand that the words of the claims should be interpreted as they
`
`would have been interpreted by a POSITA at the time of the invention was made
`
`(not today). Because I do not know at what date the invention as claimed was
`
`made, I have used the filing date of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079 as the point in time
`
`for claim interpretation purposes. That date was December 10, 1998. I have been
`
`asked to provide my interpretation of the terms and phrases of the ‘079 Patent set
`
`forth below.
`
`“acknowledgement”
`
`34. Claims 17 and 18 recite that “the at least one of the plurality of
`
`respective secondary stations re-transmits the same respective request in
`
`consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement until said
`
`acknowledgement is received from the primary station.” EX1001, 8:21-25, 8:42-
`
`46. An “acknowledgement” is “a message sent from the primary station to the
`
`18
`
`

`

`secondary station stating the primary station’s receipt of the secondary station’s
`
`request.” Petitioners’ construction is consistent with the claim language,
`
`specification, and file history of the ’079 patent. Fig. 3, 2:5-8, 2:23-24, 2:40-41,
`
`2:46-47, 3:66-4:7 (differentiating between the ACK and “then begin[ning]
`
`negotiations...to define fully the require services.”); 3:12-17. Additionally, the
`
`construction is supported by a plain meaning of the term “acknowledgement,” as
`
`evidenced by standard dictionary definitions available as of the Critical Date, and
`
`would have been readily understood by a POSITA under the proposed construction
`
`at that time. EX1015, 10 (“A reply transmitted by a receiving station to inform the
`
`sending station that a message has arrived[.]”); EX1016, 25 (“ACK is a character
`
`transmitted…to ACKnowledge a signal, information or packet received from the
`
`sender.”).
`
`“Means for Allocating Respective Time Slots in an Uplink Channel to the
`Plurality of Respective Secondary Stations to Transmit Respective
`Requests for Services to the Primary Station”
`
`35. Claim 18 recites a “primary station having means for allocating
`
`respective time slots in an uplink channel to the plurality of respective secondary
`
`stations to transmit respective requests for services to the primary station” (“the
`
`‘allocating’ limitation”). This term describes a function of “allocating respective
`
`time slots in an uplink channel to the plurality of respective secondary stations to
`
`transmit respective requests for services to the primary station.” Ex. 1001, 8:37-
`
`19
`
`

`

`41. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the allocating limitation is “limited to
`
`the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof.”
`
`36. The ’079 Patent describes that “a radio communication system
`
`comprises a…primary station[.]”1 EX1001, 3:10-12. The primary station
`
`“comprises a microcontroller (µC) 102, transceiver means 104 connected to radio
`
`transmission means 106, and connection means 108 for connection to the PSTN or
`
`other suitable network.” EX1001, 3:12-15; FIG. 1. The ’079 Patent also describes
`
`that each secondary station registered with the primary station is “allocated a time
`
`slot 204 in each frame in which it can transmit a request[.]” EX1001, 3:12-15,
`
`3:28-30. The ’079 Patent, however, does not link structure of the primary station
`
`to the “allocating” function.
`
`37. The ’079 Patent discloses only three components associated with the
`
`primary station: (1) microcontroller (µC) 102; (2) transceiver means 104 connected
`
`to radio transmission means 106; and (3) connection means 108. EX1001, 3:12-
`
`15. In corresponding District Court litigation, Patent Owner contends that each of
`
`these structures (“[m]icrocontroller 102, transceiver 104, connected to radio
`
`transmission 106, and connection 108”) is involved in performing the “allocating”
`
`function. EX1013, 1. However, neither “transceiver means 104 connected to radio
`
`
`
`1 All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`20
`
`

`

`transmission means 106” nor “connection means 108” are associated with
`
`functions that allocate time slots in an uplink channel. Indeed, the functions of
`
`these components are underscored by the component name itself. For example,
`
`“transceiver means” indicates a function associated with a transceiver, such as
`
`transmitting and receiving communications. Likewise, “connection means 108 for
`
`connection to the PSTN or other suitable network” indicates a function associated
`
`with connecting the primary station to a network. Thus, the only structure
`
`described by the ’079 Patent capable of “allocating respective time slots…to the
`
`primary station” would be a microcontroller. Because the ’079 Patent’s
`
`“microcontroller” is a general purpose computing device, the structure is limited to
`
`algorithms disclosed by the ’079 Patent for performing the “allocating” function.
`
`EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 621-22 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015).
`
`38. The ’079 Patent’s disclosure of the “allocating” function may be
`
`found in “the algorithms contained in 3:25-32, 36-41.” EX1001, 3:25-41; EX1013,
`
`1-2. Based on this identification of algorithms,2 a POSITA would have interpreted
`
`the claimed “means for allocating” to cover microcontroller 102 performing the
`
`
`
`2 Patent Owner cites to “the algorithms contained in 3:25-32, 36-41” in its constructions.
`
`21
`
`

`

`algorithms contained in 3:25-32, 36-41, or an equivalent. EX1013, 1.3
`
`Accordingly, the prior art includes at least the same level of detail, if not more, in
`
`disclosing an algorithms contained in 3:25-32, 36-41.
`
`“Means For Re-Transmitting The Same Respective Requests In
`Consecutive Allocated Time Slots Without Waiting for an
`Acknowledgement Until Said Acknowledgement is Received from the
`Primary Station”
`
`39. Claim 18 recites that secondary stations have “means for re-
`
`transmitting the same respective requests in consecutive allocated time slots
`
`without waiting for an acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received
`
`from the primary station.” This term describes a function that is “re-transmitting
`
`the same respective requests in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for
`
`an acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received from the primary
`
`station.” Ex. 1001, 8:42-46. I understand that this term is “limited to the
`
`corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof.”
`
`40. The ’079 Patent describes that “a radio communication system
`
`comprises…a plurality of secondary stations.” EX1001, 3:10-12. Each
`
`secondary station “comprises a microcontroller (µC) 112, transceiver means 114
`
`
`
`3 Petitioners apply prior art to both constructions, including Patent Owner’s narrower
`
`construction, which includes “transceiver 104, connected to radio transmission 106, and
`
`connection 108.” EX1013, 1.
`
`22
`
`

`

`connected to radio transmission means 116, and power control means 118.”
`
`EX1001, 3:15-19; FIG. 1. Each secondary station “is allocated a time slot 204 in
`
`each frame in which it can transmit a request[.]” EX1001, 3:12-15, 3:28-30. The
`
`’079 Patent describes “the secondary station re-transmitting the request in at least
`
`a majority of its allocated time slots until an acknowledgement is received from the
`
`primary station.” EX1001, 1:65-67; 2:20-24; 38-41. The ’079 Patent, however,
`
`does not describe a structure in the secondary station for performing the “re-
`
`transmitting” function.
`
`41. The ’079 Patent describes three possible components associated with
`
`the secondary station: (1) microcontroller (µC) 112; (2) transceiver means 114
`
`connected to radio transmission means 116; and (3) power control means 118.
`
`EX1001, 3:16-19. A POSITA would have understood that transceiver means 114
`
`is the component in the ’079 Patent that performs re-transmission. The ’079 Patent
`
`depicts “transceiver means 114” in FIG. 1 with a “Tx/Rx” symbol. Through this
`
`depiction and the disclosure of FIG. 1 in the ’079 Patent, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that “transceiver means 114” includes structure that transmits (e.g., a
`
`transmitter) and receives (e.g., a receiver) signals, such as a transceiver. EX1001,
`
`FIG. 1. Thus, “re-transmitting” is performed by structure that includes a
`
`transceiver.
`
`23
`
`

`

`42. Additional structure is needed to control the transceiver to perform re-
`
`transmission of “the same respective requests in consecutive allocated time slots
`
`without waiting for an acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received
`
`from the primary station.” A POSITA would have found such additional structure
`
`to be microcontroller 112. As discussed above, a “microcontroller” is a general
`
`purpose computing device and I understand that the corresponding structure is
`
`limited to algorithms in the ’079 Patent for performance of the “re-transmitting”
`
`function. The partial view of FIG. 3 generically illustrates the concept of re-
`
`transmitting the same respective requests in consecutive allocated time slots
`
`without waiting for an acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received
`
`from the primary station:
`
`
`
`FIG. 3 of the ’079 Patent
`
`24
`
`

`

`EX1001, FIG. 3 (truncated view). Microcontroller 112 would perform these steps
`
`illustrated in FIG. 3. A POSITA would have interpreted the corresponding
`
`structure as being a transceiver controlled by a microcontroller performing the
`
`steps shown in FIG. 3 of the ’079 Patent, or an equivalent.
`
`43. Based upon my knowledge and experience in this field, a POSITA
`
`would have understood that these interpretations are consistent with the plain
`
`meaning of these terms as of the Critical Date and are consistent with the ‘079
`
`Patent specification.
`
`VI. GROUND 1: WOLFE IN VIEW OF BOUSQUET AND
`PATSIOKAS RENDERS CLAIMS 17 AND 18 OBVIOUS
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
`A. Technical Background of Radio System Technology
`I have provided a technical background summary of radio system
`
`44.
`
`technology based on my extensive knowledge and background in this technology
`
`area.
`
`45. Radio systems co