`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-01116
`Patent 7,016,676 B2
`
`
`_________________
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND ENGAGEMENT .................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 2
`
`III. STANDARDS ................................................................................................. 2
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED AND
`INFORMATION RELIED UPON REGARDING ’676 PATENT ................. 2
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`The Board’s POSITA Articulation ........................................................ 4
`
`B. Uniloc’s Construction Of “Radio Interface
`Standard” As a “Complete Specification” Is Itself
`Incomplete, And Unsupported By The Specification ........................... 5
`
`C. HomeRF Closely Tracks ‘676 Patent’s Primary Embodiment ...........10
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Both HomeRF And The ’676 Patent
`Adapt Existing Radio Interface Standards ..........................................14
`
`The Main Difference Between The ’676 Patent’s Two
`Radio Interface Standards – Their Access Mechanism –
`Is Mirrored In HomeRF’s Two Radio Interface Standards .................14
`
`The HomeRF References Teach Making Access Available
`To Second Radio Interface Standard Stations Access “If”
`First Radio Interface Standard Stations Do Not Request It ................15
`
`G.
`
`Right to Supplement ............................................................................20
`
`H.
`
`Signature ..............................................................................................21
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page ii
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`I, Peter Rysavy, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND ENGAGEMENT
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert on behalf of Microsoft
`
`Corporation in connection with the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”) to provide my analyses and opinions on certain technical issues
`
`related to U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676 (hereinafter “the ’676 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`Specifically, I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding
`
`whether claims 1, 2, and 5 (each a “Challenged Claim” and collectively the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of the ’676 Patent would have been obvious to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time the application that issued
`
`into the ’676 patent was filed, August 8, 2001.
`
`3.
`
`It is my opinion that each Challenged Claim would have been obvious
`
`to a POSITA after reviewing the prior art discussed herein.
`
`4.
`
`This Supplemental Declaration is in addition to the first declaration
`
`that I prepared and submitted earlier in the IPR proceeding relating to the ’676
`
`patent, signed and dated May 29, 2019 (“First Declaration” or “Rysavy
`
`Declaration”). In the First Declaration I explained the unpatentability of the
`
`challenged claims. In this supplemental declaration, I respond to points raised by
`
`Uniloc in its Response Brief (“POR”), particularly those points drawing on the
`
`understanding of a POSITA, as explained in my First Declaration.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`The First Declaration explains my education and professional
`
`background in paragraphs 4-12. With this Reply Declaration, I attach an updated
`
`version of my CV, as Appendix 1.
`
`III. STANDARDS
`
`6.
`
`Paragraphs 18-24 of my First Declaration lay out my understanding of
`
`certain patent law standards.
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED AND
`INFORMATION RELIED UPON REGARDING ’676 PATENT
`
`7.
`
`In preparing my First Declaration, I reviewed the following materials,
`
`each of which is the sort of material that experts in my field would reasonably rely
`
`upon when forming their opinions. I also considered other background materials
`
`that are referenced in that declaration.
`
`Ex. No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,016,’676, “METHOD, NETWORK AND
`CONTROL STATION FOR THE TWO-WAY ALTERNATE
`CONTROL OF RADIO SYSTEMS OF DIFFERENT
`STANDARDS IN THE SAME FREQUENCY BAND,” issued
`March 21, 2006 (the “’676 patent”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676, Application No.
`10/089,959 (“’676 FH”)
`
`Plaintiff’s “Disclosure of Asserted Claims And Infringement
`Contentions”, dated January 4, 2019, and including Exhibit A
`thereto (“UNILOC Contentions”)
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`Excerpts of “Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th
`Edition”, © 1999 by Macmillan USA (“Webster’s”)
`
`“HomeRF: Wireless Networking for the Connected Home”, by
`Kevin J. Negus et al., IEEE Personal Communications, Vol. 7, Issue
`1, pgs. 20-27, Feb. 2000. (“HomeRF”)
`
`Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier, including Exhibit A thereto,
`signed and dated February 22, 2019 (“Grenier Dec.”)
`
`“HomeRF: Bringing Wireless Connectivity Home”, by
`Jim Lansford, Technical Committee Chair for the Home RF
`Working Group, March 9, 1999 (“HomeRF Tutorial”)
`
`“HomeRF™ Working Group 3rd Liaison Report”, by Tim Blaney
`of Commcepts, July 1998 (“HomeRF Liaison Report”)
`
`Declaration of Christina Boyce, including Exhibits A-D thereto,
`signed and dated March 11, 2019 (“Boyce Dec.”)
`
`Declaration of Rene DelaRosa, including Exhibits A and B thereto,
`signed and dated May 28, 2019 (“DelaRosa Dec.”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,937,158, “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR
`WIRELESS COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ELECTRONIC
`DEVICES,” filed December 29, 1999 and issued August 30, 2005
`(“Lansford”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,280,580, “HOP SEQUENCE ADAPTATION IN
`A FREQUENCY-HOPPING COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM,”
`filed October 15, 1999, and issued October 9, 2007 (“Haartsen”)
`
`Shared Wireless Access Protocol (Cordless Access) Specification
`SWAP-CA, Revision 1.3 draft 20000229, dated February 29, 2000
`by The HomeRF™ Technical Committee (“HomeRF SWAP Spec.
`1.3”)
`
`1019
`
`Declaration of Adrian Stephens, including Appendices A-R thereto,
`signed and dated May 16, 2019 (“Stephens Dec.”)
`
`8.
`
`In preparing this Supplemental declaration, I have reviewed those
`
`materials, as well as the Petition, the Institution Decision, and Uniloc’s Patent
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`Owner Response, each of which is the sort of material that experts in my field
`
`would reasonably rely upon when forming their opinions. I also considered other
`
`background materials that are referenced in this declaration, as noted herein.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
`
`9.
`
`As explained below, my opinion is that a POSITA would have viewed
`
`claims 1 and 2 of the ’676 patent as being obvious in view of at least the following
`
`grounds. My First Declaration also offered an opinion regarding the
`
`unpatentability of claim 5. While it is still my opinion that claim 5 is also
`
`unpatentable, I understand that Claim 5 is no longer at issue in this proceeding, and
`
`so include no additional discussion of that claim herein.
`
`Ground
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`
`Ground 1 HomeRF (Ex. 1006)
`Ground 2 HomeRF in view of
`HomeRF Tutorial (Ex. 1008)
`Ground 3 HomeRF in view of
`HomeRF Liaison Report (Ex.
`1009)
`Ground 4 Lansford (Ex. 1012)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`1 and 2
`1 and 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`1 and 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`1 and 2
`
`A. The Board’s POSITA Articulation
`
`10.
`
`I understand that the Board adopted my previous articulation of a
`
`POSITA in its Institution Decision (Paper 8, “Decision”), except that it removed
`
`the words “or more.”
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`11. My opinion regarding the unpatentability of these claims arguments is
`
`unaffected by this articulation of the expertise of a POSITA, with which I agree.
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`B. Uniloc’s Construction Of “Radio Interface
`Standard” As a “Complete Specification” Is Itself
`Incomplete, And Unsupported By The Specification
`
`12. The POR argues for:
`
`[A] construction to clarify that “a radio interface standard”
`constitutes a complete specification for a radio interface,
`and not merely a characteristic of a specification, such as
`a channel-access method, a modulation method, or a
`coding method, is required here.
`
`POR, 9 (emphasis added).
`
`13. Uniloc’s proposed construction should be rejected at least because it:
`
`a) ignores a portion of the phrase entirely; b) inserts words that are not supported
`
`by the ’676 patent claims or specification; and (c) would revise the claims to not
`
`read on the primary embodiment described in the specification.
`
`14. The phrase “radio interface standard” is part of a larger phrase, which
`
`brings important context to the claims. Claim 1 requires “stations which operate in
`
`accordance with a first radio interface standard and/or a second radio interface
`
`standard.” ‘676 patent, 6:24-26. Nothing in the ’676 patent’s specification or
`
`claims requires that to “operate in accordance with” a standard these stations
`
`implement a “complete” radio interface standard, and a POSITA would not have
`
`understood the claims to be so limited. First Declaration, ¶¶ 54-55.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`15.
`
`In discussing its embodiments, the ’676 patent does not provide a
`
`plausible mechanism for stations implementing two different “complete” standards
`
`to alternate usage of a common frequency band. For its two standards, the ’676
`
`patent uses the example of IEEE 802.11a and HiperLAN/2, describing an
`
`“advantageous embodiment . . . as claimed in claim 2” (‘676 patent, 2:63-3:13)
`
`(application claim 2 issued into claim 1) in which HiperLAN/2 is the first radio
`
`interface standard and IEEE 802.11a is the second radio interface standard:
`
`The release of the common frequency band for the second
`radio interface standard [IEEE 802.11a] may be effected,
`for example, explicitly by the sending of control
`information [by the control station] to the stations of the
`second radio interface standard.
`
`’676 patent, 3:15-19; see generally id., 2:63 - 3:19.
`
`16. The IEEE 802.11a specification, however, provides no provision for
`
`its stations sending or receiving such control information. Instead, its protocol
`
`assumes that stations can transmit if the medium is clear, based on a mechanism
`
`called Carrier Sense Collision Avoidance/Multiple Access (CSMA/CA), which the
`
`'676 patent itself describes, e.g., id., at 1:43-49. One access mechanism used in
`
`802.11 is a mechanism called Request to Send (RTS) and Clear to Send (CTS),
`
`which is also described in the '676 patent (see, e.g., id., 1:55-59). However,
`
`RTS/CTS is not recited as the mechanism used in the advantageous embodiment of
`
`the '676 patent, and is also fundamentally different from the described control
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`information. RTS/CTS would not perform the function of releasing the common
`
`frequency band for the second radio interface standard (802.11a).
`
`17.
`
`In this claimed embodiment, the ’676 describes that the control station
`
`[which sends control information] “performs the function of the [HiperLAN/2]
`
`central controller” (‘676 patent, 2:63-3:6), not an IEEE 802.11a point coordinator.
`
`Making IEEE 802.11a stations being able to recognize “control information” that
`
`results in the “release of the common frequency band for the second radio
`
`interface” would require changes to their implementation of the IEEE 802.11a
`
`specification to recognize such a controller. ’676 patent, 3:15-19.
`
`18. The ’676 patent further states:
`
`Determining the duration may advantageously be effected
`as claimed in claim 4 in that the control station sends a
`broadcast signal which informs the stations of a time
`period in which the frequency band can be used by
`stations operating in accordance with the second radio
`interface standard.
`
`Id., 3:33-38 (emphasis added).
`
`This may be effected in an advantageous manner in that
`the station 13 sends a broadcast message to the stations
`14 to 17 of the IEEE802.11a standard when the stations
`10 to 12 do not need transmission capacity. This
`broadcast message preferably contains time information
`which informs the stations 14 to 17 of the IEEE802.11
`standard how long they are allowed to utilize the
`common frequency band.
`
`Id., 5:42-48 (emphasis added).
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`19. As a POSITA would have understood, in order to function in the
`
`manner described in the ’676 patent, the functionality for stations operating in
`
`accordance with the IEEE 802.11a standard would necessarily have to be modified
`
`to support receiving and responding to such a broadcast signal. Therefore, the
`
`embodiment described in the ’676 patent would not function with stations
`
`implementing a “complete” version of the standard, but would instead necessarily
`
`require that the standard implementation be modified for its second radio stations.
`
`20. So, not only does the specification not support Uniloc’s proposed
`
`construction, this construction would “read out” the primary embodiment.
`
`21. DECT, on one hand, and 802.11 and OpenAir on the other hand, are
`
`clearly radio interface standards. Equally clearly, the DECT standard, a subset of
`
`which is used for the TDMA-based isochronous voice communication for the I-
`
`nodes, is a different radio interface standard from 802.11 and OpenAir, from which
`
`the CSMA/CA service for asynchronous data communication for A-nodes, is
`
`derived.
`
`22. Uniloc argues that “HomeRF makes clear that the SWAP protocol
`
`does not employ the DECT protocol.” POR, 21. To the contrary, HomeRF
`
`expressly describes basing its MAC for delivering interactive voice
`
`communications “using a subset of the Digital Enhanced Cordless
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`Telecommunications (DECT) standard,” as described above. HomeRF, pg. 23,
`
`1:10-18.
`
`23. Uniloc argues that “SWAP specification does not incorporate the
`
`existing DECT standard” and “the SWAP specification is different from the DECT
`
`standard.” POR, 21-22. This is misleading. HomeRF describes improvements that
`
`allow combining aspects of two different access mechanisms – TDMA from the
`
`DECT standard and CSMA/CA, as described below – into a hybrid protocol that,
`
`like the ’676 patent, is designed to improve interoperability between voice and data
`
`nodes. HomeRF describes taking elements of both a first standard, DECT, and a
`
`second standard, 802.11/OpenAir to permit interoperability between voice and data
`
`nodes, much as the ’676 patent describes combining elements of HiperLAN and
`
`802.11 to permit interoperability of its first and second radio interface standard
`
`stations.
`
`24. Uniloc’s argument that because HomeRF calls all of its devices
`
`“SWAP devices,” it discloses only a single protocol, is unavailing. POR, 26. Even
`
`the sections of HomeRF quoted there make clear that HomeRF’s “A-node” devices
`
`are different from its isochronous “I-node” devices. Id., quoting HomeRF, pg. 22,
`
`column 2. And, as described above, “A-nodes” and “I-nodes” operate using
`
`different protocols derived from different radio interface standards for
`
`asynchronous and isochronous data transmission.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`C. HomeRF Closely Tracks ‘676 Patent’s Primary Embodiment
`
`25. HomeRF’s first and second radio interface standard stations and their
`
`interaction with the CP are strikingly similar to the’676 patent’s primary
`
`embodiment.
`
`First Radio Interface Standard Stations
`
`26. TDMA, or “time-division multiple access,” used in HomeRF to
`
`support interactive voice data for I-nodes and the CP (first radio interface standard
`
`stations) is an access mechanism which operates in accordance with a “subset of
`
`the Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) standard” HomeRF,
`
`pg. 23, 1:10-18.
`
`27. HomeRF makes it clear that it uses a subset of DECT for voice
`
`communications. First, it explains that DECT is “a digital cordless telephone
`
`standard.” HomeRF pg. 23, 1:14-15. A POSITA would have known that a cordless
`
`telephone standard would be a standard for voice service. HomeRF further states
`
`that the SWAP MAC provides, "Support for four high-quality voice connections
`
`with 32 kb/s adaptive differential pulse code modulation (ADPCM)." Pg. 23, 2:1-2.
`
`The ADPCM modulation associated with the voice connection is part of the DECT
`
`standard, as HomeRF explains: “The length of the dwell period also means that
`
`each voice data message contains 20ms of ADPCM data (640) bits, equivalent to
`
`an extended DECT B-field, and 56 bits of control data, equivalent to the DECT A-
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`field plus some additional addressing information.” HomeRF pg. 23, 2:31-36,
`
`emphasis added.
`
`28. This access mechanism described in HomeRF is similar to the
`
`medium access control for the "first radio interface standard" stations in the '676
`
`patent, which is described as operating in accordance with the HiperLAN/2
`
`standard. ’676 patent, 2:36-42, see also id., Fig. 1. Specifically, the '676 patent
`
`states, “ETSI BRAN HiperLAN/2 utilizes a centrally controlled reservation-based
`
`method in which a radio station takes over the role of a central instance
`
`coordinating the radio resources. This central radio station (Access Point, AP)
`
`which may be an access point to the wide area network, periodically signals every
`
`2 ms the MAC frame structure from the AP and the associated stations if required.”
`
`Id. A POSITA would have known from this citation and the repeating MAC frame
`
`structure shown in Fig. 1 that communications among the different stations would
`
`be divided in time, and would thus constitute a TDMA type of system.
`
`Second Radio Interface Standard Stations
`
`29. CSMA/CA, used in HomeRF to communicate with A-nodes (second
`
`radio interface standard stations), is an access mechanism that HomeRF describes
`
`as being “derived from wireless LAN standards such as IEEE802.11 and OpenAir
`
`to support the delivery of asynchronous data.” HomeRF, pg. 23, 1:18-21.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`Obviously, Uniloc cannot dispute that 802.11 is a standard, as it is the same
`
`“second standard” cited by the ’676 patent itself. (See ¶ 15, above.)
`
`30. Uniloc does not explain why A-nodes in communication with a
`
`control station and utilizing a CSMA service derived from these wireless LAN
`
`standards, would not be considered as operating in accordance with a second radio
`
`interface standard.
`
`CP Interaction With First And Second Radio Interface Standard Stations
`
`31. The similarities between HomeRF and the ’676 patent’s primary
`
`embodiment are striking.
`
`32. The HomeRF beacon is sent out by the control station to set forth,
`
`inter alia:
`
`•
`
`the time periods that are requested by I-nodes (“first radio
`
`interface standard stations”), i.e. the DECT-based contention
`
`free periods for voice communication) and
`
`•
`
`contention periods for data communications with and among the
`
`A-nodes (“second radio interface standard stations”).
`
`First Declaration, ¶¶ 84-87, 99-101; see generally, HomeRF, pg. 23, 2:8 – pg. 24,
`
`2:13.
`
`33. Similarly, the ’676 patent Access Point is described as controlling
`
`access to the shared band by “provid[ing] certain predefinable time intervals for
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`the use of the first and second radio interface standard and allocat[ing] the
`
`frequency band alternately to the first radio interface standard and then to the
`
`second radio interface standard in a kind of time-division multiplex mode.” ’676
`
`patent, 2:53-57. The Access Point:
`
`•
`
`“receives the requests for capacity from the various [first
`
`interface standard] stations and assigns capacity accordingly”
`
`(id., 5:58-61) and
`
`•
`
`sends out a “broadcast signal” or “broadcast message” that
`
`informs second interface standard stations of a period they may
`
`use to communicate, similar to how the beacon in HomeRF
`
`described above defines a contention period for second radio
`
`interface standard stations to communicate. This broadcast signal
`
`/ broadcast message: “informs the stations of a time period in
`
`which the frequency band can be used by stations operating in
`
`accordance with the second radio interface standard” (id., 3:35-
`
`38); “informs the stations 14 to 17 of the IEEE802.11 standard
`
`how long they are allowed to utilize the common frequency
`
`band” (id., 5:45-48).
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`D. Both HomeRF And The ’676 Patent
`Adapt Existing Radio Interface Standards
`
`34. Uniloc suggests that HomeRF’s application of a subset of the DECT
`
`(first radio interface) standard and its adapting the 802.11 or OpenAir (second
`
`radio interface) standards does not teach or suggest “stations operating under ‘a
`
`first radio interface standard and/or a second radio interface standard’” POR, 18,
`
`21-22 (emphasis in original). This argument, however, is at odds with the fact that
`
`the primary embodiment in the ’676 patent itself requires, among other things
`
`providing a broadcast message to “second radio interface standard” stations letting
`
`them know when “first radio interface standard” stations do not need frequency
`
`(‘676 patent, 2:14-22), which, as described in Section B above, is a modification to
`
`existing standards that allows stations communicating using different standards to
`
`make use of otherwise unused transmission capacity for the common frequency
`
`band.
`
`E.
`
`The Main Difference Between The ’676 Patent’s Two
`Radio Interface Standards – Their Access Mechanism –
`Is Mirrored In HomeRF’s Two Radio Interface Standards
`
`35. The primary difference between the first and second radio interface
`
`standard stations’ operating in accordance with respective standards in the ’676
`
`patent is a difference in these standards’ respective access control mechanisms.
`
`This fundamental difference is managed by the control station, e.g., through the
`
`primary embodiment’s use of a broadcast message to announce times that are
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 14
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`available for the second radio interface standard stations to communicate. ’676
`
`patent, 5:38-48. Neither the ’676 patent itself, nor Uniloc’s response explains any
`
`other difference – other than their respective access mechanisms – in which
`
`stations operating in accordance with the ’676 patent’s first radio interface
`
`standard (in the primary embodiment, HiperLAN/2) or second radio interface
`
`standard (in the primary embodiment, IEEE802.11) would differ from one another.
`
`36. Notably, this access method asymmetry between the ’676 patent’s
`
`first and second radio interface standard stations is mirrored in the HomeRF
`
`SWAP I-nodes and A-nodes:
`
`• I-nodes rely on a reservation-based system (e.g., DECT-based TDMA)
`
`to access the frequency band during a contention-free period, while
`
`• A-nodes rely on anti-collision protocols set forth, e.g., in 802.11 and
`
`OpenAir standards (CSMA/CA) to communicate during the contention
`
`period when I-nodes are not communicating.
`
`HomeRF, pg. 23, 1:15-24.
`
`F.
`
`The HomeRF References Teach Making Access Available
`To Second Radio Interface Standard Stations Access “If”
`First Radio Interface Standard Stations Do Not Request It
`
`37.
`
`In service of its argument that my prior declaration was based on
`
`speculation, Uniloc makes several assertions regarding HomeRF that are not
`
`accurate. For example, Uniloc states that “HomeRF provides no indication that the
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 15
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`superframe format is anything other than fixed.” POR, 40. Again untrue. The
`
`superframe elements are consistent, but the number of fixed length slots is
`
`variable.
`
`
`
`HomeRF Figure 4 (selected portion)
`
`38. Figure 4 above, shown and described in the Petition, e.g., at 37-42,
`
`shows that of the four connections from the previous dwell, only two
`
`retransmissions are made, for connections 3 and 4. No retransmission slots are
`
`included for connections 1 and 2 from the previous dwell, though HomeRF
`
`specifically states that four such slots are possible, providing “up to four” …
`
`“optional retransmission(s) of any data which was not received or incorrectly
`
`received in the previous dwell.” HomeRF, pg. 23, 2:28-31, 38-39.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 16
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`39. So, in an example where four retransmissions were made, additional
`
`slots would have to be added to CFP1 (and announced in the beacon provided to
`
`the network stations) to accommodate these additional retransmissions. Adding
`
`these, the length of time remaining for the contention period in the fixed length
`
`superframe would necessarily be reduced from what is shown in Figure 4.
`
`HomeRF Figure 4 (selected portion)
`
`
`
`40. Similarly, while four CFP2 connection slots are shown in Figure 4,
`
`where only two requests for I-node connections were made in the preceding service
`
`slot, as with the variable approach to CFP1, a POSITA would have understood that
`
`CFP2 would include only two pairs of slots for these two connections. This, in
`
`turn, would shorten the length of CFP2 and free up additional time in the fixed
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 17
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`length superframe for the contention period, as I previously explained. First
`
`Declaration, ¶¶ 102-110.
`
`41. This understanding is bolstered by the contemporaneous HomeRF
`
`references. HomeRF Tutorial clearly states: “Data for entire frame if no voice.”
`
`HomeRF Tutorial, pg. 22, First Declaration, ¶107, fn.8, ¶¶117-118. And, the
`
`HomeRF Liaison report is even more unequivocal, stating: “With no voice
`
`connections the contention period occupies the whole Superframe.” HomeRF
`
`Liaison Report, pg. 8; First Declaration, ¶¶ 138-139.
`
`42. Uniloc offers its own attorneys’ speculation regarding an “alternative
`
`approach that a POSITA would have appreciated.” POR, 42. Uniloc’s suggested
`
`“alternative” finds no support in HomeRF.
`
`43.
`
`In reviewing Figure 5 of HomeRF, which details the CSMA medium
`
`access procedure for A-nodes, Uniloc contends that a POSITA would have
`
`appreciated that if an asynchronous device determines that the medium is clear,
`
`e.g., “because a slot in a contention-free period is unused, the asynchronous device
`
`may commence employing the unused slot as a contention period.” POR, 42.
`
`Uniloc offers no support for this bald assertion that in a “managed network” where
`
`a CP sends a beacon setting forth a contention period during which I-nodes can
`
`communicate, an A-node would simply transmit during a period that could have
`
`been used for I-node communication, but is currently unused. Uniloc’s suggestion
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 18
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`that a POSITA would have intuited such an approach is inconsistent with the
`
`understanding of a POSITA, and is itself unsupported by expert testimony.
`
`Moreover, a POSITA would have recognized this hypothetical solution as a poor
`
`engineering choice because it relies on all devices being able to hear each other as
`
`well as being able to hear the control station. Otherwise, an A-node could transmit
`
`at the same time as an I-node, which a POSITA would have understood to be a
`
`“hidden terminal” problem.
`
`44. And, HomeRF itself describes Figure 5 as illustrating “how the
`
`medium is accessed during the contention period.” HomeRF, pg. 24, 1:16-18
`
`(emphasis added). HomeRF further states that the CSMA/CA procedure used
`
`during this period provides access to all nodes using a backoff counter that
`
`operates during a “contention window … as shown in Fig. 4.” Id., pg. 24, 1:19-21
`
`(emphasis added). Before transmitting, a node “selects a backoff counter (a number
`
`of contention slots) and then starts listening.” The node then “decrements its
`
`backoff counter for each free contention slot. When the backoff counter expires
`
`the node transmits the message.” Id., pg. 24, 1:22-26 (emphasis added). Figure 5
`
`simply illustrates activity taking place wholly within the contention period set
`
`forth in Figure 4.
`
`45.
`
`In stating: “because a slot in a contention-free period is unused, the
`
`asynchronous device may commence employing the unused slot as a contention
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 19
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`period” (POR, 42), Uniloc appears to suggest that A-nodes may broadcast outside
`
`of the contention period, i.e., during the CFP period. As a POSITA would
`
`understand, this would be a poor design choice, and also inconsistent with
`
`HomeRF’s disclosure for its managed network.
`
`46. HomeRF does describe an alternate unmanaged situation where “no
`
`CP [is] present” and explain that in that scenario data nodes can create an “ad hoc
`
`network” HomeRF, pg. 24, 2:4-6 (emphasis added). This unmanaged “no CP”
`
`scenario, however, is neither illustrated in Figure 5, nor reflected in the primary
`
`“managed network” CP beacon scenario I described in my prior declaration as
`
`teaching this element of the claim.
`
`G. Right to Supplement
`
`47.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement my opinions in the future to respond
`
`to any arguments that the Patent Owner raises and to take into account new
`
`information as it becomes available to me.
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 20
`
`
`
`Patent 7,016,676
`
`H.
`
`Sienature
`
`48.
`
`I, Peter Rysavy, do hereby declare and state, that all statements made
`
`herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information
`
`and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with
`
`the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by
`
`fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States
`
`Code.
`
`Dated: ~ \ "2,02.,'()
`
`Peter Rysavy
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF PETER RYSAVY
`
`Page 21
`
`
`
`APPENDIX 1
`APPENDIX 1
`
`Page 22
`
`Page 22
`
`
`
`Peter Rysavy – Curriculum Vitae
`
`PO Box 680, Hood River, OR 97031, USA
`+1-541-386-7475, public.temp1@rysavy.com, http://www.rysavy.com
`
`
`Peter Rysavy is an expert in wireless technology,
`mobile computing, and data networking
`
`Contents
` EDUCATION: .................................................................................................... 2
` WORK EXPERIENCE ......................................................................................... 2
` PATENTS .......................................................................................................... 5
` TESTIFYING AND CONSULTING EXPERIENCE IN LITIGATION.......................... 5
` PUBLIC SPEAKING ........................................................................................... 9
` PUBLISHED ARTICLES AND REPORTS .............................................................. 9
` WIRELESS COURSES ...................................................................................... 18
`
`
`
` Education:
`BSEE, MSEE Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, 1979.
`
` Work Experience
`Rysavy Research. 1993 to Present: President
`
`Peter Rysavy is president of Rysavy Research LLC, a consulting firm that has
`specialized in wireless technology and mobile computing since 1993. Projects have
`included evaluation of wireless technology capabilities, network performance
`measurement, reports on the evolution of wireless technology, spectrum analysis for
`broadband services, strategic consultations, system design, articles, courses and
`webcasts, and test reports.
`
`Peter Rysavy has expertise in IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi), wireless hotspots, mesh
`networks, metro and municipal Wi-Fi, paging technology, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, IMT-
`Advanced, IMT-2020, Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), General
`Packet Radio Service (GPRS), Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution (EDGE),
`Universa