UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`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
`
`
`
`_________________
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
