Microsoft Corporation and EricssonInc.
`V.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`IPR2019-01116 (Patent 7,016,676)
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`September 9, 2020
`
`

`

`‘676 Patent to Bernhard Walke and Stefan Mangold
`
`(10) Patent No.:
`US 7,016,676 B2
`«2) United States Patent
`Walkeet al.
`Mar. 21, 2006(45) Date of Patent:
`
`
`(4) METHOD, NETWORK AND CONTROL
`STATION FOR THE TWO-WAY ALTERNATE
`CONTROL OF RADIO SYSTEMS OF
`DIFFERENT
`
`STANDARDS IN THE SAME
`FREQUENCYBAND
`
`(75)
`
`Inventors: Bernhard Walke, Wuerselen (DE);
`Stefan Mangold, Aachen (DE)
`
`(73) Assignee: Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.,
`Eindhoven (NL)
`
`(") Notice:
`
`Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this
`patent
`is extended or adjusted under 35
`US.C, 154(b) by 411 days.
`
`(21) Appl. No:
`
`10/089,959
`
`(22)
`
`PCTFiled:
`
`Aug. 8, 2001
`
`PCT/EPOL09258
`
`(65)
`
`(86) PCT Nos
`$371 (eX),
`(2), (4) Date: Apr. 4, 2002
`(87) PCT Pub, No; W002/13457
`PCTPub. Date: Feb, 14, 2002
`Prior Publication Data
`US 20020168079 Al
`Nov. 14, 2002
`Int. Ch.
`Hosa 7/20
`
`(51)
`
`(52) US. CL ..
`
`(56)
`
`
`
`
`
`(58) Field of Classificathon Search .....00.... 454/434,
`455/435.2, 438, 414.4, 432.2, 207, 553.1,
`455/22, 314,
`JMIMG4-4169, 395.5, 395.52,
`370/395.53
`Sec application file for complete search history.
`References Chted
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`S239,02 A *
`8/1999 Danielson ef al,
`
`5,710,766 A
`1998 Schweademan .
`
`605254 A *
`4/2000 Chuang ctal.
`63008006 Bi *
`Kronestedt et
`
` 4853.01
`6377,782 B
`Bishop ct al.
`
`7310
`. i
`Mikkonen et al.
`
`
`63580,700 BL*
`6/2003 Pinard et al.
`370332
`6587450 BI*
`i
`7/2003
`6631259 BI" 12003
`6687243 WI* 220M
`6,728.24 BM"
`4/2004
`6,735,452 BL*
`S/2004
`6.754.200 B® 6/2004
`6,792286 Bi*
`92004 Bharath et al
`
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`119137 AL
`L200
`EP
`WOHo23a0
`101998
`wo
`cited by examiner
`Primary Examiner—CongVan Tran
`(57)
`ABSTRACT
`The invention relates
`to an interface-control protocol
`method for a radio system, which has al beast one frequency
`band provided for the two-way alternate utilization of a first
`and a second radio interface standard. The radio sytem
`comprises a qumber of stations, which each function in
`accordance with a first radio interface standard and/or in
`accordance with a secondradiointerface standard, in which
`@ control sation is provided that controls the two-way
`alternate utilization of the frequency band.
`9 Claims, 3 Drawing Sheets
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Claim Construction
`
`¢ “stations which operate in accordance witha first
`radio interface standard and/or a secondradio
`
`interface standard”
`
`¢ “renders the frequency bandavailable for access”
`
`¢ “if stations working in accordance withthefirst
`radio interface standard do not request accessto the
`frequency band”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`

`

`Radio interface standard vs. access method
`
`The Board should 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.
`
`°676 Patent (1:15-20, emphasis added):
`
`For this purposethere is provided for so-termed ISM frequency
`bands (Industrial Scientific Medical) that radio systems transmit
`in the same frequency band in accordance with different radio
`interface standards. An example ofthis is the US radio system
`TEEE802.11a and the European ETSI BRAN HiperLAWN/2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`

`

`Radio interface standard vs. access method
`
`°676 Patent (1:34-48):
`
`Radio systems of wideband LANsofthe radio interface standards ETSI
`BRANHiperLAWN/2 and IEEE802. 11a utilize the same radio transmission
`method, a 64-carrier 30 OFDM method andan adaptive modulation and
`coding. About the same modulation and coding methods (Link Adaptation,
`LA)are defined for the two standards.
`
`The Medium Access Control (MAC) ofthe two systemsis totally
`different. ETSI BRAN HiperLAN/2 utilizes a centrally controlled
`reservation-based method in whicha radiostation takes overthe role of a
`central instance coordinating the radio resources.
`
`The JEEE802. 11a standard describes a CSMA/CA (Carrier Sense
`Multiple Access/Collision Avoidance) methodnot based on reservations, in
`whichall the radio stations listen in on the medium and assumethat the
`channelis unused for a minimum duration (Short InterFrame Space, SIFS)
`before 802.1la-MACframes, thus user data packets, are transmitted if
`
`necessary.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`

`

`Radio interface standard vs. access method
`
`¢ HomeRF p. 23 (emphasis added):
`
`“Good support for voice and data by using both TDMAand
`CSMA/CAaccess mechanism”
`
`¢ The use of two different schemes, such as asynchronous and
`isochronous, 1n the sameradio interface standard,illustrates the
`error of construing a standard” to be a schemeusedtherein.
`Indeed, the Bluetooth wireless interface standard includes both of
`these schemes. EX2001, 1:53-55 (“sufficient number and duration
`of quiet periods to allow asynchronousand isochronous
`BLUETOOTHtraffic.”); EX2002, 3:14-16; 3:28-31.
`
`¢ The construction of “radio interface standard” as being met by
`TDMAwouldgive the absurd conclusion that DECT and
`Bluetooth are the sameradio interface standard, as they both
`employ TDMA.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`

`

`¢ “if stations working in accordance withthefirst
`radio interface standard do not request accessto the
`frequency band”
`
`¢ Claim 1 recites ‘‘a control station which controls
`the alternate use of the frequency band”
`
`¢ Unlike Schulhauser
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`

`

`HomeRFreferences do not teach 1° and 2"¢ standards
`
`¢ HomeRF stations operate according to a single standard identified
`in the referenceitself as the “HomeRF Shared Wireless Access
`Protocol ((SWAP’).” Ex. 1006, 1.
`
`¢ Neither TDMA nor CSMA isa radio interface standard.
`
`¢
`
`“HomeRF describes improvements that allow combining aspects
`of two different access mechanisms... into a hybridprotocol”(in
`the singular). Pt’r Reply 9 (emphasis added).
`
`¢ HomeREF neverstates that its system is designed suchthatits I-
`nodes and A-nodesoperate in accordance with the DECT standard
`and IEEE802.11 standards.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`

`

`HomeRFreferences do notteach the recited control of access to the frequency band
`
`¢ The Petition argues that HomeRF discloses “controls the alternate use of the
`frequency band”based on the control point allegedly controlling variable
`throughput obtained by the Anodes, depending on the numberofslots used by I-
`nodes.
`
`¢ HomeRF hasno disclosure that indicates how,ifat all, the control point assigns
`variable portions of the superframe to the A-nodes (devices using an
`asynchronous,self-regulating, network) when the I-nodes (voice devicesor
`other isochronous data devices) are not using bandwidth.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petitionerfails to prove HomeRFTutorial and Liaison Report are priorart
`
`Petitioner states that the HomeRF Tutorial and the HomeRF Liaison Report were
`uploaded to the IEEE 802 LAN/MANStandards Committee website, as of a
`certain date. Pet. 47, 56.
`
`But the Petition provides no evidence that the either HomeRF Tutorial or
`HomeRF Liaison Report was available on a publicly available website more
`than oneyearpriorto the earliest effective filing date of the challenged claims.
`
`The supporting Declaration of Christina Boyce merely states that the documents
`“are stored on the publicly accessible IEEE 802 LAN/MANStandards
`Committee website (http://ieee802.org/).”
`
`Even if Petitioner were able to show that the documents were on the website
`prior to the earliest effective filing date of the ‘676 Patent, the Petitioner has
`failed to provide a theory under which the HomeRF Tutorial and the HomeRF
`Liaison Report were publicly accessible.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`

`

` Lansford doesnotteachat least the recited control of access to the frequency band
`
`Device A has no control over the alternate use of the
`frequency band(i.e. communicating or not with Device
`B).
`
`The Board correctly determinedthat the Petition makes
`no representation about a situation in which Device C
`makes no request for access.
`
`Claim 1| requires performance of the wherein clause.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`