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