`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson”),
`
`Petitioner,
`v.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc”),
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676
`_______________
`DECLARATION OF JEFFREY FISCHER,
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003 / 1 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................. 4
`II.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................................................. 9
`III.
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................ 11
`IV.
`A. Anticipation......................................................................................................................... 11
`B. Obviousness ........................................................................................................................ 13
`C. Claim Interpretation in Inter Partes Review ...................................................................... 15
`V.
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’676 PATENT ................................................................................ 15
`VI.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................ 18
`VII.
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ......................... 19
`A. Ground #1: Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over Shellhammer ..................... 19
`1.
`Summary of Shellhammer ............................................................................................ 20
`2.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................................................... 23
`3.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................................................... 35
`B. Ground #2: Claim 8 is unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Shellhammer and
`Haartsen ...................................................................................................................................... 37
`1.
`Summary of Haartsen ................................................................................................... 37
`2.
`Reasons to Combine Shellhammer and Haartsen ......................................................... 40
`3.
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................................................... 50
`C. Ground #3: Claim 8 is unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Shellhammer and
`Panasik ........................................................................................................................................ 58
`1.
`Summary of Panasik ..................................................................................................... 58
`2.
`Reasons to Combine Shellhammer and Panasik........................................................... 61
`3.
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................................................... 69
`D. Ground #4: Claims 1-2 are unpatentable obvious over Lansford ....................................... 78
`1.
`Summary of Lansford ................................................................................................... 78
`2.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................................................... 79
`3.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................................................... 95
`VIII. DECLARATION .............................................................................................................. 100
`IX.
`APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................... 101
`X.
`APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................... 109
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1003 / 2 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Jeffrey Fischer, and I have been retained by counsel for
`
`Ericsson Inc. (“Petitioner,” “Ericsson”) as a technical expert in connection with the
`
`proceeding identified above. I submit this declaration in support of Ericsson’s
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,016,676 (“the ’676 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in this matter at an hourly rate. I
`
`am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses associated with
`
`my work and testimony in this matter. My compensation is not contingent on the
`
`outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony. I have no personal or
`
`financial stake or interest in the outcome of the present proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`(1) The ’676 Patent, Ex. 1001;
`
`(2) The Prosecution History of the ’676 Patent, Ex. 1002, (“’676
`
`Prosecution History”);
`
`(3) U.S. Patent No. 6,937,158 to Lansford et al. (“Lansford”), Ex. 1005;
`
`(4) U.S. Patent No. 7,039,358 to Shellhammer et al. (“Shellhammer”), Ex.
`
`1006;
`
`(5) U.S. Patent Provisional Application No. 60/196979 to Shellhammer et
`
`al. (“Shellhammer Provisional”), Ex. 1007;
`
`(6) U.S. Patent No. 7,280,580 to Haartsen (“Haartsen”), Ex. 1008; and
`
`
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1003 / 3 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`(7) U.S. Patent No. 6,643,278 to Panasik et al. (“Panasik”), Ex. 1009.
`
`4.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`(1) The documents listed above, any additional documents discussed
`
`below; and
`
`(2) My own knowledge and experience based upon my work in the field of
`
`communication networks.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`I am an expert in the field of wireless communications. I have studied,
`5.
`
`taught, practiced, and researched this field for forty years. The following is a
`
`summary of my educational background, work experience, and other relevant
`
`qualifications. A true and accurate copy of my curriculum vitae can be found in
`
`exhibit Ex. 1004.
`
`6.
`
`I obtained my Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering in
`
`1979 and a Master of Engineering degree in Electrical Engineering in 1980, both
`
`from Cornell University.
`
`7.
`
`I have been an Electrical engineer working in the wireless
`
`communications field for 40 years. I am currently an engineering consultant
`
`actively engaged in product design for wireless systems. I also perform expert
`
`consulting work in intellectual property cases. My product design work has
`
`included the design of digital, analog, and radio frequency (RF) circuits and
`
`
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1003 / 4 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`systems for wireless communication products. I design wireless hardware, software,
`
`low-level firmware, algorithms, protocols, and entire wireless system architectures.
`
`My work often includes system analysis and system engineering.
`
`8.
`
`System analysis involves analyzing and comparing the performance of
`
`different approaches to wireless system architecture. System engineering involves
`
`the design of operational algorithms and specifying the details from input to output
`
`to achieve a wireless system that suits a specific set of architectural requirements. I
`
`also have done hands-on system integration—which includes working in an
`
`engineering laboratory building and debugging wireless hardware and software to
`
`put together a final product, including testing the product, making design
`
`adjustments to pass regulatory and performance requirements, ensuring
`
`interoperability with other products, and assisting in the development of test
`
`systems for mass production.
`
`9.
`
`I was employed at MIT Lincoln Laboratory as a Senior Staff Member
`
`in the Analog Device Technology Group for 6 years between 1980 and 1986.
`
`Lincoln Laboratory is a federally funded research and development center
`
`administered by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with specialties in
`
`advanced radio communications and radar technology.
`
`10. At Lincoln Laboratory, I led a project to build the packet signal
`
`processing, air protocol, and control circuits for the Defense Advanced Research
`
`
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1003 / 5 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`Projects Agency (DARPA) Advanced Packet Radio, which was the Packet Radio
`
`Network (PRNET) part of the Survivable Radio Network (SURAN) program. This
`
`was one of the first “short and medium range” outdoor wireless repeater networks.
`
`11.
`
`In 1986, Microwave Journal called this work the most advanced radio
`
`reported to date. I authored or co-authored six papers on various aspects of this
`
`radio. One of these was an invited paper published in the 1987 PROCEEDINGS OF THE
`
`IEEE, called the “Special Issue on Packet Radio Networks.” I was inducted as a
`
`Senior Member of the IEEE for my contributions to communications engineering.
`
`12. As part of my responsibilities at Lincoln Laboratory, I analyzed
`
`systems and technologies developed under DARPA and Army contracts with
`
`private companies. These projects included examining high-level viewpoints for
`
`solving communications problems.
`
`13. After leaving MIT Lincoln Laboratory, I worked at MICRILOR, a
`
`small company in Wakefield, MA that was spun off of my group at Lincoln
`
`Laboratory. MICRILOR aimed to commercialize advanced radio technology. I
`
`spent the next 14 years at MICRILOR developing high-performance, low-cost radio
`
`modems, air protocols, and networks, as well as high-end technology for
`
`communications and radar. In 1994, we built a prototype and received a patent on
`
`the first packet radio capable of transmitting 10 Mbps within the FCC direct
`
`sequence spread spectrum regulations. The wired backbone interfaced with Ethernet
`
`
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1003 / 6 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`and the radio transmission operated at 2.4 GHz. We engaged in a joint development
`
`with a major corporation to create and market wireless networking products based
`
`on this technique over the next few years, and the products were in production by
`
`1996. In 1997, MICRILOR proposed a technique to the IEEE 802.11 working
`
`groups for “Higher Speed PHY Extension” in the 2.4 GHz Band as well as the 5
`
`GHz band. The techniques in the MICRILOR proposal evolved into what is today
`
`the IEEE 802.11b standard—part of what is commonly referred to as Wi-Fi—and
`
`are still incorporated into billions of chips per year.
`
`14.
`
`In 2000, MICRILOR was purchased by Proxim, Inc. Proxim was a
`
`publicly traded wireless communications company that created a broad range of
`
`products, including HomeRF, which is a wireless networking technology from the
`
`1990s. I continued to work on wireless products at Proxim for the next 3 years until
`
`2003. During this period, I worked on a wide range of radio designs, including a
`
`multi-standard chip that implemented the protocols of the IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) and
`
`IEEE 802.16 (Wi-Max) standards. In this design role, I worked on protocols,
`
`interference management, RF circuits, and signal conversion.
`
`15. After leaving Proxim, I consulted for several companies, including one
`
`of the first Wi-Fi repeater product companies, working on signal processing in the
`
`presence of interference.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1003 / 7 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`16.
`
`In 2004, I started working in radio frequency identification (RFID) and
`
`helped start a company, Reva Systems, that quickly became the leader in RFID
`
`infrastructure. I was the Chief RF Architect and established interference and signal
`
`processing protocols for the products.
`
`17. As part of my work at Reva Systems, during 2004-2007, I served as
`
`the technical co-chair of the standards body working group that developed a new
`
`international standard for RFID, which is still the standard in use today. I also
`
`served on committees to get RFID adopted worldwide by working with various
`
`standards and regulatory bodies, including ISO (International Standards
`
`Organization), IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), GS1
`
`(Global Standards organization), and ETSI (European Technical Standards
`
`Institute), as well as government agencies including the FCC (U.S.), ANATEL
`
`(Brazil), and MIC (Japan).
`
`18.
`
`In recent years, I have been a technical consultant to over a dozen
`
`companies. Some examples of this consulting work include developing product
`
`design plans for in-home wireless sensor networks, integrating a communications
`
`package for networked video from multiple drones, building a frame-based
`
`backhaul radio for LTE cellular systems, and developing transmit beamforming for
`
`LTE and Wi-Fi systems. LTE refers to “Long Term Evolution,” which is a cellular
`
`radio communications standard developed by the 3GPP standards organization.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1003 / 8 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`19.
`
`I am the inventor or co-inventor of more than 12 patents relating to
`
`technologies such as high-speed wireless network communications, radio-frequency
`
`identification systems, and underwater communications.
`
`20.
`
`In light of the foregoing and my curriculum vitae (Ex. 1004), I
`
`consider myself to be an expert in the fields of RFID, radio-wave transmission
`
`systems, telecommunications/cellular systems, wireless networking, wireless
`
`communications systems, and protocol design. Thus, as of the earliest priority date
`
`of the ’676 patent, I was at least a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’676
`
`patent (see Section III, infra), and I had direct personal knowledge of the
`
`technologies involved in the ’676 patent.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill may be reflected by the
`21.
`
`prior art of record and that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) to which
`
`the claimed subject matter pertains would have the capability of understanding the
`
`scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.
`
`22.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention, (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology, (3) the types of problems encountered in the field,
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Ex. 1003 / 9 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the priority date of the ’676
`
`Patent is August 8, 2001 (the “priority date”), but Patent Owner may allege that the
`
`priority date for the ’676 Patent is August 8, 2000 (the “earliest potential alleged
`
`priority date”). For the purpose of specifying the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`one year does not make a substantive difference, and, in either case (2000 or 2001),
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art is as specified herein.
`
`24.
`
`I am familiar with the wireless communications art pertinent to the
`
`’676 Patent. I am also aware of the state of the art at the time of the priority date.
`
`Based on the technologies disclosed in the ’676 Patent, I believe that a POSITA
`
`would include someone who had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, computer science or similar field, and three years of
`
`experience in wireless communications systems and networks, or equivalent.
`
`Moreover, I recognize that someone with more technical education, but less
`
`experience could have also met this standard. I believe that I possessed and
`
`exceeded such experience and knowledge before and at the priority date and that I
`
`am qualified to opine on the ’676 Patent.
`
`25. For the purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1003 / 10 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field before the earliest
`
`potential alleged priority date of the ’676 Patent.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`26.
`
`considering the subject matter of the ’676 Patent, I am relying on certain legal
`
`principles that counsel has explained to me.
`
`A. Anticipation
`I have been informed by counsel that a patent claim is invalid as
`27.
`
`anticipated if each element of that claim is present either explicitly or inherently in
`
`a single prior art reference. I have also been informed that for a claim element to be
`
`inherently present in a prior art reference, the claim element must be “necessarily
`
`present” in the disclosed apparatus, system, product, or method, and not probably or
`
`possibly present; in other words, the mere fact that the apparatus, system, product,
`
`or method described in the prior art reference might possibly (or sometimes)
`
`practice or contain a claimed limitation is insufficient to establish that the reference
`
`inherently discloses the limitation. I understand it is acceptable to examine evidence
`
`outside the prior art reference (extrinsic evidence) in determining whether a feature,
`
`while not expressly discussed in the reference, is necessarily present in it. In
`
`determining whether or not every one of the elements of the claimed invention is
`
`found in the item of prior art, I understand one should take into account what a
`
`
`
`11
`
`Ex. 1003 / 11 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from his examination of
`
`the particular item of prior art.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed that there are several ways in which a patent
`
`claim can be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102. First, I have been informed that a
`
`patent claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) if the invention defined by the
`
`patent claim was known or used by others in the United States, or patented or
`
`described in a printed publication, such as a journal, magazine article, or
`
`newspaper, anywhere in the world before applicant’s invention date.
`
`29. Second, I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) if an invention reflected in a patent claim was patented or described
`
`in a printed publication anywhere in the world or was in public use or on sale in the
`
`United States more than one year before the effective filing date of the patent claim
`
`in the United States.
`
`30. Third, I have been informed that the patent claim at issue is invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) if the invention defined by the claim was disclosed in a
`
`patent by another inventor that was filed in the United States before the applicant’s
`
`invention date.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed that each of the above-described types of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 prior art can individually be a basis for invalidating a patent as
`
`
`
`12
`
`Ex. 1003 / 12 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`anticipated, or these references can be combined to show a patent is invalid as
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-
`32.
`
`2 and 8 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’676 Patent would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the prior art.
`
`33.
`
`I have been informed that a claim preamble may or may not limit the
`
`claim scope. For the purposes of this Inter Partes Review, I have been informed to
`
`include the preamble in the analysis for obviousness in order to follow a
`
`conservative approach.
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claimed invention is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the
`
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA at the time the invention was made. I understand that the obviousness
`
`analysis takes into account factual inquiries, including the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art
`
`and the claimed subject matter, and any secondary considerations, to the extent they
`
`exist, such as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs in the prior art that
`
`was satisfied by the claimed invention, unexpected results achieved by the
`
`invention, and praise of the invention by others skilled in the art. I understand that
`
`
`
`13
`
`Ex. 1003 / 13 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`there must be a relationship between any such secondary considerations/indicia and
`
`the claimed invention.
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
`
`problem; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led a POSITA to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art
`
`reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`36. Also, I have been informed and understand that obviousness does not
`
`require physical combination or bodily incorporation but rather consideration of
`
`what the combined teachings of prior art references would have suggested to a
`
`POSITA at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Ex. 1003 / 14 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`C. Claim Interpretation in Inter Partes Review
`I understand that one step in determining the validity of a claim is for
`37.
`
`the claim to be properly construed.
`
`38.
`
` It is my understanding that for the purposes of this inter partes review,
`
`the claims are to be construed under the so-called Phillips standard, under which
`
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification and
`
`prosecution history, unless the inventor has set forth a special meaning for a term.
`
`In order to construe the claim terms, I have reviewed the entirety of the ’676 Patent,
`
`as well as its prosecution history.
`
`39. To the extent the claims and specification do not resolve the meaning
`
`of a claim term, the prosecution history should be consulted in construing claim
`
`terms. Additionally, claim terms are normally not interpreted in such a way that
`
`exclude embodiments disclosed in the specification, except in cases of clear
`
`disclaimer in the specification or prosecution history.
`
`40.
`
`I have been further informed that claim terms only need to be
`
`construed to the extent necessary to resolve the obviousness inquiry.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’676 PATENT
`41. The ’676 Patent “relates to a method of alternate control of radio
`
`systems of different standards in the same frequency band.” ’676 Patent, 1:5-7.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Ex. 1003 / 15 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`42. According to the ’676 Patent, “[w]ideband LANs in accordance with
`
`the HiperLAN/2 and 802.11a standards will operate in the same frequency band in
`
`the future.” ’676 Patent, 1:65-67. However, “[t]he Medium Access Control (MAC)
`
`of the two systems is totally different” because:
`
`ETSI BRAN HiperLAN/2 utilizes a centrally controlled reservation-
`based method in which a radio station takes over the role of a central
`instance co-ordinating the radio resources. … The IEEE802.11a
`standard describes a [] method not based on reservations, [but instead]
`in which all the radio stations listen in on the medium and assume that
`the channel is unused for a minimum duration[.]
`
`Id., 1:34-38, 1:43-47.
`
`43. The ’676 Patent proposes a system where devices using first and
`
`second radio standards both use the same frequency band, where “a control station
`
`is provided that controls the two-way alternate utilization of the frequency band.”
`
`’676 Patent, Abstract.
`
`44. The ’676 Patent provides the following example of how the control
`
`station may effectuate controlling the alternate use of the common frequency band:
`
`[I]t is possible to provide certain predefinable time intervals for the use
`of the first and second radio interface standard and allocate 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.
`
`Id., 2:52-57.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Ex. 1003 / 16 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`45.
`
`In Fig. 3, the ’676 Patent illustrates devices operating in accordance
`
`with different standards. Figure 3 shows devices labeled “A” (10, 12, 14) using a
`
`first standard, such as Hiperlan; devices “B” (14, 15, 16) use another standard, such
`
`as 802.11; and the control station “S” (13) controls the alternate use of the
`
`frequency band. ’676 Patent, 5:20-40.
`
`802.11 stations
`
`HiperLAN stations
`
`Control station
`
`’676 Patent, Fig. 3 (annotated in color)
`
`
`
`46. Representative claim 1 of the ’676 Patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`17
`
`Ex. 1003 / 17 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`’676 Patent, Claim 1
`
`
`
`47. Notably, as I demonstrate below, there is nothing novel about the
`
`claims of the ’676 Patent because all of the elements were taught in the prior art and
`
`it would have been obvious to combine the relevant teachings.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’676
`48.
`
`Patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is also my understanding
`
`that claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure
`
`of the patent, unless the inventor has set forth a special meaning for a term. I also
`
`understand that the prosecution history should be consulted to the extent the claim
`
`language and specification do not resolve the meaning of a claim term.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Ex. 1003 / 18 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`49. As such, for the purposes of my analysis below, I have reviewed the
`
`claim language, the specification, and the prosecution history. For the purposes of
`
`my analysis below, I do not believe any of the claim terms require a specific
`
`construction beyond the plain and ordinary meaning as would be understood by one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`VII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground #1: Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over
`Shellhammer
`I have been informed by counsel that Patent Owner may argue that the
`
`50.
`
`earliest potential priority date of the ’676 Patent is August 10, 2000. I have also
`
`been informed that, in order for Shellhammer to qualify as prior art to the ’676
`
`Patent, assuming a priority date of August 10, 2000, then (i) at least one claim in
`
`Shellhammer must be supported by disclosure in Shellhammer’s provisional
`
`application, U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/175,262 (“Shellhammer
`
`Provisional”), and (ii) the portions of Shellhammer cited to show unpatentability of
`
`the ’676 Patent must be supported by disclosure in the Shellhammer Provisional.
`
`51.
`
`In Appendix A of this declaration, I have mapped claim 1 of
`
`Shellhammer to the supporting disclosure in the Shellhammer Provisional, and as
`
`shown in Appendix A, the Shellhammer Provisional fully supports claim 1 of
`
`Shellhammer. In Appendix B, I have mapped the portions of Shellhammer that are
`
`cited to show invalidity to the supporting disclosure in the Shellhammer
`
`
`
`19
`
`Ex. 1003 / 19 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`Provisional, and as shown in Appendix B, the Shellhammer Provisional fully
`
`supports the portions of Shellhammer that are cited to show invalidity.
`
`52.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable obvious over
`
`Shellhammer for the reasons given herein.
`
`Summary of Shellhammer
`1.
`53. Shellhammer is U.S. Pat. No. 7,039,358 and is directed to a wireless
`
`radio network where both 802.11 devices and Bluetooth devices share “the same
`
`frequency band at the same time.” Shellhammer, 2:59-62.
`
`54. Shellhammer explains that both 802.11 devices and Bluetooth devices
`
`use the frequency band located at 2.4 GHz. Shellhammer, 1:21-31, 1:61-64.
`
`Shellhammer then teaches an example system that includes the following devices:
`
`(1) devices only capable of Bluetooth communications, (2) dual-mode devices
`
`capable of both 802.11 and Bluetooth communications, and (3) an 802.11 access
`
`point (AP), which coordinates the devices’ access to the 2.4 GHz band. Id., 5:67-
`
`6:11, 6:16-18, 6:29-41.
`
`55. Shellhammer illustrates these devices in annotated Fig. 1 shown below.
`
`In Fig. 1, 802.11 access points are APs 20, 30; the dual-mode devices are the
`
`combination of MUs 120, 140 (802.11 devices) and Bluetooth Masters (BTMs)
`
`130, 150; and the Bluetooth-only devices are Bluetooth Slaves (BTSs) 160, 170,
`
`180, 190, 200, 210.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Ex. 1003 / 20 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`Shellhammer, Fig. 1 (annotated in color)
`
`
`
`56. Shellhammer explains that for the AP to coordinate access to the
`
`common frequency band, the system uses a “coordination scheme [that] is primarily
`
`based on time multiplexing of the 802.11 and BT radios.” Shellhammer, 6:35-36.
`
`The time-multiplexing coordination scheme includes having the time period
`
`“divided into three time intervals”: the first interval includes only 802.11
`
`communications; the second includes only Bluetooth communications (called a
`
`NAV period); and the third includes only 802.11 communications. Id., 8:52-9:23.
`
`57. Shellhammer illustrates these three periods of its time multiplexing
`
`coordination scheme in annotated Fig. 3 provided below.
`
`
`
`21
`
`Ex. 1003 / 21 of 114
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Fischer
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 7,016,676
`
`Shellhammer, Fig. 3 (annotated in color)
`
`
`
`58. To control the timing of the three periods, the AP communicates the
`
`end of the first, 802.11-only period by transmitting a “Clear to Send (CTS) signal
`
`430 to shut down all the 802.11 communications” of the dual-mode devices.
`
`Shellhammer, 9:1-9:13. The CTS signal causes the dual-mode devices to end the
`
`802.11 MUs’ communications and start the NAV period, during which the BTMs
`
`begin Bluetooth communications