REMBRANDT WIRELESS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LP,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00025-JRG
`
`Hon. Rodney Gilstrap
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`OPENING EXPERT REPORT OF RICHARD T. MIHRAN, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2007
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 1 of 698
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .............................................................................................. 6
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT ........................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Prosecution Overview ............................................................................................. 7
`B.
`Overview of the Purported Inventions .................................................................... 8
`
`ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................... 10
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................................. 11
`
`VII.
`
`STATE OF THE ART ...................................................................................................... 12
`
`VIII. UNDERSTANDINGS OF LAW ...................................................................................... 14
`A.
`Anticipation........................................................................................................... 14
`B.
`Obviousness .......................................................................................................... 16
`C. Written Description ............................................................................................... 18
`
`IX.
`
`INVALIDITY OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS UNDER §§ 102 AND 103.................... 19
`A.
`All Asserted Claims are Invalid under § 102 over Motorola ’448
`(Briancon) (incorporating Motorola ’440 (Leitch)), under § 103 over
`Motorola ’448 (incorporating Motorola ’440) standing alone, and/or under
`§ 103 over Motorola ’448 in view of Motorola ’440 and Motorola ’568
`(Ayerst) ................................................................................................................. 19
`1.
`Overview of Motorola ’448 [Briancon] and Motorola ’440 [Leitch] ........ 19
`2.
`Motorola ’568 [Ayerst] discloses master/slave communications .............. 35
`3.
`Opinions Regarding Motorola ’448 in view of Motorola ’440
`and/or Motorola ’568 ................................................................................. 38
`All Asserted Claims are Invalid under § 103 over Motorola ’306 (Siwiak)
`in view of Motorola ’038 (Siwiak) and/or Motorola ’568 (Ayerst)...................... 43
`1.
`Overview of Motorola ’306 [Siwiak ’306] Patent ..................................... 43
`2.
`Overview of Motorola ’038 [Siwiak ’038] Patent ..................................... 51
`3.
`Opinions Regarding Motorola ’306 in view of Motorola ’038
`and/or Motorola ’568 ................................................................................. 54
`All Asserted Claims are Invalid under § 103 over Broadcom ’814
`(Yamano) in view of Radish ’922 and/or the Admitted Prior Art (APA) ............ 60
`1.
`Overview of the Broadcom ’814 [Yamano] Patent ................................... 60
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2007
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 2 of 698
`
`

`

`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`Overview of the Radish ’922 Patent .......................................................... 74
`The Admitted Prior Art Discloses Master Slave Communication ............ 79
`Opinions Regarding Broadcom ’814, Radish ’922, and/or the
`Admitted Prior Art ..................................................................................... 81
`All Asserted Claims are Invalid under § 103 over Lucent ’428,
`Kamerman, Motorola ’398, and the Admitted Prior Art ...................................... 91
`2.
`The Kamerman Reference ......................................................................... 94
`3.
`The Motorola ’398 [Siwiak ’398] Patent ................................................... 96
`4.
`Opinions Regarding Lucent, Kamerman, Motorola ’398, and the
`Admitted Prior Art ..................................................................................... 97
`All Asserted Claims are Invalid under § 103 over Snell, Broadcom ’814
`(Yamano), Kamerman, and/or the Admitted Prior Art ......................................... 99
`1.
`The Snell Patent ......................................................................................... 99
`2.
`The Broadcom ’814 (Yamano) Patent ..................................................... 104
`3.
`The Kamerman Reference ....................................................................... 104
`4.
`The Admitted Prior Art ............................................................................ 106
`5.
`Opinions Regarding Snell in view of Broadcom ’814 (Yamano),
`Kamerman, and/or the Admitted Prior Art .............................................. 106
`All Asserted Claims are Invalid under § 102 and/or § 103 over Nokia
`[Reunamaki] ........................................................................................................ 110
`1.
`Overview of Nokia [Reunamaki] ............................................................ 111
`2.
`Opinions Regarding Nokia [Reunamaki] ................................................ 123
`All Asserted Claims are Invalid under § 102 and/or § 103 over Medium
`Rate ..................................................................................................................... 123
`1.
`Overview of Medium Rate ...................................................................... 124
`2.
`Opinions Regarding Medium Rate .......................................................... 133
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`X.
`
`INVALIDITY OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS UNDER § 112 .................................... 133
`A.
`Factual Background ............................................................................................ 133
`1.
`Rembrandt’s Priority Claim ..................................................................... 133
`2.
`The Provisional Application (Filed December 5, 1997) .......................... 134
`3.
`The First-Filed Non-Provisional Application (Filed December 4,
`1998) ........................................................................................................ 139
`The CIP Application (Filed April 14, 2003) ............................................ 148
`The ’580 Patent (Filed Aug. 9, 2009) ...................................................... 150
`The ’228 Patent (Filed August 4, 2011) .................................................. 170
`
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`ii
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2007
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 3 of 698
`
`

`

`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Claims Lack Written Description Support for Bilingual Slaves. ................ 171
`The Claims Lack Written Description for all Recited Information Being
`“Addressed” to the Same Slave. ......................................................................... 172
`The Asserted Claims Recite Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional
`Subject Matter. .................................................................................................... 174
`
`XI.
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ................................ 177
`A.
`No Nexus ............................................................................................................ 178
`B.
`No Commercial Success ..................................................................................... 180
`C.
`No Copying and Imitation by Others .................................................................. 184
`D.
`No Industry Praise/Acceptance ........................................................................... 184
`
`iii
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2007
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 4 of 698
`
`

`

`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
`
`Exhibit A Curriculum Vitae and testimony in last six years
`
`Exhibit B
`
`[Reserved]
`
`Exhibit C List of Materials Considered
`
`Exhibit D Claim chart – Comparison of the Asserted Claims of the ’580 Patent to
`U.S. Patent No. 5,905,448 (“the Motorola ’448 patent” or “Motorola ’448”)
`
`Exhibit E Claim chart – Comparison of the Asserted Claims of the ’228 Patent to
`U.S. Patent No. 5,905,448 (“the Motorola ’448 patent” or “Motorola ’448”)
`
`Exhibit F Claim chart – Comparison of the Asserted Claims of the ’580 Patent to
`U.S. Patent No. 5,239,306 (“the Motorola ’306 patent” or “Motorola ’306”)
`
`Exhibit G Claim chart – Comparison of the Asserted Claims of the ’228 Patent to
`U.S. Patent No. 5,239,306 (“the Motorola ’306 patent” or “Motorola ’306”)
`
`Exhibit H Claim chart – Comparison of the Asserted Claims of the ’580 Patent to
`U.S. Patent No. 6,075,814 (“Broadcom ’814”)
`
`Exhibit I Claim chart – Comparison of the Asserted Claims of the ’228 Patent to
`U.S. Patent No. 6,075,814 (“Broadcom ’814”)
`
`Exhibit J Claim chart – Comparison of Claims 2 and 59 of the ’580 Patent to U.S.
`Patent No. 5,706,428 (“Lucent”)
`
`Exhibit K Claim chart – Comparison of Claim 21 of the ’228 Patent to U.S. Patent
`No. 5,706,428 (“Lucent”)
`
`Exhibit L Claim chart – Comparison of the Asserted Claims of the ’580 Patent to
`U.S. Patent No. 5,982,807 (“Snell”)
`
`Exhibit M Claim chart – Comparison of the Asserted Claims of the ’228 Patent to
`U.S. Patent No. 5,706,428 (“Snell”)
`
`Exhibit N Claim chart – Comparison of Asserted Claims of the ’580 Patent to
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,546 (“Reunamaki”)
`
`iv
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2007
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 5 of 698
`
`

`

`Exhibit O Claim chart – Comparison of the Asserted Claims of the ’228 Patent to
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,546 (“Reunamaki”)
`
`Exhibit P Claim chart – Comparison of Asserted Claims of the ’580 Patent to
`Medium Rate Baseband Specification proposal for version 0.7, Version
`0.66, 2002-07-05, Arto Palin (“Medium Rate”)
`
`Exhibit Q Claim chart – Comparison of Asserted Claims of the ’228 Patent to
`Medium Rate Baseband Specification proposal for version 0.7, Version
`0.66, 2002-07-05, Arto Palin (“Medium Rate”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2007
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 6 of 698
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I, Richard T. Mihran, Ph.D., submit this report on behalf of the Defendant Apple
`
`Inc. (“Apple”) in the above-captioned action, to provide the information required by Rule
`
`26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I have been retained as a technical expert in
`
`connection with the above-captioned action to study and provide my opinions on certain issues
`
`related to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,023,580 (the “’580 patent”) and 8,457,228 (the “’228 patent”).1
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked, for purposes of this report, to provide my opinions regarding
`
`the state of the art as of the priority date of each patent. I have also been asked to provide
`
`background explanations of the relevant technologies, the ’580 and ’228 patents and their
`
`prosecution histories, my opinions regarding the scope and content of the prior art as of the
`
`respective priority dates, my opinions regarding the experience and education of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to which each patent is directed, and the validity of the asserted claims of
`
`each patent. A summary of my opinions is set forth below, and my opinions are set forth in detail
`
`in this report and in the accompanying Exhibits.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I am a Professor Adjunct in the Department of Electrical, Computer and Energy
`
`Engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder, where I have been on the faculty since
`
`1990. I teach a wide variety of classes at the undergraduate and graduate level covering general
`
`electrical and computer engineering theory and practice, including circuit theory,
`
`microelectronics, communications, signal processing, and medical devices and systems. Many
`
`of these classes incorporate lecture and laboratory components that include both hardware and
`
`software design.
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis to quotes and citations herein are added by me.
`
`1
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2007
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 7 of 698
`
`

`

`4.
`
`I have performed research and development in academic and industrial settings
`
`pertaining to electronic, optical and ultrasonic devices and systems for a wide variety of
`
`applications, including both hardware and software development, for over 35 years. As part of
`
`my faculty role at the University of Colorado, I participate in the supervision of doctoral research
`
`performed by graduate students as part of obtaining their doctoral degrees.
`
`5.
`
`Classes I have taught at the undergraduate and graduate level include those
`
`covering analog and digital signal processing; radio-frequency identification devices and
`
`wireless communications, including modulation and demodulation; miniaturized devices
`
`incorporating embedded systems; medical devices and systems; and optical electronics,
`
`including fiber optic communications. Many of these courses cover subject matter directly
`
`relevant to wired and wireless communication systems, including principles of electromagnetic,
`
`inductive, electrostatic, and optical coupling and energy transfer, carrier modulation and
`
`demodulation techniques, and methods of data encoding. These courses further include
`
`components and concepts directly relevant to electronic devices and systems and their interfaces
`
`with other devices, including communications networks, general principles of wired and wireless
`
`RF communications, and data signal modulation and encoding in a variety of applications.
`
`6.
`
`With respect to the subject matter of the patents addressed in this Report, wired
`
`and wireless modem communications systems are generally implemented using microprocessor-
`
`based designs along with supporting control and transceiver communication circuitry. I have
`
`been involved in the design and analysis of microprocessor-based devices and systems since
`
`approximately 1979, utilizing commercial microprocessors manufactured by Intel, Motorola,
`
`Zilog and Microchip, among others. Research projects I have directed involving such
`
`microprocessor-based systems include the development of radio frequency identification (RFID)
`
`readers, transponders and networks; spread-spectrum RF data telemetry devices, embedded
`
`2
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2007
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 8 of 698
`
`

`

`system radar signal processing devices, and microprocessor-controlled medical devices and
`
`systems. Many of these projects have involved the development and/or analysis of
`
`communications transceiver devices utilized in systems for acquiring, processing, storing and
`
`retrieving data, as well as computational algorithms and analytical techniques implemented in
`
`both software and firmware on a variety of computing platforms, including embedded
`
`microprocessor systems and personal computers (PCs).
`
`7.
`
`Since obtaining my Ph.D. in 1990, I have also actively consulted in industry in
`
`many areas of technology development and analysis, including product development and
`
`analysis of intellectual property portfolios. The fields of technology in which I have consulted
`
`include, but are not limited to, wireless smart card and Radio Frequency Identification systems,
`
`including design and analysis of RFID readers, transponders, and networking architectures of
`
`RFID devices in inventory tracking applications; wireless networking devices and systems;
`
`spread-spectrum data telemetry devices and systems for industrial and medical applications;
`
`computer storage and data systems; and wireless telecommunications and networking.
`
`8.
`
`I have consulted in the area of wireless communications systems and RFID
`
`systems, devices and networks for over twenty five years, including those having frequencies of
`
`operation ranging from LF through VHF, UHF and microwave bands, and employing a wide
`
`range of different modulation and encoding protocols and techniques. Included among this
`
`activity is consulting and teaching of short-range wireless communication techniques used in
`
`RFID and near-field communication (NFC), including various forms of amplitude and angle
`
`modulation techniques, including ASK/OOK, FSK and PSK, and including multi-mode
`
`transceivers capable of communicating using multiple modulation and digital data encoding
`
`schemes. I have also led the development of narrow-band and spread-spectrum RF data
`
`telemetry systems used in large-scale agricultural management applications, which used a variety
`
`3
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2007
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 9 of 698
`
`

`

`of different approaches to signal modulation and encoding. This work further includes consulting
`
`and teaching of wireless communications techniques used in the medical field for
`
`communication between external transceivers and implanted medical devices used for non-
`
`invasive programming and general data exchange. These systems include those utilizing a wide
`
`range of proprietary signaling and encoding protocols, employing modulation such as
`
`ASK/OOK, FSK, and PSK.
`
`9.
`
`I have further consulted in the telecom industry for companies such as EchoStar
`
`and Comcast, including projects directed to terrestrial cable and satellite communications
`
`systems. These systems utilize packet-based communication networks employing modulation
`
`techniques such as QPSK, 8-PSK and QAM, among others.
`
`10.
`
`I am an inventor on three issued U.S. patents and one Canadian patent associated
`
`with some of these activities, two involving computer-based Doppler radar signal processing and
`
`data analysis to extract, digitize and process AM and FM signal components of reflected signals
`
`from moving objects to track trajectory, and two involving data telemetry utilizing narrow-band
`
`and spread spectrum wireless links and database analysis systems for agricultural management
`
`applications.
`
`11.
`
`I have served as an expert witness in a variety of patent litigation matters in the
`
`areas of wired and wireless telecommunications, active and passive radio-frequency
`
`identification (RFID) devices and systems, computers and computer networks, data storage,
`
`medical devices, and others. I have been admitted and recognized in U.S. District Courts as a
`
`technical expert in seven separate District Court patent trials, as well as before the International
`
`Trade Commission (ITC).
`
`12.
`
`As part of this work, I have been recognized and admitted as a technical expert
`
`and provided testimony at trial in a patent matter in the District of Delaware in the field of RF
`
`4
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2007
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 10 of 698
`
`

`

`transponders and readers operating in the UHF band used as part of vehicular tire pressure
`
`monitoring systems (TPMS). I have also been recognized and admitted in the Federal District of
`
`Colorado as a technical expert and provided testimony at trial in the field of implantable radio-
`
`frequency identification transponders and readers which operate using FSK modulation. I have
`
`further been admitted and recognized as a technical expert in wireless communications in the
`
`Northern District of California, San Jose Division where I served as a technical expert witness on
`
`behalf of several manufacturers of wireless networking equipment. The accused products in that
`
`matter included PCMCIA wireless network adapters used to provide wireless connectivity to a
`
`variety of data networks, including Ethernet and cellular networks.
`
`13.
`
`I have also been admitted and recognized as a technical expert in the Eastern
`
`District of Virginia in which I served as a technical expert witness on behalf of several major
`
`cellular service providers and smart phone manufacturers. The accused products in that matter
`
`included USB and PCMCIA wireless network adapters used to provide wireless Internet
`
`connectivity to computers over cellular data networks, such as GSM and CDMA based networks.
`
`I have also been admitted and recognized as a technical expert in the Eastern District of Texas in
`
`which I served as a technical expert witness addressing patents directed to integrated
`
`microcontrollers and associated network adapter modules used to provide Ethernet
`
`communications.
`
`14.
`
`I received a BS in Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics from Case Western
`
`Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio in 1982. I further received an MS in Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Colorado at
`
`Boulder in 1988 and 1990, respectively. A summary of my professional and educational
`
`background, as well as a listing of other matters on which I have provided consulting and/or
`
`5
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2007
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 11 of 698
`
`

`

`provided testimony as a technical expert, are detailed in my curriculum vitae, attached as Exhibit
`
`A to this Report.
`
`15.
`
`In preparing the opinions and discussion outlined in this report, I have reviewed
`
`and considered patents, technical references, and court documents, among other documents. A
`
`list of the documents that I have received, reviewed, and/or relied upon for this report is attached
`
`as Exhibit C (and includes also those cited in the body of this report). I have also relied on years
`
`of education, teaching, research, and experience, and my understanding of the applicable legal
`
`principles. As I continue my work on the issues raised in this case, I may supplement, refine or
`
`revise my opinions and findings as a result of further review and analysis. I may also consider
`
`additional documents and information in forming any necessary opinions – including documents
`
`that may not yet have been produced and testimony that may not yet have been given.
`
`16.
`
`This report contains a summary of my opinions and analysis to date in connection
`
`with this issue. I expect to be called as an expert witness if this case comes to trial. As I
`
`continue my work on the issues raised in this case, I may supplement, refine or revise my
`
`opinions and conclusions as a result of further review and analysis, or upon further information
`
`from the parties or the Court. I have not yet prepared any demonstrations or demonstrative
`
`charts, presentations or other exhibits to summarize or explain my opinions, but may do so.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`17.
`
`This Report provides the opinions and conclusions I have formed and the bases
`
`for each. In support of my opinions and conclusions, I expect to testify concerning my
`
`background and qualifications, and technical aspects of the asserted claims and prior art to the
`
`asserted claims.
`
`18.
`
`It is my opinion that all of the asserted claims are invalid for at least the following
`
`reasons:
`
`6
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2007
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 12 of 698
`
`

`

`• All of the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, either
`anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art, as discussed below and in the
`attached claim charts;
`• None of the secondary considerations identified by Rembrandt supports its claim
`of non-obviousness;
`• All of the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 due to a lack of
`written description, as discussed below;
`• Each of the asserted claims recite well-understood, routine, conventional subject
`matter.
`
`IV.
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`A.
`19.
`
`Prosecution Overview
`
`The ’580 and ’228 patents purport to claim priority, through a string of
`
`applications, to Provisional Application No. 60/067,562, filed on December 5, 1997 (“the
`
`Provisional Application”).
`
`20.
`
`Starting from most recent events and working backward in time to the Provisional
`
`Application, the ’228 patent issued on June 4, 2013, and matured from Application No.
`
`13/198,568, which was filed on August 4, 2011. Application No. 13/198,568 was filed as a
`
`continuation of Application No. 12/543,910, filed on August 19, 2009. Application No.
`
`12/543,910 matured into the ’580 patent, which issued on September 20, 2011. Application No.
`
`12/543,910 was filed as a continuation of Application No. 11/774,803, which was filed on July 9,
`
`2007 and issued as Patent No. 7,675,965. Application No. 11/774,803 was filed as a continuation
`
`of Application No. 10/412,878, which was filed on April 14, 2003 and issued as Patent No.
`
`7,248,626. Application No. 10/412,878 (“the CIP Application”) was filed as a continuation-in-
`
`part of Application No. 09/205,205, which was filed on December 4, 1998 and issued as Patent
`
`No. 6,614,838. Application No. 09/205,205 claims priority to the Provisional Application, which
`
`was filed on December 5, 1997 as discussed above. See “Related U.S. Application Data” on the
`
`7
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2007
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 13 of 698
`
`

`

`faces of the ’580 and ’228 patents. I will discuss in more detail certain aspects of these
`
`applications and patents in Section X.A below.
`
`21.
`
`The ’580 patent issued with 79 claims, with claims 1, 23, 32, 40, 49, 54, and 58
`
`being independent claims. Claims 1, 4-5, 10, 13, 20-22, 38, 47, 54, 57, 58, 61, 62, 66, 70, 76-79
`
`were found to be unpatentable and cancelled by the Patent Office during IPR proceedings not
`
`involving Apple. See Final Written Decisions in Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. Rembrandt Wireless
`
`Tech., LP, IPR2014-00518 and IPR2014-00519. I understand that on December 4 and 15, 2014,
`
`Rembrandt further statutorily “disclaimed” claims 24, 26-28, 31-37, 39, 40, 42-46, and 48 under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Therefore, the claims not previously cancelled or disclaimed are claims 2-
`
`3, 6-9, 11-12, 14-19, 23, 25, 29, 30, 41, 49-53, 55-56, 59-60, 63-65, 67-69, and 71-75. I
`
`understand that Rembrandt has asserted in this case only claims 2 and 59 of the ’580 patent.
`
`22.
`
`The ’228 patent was filed as a continuation of the ’580 patent. The ’228 patent
`
`issued with 52 claims, with claims 1, 22, and 26 being independent claims. Claims 1-3, 5, 10-20,
`
`22, 23, 25-29, 31, 36-41, 43, and 47-52 were found to be unpatentable and cancelled by the
`
`Patent Office during IPR proceedings not involving Apple. See IPR2014-00518, Pap. 47 at 21
`
`[REM_USPTO_00023613 at 22]; IPR2014-00892, Pap. 46 at 23 [RIP00103337 at 23].
`
`Therefore, the claims not previously cancelled are claims 4, 6-9, 21, 24, 30, 32-35, 42, and 44-
`
`46. I understand that Rembrandt has asserted in this case only claim 21 of the ’228 patent.
`
`B.
`23.
`
`Overview of the Purported Inventions
`
`The “Background, Present State-of the-Art and Similar Designs” section of the
`
`Provisional Application describes that in prior art “data communications to date, a given data
`
`transmitter/receiver (modem) always successfully communicates only with a modem that is
`
`compatible at the modulation or physical layer.” Provisional Application at 2. Thus, in prior art
`
`“point-to-point communications architecture, if a modem attempts to establish a communication
`
`8
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2007
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 14 of 698
`
`

`

`session with an incompatible modem, one or both of the modems will typically attempt several
`
`times to communicate and then cease further attempts” making “[c]ommunication on the link
`
`impossible,” such that the “solution demands replacing at least one of the modems so that both
`
`have a common operating modulation.” Id.
`
`24.
`
`Similarly, in a prior art “multipoint architecture, wherein a single ‘central site’
`
`(master) modem communicates to two or more ‘tributary’ (trib) modems, the master
`
`communicates to all tribs with a single modulation method.” Id. at 2 (bold font in original). “If
`
`one or more of the tribs is not compatible, the master can not [sic] communicate with that trib.
`
`Moreover, repeated attempts by the master to communicate with that incompatible trib will
`
`disturb communication to any compatible tribs due to wasted communication attempt time. It is
`
`seen that no attempt is made in the prior art to mix incompatible trib modulations in a multipoint
`
`architecture.” Id. Thus, “[a]ccording to the prior art, all tribs must have a common modulation.”
`
`Id. at 3.
`
`25.
`
`The purported solution is depicted in Figure 5 of the patents-in-suit and the
`
`portions of the specification explaining it. The “Master Type A + B” device establishes
`
`communication with “Trib 1 Type A” (shown on the right) using Type A modulation. See ’580
`
`patent at Fig. 5, sequence 104. The bilingual master device then sends a Type A modulated
`
`training sequence to “Trib 1 Type A” informing “Trib 1 Type A” that the master is going to
`
`“change to Type B.” See id. at sequence 106. The bilingual master then sends “Address + Data”
`
`information, in Type B modulation, to “Trib 2 Type B.” See id. at sequence 108. When the
`
`master is finished communicating with “Trib 2 Type B” it sends sequence 114, modulated in
`
`Type A modulation, informing Trib 1 Type A that communications have reverted to Type A
`
`modulation. See id. at sequence 114. Figure 5 is reproduced below:
`
`9
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2007
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 15 of 698
`
`

`

`
`
`V.
`
`ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the factors considered in determining the ordinary level of skill
`
`in the art include the level of education and experience of persons working in the field; the types
`
`of problems encountered in the field; and the sophistication of the technology.
`
`27.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art relating to the technology of
`
`the patents-in-suit as of the priority date of the ’580 and ’228 patents would have had a minimum
`
`of a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a related field, and
`
`approximately two years of experience in the field of communication systems. Additional
`
`graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the
`
`10
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2007
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 16 of 698
`
`

`

`field could substitute for formal education. I am qualified to provide opinions concerning what a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have known and understood at that time, based on my
`
`education and work experience, and my analysis and conclusions herein are from the perspective
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the claimed priority date of the December 5th, 1997.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For the purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to apply the following
`28.
`
`construction provided by the Court in performing my analysis. For all remaining claim terms, I
`
`have applied their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention:
`
`Claim language
`“modulation method [] of a different type” /
`“different types of modulation methods”
`’580: 1, 58
`’228: 1
`
`
`Court’s Construction
`“different families of modulation techniques,
`such as the FSK family of modulation methods
`and the QAM family of modulation methods”
`
`
`See Claim Construction Memorandum and Order, 18. I understand the Court’s construction of
`
`“different types of modulation methods” is based on the following statement that Rembrandt
`
`made during prosecution of the ’580 patent:
`
`Applicant thanks Examiner Ha for the indication that claims 1–18 and 37–57 are
`allowed (office action, p. 7). Applicant has further amended claims 1–2, 9–15, 18,
`37–38, and 45–46 with additional recitations to more precisely claim