`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case: IPR2020-00202
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586
`_______________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BRANIMIR VOJIC, DSC
`
`
`
`738473418.4
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 1 of 106
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 2
`II.
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF LEGAL STANDARDS ......................................... 6
`A.
`Burden of Proof .................................................................................... 7
`B. Obviousness .......................................................................................... 7
`C.
`Secondary Considerations .................................................................. 12
`D.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................ 13
`E.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 19
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ..................................................................... 21
`V.
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY ............................................... 22
`A.
`The ’586 Patent .................................................................................. 22
`B. Authorization and Authentication ...................................................... 29
`VI. RELEVANT CLAIMS OF THE ’586 PATENT ......................................... 35
`VII. PRIOR ART ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 39
`A. Kirkup (Ex. 1004)............................................................................... 39
`B. Huerga (Ex. 1005) .............................................................................. 48
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF INSTITUTED GROUNDS ................................................ 48
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 16, and 18 Are Not Obvious
`Over Kirkup ........................................................................................ 49
`1. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the At…………………….49
`2. The Scope and Content of the Prior Art…………………..49
`3. The Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claimed
`Invention …..........................................…….......................49
`a. Kirkup Does Not Disclose Element 1(f) (the Second
`Condition) Under Maxell’s Construction of “Short-
`Range Wireless
`Communication.”..........................................……....50
`b. Kirkup’s Two Scenarios For Accessing the
`Authentication Code Fail To Teach the Three-Ordered
`Conditions in Claim 1...............................................52
`
`738473418.4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 2 of 106
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`(i)
`
`Page
`Scenario 1 – Claim Elements 1(d)-
`1(g) Are Not Met Because the First
`Mobile Terminal Is Already Unlocked
`When The Authentication Process In
`Figure 2 Begins................................52
`(ii) Scenario 2 – Claim Elements 1(d) and
`1(g) Are Not Met Because the Second
`Mobile Terminal (PC 110) Is
`Unlocked While the First Mobile
`Terminal (HED) Remains Locked...60
`c. Apple’s Arguments As to Kirkup Meeting the Three-
`Ordered Conditions (Elements 1(e)-1(g)) Fail for
`Additional
`Reasons.................................................................... 64
`(i) Apple’s Arguments Regarding the First
`Condition Fail............................................64
`(ii) Apple’s Arguments Regarding the Second
`Condition Fail............................................70
`(iii) Apple’s Arguments Regarding the Third
`Condition
`Fail.............................................................80
`d. For the Same Reasons As Claim 1, Kirkup Similarly
`Does Not Teach the Three-Ordered Conditions in
`Claims 9 and 16.........................................................86
`4. Secondary Considerations of Non-obviousness…………..86
`B. Ground 2: Claims 2, 6, 10, 13, 17 and 18 Are Not Obvious
`Over Kirkup in view of Huerga ................................................ ….….87
`
`738473418.4
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 3 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`I, Branimir Vojcic, DSc, hereby declare the following:
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Branimir Vojcic. I have been asked by the Patent Owner
`
`in this proceeding (Maxell, Ltd.) provide my opinion as to the validity of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,212,586 (“the ’586 Patent”) and to respond to Apple’s Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of the ’586 Patent (“Petition” or “Pet.”), the Declaration of
`
`Dr. Victor Shoup (“Shoup Decl.”) Regarding Invalidity of the ’586 Patent, and the
`
`Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review (“Institution Decision”) of
`
`the ’586 Patent, and to provide my opinion as to the validity of the ’586 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`Although I am being compensated at my usual consulting rate of
`
`$650 per hour for my time reviewing materials and preparing this declaration, my
`
`opinions expressed here are my own. My compensation is in no way dependent on
`
`the outcome of this proceeding or upon the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(PTAB) accepting my opinions. I have no other financial interest in this matter or
`
`the parties thereto.
`
`3.
`
`Depending on new information learned or positions taken throughout
`
`the proceeding by Apple or its experts, I may edit, add to, or otherwise refine the
`
`topics and opinions given here. I reserve the right to supplement my opinions
`
`based on new information.
`
`
`
`
`738473418.4
`
`1
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 4 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`My qualifications to testify about the ’586 Patent and the relevant
`
`technology are set forth in my curriculum vitae (“CV”), which I have attached
`
`here as Exhibit A. My CV includes a list of all my publications within at least the
`
`past ten years. The matters in which I have testified (either at trial or by
`
`deposition) in the past four years is also attached as Exhibit A.
`
`5.
`
`I will briefly summarize my qualifications to render opinions
`
`regarding this technology in the following paragraphs.
`
`6.
`
`I am an expert
`
`in wireless technology and other areas of
`
`telecommunications, signal processing and electrical engineering. I am presently a
`
`Professor Emeritus of Engineering and Applied Science at The George
`
`Washington University. I retired from the university in May 2015, where I was a
`
`member of the faculty since September 1, 1991. In addition, I have served as a
`
`consultant for a number of companies in the wireless communications industry in
`
`various technology areas. I have also served on numerous committees and as a
`
`reviewer and editor for several journals, conferences, and organizations.
`
`7.
`
`I am presently President of Xplore Wireless, LLC, a small
`
`telecommunication consulting company. I am also a co-founder, Director, CEO
`
`and CTO of LN2, a startup in the telecommunication space.
`
`8.
`
`I received my Diploma of Engineering, Master of Science, and
`
`738473418.4
`
`2
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 5 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`Doctor of Science degrees in Electrical Engineering from the University of
`
`Belgrade in Yugoslavia in 1981, 1986, and 1989, respectively. The primary focus
`
`of my Doctor of Science studies was on Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA)
`
`and spread spectrum communications technologies.
`
`9.
`
`In 1991, I joined The George Washington University as an Assistant
`
`Professor and was promoted to Associate Professor and Professor in 1997 and
`
`2000, respectively. From 2001 to 2004, I served as the Chairman of the Electrical
`
`and Computer Engineering Department at The George Washington University.
`
`During my tenure at The George Washington University, until May 2015, I taught
`
`many different courses on communications theory and networks, wireless
`
`communications, CDMA, and I was a course director for a number of courses in
`
`communications.
`
`I have supervised students mostly
`
`in
`
`the areas of
`
`communications and coding theory, wireless communications/networks, CDMA
`
`(including IS-95, CDMA2000, WCDMA/HSDPA/HSUPA) and OFDM/LTE and
`
`have been a thesis director for a number of Doctor of Science candidates, who
`
`now have successful careers in academia, industry, and government.
`
`10. My research in the areas I just mentioned has been supported by the
`
`communications industry and various Government agencies, such as Advanced
`
`Research Project Agency (ARPA), National Science Foundation (NSF), and
`
`National Security Agency
`
`(NSA). Much of
`
`this
`
`research concerns
`
`738473418.4
`
`3
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 6 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`communications theory, performance evaluation, modeling wireless networks,
`
`multi-user detection, adaptive antenna arrays, and ad-hoc networks.
`
`11.
`
`I have authored or co-authored numerous journal and conference
`
`papers, contributed to various books, and co-authored a text book on CDMA,
`
`entitled “The cdma2000 System for Mobile Communications,” Prentice Hall,
`
`2004. I also served as a co-editor of a book on wireless communications, entitled
`
`“Multiaccess, Mobility and Teletraffic in Wireless Communications, Volume III,”
`
`Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts, 1998. My CV includes a
`
`detailed listing of my publications.
`
`12.
`
`I have also received awards for my work. In 1995, I received the
`
`prestigious National Science Foundation Faculty Early CAREER Development
`
`Award. The award is given annually by NSF to a select group of young professors
`
`nationwide to promote excellence in teaching and research.
`
`13.
`
`I have served as a consultant for numerous companies in the wireless
`
`communications industry in technology areas, in the areas of 2G/3G/4G mobile
`
`technologies, Wireless LANs, new generation broadcast systems, advanced
`
`mobile satellite systems and other aspects of modern communication systems. I
`
`have also taught academic courses as well as short courses for the industry and
`
`government on various aspects of communications in the areas of 2G, 2.5G, 3G
`
`and 4G cellular standards, such as CDMA2000 1xRTT, CDMA2000 Evolution
`
`738473418.4
`
`4
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 7 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`Data Optimized (EVDO), Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA)
`
`and LTE.
`
`14.
`
`I am a Senior Member of the IEEE and was an Associate Editor for
`
`IEEE Communications Letters and Journal on Communications and Networks. I
`
`served as a member of technical program committees, as a session organizer for
`
`many technical conferences and workshops, and as a reviewer of technical papers
`
`for many journals and conferences.
`
`15.
`
`I am a co-inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,523,147, entitled “Method
`
`and Apparatus for Forward Error Correction Coding for an AM In-Band On-
`
`Channel Digital Audio Broadcasting System,” US Patent No. 8,595,590 B1,
`
`entitled “Systems and Methods for Encoding and Decoding Check-Irregular Non-
`
`Systematic IRA Codes,” and applications, “Joint Source-Channel Decoding with
`
`Source Sequence Augmentation”, US 20140153654 A1, Jun 5, 2014, “Systems
`
`and Methods for Advanced Iterative Decoding and Channel Estimation of
`
`Concatenated Coding Systems”, US 20140153625 A1, Jun 5, 2014, “Advanced
`
`Decoding of High/Medium/Low Density Parity Check Codes”, PCT/US13/72883,
`
`and International Application Number PCT/CA01/01488, entitled “Multi-User
`
`Detector For Direct Sequence - Code Division Multiple Access (DS/CDMA)
`
`Channels.”
`
`738473418.4
`
`5
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 8 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`
`16. Over the last several years I have evaluated many (on the order of
`
`hundreds) patents that are essential or potentially essential to wireless standards
`
`for various clients. These evaluations typically include, for example, analyzing
`
`whether the patent claims read on the relevant standard, considering the
`
`importance of the technological inventions claimed, analyzing how such claimed
`
`inventions compare to other similar patents in the field, searching for and
`
`reviewing potential prior art, reviewing and analyzing the prosecution histories of
`
`patents relevant to potential claim construction, infringement, or other issues,
`
`reviewing and analyzing the working group documents related to the relevant
`
`standard in relation to the claimed invention, and considering whether there are
`
`available alternatives to the claimed inventions.
`
`17.
`
`I have provided expert reports, expert depositions, and testimony
`
`over the past 8 years in numerous cases involving many aspects of wireless
`
`communications.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF LEGAL STANDARDS
`18.
`I am not a lawyer, but I have been informed by Maxell’s counsel of
`
`the legal principles necessary to my validity analysis. In this section, I set forth my
`
`understanding of these legal principles as they have been explained to me.
`
`738473418.4
`
`6
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 9 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`
`A. Burden of Proof
`19.
`I understand that in IPR proceedings, patents are not entitled to the
`
`same presumption of validity that they enjoy in district courts. Instead, I
`
`understand the party asserting unpatentability (the petitioner) bears the burden to
`
`prove invalidity by a “preponderance of the evidence.”
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the “preponderance of evidence” standard requires
`
`evidence to show that a fact is more likely than not.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a decision by the PTAB to institute an Inter Partes
`
`Review of a patent means that the PTAB formed a belief that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.
`
`B. Obviousness
`22.
`I understand that a validity analysis of a patent claim regarding
`
`obviousness consists of two steps. The first step is the construction (or
`
`interpretation) of any disputed claim terms. The second step is a comparison of the
`
`properly construed claims to the prior art.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a patent claim can be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`if the claimed subject matter would have been “obvious” to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art as of the priority date of the patent based upon one or more prior art
`
`references. I understand that an obviousness analysis should consider each of the
`
`738473418.4
`
`7
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 10 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`following so-called “Graham 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) secondary considerations, if any (such as
`
`unexpected results, commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of
`
`others, copying by others, licensing, and skepticism of experts).
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a conclusion of obviousness may be based upon
`
`either a single prior art reference or a combination of prior art references,
`
`particularly if the combination of elements does no more than yield predictable
`
`results. However, I understand that merely demonstrating that each of the claim
`
`elements was, independently, known in the prior art does not prove that a patent
`
`composed of several claim elements is obvious.
`
`25. Moreover, I understand that it can be important to identify a reason
`
`that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
`
`combine the elements in a way the claimed new invention does.
`
`26.
`
`I further understand that, to determine obviousness, it may be
`
`necessary to look to the interrelated teachings of multiple patents or other prior art
`
`references, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in
`
`the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`738473418.4
`
`8
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 11 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`
`27.
`
`I also understand that, in determining whether a combination of prior
`
`art references renders a claim obvious, it may be helpful to consider whether there
`
`is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references and a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in doing so. I understand, however, that the
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine inquiry is not required and may
`
`not be relied upon in lieu of the obviousness analysis outlined above.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the following exemplary rationales may lead to a
`
`conclusion of obviousness: the combination of prior art elements according to
`
`known methods to yield predictable results; the substitution of one known element
`
`for another to obtain predictable results; and the use of known techniques to
`
`improve similar devices in the same way.
`
`29. However, a claim is not obvious if the improvement is more than the
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
`
`Similarly, a claim is not obvious if the application of a known technique is beyond
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`30. Further, when the prior art teaches away from combining certain
`
`known elements, discovery of successful means of combining them is not
`
`obvious. A reference “teaches away” when a person of ordinary skill would be
`
`discouraged from, or led in a different direction, from the direction taken by the
`
`claimed invention. I understand that similar subject matter may not be sufficient
`
`738473418.4
`
`9
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 12 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`motivation for a person of skill in the art to combine references if the references
`
`have conflicting elements.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that, in order to be used in an obviousness combination,
`
`a prior art reference must be “analogous.” I understand that a prior art reference
`
`may be analogous if it is in the same field of endeavor as the other references with
`
`which it is combined, or if the reference is reasonably pertinent to the solving the
`
`problems the inventors of the patent-at-issue sought to solve.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that obviousness of a patent claim cannot properly be
`
`established through hindsight, and that elements from different prior art
`
`references, or different embodiments of a single prior art reference, cannot be
`
`selected to create the claimed invention using the invention itself as a roadmap. I
`
`understand that the claimed invention as a whole must be compared to the prior art
`
`as a whole, and it is important to avoid aggregating pieces of prior art through
`
`hindsight that would not have been combined absent the inventors’ insight.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that obviousness is not established by simply combining
`
`previously known elements from the prior art. A patent composed of several
`
`elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements
`
`was, independently, known in the prior art. An invention is unpatentable as
`
`obvious if the differences between the patented subject matter and the prior art
`
`738473418.4
`
`10
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 13 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`would have been obvious at the time of invention to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that obviousness of a patent cannot properly be
`
`established by mere conclusory statements. Instead, there must be some
`
`articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
`
`conclusion of obviousness. When an expert opines that all the elements of a claim
`
`disparately exist in the prior art, the expert should provide the rationale to
`
`combine the disparate references. A reason for combining disparate prior art
`
`references is a critical component of an obviousness analysis. The obviousness
`
`analysis should be made explicit and needs to provide an articulated reasoning
`
`with some rational underpinning to identify the reason that would have prompted
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way
`
`the claimed new invention does.
`
`35.
`
`I also understand that inventions in most, if not all, instances rely
`
`upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of
`
`necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known. This is
`
`another reason why merely pointing to the elements being known in the art in
`
`separate locations is not the end of the obviousness inquiry.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that technical experts may testify to matters like the
`
`level of skill in the art at the time of the invention and what a skilled artisan might
`
`738473418.4
`
`11
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 14 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`find obvious in light of the prior art without addressing objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness. However, where an expert purports to testify not just to certain
`
`factual components underlying the obviousness inquiry, but to the ultimate
`
`question of obviousness, the expert must consider all factors relevant to that
`
`ultimate question, including all objective evidence of non-obviousness.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that to render obvious a patent claim the prior art
`
`references must be enabling. That is, the references must provide sufficient
`
`information to allow one skilled in the art to practice what is disclosed without
`
`undue experimentation. I understand that while a prior art reference may support
`
`any finding apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior art references
`
`that address different problems may not, depending on the art and circumstances,
`
`support an inference that the skilled artisan would consult both of them
`
`simultaneously.
`
`C.
`38.
`
`Secondary Considerations
`I understand that one of the so-called Graham factors that must be
`
`considered in determination obviousness is the existence of any secondary
`
`considerations, which tend to show that a patent claim is not obvious. Such
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness of a patent include (1) long-felt and
`
`unmet need in the art that was satisfied by the claimed invention of the patent; (2)
`
`failure of others to achieve the results of the claimed invention; (3) commercial
`
`738473418.4
`
`12
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 15 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`success or lack thereof of the products and processes covered by the claimed
`
`invention; (4) deliberate copying of the claimed invention by others in the field;
`
`(5) taking of licenses under the patent by others; (6) whether the claimed
`
`invention was contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art; (7) expression of
`
`disbelief or skepticism by those skilled in the art upon learning of the claimed
`
`invention; (8) unexpected results achieved by the claimed invention; (9) praise of
`
`the claimed
`
`invention by others skilled
`
`in
`
`the art; and (10)
`
`lack of
`
`contemporaneous and independent invention by others.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that each of these considerations may form an
`
`independent basis for non-obviousness of a patent. I also understand that the fact
`
`that another person simultaneously and independently created the same invention
`
`claimed in an asserted patent can serve as an indication that the invention was
`
`obvious.
`
`40.
`
`I also have been informed by counsel that there must be a nexus
`
`between any such secondary considerations and the claimed invention.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`41.
`I understand that a patent may include two types of claims:
`
`independent claims and dependent claims. An independent claim stands alone and
`
`includes only the limitations it recites. A dependent claim can depend from an
`
`independent claim or another dependent claim and includes all the limitations that
`
`738473418.4
`
`13
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 16 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`it recites in addition to all of the limitations recited in the claim or claims from
`
`which it depends.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that the claim construction exercise begins with the
`
`language of the claims themselves, and that the general rule is that claim terms are
`
`given their plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art, in
`
`view of the specification of the patent, at the time of the invention. I also
`
`understand that the intrinsic evidence (i.e., the claims, written description, and
`
`prosecution history) are the primary sources used in interpreting claim language.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that the district court in the related proceeding did not
`
`construe any terms of the ’586 Patent.
`
`44.
`
`I understand that Apple did not forward any proposed constructions
`
`in its Petition other than endorsing the Phillips standard (Petition at 10), and the
`
`PTAB determined that “no claim term requires express construction” in its
`
`Institution Decision. ID at 23.
`
`45. Having read the ’586 Patent and its file history, it is my opinion that
`
`the phrase “short-range wireless communications” (found in Claims 1, 9, and 16)
`
`should be construed as “short-range wireless transmission and reception of
`
`information.”
`
`46. During prosecution, applicants amended the independent claims to
`
`require that the transceiver of the mobile terminal perform short-range wireless
`
`738473418.4
`
`14
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 17 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`communications with the another mobile terminal while both terminals are in a
`
`locked state:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1002, at 270. See also id. at 272, 274. In the accompanying remarks,
`
`applicants clarified that the “short-range wireless communications” requires that
`
`the mobile terminal “transmit” and “receive” information:
`
`
`
`738473418.4
`
`15
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 18 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 265.
`
`
`
`47. Subsequently, on May 31, 2018, applicants amended the claims
`
`again, further clarifying the above and placing the “second condition” required by
`
`the wherein clause of the ’586 Patent’s independent claims 1, 9, and 16 into their
`
`present form:
`
`738473418.4
`
`16
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 19 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1002 at 195. See also id. at 197, 199. In their remarks, applicants again
`
`clarified that the “mobile terminal communicates (transmits and receives
`
`information) with the another mobile terminal before the status of the another
`
`mobile terminal changes from ‘lock’ to ‘unlock’ by receiving information from
`
`the mobile terminal.” Id at 202-203 (emphasis in original).
`
`48. Applicants’ amendments and statements on the scope of the claimed
`
`“short-range wireless communications” were “repeated and consistent,” and on
`
`that basis alone “decisive” as to the appropriate scope of the claim term. See
`
`738473418.4
`
`17
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 20 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8017,
`
`at *21-22 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2020).
`
`49. Moreover, in each of the independent claims, the “short-range
`
`wireless communications” are executed by the “transceiver,” which a person of
`
`skill in the art would recognize as performing transmitting and receiving.1 Further,
`
`the specification consistently describes the mobile terminals as capable of bi-
`
`directional communication:
`
`The mobile terminals 1 and 2 each have a radio communication
`function, and transmit and receive a variety of information to and
`from a mobile base station. Further, the mobile terminals 1 and 2
`each have a
`function of performing
`short-range wireless
`communication between terminals, and can transmit and receive a
`variety of information between the mobile terminals 1 and 2 by
`using the function.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 2:54-61.
`
`Further, the mobile terminal 1 and/or mobile terminal 2 may each
`have a wireless LAN (Local Area Network) function, and transmit
`and receive a variety of information to and from a wireless LAN
`router.
`
`
`1 In claims 1 and 16, the transceiver is specifically called out as performing the
`communication, and I understand that the transceiver performs the communication
`in the second condition (step) in method claim 9.
`
`738473418.4
`
`18
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 21 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`Id. at 3:54-57.
`
`50. Thus, based on the intrinsic evidence, it is my opinion that “short-
`
`range wireless communications” should be construed to mean “short-range
`
`wireless transmission and reception of information.” See Ex. 2029, Shoup Dep.,
`
`18:3-10.
`
`E.
`51.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I understand that claims are to be interpreted from the viewpoint of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (POSITA). To determine the level of
`
`skill that would be “ordinary,” I understand that a person of ordinary skill must
`
`generally have the capability of understanding the general principles that are
`
`applicable to the pertinent art.
`
`52.
`
`In the case of the ’586 Patent, these general principles include the
`
`concepts of wireless communications in modern mobile devices (e.g., cell phones,
`
`watches, smartphones, tablets, laptops, and the like) and the unlocking of those
`
`devices using, in part, wireless communication. A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art should be familiar with these principles
`
`53. A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’586 Patent
`
`would have had a working knowledge of wireless communications, and gained
`
`this knowledge through a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, and at
`
`least one year of experience working in the field of wireless communications.
`
`738473418.4
`
`19
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 22 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`Additional education or work experience in a relevant field may compensate for a
`
`deficit in one of the relevant qualifications above. This is based on my review of
`
`the ’586 Patent and my knowledge of those who were working in the field at the
`
`time of the invention. I at least met this definition of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the inventions of the ’586 Patent (no later than May 2012).
`
`54.
`
`I understand that Dr. Shoup has stated that, in his opinion, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art for the ’586 Patent “In my opinion, a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the ’586 Patent at the time of its filing would have been
`
`a person having, as of May 23, 2012, at least: a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science, or in a related field, with at least 2-4 years of industry experience in
`
`computer and network security. Additional education may substitute for lesser
`
`experience and vice-versa. Such a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been capable of understanding the ’586 Patent and the prior art references
`
`discussed herein.” Ex. 1003 at 14.
`
`55.
`
`I do not believe that my definition of a person of ordinary skill is
`
`materially different from Dr. Shoup’s. Indeed, there are several similarities
`
`between our two definitions: both expressly mention a degree in either electrical
`
`engineering or computer science (degrees where students often take overlapping
`
`courses), and both require at least one year of work experience in a related field.
`
`That said, my opinions here would not change based on which definition the
`
`738473418.4
`
`20
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00202
`Maxell Ex. 2022
`
`Page 23 of 106
`
`

`

`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, DSc
`
`PTAB ultimately adopts; it is my opinion that the challenged claims of the ’586
`
`Patent are valid under both definitions.
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`56. Among the materials I considered here are the ’586 Patent (Ex.
`
`1001); its prosecution history (Ex. 1002); Apple’s Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586, filed December 19, 2019 (the “Petition” or “Pet.”),
`
`an