`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________________________________
`
`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`___________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JOSE LUIS MELENDEZ IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE RELATED TO
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,023,580
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Rembrandt Exhibit 2002
`Qualcomm v. Rembrandt
`IPR2020-00510
`
`Page 1 of 86
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 2
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED ......................................................................... 6
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ....................................................................... 8
`
`V. UNDERSTANDING OF APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ..............10
`
`VI. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE ’580
`PATENT .....................................................................................................13
`
`A. Master/Slave Art Prior To The ’580 Patent .......................................13
`
`B.
`
`The Claimed Inventions ....................................................................17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Problems Identified By The ’580 Patent .................................17
`
`The ’580 Patent’s Solution To The Identified Problems ..........20
`
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS .................................................................26
`
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .........................................29
`
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................30
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“Modulation Method Is Of A Different Type” ..................................31
`
`“Master” And “Slave”/“Trib” ...........................................................31
`
`“Addressed For An Intended Destination” ........................................36
`
`X. OPINIONS REGARDING ASSERTED PRIOR ART ................................39
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Petitioner Has Erroneously Analogized Trompower’s Multiple
`Mobile Terminals To “Masters” And Trompower’s Base
`Stations To “Slaves/Tribs” ................................................................41
`
`Petitioner Has Erroneously Asserted That Trompower’s
`Registration Process Involves A Master/Slave Relationship .............47
`
`Trompower Would Not Have Suggested Including An Address
`Of A Base Station (Alleged Slaves/Tribs) Transceiver In An
`Information Packet ............................................................................51
`
`In
`’580 Patent Use Addressing
`Trompower And The
`Fundamentally Different Ways .........................................................61
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 86
`
`

`

`
`
`E.
`
`Ground 1 Based On Trompower .......................................................64
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Trompower Would Not Have Suggested The Claimed
`“Master” Or “Slave/Trib” Limitations ....................................65
`
`Trompower Would Not Have Suggested The Claimed
`“Addressed For An Intended Destination” Limitation .............67
`
`Trompower Would Not Have Suggested The “Third
`Sequence Reversion Limitation” .............................................72
`
`F.
`
`Ground 2 Based On Trompower And Tymes ....................................74
`
`G. Ground 3 Based On Trompower And Malkamaki .............................77
`
`H. Ground 4 Based on Trompower, Tymes And Malkamaki .................81
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................82
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 86
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`I, Dr. Jose Luis Melendez, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP
`
`(“Patent Owner”) in Case IPR2020-00510 as a technical expert.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to study and provide my opinions concerning U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,023,580 (“the ’580 Patent”) and the arguments and exhibits in the
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of the ’580 Patent filed in Case IPR2020-00510
`
`concerning the patentability of Claims 2 and 59 of the ’580 Patent (“Challenged
`
`Claims”).
`
`3.
`
`I have also been asked to provide my opinions concerning the state of
`
`the relevant art prior to December 5, 1997, and the level and knowledge of one
`
`having ordinary skill in the art in the December 1997 time frame.
`
`4. My opinions and views set forth in this declaration are based on my
`
`education, training, and experience in the field of imaging, computing, and
`
`communications technologies, as well as the materials I reviewed in this case. In
`
`this declaration, I will address certain aspects of the petition along with its relevant
`
`exhibits that I believe will be of particular benefit to the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“PTAB”) in evaluating the Petition, in light of the record and totality of
`
`stakeholder arguments, in coming to its decisions regarding the ’580 Patent.
`
`1
`
`Page 4 of 86
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`I am a professor of Computer Science and Engineering, and also
`
`Special Assistant to the Chancellor, at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez,
`
`Puerto Rico, where I reside. My responsibilities include developing and teaching
`
`specialized courses and seminars, serving on graduate committees including PhD
`
`programs, defining and conducting research including students related generally to
`
`Computer Science and Engineering, and supporting university relationships with
`
`industry.
`
`6.
`
`I hold a Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical Engineering from Stanford
`
`University (awarded January 6, 1994) with a Grade Point Average of 4.0/4.0. I
`
`have a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology (awarded June 4, 1990) and graduated with a Grade Point
`
`Average of 5.0/5.0. I also obtained a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering
`
`and Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (awarded
`
`February 20, 1991) with a Grade Point Average of 4.8/5.0.
`
`7. My doctoral thesis involved the definition, solution and validation of a
`
`stiffly coupled differential equation model for the formation of high performance
`
`imaging systems. In performance of my doctoral thesis I developed novel
`
`algorithms for the solution of the complex equations and implemented those
`
`algorithms in computer code. I verified the models and algorithms through
`
`2
`
`Page 5 of 86
`
`

`

`
`experimentation including constructing and characterizing the sensing portions of
`
`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`electronic imaging devices.
`
`8. My professional career began and continued within Texas Instruments
`
`where I developed advanced electronic-based sensors and sensor systems. These
`
`sensor systems were architected to be deployed on communications networks
`
`including remotely and in handheld embodiments. Solutions included modulated
`
`carriers relating sensor samples transmitted via wireline and wireless
`
`communications modes for research, development, testing and deployment
`
`purposes.
`
`9.
`
`I was a member of the Sensor and Infrared Laboratory, Central
`
`Research Laboratory, Texas Instruments, Inc. from 1988 to 1996; a
`
`director/department manager of the Microcomponents Technology Center, Texas
`
`Instruments, Inc. from 1997 to 1999; an affiliate professor, Department of
`
`Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Washington from
`
`1997 to 2000; a general manager, Optical Products, High Performance Analog,
`
`Texas Instruments, Inc. from 1999 to 2001; a general manager, Wireless
`
`Infrastructure, Texas Instruments, Inc. from 2001 to 2002; a co-founder and
`
`executive of Commoca Inc. (“Commoca”) from 2002 to 2007; a board director of
`
`Sand 9, Inc. from 2007 to 2011; a founder and chief scientist of Spectral MD, Inc.
`
`from 2009 to 2013.
`
`3
`
`Page 6 of 86
`
`

`

`
`10.
`
`I have provided expert consulting services in the field of imaging,
`
`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`computing, and communication technologies from 2009 to present.
`
`11.
`
`I am co-inventor of patented technology related to the formation and
`
`maintenance of high data rate wireless data links. Devices exhibiting 100 Mb/sec
`
`data rates utilizing the high data rate wireless technology were demonstrated
`
`publicly in 2001, and included real time, live transmission of a feature length film.
`
`12. While at Texas Instruments, I managed the wireless infrastructure
`
`business that designed, tested, and marketed semiconductor components for use in
`
`infrastructure applications such as cellular networks. The business group I
`
`managed designed, developed and sold some of the very first radio components
`
`tested in emerging (at the time) generations of cellular systems first capable of
`
`transmitting high speed, high quality images as data by way of digital
`
`transmissions (Multimedia Messaging Service – MMS) over mobile networks.
`
`13.
`
`In 2002, I founded Commoca, Inc. (“Commoca”). Commoca
`
`developed hardware, embedded software (or “firmware”), and network services for
`
`the deployment of converged voice and data services over wired and wireless
`
`communications networks. Commoca developed and manufactured feature rich
`
`smart phones having built-in apps with convenient content/media services, and
`
`local search solutions tailored for a specific location. Commoca devices utilized
`
`IEEE 802.11 (“WiFi” or “Wi-Fi”) technology to connect touch screen telephones
`
`4
`
`Page 7 of 86
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`to access points and were believed to have been amongst the first of such devices
`
`to do so. Converged communications devices provided by Commoca were field
`
`tested by BellSouth Corporation at consumer locations in Florida and Georgia in
`
`2006. My company received grants from the National Science Foundation to
`
`develop the state-of-the-art Transactional Applications Delivery System (TADS)
`
`over the internet.
`
`14.
`
`In 2008, while working as a research consultant for the University of
`
`Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas (UTSW), I co-invented a novel
`
`multi-wavelength imaging system (U.S. Patent No. 8,838,211) and worked to
`
`develop and produce a product through a university spinoff company which I led.
`
`In early 2013, following successful clinical studies, the resulting system was
`
`cleared by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration for use in the United States. The
`
`system captured and analyzed high resolution, uncompressed images and
`
`subsequently created pulsatility maps representative of the underlying physiology
`
`for use in evaluating deep tissue wounds. Resulting images were compressed,
`
`stored, and transmitted over a variety of communications networks.
`
`15. As highlighted above, my professional experience and knowledge
`
`areas include communication devices, related software, and networked computing
`
`systems as are relevant to the subject matter of this report. Also as detailed in my
`
`CV (EX2005), I am an inventor of subject matter claimed in 28 U.S. Patents.
`
`5
`
`Page 8 of 86
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`Additional information concerning my background, qualifications, publications,
`
`conferences, honors, and awards are described in my CV. EX2005.
`
`16. My company, DRMTES LLC, is paid for my work provided in this
`
`matter in accordance with my current hourly rate of $500/hr. plus reasonable
`
`expenses. Neither my company’s nor my compensation is contingent on my
`
`opinions, on the outcome of any matter, or on any of the technical positions I
`
`explain in this declaration.
`
`17.
`
`I have no personal or financial interest in the Petitioner, the Patent
`
`Owner, the ’580 Patent, or the outcome of this matter.
`
`18.
`
`I have been deposed previously as an Expert involving infringement
`
`and validity of computing system patents including communications and aspects
`
`involving the internet. Prior to this writing, I have never testified at a trial.
`
`19. The opinions I express in this declaration are based on my own
`
`personal knowledge and professional judgment. If called as a witness during the
`
`proceeding in the subject IPR, I am prepared to testify competently about my
`
`opinions.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`20.
`
`I have reviewed the Petition For Inter Partes Review of the ’580
`
`Patent filed in Case IPR2020-00510, along with the materials cited in the Petition.
`
`6
`
`Page 9 of 86
`
`

`

`
`21. Those materials include the following references (together the
`
`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`“Asserted Prior Art”):
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,132,306 to Michael L. Trompower (“Trompower”),
`
`entitled “Cellular Communication System With Dedicated Repeater
`
`Channels,” which was filed on March 29, 1996, and issued on October
`
`17, 2000;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,029,183 to LaRoy Tymes (“Tymes”), entitled
`
`“Packet Data Communication Network,” which was filed on June 29,
`
`1989, and issued on July 2, 1991; and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,491,832 to Malkamaki et al. (“Malkamaki”),
`
`entitled “Cellular Radio Communications System,” which was filed
`
`on November 8, 1994, and issued on February 13, 1996.
`
`22.
`
`I have additionally reviewed the following documents:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580 to Gordon F. Bremer;
`
`Portions of the File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580;
`
`Declaration of John Villasenor, Ph.D. (“Villasenor” or “Villasenor
`
`declaration”) in support of IPR2020-00510; and
`
`The exhibits filed in support of the Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response.
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 86
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`23. The documents which I considered for the opinions expressed in this
`
`declaration are documents identified in this declaration, including the Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of the ’580 Patent (including exhibits), the ’580 Patent, the
`
`’580 patent prosecution history, the Asserted Prior Art, and Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response. I have also relied on my own experiences and expert
`
`knowledge in the relevant technologies and systems that were in use (or were not
`
`in use) at the time of the invention.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`24. My declaration highlights certain aspects of how the ’580 Patent
`
`invention differs from the Asserted Prior Art in view of the arguments presented in
`
`the Petition, the Villasenor declaration, and in light of the ’580 Patent itself. My
`
`declaration is intended to support arguments put forward in the Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response to which it is appended.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the Petitioner challenges the patentability of Claims
`
`2 and 59 only under 35 U.S.C. §103 (“obviousness”). Specifically, the Petition
`
`asserts four (4) “Grounds” of unpatentability:
`
`Ground Claims Basis for Invalidity
`1
`2 and 59 §103(a) over Trompower (EX1003)
`2
`2 and 59 §103(a) over Trompower and Tymes (EX1004)
`3
`2 and 59 §103(a) over Trompower and Malkamaki (EX1005)
`4
`2 and 59 §103(a) over Trompower, Tymes and Malkamaki
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 86
`
`

`

`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, none of the asserted “Grounds” would have suggested
`
`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`the inventions of Claims 2 and 59 to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”)
`
`in view of the proposed combinations (Grounds 1-4 in the Petition).
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the Petition does not assert unpatentability of Claims
`
`2 and 59 under 35 U.S.C. §102 (“anticipation”).
`
`28. Based on my education, experience, knowledge of the art at the
`
`relevant time, analysis of the Asserted Prior Art as understood by a POSA at the
`
`relevant time, review of Petitioner’s arguments, review of Petitioner’s Expert
`
`Dr. John Villasenor’s declaration, the understanding a POSA would give to the
`
`claim terms in light of the specification, it is my opinion that none of the asserted
`
`“Grounds” would have rendered Claims 2 and 59 of the ’580 Patent obvious.
`
`29. A POSA would not have reasonably arrived at the claimed invention
`
`of the ’580 Patent in view of any combinations of the noted Asserted Prior Art. I
`
`explain here why the claims are not unpatentable in light of the proposed
`
`combinations of art, and also rebut allegations made by Petitioner and
`
`Dr. Villasenor (Petitioner’s Expert) to the contrary.
`
`30. This declaration is based on the information presently available to me.
`
`Should additional information become available, I reserve the right to supplement
`
`my opinion based upon information that may subsequently become available
`
`9
`
`Page 12 of 86
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`which may include a review of information that may be produced, or from
`
`testimony or depositions that are subsequently taken.
`
`V. UNDERSTANDING OF APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`31.
`
`I am not a lawyer and have not been requested to provide any
`
`opinions on the law. As a technical expert providing opinions on whether the
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’580 Patent are patentable, I understand that I am to
`
`follow and apply the current laws pertaining to obviousness.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that a claim in an inter partes review proceeding filed on
`
`or after November 13, 2018 is interpreted using the same claim construction
`
`standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by a POSA in the context of the entire
`
`patent disclosure at the time of the invention, in the absence of a specialized
`
`definition. I understand that the inventor may provide such a specialized definition
`
`by defining a term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision. As such, I further understand that the ordinary and customary meaning
`
`applies unless the specification reveals a special definition has been given to the
`
`claim term, in which case the inventor’s lexicography governs.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that for a patent claim to be valid, it must be novel under
`
`35 U.S.C. §102. I also understand that the version of 35 U.S.C. §102 in effect
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 86
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`prior to the American Invents Act is applicable for this IPR. I understand that if
`
`each and every limitation of a claim is disclosed in a single prior art reference then
`
`the claimed invention is anticipated. I further understand that it is the Petitioner’s
`
`burden to show that each and every element is described or embodied in the single
`
`prior art reference in order to establish anticipation. I also understand that a prior
`
`art reference must be enabling in order to anticipate a claim. I understand that
`
`Petitioner does not allege that any claims of the ’580 Patent are anticipated by the
`
`Asserted Prior Art, and that the Petition relates only to obviousness allegations
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that for a patent claim to be valid it must be non-obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103. I further understand that where any single prior art reference
`
`discloses less than each and every limitation of a patent claim it is being used
`
`against, that patent claim is only invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103 if the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and that single prior art reference are such that
`
`the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time that the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art. I also
`
`understand that obviousness is typically shown using a combination of two or more
`
`prior art references that disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention.
`
`36.
`
`I have been informed that the law governing obviousness in these IPR
`
`proceedings (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a)), states that a “patent may not be obtained
`
`11
`
`Page 14 of 86
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`
`section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
`
`the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`
`which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the
`
`manner in which the invention was made.”
`
`37.
`
`I have been additionally informed that when considering obviousness,
`
`I should determine the scope and content of the prior art, determine the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims at issue, and determine the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art. I should also consider any evidence of secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`38.
`
`I have been informed that in an obviousness determination, I must
`
`avoid analyzing the prior art through the prism of hindsight. Instead, I must cast
`
`the mind back to the time the invention was made and occupy the mind of a POSA
`
`who is presented only with the references, and who is normally guided by the then-
`
`accepted wisdom in the art.
`
`39.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is not proved obvious merely
`
`by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior
`
`art. Rather, obviousness requires the additional showing that a POSA at the time
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 86
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the
`
`normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention.
`
`40.
`
`I have been informed that for an obviousness analysis, it can be
`
`important to identify a reason that would have prompted a POSA to combine the
`
`elements in the way the claimed new invention does, and that an assertion of
`
`obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
`
`must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
`
`legal conclusion of obviousness.
`
`41.
`
`I have also been informed that the prior art must be considered in its
`
`entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed
`
`invention in suit.
`
`VI. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE ’580
`PATENT
`
`A. Master/Slave Art Prior To The ’580 Patent
`
`42.
`
`In networking, master/slave is a communication protocol in which one
`
`device (the “master”) controls network communications by providing one or more
`
`other devices (the “slaves” or “tributaries”/“tribs”) with permission to transmit on
`
`the network. EX1001, 4:7-9. It is my understanding that the terms “tribs” and
`
`“slaves” are used interchangeably.
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 86
`
`

`

`
`43.
`
`In a master/slave protocol, the direction of control is from the master
`
`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`to the slave(s)/trib(s) within the network, and a single master communicates with
`
`each slave/trib on the same communication medium. EX1001, 1:56-58, 2:52-54,
`
`3:40-44, 4:7-9, 5:44-46, FIG. 3.
`
`44. While a single master can control one or more slaves/tribs, a slave/trib
`
`can be controlled by only a single master in a network. EX1001, 1:56-58, 2:52-54,
`
`3:40-44, 4:7-9, 5:44-46, FIG. 3.
`
`45. According to the ’580 Patent, and consistent with my understanding,
`
`prior master/slave systems could communicate only when all network devices used
`
`a single common type of modulation method within the same session. EX1001,
`
`1:27-65, 3:40-48.
`
`46. A slave/trib using a different type of modulation method could not
`
`communicate with the master using the different modulation type within the same
`
`session, because it would not be compatible with the common type of modulation
`
`method. EX1001, 1:27-65, 3:40-48.
`
`47. To use a different modulation type, it was necessary to tear down the
`
`session and start a new one. EX1001, 1:39-44.
`
`48. Annotated FIG. 1 of the ’580 Patent (below) shows a prior
`
`master/slave system, where all devices in the network communicate on the same
`
`communication medium using only one type of modulation method (such as the
`
`14
`
`Page 17 of 86
`
`

`

`
`amplitude modulation used by AM radio), even though some of the devices may be
`
`capable of communicating via other types of modulation methods:
`
`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`49. The state of master/slave art at the time of the ’580 Patent invention is
`
`described in the ’580 Patent at 3:40-4:50, including reference to FIG. 2
`
`
`
`(reproduced below):
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 18 of 86
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`50. FIG. 2 discloses a multipoint master/slave system. EX1001, 3:9-10.
`
`51. At the beginning of a session, the master establishes a common
`
`
`
`modulation type for communication with all its slaves/tribs (FIG. 2, sequence 32).
`
`52. The master then communicated with each slave/trib, one at a time, by
`
`sending a training sequence with the address of the slave/trib with which it wanted
`
`16
`
`Page 19 of 86
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`to communicate, followed by data and a trailing sequence to end the
`
`communication (FIG. 2, sequences 34-38).
`
`53. A slave/trib could not initiate a communication without permission to
`
`do so, thus, when the slave/trib were polled by the master providing such
`
`permission, it could then initiate a responsive communication to the master (FIG.
`
`2, sequences 42-46).
`
`54. When the master had completed its communications with the first
`
`slave/trib, it could then communicate with a second slave/trib using the same
`
`negotiated common modulation (FIG. 2, sequences 48-54).
`
`55. As disclosed and claimed in the ’580 Patent, the slave/trib had to be
`
`polled before it could communicate with the master.
`
`56. As discussed below, the inventions reflected in Claims 2 and 59 of the
`
`’580 Patent addresses, in a novel way, problems in the prior art identified by
`
`Gordon Bremer, the named inventor, when the master wanted to communicate with
`
`one or more slaves using a different type of modulation.
`
`B.
`
`The Claimed Inventions
`
`1.
`
`Problems Identified By The ’580 Patent
`
`57. The claimed invention was designed to address problems Mr. Bremer
`
`recognized in a multipoint master/slave system when the master wanted – as
`
`illustrated in the preferred embodiment described in the specification – to
`
`17
`
`Page 20 of 86
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`communicate using different types of modulation (e.g., Type A and Type B). See,
`
`e.g., EX1001, FIG. 5.
`
`58. With reference to FIG. 2, Mr. Bremer identified the resulting
`
`problems as follows:
`
`Consider the circumstance in which master transceiver 24 and
`
`trib 26b share a common modulation type A while trib 26a uses a
`
`second modulation type B. When master transceiver attempts to
`
`establish A as a common modulation during sequence 32, trib 26a will
`
`not be able to understand that communication. Moreover, trib 26a will
`
`not recognize its own address during training interval 34 and will
`
`therefore ignore data 36 and trailing sequence 38. Master transceiver
`
`24 may time out waiting for a response from trib 26a because trib 26a
`
`will never transmit training sequence 42, data 44, and trailing
`
`sequence 46 due to the failure of trib 26a to recognize the
`
`communication
`
`request
`
`(training
`
`sequence 34)
`
`from master
`
`transceiver 24. Thus, if the tribs in a multipoint communication
`
`system use a plurality of modulation methods,
`
`the overall
`
`communication efficiency will be disrupted as specific tribs will be
`
`unable to decipher certain transmissions from the master transceiver
`
`and any unilateral transmission by a trib that has not been addressed
`
`by the master transceiver will violate the multipoint protocol.
`
`EX1001, 4:55-5:6.
`
`59. Problems identified in the ’580 Patent can be summarized as follows:
`
`(1)
`
`If a prior art master wanted to communicate with a slave/trib using a
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of 86
`
`

`

`
`
`second modulation method that was of a different type than that used
`
`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`to previously communicate with the same or a different slave/trib
`
`(“wherein the second modulation method is of a different type than
`
`the first modulation method”), it was necessary to tear down the
`
`session and begin a new session. Doing so was disruptive.
`
`(2)
`
`If a prior art master attempted to communicate using a different
`
`modulation type without beginning a new session, the slave(s)/trib(s)
`
`would not understand the attempted communications because all
`
`slave(s)/trib(s) would have been on the same communication medium
`
`and would not have responded to any communications directed at
`
`them, resulting in repeated attempts by the master to communicate. In
`
`addition, the slave(s)/trib(s) could become confused by the
`
`transmissions and make improper communication attempts.
`
`60. A POSA would have understood that FIG. 2 does not identify or
`
`recognize the problems Mr. Bremer describes or the goal of using different types
`
`of modulations, or his solution to those problems captured in Claims 2 and 59.
`
`Those problems and Mr. Bremer’s solution are described in, e.g., columns 4-7 of
`
`the ’580 Patent, and his solution is captured in the language of Claims 2 and 59
`
`which incorporates all the limitations of Claims 1 and 58 respectively.
`
`19
`
`Page 22 of 86
`
`

`

`
`
`61.
`
`2.
`
`The ’580 Patent’s Solution To The Identified Problems
`
`In the context of a multipoint master/slave system, the ’580 Patent
`
`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`discloses “a system and method of communication in which multiple modulation
`
`methods” are used to facilitate communication among one or more modems in a
`
`network, which were previously incompatible. EX1001, 2:17-20.
`
`62. The claimed master/slave communication system enables the master
`
`to seamlessly communicate with one or more slaves/tribs using multiple types of
`
`modulation methods, thereby permitting selection of the modulation type best
`
`suited for a particular application. EX1001, 1:66-2:49.
`
`63. The claimed invention is further described with reference to a
`
`preferred embodiment illustrated in FIGS. 3-8 and its written description.
`
`64. Annotated FIG. 8 below shows two communications intended for
`
`different slaves/tribs.
`
`65. The first communication 170 uses a first type of modulation method
`
`for both the initial training signal and the subsequent data signal, while
`
`communication 172 uses the first type of modulation method for the training signal
`
`and a second different type of modulation method for the data signal:
`
`20
`
`Page 23 of 86
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`
`EX1001, 4:21-24, 4:42-44, FIG. 8 (annotated). Information in the training signal
`
`indicates whether there will be “an impending change” from the first type of
`
`modulation method to the second different type of modulation method. Id. (training
`
`signal includes “notification of change to Type B” modulation method). The
`
`trailing signal is sent using the Type A modulation method.
`
`66. The solution to the problems described above is captured in the
`
`language of Claims 2 and 59 and described with reference to FIG. 5:
`
`21
`
`Page 24 of 86
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`
`With claim terms in italics, if the Master is communicating with a Type A
`
`slave/trib (“Trib 1 Type A”) using an established first modulation type A and then
`
`wants to communicate with a Type B slave/trib (“Trib 2 Type B”), the Master
`
`transmits “first information” comprising a “first sequence” modulated according
`
`22
`
`Page 25 of 86
`
`

`

`Case IPR2020-00510
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`to the “first modulation method” (one that the Type A trib understands) that
`
`“indicates an impending change” to a second modulation method (illustrated as
`
`training sequence 106). The Master then transmits to the Type B slave/trib “second
`
`information for at least one group of transmission sequences compris[ing] a
`
`second sequence that is modulated according to the second modulation method,”
`
`which is “a different type than the first modulation method.” In the FIG. 5
`
`embodiment, the “second sequence” is illustrated as transmission sequence 10