Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 88-14 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.4332 Page 1 of 42
`
`EXHIBIT M
`
`EXHIBIT M, APPX426
`
`Page 1 of 42
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1026
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 88-14 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.4333 Page 2 of 42
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM
`
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`
`Magistrate Judge: Hon. Barbara L.
`Major
`
`COOLPAD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`AND YULONG COMPUTER
`COMMUNICATIONS,
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1784-CAB-BLM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN)
`CO., LTD, HUAWEI DEVICE
`(SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1785-CAB-BLM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KYOCERA CORPORATION and
`KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`EXHIBIT M, APPX427
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 2 of 42
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 88-14 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.4334 Page 3 of 42
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`EXHIBIT M, APPX428
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 3 of 42
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 88-14 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.4335 Page 4 of 42
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
`U.S. Patent No. 6,941,156 ............................................................................................... 1
`A. Opinions Regarding the Min Declaration ........................................................... 1
`B. Opinions Regarding the Wells Declaration ........................................................ 2
`C.
`“simultaneous communication paths from said multimode cell phone” ............ 2
`D.
`“cell phone functionality” ................................................................................... 5
`E.
`“RF functionality”............................................................................................... 7
`F.
`“a module to establish simultaneous communication paths from said
`multimode cell phone using both said cell phone functionality and said RF
`communication functionality” ..................................................................................... 9
`G.
`“an automatic switch over module, in communication with both said cell phone
`functionality and said RF communication functionality, operable to switch a
`communication path established on one of said cell phone functionality and said RF
`communication functionality, with another communication path later established on
`the other of said cell phone functionality and said RF communication functionality”
`
` ...........................................................................................................................11
`U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862 .............................................................................................15
`A. Opinions Regarding the Min Declaration .........................................................15
`B.
`“decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) to
`produce the transmitter beamforming information”..................................................15
`C.
`“a baseband processing module operable to: receive a preamble sequence
`carried by the baseband signal; estimate a channel response based upon the
`preamble sequence; determine an estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix
`(V) based upon the channel response and a receiver beamforming unitary matrix
`(U); decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) to
`produce the transmitter beamforming information; and form a baseband signal
`employed by the plurality of RF components to wirelessly send the transmitter
`beamforming information to the transmitting wireless device” ................................17
`D.
`“the baseband processing module is operable to: produce the estimated
`transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) in Cartesian coordinates; and convert
`the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) to polar coordinates”....21
`U.S. Patent No. 7,957,450 .............................................................................................23
`A.
`“channel estimate matrices” / “matrix based on the plurality of channel
`estimates”...................................................................................................................24
`B.
`“coefficients derived from performing a singular value matrix decomposition
`(SVD)” .......................................................................................................................27
`U.S. Patent No. 7,990,842 .............................................................................................28
`A.
`“standard wireless networking configuration for an Orthogonal Frequency
`Division Multiplexing scheme”.................................................................................28
`B.
`“a legacy wireless local area network device in accordance with a legacy
`wireless networking protocol standard” ....................................................................31
`C.
`“extended long training sequence”....................................................................33
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`EXHIBIT M, APPX429
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 4 of 42
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 88-14 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.4336 Page 5 of 42
`
`D.
`
`“optimal extended long training sequence” ......................................................34
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`EXHIBIT M, APPX430
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`ii
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 5 of 42
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 88-14 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.4337 Page 6 of 42
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On May 2, 2019, I submitted an Opening Declaration on Claim
`Construction. I hereby incorporate by reference the contents of that declaration in its
`entirety, including the appendices attached thereto.
`I have reviewed the declaration of Paul Min, Ph.D., Regarding Claim
`Construction dated May 1, 2019, concerning United States Patent Nos. 6,941,156 (the
`’156 Patent); 7,957450 (the ’450 Patent); and 8,416,862 (the ’862 Patent) (“Min
`Declaration” or “Min Decl.”). Below I provide responses to certain arguments raised
`by Dr. Min in his declaration.
`I have reviewed the declaration of Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. dated May 1,
`2019, concerning United States Patent Nos. 6,941,156 (the ’156 Patent) and 7,990,842
`(the ’842 Patent) (“Wells Declaration” or “Wells Decl.”). Below I provide responses
`to certain arguments raised by Dr. Wells in his declaration.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,941,156
`I understand that Dr. Min’s opinions regarding the ’156 Patent are at ¶¶
`10–12 and 66–132. Further, I understand that ¶¶ 10–12 are a summary of Dr. Min’s
`opinions, which are further addressed in ¶¶ 66–132. Thus, I disagree with the
`summary of Dr. Min’s opinions in accordance with my disagreements with the
`specifics of Dr. Min’s opinions as discussed further below.
`I understand that Dr. Wells’s opinions regarding the ’156 Patent are at ¶¶
`77–108. For the reasons discussed below, I disagree with Dr. Wells’s opinions
`regarding the ’156 Patent.
`A. Opinions Regarding the Min Declaration
`In ¶¶ 66–69, Dr. Min quotes portions of the specification of the ’156
`Patent. I do not dispute that these paragraphs accurately quote the specification.
`In ¶¶ 70–73, Dr. Min provides his opinion for the definition of a POSITA,
`which he defines as having a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer
`Engineering, Computer Science, or a related field, and at least 2 years of experience in
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`EXHIBIT M, APPX431
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 6 of 42
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 88-14 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.4338 Page 7 of 42
`
`the field of wireless communication, or a person with equivalent education, work, or
`experience in this field. I note that my definition of a POSITA includes two to three
`years of experience in digital communications systems, such as wireless
`communications systems and networks or the equivalent. Thus, while I disagree with
`Dr. Min’s more narrowed field of experience, however, my opinions also remain the
`same when I apply Dr. Min’s definition of the POSITA as well.
`B. Opinions Regarding the Wells Declaration
`In ¶¶ 77–79, Dr. Wells quotes portions of the specification of the ’156
`Patent. I do not dispute that these paragraphs accurately quote the specification.
`In ¶ 80, Dr. Wells provides his opinion for the definition of a POSITA,
`which he defines as having a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related
`field, and at least 1–2 years of experience in the field of wireless communication
`devices, or the equivalent education in the field of wireless communication devices. I
`note that my definition of a POSITA includes two to three years of experience in
`digital communications systems, such as wireless communications systems and
`networks or the equivalent. Thus, while I disagree with Dr. Well’s more narrowed
`field of experience and years of experience, however, my opinions also remain the
`same when I apply Dr. Wells’s definition of a POSITA as well.
`C. “simultaneous communication paths from said multimode cell phone”
`It is my understanding that each side’s respective claim construction of
`the above term from the ’156 Patent is as follows:
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning. In the
`“at least two established distinct and
`alternative, to the extent the Court
`different communication links from
`determines that a specific construction is
`said multimode cell phone to a far-
`warranted, BNR proposes:
`end communication device, at the
`same time”
`“two or more active links at the same
`time from said multimode cellphone”
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`EXHIBIT M, APPX432
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 7 of 42
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 88-14 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.4339 Page 8 of 42
`
`For the reasons set forth below, I disagree with Dr. Min’s opinion that the
`term “simultaneous communication paths from said multimode cell phone” should be
`construed as “at least two established distinct and different communication links from
`said multimode cell phone to a far-end communication device, at the same time”
`because it is confusing, imports improper limitations, and has no basis in the
`specification or intrinsic record.
`First, I understand that Dr. Min has criticized Plaintiff’s proposed
`construction because the term “active links” is “confusing” and “BNR does not
`explain the meaning of the term ‘active.’” See Min Decl. ¶ 86. While Dr. Min
`considers these two possible conditions to be confusing, they are not—they actually
`capture the possibilities for an active state of a connection. A connection that is active
`by maintaining the connected state is no less active when transmission and reception
`of data begins on that connection. Thus, I disagree that the term “active link” is
`confusing to a POSITA. On the other hand, I believe that Defendants’ use of
`“established distinct and different” is confusing, as Defendants fail to define what
`each of those terms mean and has no reference to the specification, intrinsic record, or
`extrinsic evidence. For example, Dr. Min offers no explanation for why Defendants
`use the terms “distinct” and “different”, seeming synonyms, or whether they are
`supposed to connote different things and if so, what.
`I also disagree with Dr. Min’s opinions in ¶¶ 88–91 regarding the
`prosecution history and specifically the arguments made by Applicants in response to
`a rejection by the Patent Office related to U.S. Patent No. 5,842,122 (Schellinger).
`Specifically, Dr. Min misreads Applicant’s distinguishing of Schellinger regarding the
`“module to establish simultaneous communication paths from said multimode cell
`phone” by improperly focusing on the language “a three way call through the cellular
`telephone system.” Dr. Min fails to capture the entire sentence which states that
`Schellinger operates where “a call in process is handed off by producing a THREE
`WAY CALL through the cellular telephone system (i.e., NOT through the cell phone
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`EXHIBIT M, APPX433
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 8 of 42
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 88-14 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.4340 Page 9 of 42
`
`itself)” and in doing so, fails to connect the first sentence which states that in
`Schellinger “automatic forwarding systems of a central office are implemented to
`allow handoff of a call.” Read together, Schellinger describes a multimode cellular
`phone that requires a cellular telephone system or central office to establish the
`second communication link on the multimode cellular phone. The Applicant
`contrasted Schellinger with the invention by noting that the multimode cellular phone
`of the invention is able to establish the second communication link without having a
`second call forwarded to it (i.e. relying on an external source to establish the second
`link with the multimode cellular phone). Dr. Min improperly applies this requirement
`to the far end device, though the specification only spoke with regard to the
`multimode cellphone that represents the near-end device. Thus, Dr. Min misinterprets
`the prosecution history, which in fact supports BNR’s claim construction position.
`I disagree with Dr. Min’s opinions, in ¶¶ 79–85, related to the
`specification of the ’156 Patent. Specifically, I disagree with Dr. Min’s incorrect
`interpretation of Figure 1, where he improperly labels the “initial telephone call” and
`the “handed over telephone call” as the “distinct and different communication links”
`to a “far end communication device.” See Min Decl. ¶ 80. This interpretation is
`plainly inconsistent with the specification, for at least two reasons. First, the portions
`of Figure 1 that Dr. Min identifies as the relevant communication paths (“initial
`telephone call” and “handed over telephone call”) do not even extend from the
`multimode cellular telephone, but instead only begin at elements 120 and 110. This
`interpretation is inconsistent with the claim language itself, which requires the
`multimode cellular phone to establish both links. Second, Figure 1 plainly identifies
`each link as “1st” and “2nd” and shows an RF connection from the multimode cellular
`phone to 120 and another connection to the piconet base station 110. Then, each of
`cellular network 120 and base unit 110 have a clear connection to the PSTN 130.
`Within PSTN 130, one embodiment of the handover, a Type 2 Call Waiting Service
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`EXHIBIT M, APPX434
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 9 of 42
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 88-14 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.4341 Page 10 of 42
`
`140, is identified. And finally, there is a single link from the PSTN 130 to the far-end
`communication device 150.
`Thus, it is my opinion that Defendants’ construction is incorrect because it
`improperly requires two links to be active at the far-end communication device,
`despite clear evidence to the contrary from the specification. Further, Defendants’ use
`of ambiguous terms like “distinct and different” have no definition or reference in the
`specification. Finally, Dr. Min incorrectly interprets the prosecution history, which
`actually supports BNR’s construction and contradicts Defendants’ proposed
`construction.
`D. “cell phone functionality”
`It is my understanding that the following parties have the following
`positions on the above term from the ’156 Patent:
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Kyocera’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Not a 112 ¶ 6 claim element –
`“cell phone functionality” is
`not a nonce word. Instead, cell
`phone functionality is itself
`sufficient structure. A POSA
`would know that this is a
`cellular RF communication
`functionality well known in the
`art.
`
`This is a 112 ¶ 6 claim
`element.
`Function: “cell phone”
`Structure: Indefinite for
`lack of corresponding
`structure in the patent
`specification.
`
`Huawei & Coolpad’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`This is a 112 ¶ 6 claim
`element.
`Function: “cell phone”
`Structure: Indefinite for
`lack of corresponding
`structure in the patent
`specification.
`Alternatively, to the
`extent that the Court
`requires an
`identification of
`structure, the cell
`phone 100a and
`corresponding antenna
`depicted in Fig. 1 are
`insufficient structure to
`perform the claimed
`function.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, I disagree with Dr. Min’s opinion that the
`term “cell phone functionality” should be governed by 112 ¶ 6 because a POSITA
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`EXHIBIT M, APPX435
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 10 of 42
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 88-14 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.4342 Page 11 of 42
`
`would know that this is a cellular RF communication functionality that is well known
`in the art.
`
`First, I disagree with Dr. Min’s interpretation of “cell phone functionality”
`to be related to the multimode cell phone 100, instead of the cell phone functionality
`100a that is described by the ’156 Patent, in Figure 1 and the specification, which
`identifies “the cell phone functionality 100a.” See ’156 Patent at Col. 3:55–58. Dr.
`Min incorrectly interprets cell phone functionality to include “the ability and
`convenience of storing all phone book data, calling history, and user preference,”
`which actually relates to the multimode cell phone 100 and not the cell phone
`functionality 100a.
`Second, Dr. Min admits that a POSITA would understand that cell phone
`functionality requires “radio communication equipment (e.g. amplifier, transmitter,
`receiver, etc.) operating in conjunction with [a processor] . . . to perform wireless
`communications, typically in compliance with telecommunication industry standards
`(e.g., 3GPP/ETSI, etc.). See Min Decl. ¶ 100. Thus, Dr. Min appears to acknowledge
`that a POSITA would understand that cell phone functionality is a cellular RF
`communication functionality and that a POSITA would understand that cell phone
`functionality by itself refers to sufficient structure.
`Dr. Min primarily appears to disagree with BNR’s construction because
`“the claimed ‘multimode cell phone’ cannot be limited to ‘cellular RF communication
`functionality’ because it includes functionality to operate as a cordless telephone or
`walkie-talkie, and because it includes functionality to store phone book data, calling
`history, and user preferences.” See Min Decl. ¶ 101. Dr. Min is improperly construing
`“multimode cell phone” and not the term “cell phone functionality” which is a part of
`(but not the entirety of) the claimed multimode cell phone, as discussed above.
`Indeed, the specification makes clear that Dr. Min’s claimed functions are separate
`(e.g. 100b for RF functionality, 100c for walkie-talkie functionality) from the cell
`phone functionality.
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`EXHIBIT M, APPX436
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 11 of 42
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 88-14 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.4343 Page 12 of 42
`
`Finally, Dr. Min states that BNR’s proposed construction fails to
`recognize that a POSITA would understand that the claimed multimode cell phone
`includes a general purpose computer programmed to perform wireless
`communications. It is my opinion that this is incorrect because (1) Dr. Min again
`improperly focuses on the multimode cell phone instead of the cell phone
`functionality and (2) Dr. Min admits in his declaration that a POSITA would
`understand that cell phone functionality requires radio communication equipment and
`a specific processor programmed in accordance with industry standards.
`Therefore it is my opinion that the term “cell phone functionality” is not
`governed by 112 ¶ 6, but that a POSITA would know that this is a cellular RF
`communication functionality that is well known in the art.
`E. “RF functionality”
`It is my understanding that the following parties have the following
`positions on the above term from the ’156 Patent:
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Kyocera’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Not a 112 ¶ 6 claim element –
`“RF communication
`functionality” RF
`communication functionality is
`itself sufficient structure. A
`POSA would know that this is
`a structure for RF
`communications through a
`genus of RF communication
`types well known in the art.
`
`This is a 112 ¶ 6 claim
`element.
`Function: “RF
`communication”
`Structure: Indefinite for
`lack of corresponding
`structure in the patent
`specification.
`
`Huawei & Coolpad’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`This is a 112 ¶ 6 claim
`element.
`Function: “RF
`communication”
`Structure: Indefinite for
`lack of corresponding
`structure in the patent
`specification.
`Alternatively, to the
`extent that the Court
`requires an
`identification of
`structure, any of the
`cordless phone 100b
`with its corresponding
`antenna and the
`walkie-talkie 100c with
`its corresponding
`antenna, are
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`EXHIBIT M, APPX437
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 12 of 42
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 88-14 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.4344 Page 13 of 42
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Kyocera’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Huawei & Coolpad’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`insufficient structure to
`perform the claimed
`function.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, I disagree with Dr. Min’s opinion that the
`term “RF communication functionality” should be governed by 112 ¶ 6 because a
`POSITA would know that RF communication functionality is itself structure and
`further that a POSITA would know that RF communication functionality is a structure
`for RF communications through a genus of RF communication types well known in
`the art.
`
`Dr. Min’s opinion is based on his belief that the “RF communication
`functionality” is used solely in the context of the claimed multimode cell phone and
`therefore must include a general purpose computer. See Min Decl. ¶¶ 106–109. I
`disagree. First, I disagree that it is proper to incorporate RF communication into the
`claimed multimode cell phone in the manner in which Dr. Min is doing. The RF
`functionality is a separate element of the claimed device and has its own structure
`(see, e.g., elements 100a, 100b, each of which have their own antennas and are
`described distinctly in the specification of the ’156 Patent, see, e.g., Col. 3:64–4:6).
`I also disagree that the RF communication functionality would include a
`general purpose computer. Instead, a POSITA would understand that an RF
`communication functionality would utilize hardware and software specifically
`programed and implemented for the relevant RF type and that such hardware and
`software was, at the time of the invention, routinely purchased or implemented as
`distinct, specialized hardware and software from a manufacturer and installed into a
`cell phone. The RF communication types encompassed by this structure are well
`known in the art and governed by relevant industry standards.
`Thus, I disagree with Dr. Min’s opinion that this term should be construed
`as means-plus-function. It should not.
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`EXHIBIT M, APPX438
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 13 of 42
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 88-14 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.4345 Page 14 of 42
`
`F. “a module to establish simultaneous communication paths from said
`multimode cell phone using both said cell phone functionality and said
`RF communication functionality”
`It is my understanding that the following parties have the following
`positions on the above term from the ’156 Patent:
`
`Huawei & Coolpad’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`This is a 112 ¶ 6 claim
`element.
`Function: “establish
`simultaneous
`communication paths
`from said multimode
`cell phone using both
`said cell phone
`functionality and said
`RF communication
`functionality”
`Structure: Fig. 1
`(element 101); Fig. 2
`steps 202-208; Fig. 4
`steps 402-408; 4:50-67;
`7:1-16.
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Kyocera’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`This is a 112 ¶ 6 claim
`element.
`Function: “establish
`simultaneous
`communication paths
`from said multimode
`cell phone using both
`said cell phone
`functionality and said
`RF communication
`functionality”
`Structure: Indefinite for
`lack of corresponding
`structure in the patent
`specification.
`
`Not a 112 ¶ 6 claim element –
`In the alternative, to the extent
`the Court determines that this
`claim is governed by 112 ¶ 6,
`BNR proposes the following
`Function and Structure, and
`disagrees that the term is
`indefinite for lack of
`corresponding structure:
`Function:
`establish simultaneous
`communication paths from said
`multimode cell phone using
`both said cell phone
`functionality and said RF
`communication functionality
`Structure:
`Corresponding structure for the
`alleged function exists in at
`least the following portions of
`the patent specification, or their
`equivalents:
`Figs. 1, 3, Col. 3:48–4:49;
`4:54–5:62; 6:3–55; 6:60–8:5
`
`I note that the Defendants are unable to agree on whether (and what)
`structure is disclosed in the patent with respect to this claim term, and, accordingly,
`have proffered a declaration from two different experts on this claim term. However, I
`disagree with both Dr. Wells and Dr. Min.
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`EXHIBIT M, APPX439
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 14 of 42
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 88-14 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.4346 Page 15 of 42
`
`For the reasons set forth below, I disagree with Dr. Wells’s opinion that
`this term is subject to Section 112(6) and/or that it “does not have a well-known
`structural meaning in the field.” See Wells Decl. ¶ 83. Likewise, I disagree with Dr.
`Min’s opinion that the term is subject to § 112(6) and that a POSITA would
`understand the structure includes a general purpose computer. See Min Decl. ¶¶ 112–
`116.
`
`I disagree with Dr. Wells’s and Dr. Min’s opinions that the written
`description and the prosecution history fails to impart any structural significance to
`this term. As stated in my opening report, it is my opinion that a POSITA, viewing the
`term in light of the specification, would understand that it refers to a known class of
`structures within multimode cell phones that negotiate and control each of the modes
`of communication. See Madisetti Opening Decl. ¶¶ 56-60.
`Further, as stated in my opening declaration, I disagree with Dr. Min that
`if the term is subject to § 112(6), that there is insufficient structure. I also note that Dr.
`Wells disagrees with Dr. Min’s opinion that the specification lacks sufficient
`structure. See Wells Decl. ¶¶ 88–96. That said, it is my opinion that Dr. Wells does
`not identify the correct structure. The parties agree that, should the Court determine
`the term to be governed by § 112(6), that the relevant function is “to establish
`simultaneous communication paths.” Dr. Wells begins his analysis with the flawed
`assumption that a “POSITA would recognize that the function…is implemented by a
`computer/processor” and that therefore an algorithm must be identified. But a
`POSITA, well-versed in the field of wireless communication technology, would
`understand that each mode of communication (e.g., cell phone, wireless, etc.) is
`controlled by hardware and software components in a multimode cell phone
`interacting with transceivers. This would have been basic knowledge at the time of the
`invention, and it goes beyond mere computer processing technology.
`Dr. Min opines that Steps 202, 204, 206, and 208 fail to recite an
`algorithm to a POSITA. See Min Decl. ¶¶ 118–121. I note that these steps are the
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`EXHIBIT M, APPX440
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 15 of 42
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 88-14 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.4347 Page 16 of 42
`
`exact steps that Dr. Wells identifies as the corresponding structure that is sufficient to
`a POSITA, and therefore that Dr. Wells was able to determine that a POSITA would
`understand the algorithm that Dr. Min was unable to identify. See Wells Decl. ¶¶ 92–
`96.
`
`For the reasons stated in my opening declaration, however, I disagree with
`Dr. Wells’s conclusion that the corresponding structures for this term “are the
`algorithm provided by steps 202-208 in FIG. 2 and the algorithm provided by steps
`402-408 in FIG. 4…” First, FIG. 2 and 4 merely present two embodiments of the
`claimed invention that vary by communication mode. In other words, neither of those
`figures have any bearing on the functionality and structure disclosed for this term in
`the specification, because they represent examples of types of communication paths –
`not the module to establish them.
`Second, Dr. Wells fails to address FIG. 1 and the portions of the
`specification that describe the structures with which “more than one mode of the
`multimode cell phone 100 may operate simultaneously…” ’156 Patent at Col. 3:64–
`4:1. As I explained in my opening declaration, the specification, in conjunction with
`FIG. 1, discloses to one of skill in the art the various components and tools relevant to
`establishing the communication paths. See Madisetti Opening Decl. ¶¶ 61-68.
`G. “an automatic switch over module, in communication with both said cell
`phone functionality and said RF communication functionality, operable
`to switch a communication path established on one of said cell phone
`functionality and said RF communication functionality, with another
`communication path later established on the other of said cell phone
`functionality and said RF communication functionality”
`It is my understanding that the following parties have the following
`positions on the above term from the ’156 Patent:
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`EXHIBIT M, APPX441
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 16 of 42
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-01786-CAB-BLM Document 88-14 Filed 05/24/19 PageID.4348 Page 17 of 42
`
`Kyocera’s Proposed
`Construction
`This is a 112 ¶ 6
`claim element.
`Function: “in
`communication with
`both said cell phone
`functionality and said
`RF communication
`functionality,
`operable to switch a
`communication path
`established on one of
`said cell phone
`functionality and said
`RF communication
`functionality, with
`another
`communication path
`later established on
`the other of said cell
`phone functionality
`and said RF
`communication
`functionality”
`Structure: Indefinite
`for lack of
`c