UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 7,039,435
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JONATHAN WELLS
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,039,435
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1003
`
`Page 1 of 102
`
`
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 7,039,435
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JONATHAN WELLS
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,039,435
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1003
`
`Page 1 of 102
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASSIGNMENT ................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................................... 1
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ...................................................................................... 6
`A. Anticipation ................................................................................................... 6
`B. Obviousness ................................................................................................... 7
`C. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 8
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 9
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ....................................................................... 11
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE ’435 PATENT ..................................................... 14
`A.
`Subject Matter Overview............................................................................. 14
`B.
`File History of the ’435 Patent .................................................................... 16
`VII. INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ’435 PATENT CLAIMS AT ISSUE .......... 17
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED AND PRIOR ART
`REFERENCES................................................................................................ 20
`IX. ANALYSIS OF BAIKER ............................................................................... 20
`X. ANALYSIS OF BAIKER IN VIEW OF WERLING .................................... 39
`XI. ANALYSIS OF IRVIN ................................................................................... 48
`XII. ANALYSIS OF IRVIN AND MYLLYMÄKI ............................................... 68
`XIII. ANALYSIS OF BODIN AND IRVIN ........................................................... 73
`XIV. ADDITIONAL REMARKS ........................................................................... 86
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`I, Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., of Pleasanton, California, declare that:
`
`I.
`
`ASSIGNMENT
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert by counsel on behalf of
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung” or “Petitioner”). I understand that
`
`Samsung is requesting that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or
`
`“Board”) institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,039,435 (“the ’435 patent”) (EX1001).
`
`
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent analysis of the ’435
`
`patent in light of the prior art publications cited below.
`
`
`
`I am not, and never have been, an employee of Samsung. I received
`
`no compensation for this declaration beyond my normal hourly compensation
`
`based on my time actually spent analyzing the ’435 patent, the prior art
`
`publications cited below, and the issues related thereto, and I will not receive any
`
`added compensation based on the outcome of any IPR or other proceeding
`
`involving the ’435 patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`I received a B.Sc. in Physics with Physical Electronics, awarded with
`
`first class honors, from the University of Bath in Bath, United Kingdom, in 1987.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 3 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`In 1991, I earned by Ph.D., also from the University of Bath. I earned my M.B.A.,
`
`awarded with distinction, from Massey University in New Zealand, in 1998.
`
`
`
`I have over 30 years of wireless communications experience in areas
`
`including cellular technologies, wireless devices, network infrastructure, and
`
`wireless rules and regulations. I have written a textbook and multiple industry
`
`reports and journal/conference papers which focus on wireless communications
`
`systems. For example, I am the author of “Multi-Gigabit Microwave and
`
`Millimeter-Wave Wireless Communications,” published by Artech House in 2010.
`
`I have also authored four comprehensive industry reports on cellular connectivity
`
`for Mobile Experts. I have lectured as part of undergraduate programs at
`
`University of California, Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon University, and University of
`
`Bath, and have given over two dozen lectures and conference presentations on
`
`topics germane to wireless communications. I am also a listed inventor of several
`
`patents, and am an author of over 40 academic and commercial publications and
`
`presentations.
`
`
`
`I began my career in 1985, as an Engineer for Plessey Research,
`
`Caswell, United Kingdom, developing high-speed fiber optic transmitter/receiver
`
`devices. In 1987, I worked at British Aerospace, Filton, Bristol, United Kingdom,
`
`designing and fabricating novel mixer devices, to support my Ph.D. research. Later
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 4 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`in 1990, as a Post-Doctoral Research Officer for University of Bath, I designed and
`
`fabricated novel quantum amplifiers in a clean room environment and developed
`
`computer models to predict semiconductor device performance.
`
`
`
`In 1993, I joined Matra Marconi Space, Portsmouth, United Kingdom,
`
`as a Senior Software Engineer and developed GaAs MMIC mixer and MIC
`
`transmitter board for two satellite payloads and performed theoretical analysis and
`
`modeling of low noise VCOs.
`
`
`
`From 1994 to 1998, I worked for MAS Technology (now Aviat
`
`Networks), Wellington, New Zealand, first as Senior RF Design Engineer and later
`
`as RF Group Manager. I was responsible for RF hardware development for cellular
`
`and telecommunications applications; developed three generations of wireless
`
`transmission, switching, and multiplexing products; designed and sustained
`
`responsibility for satellite ground station terminals; and was responsible for
`
`company’s European regulatory approvals.
`
`
`
`In 1998, I joined Adaptive Broadband (now GE Digital Energy),
`
`Rochester, New York, first as Engineering Group Leader and later as Director
`
`Wideband Products. I was responsible for the Terrestrial Infrastructure Group,
`
`providing telecommunications products for cellular and private network
`
`applications; managed P&L responsibility for $4M wireless division; and was
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 5 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`responsible for the development of a family of digital radios and associated
`
`switching/multiplexing equipment.
`
` From 2000 to 2004, I worked for Stratex Networks (now Aviat
`
`Networks), San Jose, California, as Director Product Development. I was
`
`responsible for global product development of high-end digital microwave radios
`
`primarily for cellular backhaul applications; led RF/microwave development team
`
`of 35 engineers based in two continents; performed technical leadership of flagship
`
`Eclipse product, shipping over 250,000 units; and was responsible for technical
`
`management of overseas manufacturing subcontractors.
`
`
`
`In 2005, I joined GigaBeam Corporation, Herndon, Virginia, as
`
`Director Product Management and Global Regulatory Affairs. I was responsible
`
`for product strategy for industry-transforming high data rate wireless product;
`
`initiated market development in over 40 countries including in Europe, Canada,
`
`Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia; and participated and drove
`
`standard development in FCC, CEPT, and ETSI technical meetings.
`
` Since 2007, I have been an independent consultant with AJIS
`
`Consulting, where I provide independent technical consulting on wireless
`
`communications and emerging wireless fields. The services I provide include:
`
`acting as a technical expert support of 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular and wireless
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 6 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`patent litigation; providing analysis of cellular and mobile wireless patents and
`
`infringing equipment; providing cellular and wireless technology technical and
`
`industry analysis for companies, analysts, and investment institutions, and
`
`researching and publication of analyst reports; providing wireless product
`
`development and marketing strategies; providing specialized technical workshops
`
`on various wireless technologies, including cellular networks, mm-wave radios,
`
`security sensors, and short range radios; and providing specialized global
`
`regulatory tasks and product approvals.
`
` My curriculum vitae, attached to this declaration as Appendix A, sets
`
`forth details of my background and relevant experience. My CV includes a listing
`
`of cases for which I have provided expert testimony over the last four years and a
`
`complete list of publications I have authored.
`
` Based on my experience and education, I believe that I am qualified to
`
`opine as to the knowledge and level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention of the ’435 patent (which I further describe below)
`
`and what such a person would have understood at that time, and the state of the art
`
`during that time. Based on my experiences, I understand and know of the
`
`capabilities of persons of ordinary skill in this field during the late 1990s and early
`
`2000s and specifically during the time of the alleged invention of the ’435 patent.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 7 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`Indeed, I taught, participated in organizations, and worked closely with many such
`
`persons in the field during that time frame.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`In forming my analysis and conclusions expressed in this declaration,
`
`I have applied the legal principles described in the following paragraphs, which
`
`were provided to me by counsel for the Petitioner.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “anticipated” if
`
`each and every element of a claim, as properly construed, is found either explicitly
`
`or inherently in a single prior art reference. Under the principles of inherency, I
`
`understand that if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes
`
`the claimed limitations, it anticipates.
`
`
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid if the claimed invention
`
`was known or used by others in the U.S., or was patented or published anywhere,
`
`before the Applicant’s invention. I further have been informed that a claim is
`
`invalid if the invention was patented or published anywhere, or was in public use,
`
`on sale, or offered for sale in this country, more than one year prior to the filing
`
`date of the patent application (critical date). I have also been informed that a claim
`
`is invalid if an invention described by that claim was described in a U.S. patent
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 8 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`granted on an application for a patent (or in a published application for a U.S.
`
`patent) that was filed by another in the U.S. before the date of invention for such a
`
`claim.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” in
`
`light of one or more prior art references if it would have been obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (“POSITA”; refer to
`
`¶¶23-24 below), taking into account (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2)
`
`the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, and (4) any so called “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness,
`
`which include: (i) “long felt need” for the claimed invention, (ii) commercial
`
`success attributable to the claimed invention, (iii) unexpected results of the claimed
`
`invention, and (iv) “copying” of the claimed invention by others.
`
` While I do not know the exact date that the alleged invention claimed
`
`in the ’435 patent was made, I do know that the application that led to the ’435
`
`patent (U.S. Appl. No. 09/967,140) was filed on September 28, 2001 (EX1001 at
`
`cover page). For purposes of my analysis here, I have applied a date of September
`
`28, 2001 as the date of the alleged invention in my obviousness analysis, although
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 9 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`in many cases the same analysis would hold true even if the date of the alleged
`
`invention occurred earlier than September 28, 2001.
`
`
`
`I have been informed that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`prior art reference or multiple prior art references. To be obvious in light of a
`
`single prior art reference or multiple prior art references, there must be a reason
`
`that would have prompted a POSITA to modify the single prior art reference, or
`
`combine two or more references, in a manner that provides the elements of the
`
`claimed invention. This reason may come from a teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine, or may come from the reference(s) themselves, the
`
`knowledge or “common sense” of a POSITA, or from the nature of the problem to
`
`be solved, and this reason may be explicit or implicit from the prior art as a whole.
`
`I have been informed that, under the law, the predictable combination of familiar
`
`elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
`
`than yield predictable results. I also understand it is improper to rely on hindsight
`
`in making the obviousness determination.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`I understand that, for purposes of my analysis in this inter partes
`
`review proceeding, the terms appearing in the patent claims should be interpreted
`
`according to their “ordinary and customary meaning.” In determining the ordinary
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 10 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`and custom meaning, the words of a claim are first given their plain meaning that
`
`those words would have had to a POSITA. I understand that the structure of the
`
`claims, the specification, and the file history also may be used to better construe a
`
`claim insofar as the plain meaning of the claims cannot be understood. Moreover,
`
`treatises and dictionaries may be used, albeit under limited circumstances, to
`
`determine the meaning attributed by a POSITA to a claim term at the time of
`
`filing. I have followed this approach in my analysis.
`
`
`
`I also understand that the words of the claims should be interpreted as
`
`they would have been interpreted by a POSITA at the time the alleged invention
`
`was made (not today). Because I do not know at what date the alleged invention
`
`was made, I have used the date of September 28, 2001 for reasons explained in ¶19
`
`(above) and ¶24 (below). However, the plain meanings/interpretations that I
`
`employed in my analysis below would have also been correct if the date of
`
`invention was anywhere within the early to mid-2000s.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
` Based on my knowledge and experience in the field and my review of
`
`the ’435 patent and its file history, I believe that a POSITA would have had at least
`
`a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer
`
`science, or a related technical field, and at least 1-2 years of experience in the field
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 11 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`of wireless communication devices, or an equivalent advanced education in the
`
`field of wireless communication devices. For purposes of assessing this level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, I have considered the types of problems encountered in the
`
`art, the prior solutions to those problems found in prior art references, the speed
`
`with which innovations were made at that time, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, and the level of education of active workers in the field. As previously
`
`described, I have reviewed and understand the ’435 patent, and I understand these
`
`factors. Based on my above-described experiences (refer to ¶¶4-14 above), I am
`
`familiar with and know of the capabilities of a POSITA in this field during the
`
`relevant time frame. My analysis and conclusions as expressed herein are thus
`
`based on the perspective of a POSITA having this level of knowledge and skill at
`
`the time of the alleged invention of the ’435 patent.
`
` Because I do not know at what date the alleged invention as claimed
`
`was made, I have used the filing date of the application that led to the ’435 patent
`
`claims priority as the point in time from which my analysis from the perspective of
`
`a POSITA is based. Again, as previously explained, that date was September 28,
`
`2001. However, my analysis of the prior art and the conclusion herein would also
`
`apply even if the date of the alleged invention as claimed was anywhere within the
`
`early 2000s.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 12 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
` My analyses set forth in this declaration are based on my experience
`
`in the field of wireless communication devices and associated technologies. Based
`
`on my above-described experience in the field of wireless communication devices,
`
`I believe that I am considered to be an expert in the field. Also, based on my
`
`experiences, I understand and know of the capabilities of persons of ordinary skill
`
`in this field during the late 1990s to early to mid-2000s and specifically during the
`
`time before the alleged priority date (September 28, 2001) for the ’435 patent, and
`
`I taught, participated in organizations, and worked closely with many such persons
`
`in the field during that time frame.
`
` As part of my independent analysis for this declaration, I have
`
`considered the following: the background knowledge/technologies that were
`
`commonly known to persons of ordinary skill in this field during the time before
`
`the alleged priority date for the ’435 patent; my own knowledge and experiences
`
`gained from my work experience in the fields of electrical engineering and
`
`wireless communication devices generally; my experience in teaching and advising
`
`others in those subjects; and my experience in working with others involved in
`
`those fields. In addition, I have analyzed the following publications and materials:
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 13 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 7,039,435 to McDowell et al. (“the ’435 patent”)
`
`(EX1001)
`
`
`
` File History of the ’435 Patent (EX1002)
`
`
`
`
`
` Certified English Translation of European Patent Publication EP
`
`1091498 (“Baiker”) (EX1004)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,456,856 (“Werling”) (EX1005)
`
`
`
` PCT Patent Publication WO 2002/05443 (“Irvin”) (EX1006)
`
`
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,018,646 (“Myllymäki”) (EX1007)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 5,390,338 (“Bodin”) (EX1008)
`
`
`
` Joint Claim Construction Chart, Worksheet, and Hearing Statement in
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, v. Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co.,
`
`Ltd., Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device USA,
`
`Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-1784) (S.D.Cal., filed 4/19/19) (EX1009)
`
`
`
` U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 09/612,034 (“Irvin
`
`Provisional”) (EX1010)
`
` Michael Barr, Programming Embedded Systems in C and C++
`
`(O’Reilly & Associates, 1999) (EX1011)
`
`
`
` Rudolf F. Graf, Modern Dictionary of Electronics (Butter-worth-
`
`Heinemann, 1999) (EX1012)
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`
` Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (Miller Free-man, Inc.,
`
`1999) (EX1013)
`
`
`
` Webster’s II New College Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Co, 1999)
`
`(EX1014)
`
`
`
` Martin H. Weik, Fiber Optics Standard Dictionary (Chapman & Hall,
`
`1997) (EX1015)
`
`
`
` European Patent Publication EP 1091498 (EX1016)
`
` Webster’s New World College Dictionary (Simon & Schuster, 1997)
`
`(EX1017)
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 6,029,074 (“Irvin ’074”) (EX1018)
`
` Defendants’ Joint Opening Claim Construction Brief in Bell Northern
`
`Research, LLC, v. Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei
`
`Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Huawei De-vice USA, Inc. (Case
`
`No. 3:18-cv-1784) (S.D. Cal.) (EX1019)
`
` Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in Bell Northern
`
`Research, LLC, v. Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei
`
`Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (Case No.
`
`3:18-cv-1784) (S.D. Cal.) (EX1020)
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 15 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`
` Although this declaration refers to selected portions of the cited
`
`references for the sake of brevity, it should be understood that these are examples,
`
`and that a POSITA would have viewed the references cited herein in their entirety
`
`and in combination with other references cited herein or cited within the references
`
`themselves. The references used in this declaration, therefore, should be viewed as
`
`being considered herein in their entireties.
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE ’435 PATENT
`A.
`Subject Matter Overview
` The ’435 patent is titled “Proximity Regulation System for Use With a
`
`Portable Cell Phone and a Method of Operation Thereof” and is directed generally
`
`to the reduction of the transmit power level of a cell phone when the phone is near
`
`a human body. EX1001, 1:63-67. For example, the ’435 patent describes a
`
`“portable cell phone 200” that includes a “proximity regulation system 210,” a
`
`“location sensing subsystem,” and a “power circuit 240.” EX1001, 4:19-31. The
`
`location sensing subsystem “determines a location of the portable cell phone 200
`
`proximate a user,” such as that the “portable cell phone 200 is proximate the head
`
`of the user,” and the “proximity regulation system 210 determines a proximity
`
`transmit power level of the portable cell phone 200 based on the location of the
`
`portable cell phone 200 proximate a portable cell phone user.” EX1001, 4:31-61;
`
`see also 3:43-54. The “power circuit” may be a “typical power circuit” that
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 16 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`provides a transmit power level. EX1001, 3:31-34. A “network adjusted transmit
`
`power level may be reduced to a value determined by the proximity transmit power
`
`level when the location of the portable cell phone 200 is within the vicinity of the
`
`user’s head,” and “just within the vicinity of a user’s body.” EX1001, 5:24-36.
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 2.
`
` As I explain in greater detail below, the ’435 patent describes features
`
`that were well-known in similar mobile devices before the earliest asserted priority
`
`date of the ’435 patent, as exemplified by at least the Baiker (EX1004, EX1016),
`
`Irvin (EX1006), and Bodin (EX1008) references.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 17 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`B.
`File History of the ’435 Patent
` As part of my preparation of this declaration, I reviewed the file
`
`history of the ’435 patent (EX1002). I understand that the application that led to
`
`the ’435 patent was filed on September 28, 2001. See EX1001 at Cover Page.
`
`The ’435 patent eventually issued on May 2, 2006. Id.
`
` The USPTO issued an office action on August 13, 2004. EX1002 at
`
`77-89. In that office action, the examiner rejected claim 19—which corresponds to
`
`claim 1 of the ’435 patent—as unpatentable over Werling and Vogel. EX1002 at
`
`84-85. In response, the applicant presented arguments and amendments. Id., 69.
`
`The applicant argued that Werling and Vogel did not teach a power circuit that
`
`provides a network adjusted transmit power level “as a function of a position to a
`
`communications tower,” and thus that Werling and Vogel failed to teach a power
`
`governing subsystem that determines “a transmit power level for a portable cell
`
`phone based on a network adjusted transmit power level and a proximity transmit
`
`power level as recited in Claim 19.” Id., 69, 73-74. The USPTO issued a final
`
`office action on August 8, 2005 in which claims 19-27 were allowed. Id., 20-27.
`
`Claims 1-18 remained rejected. Id. at 20-27. The applicant canceled rejected
`
`claims 1-18, and a notice of allowance followed. EX1002, 4-7; 15-18.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 18 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`
`
`
`I note that the examiner provided reasons for their conclusion that
`
`claims 19-27 were allowable, which emphasized the final element of issued claim
`
`1. EX1002, 27. Based on my review of the record, it appears that some of the
`
`more pertinent references listed above (and which I analyze below) were never
`
`analyzed in any office action by the examiner during prosecution. As I explain in
`
`detail below, based upon my knowledge and experience in this field and my review
`
`of the publications cited here, I do not agree that at least claim 8 of the ’435 patent
`
`is patentable over the prior art. For example, at least the Baiker and Irvin
`
`references describe the elements of claim 8.
`
`VII. INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ’435 PATENT CLAIMS AT ISSUE
`
`I have been asked to provide my interpretation of the following terms
`
`of the ’435 patent set forth below. In providing the following interpretations, I have
`
`carefully considered and applied the claim construction standard referred to in
`
`¶¶21-22 above. Additionally, I have been informed that the ’435 patent is the
`
`subject of litigation in federal district court in which claims or terms of the ’435
`
`patent have been proposed by the parties. See EX1009 (joint claim construction
`
`statement).
`
` Claim 8 depends from claim 1, and thus incorporates therein all of the
`
`elements of claim 1. Claim 1 recites a “position to a communications tower.”
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 19 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`Here, I address a first claim construction and a second, alternative claim
`
`construction for this phrase. For reasons detailed below, the claims are disclosed
`
`by prior art under either construction. According to the first construction, the
`
`phrase “position to a communications tower” means “transmit signal strength of a
`
`communications path between the communications tower and the portable cell
`
`phone.” EX1020, 63-71; EX1009, 63, 129 (citing ’435 patent, 3:39-42 and
`
`“Mobile Communications Engineering: Theory and Applications”). Based on this
`
`interpretation, the claim language incorporates the embodiment described in
`
`column 3 of the ’435 patent. In that embodiment, the “network adjusted transmit
`
`power level is based on a transmit signal strength of a communications path
`
`between the communications tower 110 and the portable cell phone 120.”
`
`EX1001, 3:39-42. I note that this construction does not apply the ordinary
`
`meaning of “position,” but instead equates the term “position” with a “signal
`
`strength” based on the embodiment described in column 3. Baiker and Irvin each
`
`describe this feature of a network adjusted transmit power level based on a transmit
`
`signal strength, as I discuss in detail below. Infra, ¶¶43-46, 79-84.
`
` The straightforward, literal language of “position to a communications
`
`tower” provides the second, alternative construction. Based on my knowledge and
`
`experience in the field, the term “position” is not a term of art with a specialized
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 20 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`meaning in the field. Additionally, I note that the ’435 patent does not
`
`lexicographically define the term “position” in a specialized way. A POSITA
`
`would have thus understood “position” as used in the ’435 patent as a location or
`
`distance relative another object. The phrase “position to a communications tower”
`
`thus describes a location or distance to a communications tower. That is, the
`
`phrase would have been understood as describing a position of the portable cell
`
`phone relative to a communications tower. This ordinary usage of the term
`
`“position” interpretation is consistent with the intrinsic evidence. For example,
`
`the ’435 patent recites “the present invention provides a portable cell phone that
`
`includes a power circuit as a function of a position to a communications tower and
`
`a proximity regulation system.” EX1001, 2:18-21. Importantly, the ’435 patent
`
`specification uses the term “position” in multiple places consistent with the above-
`
`described ordinary meaning of “position”—never confining the term “position” to
`
`the boundaries of “a transmit signal strength.” Id., 3:4-6 (“positioned”); 6:33-37
`
`(“position indicator” and “positioned”). I note that dictionary definitions at the
`
`time of the ’435 patent confirm this ordinary meaning of “position.” EX1014 (“a
`
`place or location”); EX1017 (“the place where a person or thing is, esp. in relation
`
`to others”). As detailed below, Bodin describes adjusting transmit power based on
`
`distance to a base station/communication tower. Infra, ¶¶116-118.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Page 21 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED AND PRIOR ART
`REFERENCES
` This declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed based on
`
`my independent analysis. To summarize those conclusions:
`
` Claim 8 of the ’435 patent is anticipated by Baiker.
`
` Claim 8 of the ’435 patent is obvious in light of Baiker in view of
`
`Werling.
`
` Claim 8 of the ’435 patent is anticipated by Irvin.
`
` Claim 8 of the ’435 patent is obvious in light of Irvin in view of
`
`Myllymäki.
`
` Claim 8 of the ’435 patent is obvious in light of Bodin in view of
`
`Irvin.
`
`IX. ANALYSIS OF BAIKER
` For the reasons articulated in detail below, and based on my review of
`
`the ’435 patent, file history, and the prior art references cited here, it is clear that a
`
`POSITA would have readily understood that the teachings of Baiker provide all the
`
`elements of claim 8.
`
` Baiker, titled “Hand-Held Mobile Telephone and Method for the
`
`Operation of the Same,” was published April 11, 2001, before the filing date of
`
`the ’435 patent. EX1005, cover. Baiker describes a “hand-held mobile telephone”
`
`
`
`20
`
`Page 22 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`in which “the damage potential of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the
`
`device can be efficiently reduced for the user.” EX1004, Abstract, [0006]-[0007].
`
`In more detail, Baiker describes controlling “the power of the RF transmitter … on
`
`the basis of a distance measured (e.g., to the user’s head).” Id.
`
`EX1004, FIG. 1.
`
` Baiker describes that the “mobile telephone 1” includes an “RF
`
`transmitter (10/6)” that includes an “antenna 6” and “RF amplifier 10,” “a sensor
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`Page 23 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`(7) for measuring a distance between the hand-held [mobile telephone] and a body
`
`part of a user,” and “a circuit (15) for controlling the power of the RF transmitter
`
`(10/6) depending on the measured distance.” Id., Abstract, [0019]. The antenna 6
`
`“forms the interface to the base station.” Id., [0025]. These features are depicted
`
`in the annotated block diagram below.
`
` Baiker describes that the “mobile telephone” uses a measured distance
`
`between the device and body part of the user (indicated in a “distance signal”) and
`
`a “quality signal supplied by the base station” to regulate the power of the RF
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`Page 24 of 102
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells
`U.S. Patent No. 7,039,435
`
`transmitter. Id., [0028]. The “control 15,” shown in FIG. 3 above, regulates RF
`
`amplifier 10 based on a “first input for a distance signal, which is detected and
`
`processed by the distance sensor 7 and the sensor electronics 14,” and “a second
`
`input” that “is provided for a quality signal supplied by the base station.” Id. For
`
`example, the measured distance can be used to determine an “allowed maximum
`
`value” of the output of the RF amplifier 10, and the quality signal, which
`
`“measures the strength of the signal received from the hand-held mobile
`
`telephone,” is used to determine “by what value [
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
