`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`
`Page 1 of 73
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I.
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`II. Qualifications and Background ....................................................................... 1
`III. Summary of Opinions ...................................................................................... 6
`IV. Technology of the ’952 Patent ......................................................................... 7
`V.
`Legal Standard ...............................................................................................10
`A. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................10
`VI. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................11
`VII. Unpatentability ..............................................................................................12
`A. Ground 1 ..............................................................................................13
`1.
`Overview of Paulson ................................................................13
`2.
`Overview of Surprenant ...........................................................15
`3.
`Rationale for Combining Paulson and Surprenant ..................18
`4.
`The Combination of Paulson and Surprenant Discloses
`Every Feature of the Challenged Claims ..................................23
`a.
`Claim 9 ............................................................................23
`b.
`Claim 10 ..........................................................................51
`c.
`Claim 11 ..........................................................................54
`d.
`Claim 12 ..........................................................................56
`B. Ground 2 ..............................................................................................57
`1.
`Overview of Beenau..................................................................57
`2.
`Rationale to Combine Paulson and Surprenant with
`Beenau .......................................................................................58
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 73
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`The Combination of Paulson and Surprenant in View of
`Beenau Discloses Every Feature of the Challenged
`Claims .......................................................................................62
`a.
`Claim 9 ............................................................................62
`b.
`Claims 10-12 ...................................................................66
`C. Ground 3 ..............................................................................................66
`1.
`Overview of McConnell ............................................................66
`2.
`The Combination of Paulson and Surprenant in View of
`McConnell Discloses Every Feature of Claim 11 .....................67
`a.
`Claim 11 ..........................................................................67
`D. Ground 4 ..............................................................................................69
`1.
`The Combination of Paulson, Surprenant, and Beenau in
`View of McConnell Discloses Every Feature of Claim 11 ......69
`a.
`Claim 11 ..........................................................................69
`VIII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................70
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 73
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`Introduction
`I, Stuart J. Lipoff, submit this declaration to state my opinions on the
`1.
`
`matters described below.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Google, LLC, as an independent expert in this
`
`proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`(“the ’952 patent”), and that I have been asked to provide my opinions as to the
`
`patentability or unpatentability of certain claims of the ’952 patent.
`
`4.
`
`This declaration sets forth my opinions, which I have formed in this
`
`proceeding based on my study of the evidence; my understanding as an expert in the
`
`field; and my education, training, research, knowledge, and personal and
`
`professional experience.
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at the rate of $375 per hour. This
`
`compensation is in no way contingent upon the nature of my findings, the
`
`presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`II. Qualifications and Background
`I believe that I am well qualified to serve as a technical expert in this
`6.
`
`matter based upon my educational and work experience.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that my curriculum vitae (“CV)” is being filed in this
`
`proceeding as Exhibit 1004.
`
`[Introduction]
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 4 of 73
`
`

`

`
`
`8.
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`I am currently the president of IP Action Partners Inc., which is a
`
`consulting practice serving the telecommunications, information technology, media,
`
`electronics, and e-business industries.
`
`9.
`
`Through consulting projects, industry involvement, and educational
`
`studies, I have gained substantial experience with the technologies at issue in this
`
`proceeding. For example, throughout my career, I have been heavily involved in the
`
`study, analysis, evaluation, design, and implementation of systems and products
`
`involving wired and wireless communications. My wireless work has been wide
`
`ranging, and includes development of multiple access layer protocols used in today’s
`
`IEEE 802.11 WiFi networks, and analysis of alternative cellular air interface
`
`technologies that led to Sprint PCS selecting CDMA as their technology of choice.
`
`I have worked with multiple domestic and international cellular services providers
`
`to assist in securing their license authorizations and developing plans for future
`
`services. I have also worked with manufacturers of cellular handsets and
`
`infrastructure equipment to evaluate their product offerings and recommend next
`
`generation products. My wired telecommunications work has been equally wide
`
`ranging, and includes projects for Mitel and Tadiran involving business telephone
`
`systems and the analysis of a next generation digital internet protocol multimedia
`
`nationally deployed telephone network.
`
`[Qualifications and Background]
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 5 of 73
`
`

`

`
`
`10. With particular
`
`respect
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`to employing
`sonic and acoustic
`
`communications I have worked on several such projects. I contributed to the design
`
`of a digital sonar transmitter (“pinger”) incorporated in the Navy’s MK48 torpedoes
`
`used in test exercises. In this application, the pinger sent digital coded depth and
`
`geolocation information to the hydrophones of surface ships to monitor and score
`
`the test exercise.
`
`11.
`
`I also contributed
`
`to
`
`the
`
`testing and
`
`improvement of UQC
`
`communications systems that naval submarines use to send and receive digital coded
`
`ultrasonic messages between ships.
`
`12. For Arbitron, I evaluated their design and compared the design of their
`
`personal people meter (“PPM”) to other technologies. This PPM device consisted
`
`of a body worn battery powered microphone and associated signal processing
`
`apparatus that volunteer members of an audience research panel would wear during
`
`their daily activities. The PPM listened to ambient sounds and would log and time
`
`stamp indications of specific musical performances and advertising messages.
`
`13. For Magnavox Cable TV, I designed a cable TV set-top box converter
`
`that employed a hand-held battery operated ultrasonic remote control.
`
`14.
`
`I earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering in 1968
`
`and a second Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering Physics in 1969, both from
`
`Lehigh University. I also earned a Master of Science degree in Electrical
`
`[Qualifications and Background]
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 6 of 73
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`Engineering from Northeastern University in 1974, and a Master of Business
`
`Administration degree from Suffolk University in 1983.
`
`15.
`
`I have prepared and presented many papers at IEEE and other
`
`professional meetings. For example, in Fall 2000, I served as general program chair
`
`for
`
`the
`
`IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference on advanced wireless
`
`communications technology. I have also organized sessions at The International
`
`Conference on Consumer Electronics and was the 1984 program chairman. I also
`
`conducted an eight-week IEEE sponsored short course on Fiber Optics System
`
`Design. I received IEEE’s Centennial Medal in 1984, and I received the IEEE’s
`
`Millennium Medal in 2000.
`
`16.
`
`I hold a Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) General
`
`Radiotelephone License. I also hold a Certificate in Data Processing (“CDP”) from
`
`the Association for Computing Machinery (“ACM”)-supported Institute for the
`
`Certification of Computing Professionals (“ICCP”).
`
`17.
`
`I am a registered professional engineer in the Commonwealth of
`
`Massachusetts and in the State of Nevada.
`
`18.
`
`I am a fellow of the IEEE Consumer Electronics, Communications,
`
`Computer, Circuits, and Vehicular Technology Groups. I have been a member of
`
`the IEEE Consumer Electronics Society National Board of Governors (formerly
`
`known as the Administrative Committee) since 1981, and I was the Boston Chapter
`
`[Qualifications and Background]
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 7 of 73
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`Chairman of the IEEE Vehicular Technology Society from 1974 to 1976. I served
`
`as the 1996-1997 President of the IEEE Consumer Electronics Society, and have
`
`also served as Chairman of the Society’s Technical Activities and Standards
`
`Committee, and served as Vice President of Publications for the Society. Currently
`
`I serve as Vice President of Standards and Industry Activities for the Society. I have
`
`also served as an Ibuka Award committee member for the IEEE’s Award in the field
`
`of consumer electronics.
`
`19. As Vice President and Standards Group Chairman of the Association
`
`of Computer Users (“ACU”), I served as the ACU representative to the ANSI X3
`
`Standards Group. I also served as Chairman of the task group on user rule
`
`compliance for the FCC’s Citizens Advisory Committee on Citizen’s Band (“CB”)
`
`radio (“PURAC”).
`
`20.
`
`I have been elected to membership in the Society of Cable Television
`
`Engineers (“SCTE”), the ACM, and The Society of Motion Picture and Television
`
`Engineers (“SMPTE”). I also served as a member of the USA advisory board to the
`
`National Science Museum of Israel, presented a short course on international product
`
`development strategies as a faculty member of Technion Institute of Management in
`
`Israel, and served as a member of the board or directors of The Massachusetts Future
`
`Problem Solving Program.
`
`[Qualifications and Background]
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 8 of 73
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`I am a named inventor on seven United States patents and have several
`
`21.
`
`publications on data communications tops in Electronics Design, Microwaves, EDN,
`
`The Proceedings of the Frequency Control Symposium, Optical Spectra, and IEEE
`
`publications.
`
`22. For 25 years, I worked for Arthur D. Little, Inc. (“ADL”), where I
`
`became Vice President and Director of Communications, Information Technology,
`
`and Electronics (“CIE”). At ADL, I was responsible for the firm’s global CIE
`
`practice in laboratory-based contract engineering, product development, and
`
`technology-based consulting.
`
`23. Prior to my time at ADL, I served as a Section Manager for Bell &
`
`Howell Communications Company for four years. Prior to working at Bell &
`
`Howell, I served as a Project Engineer for Motorola’s Communications Division for
`
`three years. At both Bell & Howell and Motorola, I had project design
`
`responsibilities for wireless communication and paging products.
`
`24. Please see my attached CV for a selected list of my published works,
`
`conferences, and academic presentations.
`
`III. Summary of Opinions
`I have been asked to provide my opinion on whether the claims of the
`25.
`
`’952 patent are unpatentable over certain prior art references. It is my opinion that
`
`[Summary of Opinions]
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 9 of 73
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`each of claims 9-12 of the ’952 patent is unpatentable because each would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in view of the prior art.
`
`IV. Technology of the ’952 Patent
`titled “Near Field Authentication Through
`26. The ’952 patent,
`
`Communication of Enclosed Content Sound Waves,” discloses near-field
`
`authentication of sources using “encoded sound waves” rather than radio waves.
`
`(’952 patent at 1:10-16.) It explains that other methods of wireless communication,
`
`such as WiFi, Bluetooth, and conventional radio near-field communication, require
`
`upgrades or retrofitting with expensive equipment and software. (’952 patent at
`
`1:18-60.) To solve this alleged problem, the ’952 patent discloses communicating
`
`using sound waves, which avoids the need to have “physical components modified
`
`with expensive equipment” because the system “can use the speaker already
`
`included in the [device],” such as a mobile phone. (’952 patent at 11:42-59.)
`
`27. Before sending information using sound waves, the described invention
`
`first scans a plurality of audio frequencies for a free frequency, which can be “a
`
`frequency which has a noise level below a predetermined noise level threshold or a
`
`frequency that has an interference level below a predetermined interference level
`
`threshold.” (’952 patent at 5:7-21, Fig. 6.) The described invention then selects the
`
`free frequency. (’952 patent at 5:7-21, 11:18-24, Fig. 6.) The described invention
`
`then uses “known techniques for generating a device fingerprint,” which comprises
`
`[Technology of the ’952 Patent]
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 10 of 73
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`a “bit array that includes or is derived from user-configurable and non-user-
`
`configurable data specific to the audio transceiver computing device,” which is
`
`included in the content of a periodic enclosed content message. (’952 patent at 5:22-
`
`51, 6:34-37.) The described invention next generates a modulated carrier wave
`
`representing the enclosed content message and transmits the modulated carrier at the
`
`free frequency. (’952 patent at 5:38-51.) The ’952 patent depicts this process in the
`
`flowchart of Figure 6:
`
`(’952 patent at Fig. 6.)
`
`[Technology of the ’952 Patent]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 11 of 73
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`28. The periodic enclosed content message includes “multiple periods with
`
`each period including an enclosed content message.” (’952 patent at 5:52-54.) Each
`
`enclosed content message includes a begin indication, message content, and an end
`
`indication. (’952 patent at 5:55-60.) The begin indication can be “any type of signal
`
`that uniquely indicates the beginning of the enclosed content message, for example,
`
`a specified sequence of binary bits.” (’952 patent at 5:60-63.) Similarly, the end
`
`indication can be “any type of signal that indicates the ending of the enclosed content
`
`message.” (’952 patent at 5:63-65.) The ’952 patent depicts enclosed content
`
`messages 302a and 302n in Figure 3.
`
`(’952 patent at Fig. 3.)
`
`
`
`[Technology of the ’952 Patent]
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 12 of 73
`
`

`

`
`V. Legal Standard
`In forming my opinions and considering the subject matter of the ’952
`29.
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`patent and its claims in light of the prior art, I am relying on certain legal principles
`
`that counsel in this case has explained to me. My understanding of these concepts
`
`is summarized below.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the claims define the invention. I also understand that
`
`an unpatentability analysis is a two-step process. First, the claims of the patent are
`
`construed to determine their meaning and scope. Second, once the claims have been
`
`construed, the content of the prior art is compared to the construed claims.
`
`31. For purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to opine only on
`
`issues regarding the technology at issue, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and
`
`obviousness. I have also been informed of the following legal standards, which I
`
`have applied in forming my opinions.
`
`A. Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`I understand that the existence of each and every element of the claimed
`32.
`
`invention in the prior art does not necessarily prove obviousness and that most, if
`
`not all, inventions rely on building blocks of prior art. But I have been informed that
`
`a claim may be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`
`between the subject matter patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`[Legal Standard]
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 13 of 73
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`time the invention was made. I have also been advised that several factual inquiries
`
`underlie a determination of obviousness. These inquiries include (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) any objective evidence of
`
`non-obviousness.
`
`VI. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I have been informed that unpatentability must be analyzed from the
`33.
`
`perspective of “one of ordinary skill in the art” in the same field as the patent-in-suit
`
`at the time of the invention. I have also been informed that several factors are
`
`considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, including the (1) types
`
`of problems encountered in the prior art; (2) prior-art solutions to those problems;
`
`(3) rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) sophistication of the technology;
`
`and (5) educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`34.
`
`I am familiar with the technology at issue here and the state of the art
`
`at the time the provisional application leading to the ’952 patent was filed on
`
`February 6, 2012. For purposes of this Declaration, I believe that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been someone knowledgeable in the field of
`
`wireless communications. That person would have held a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering or computer science, or equivalent training, and would have
`
`one year of experience working with wireless communications. Less work
`
`[Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art]
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 14 of 73
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s
`
`degree, and vice versa.
`
`35.
`
`I consider myself to have such “level of ordinary skill in the art” with
`
`respect to the subject matter of the ’952 patent at the time of the application, as I
`
`have a degree in electrical engineering and experience in wireless communications.
`
`Thus, I am able to opine on how the person of ordinary skill would have understood
`
`the disclosure and claims of the ’952 patent, the disclosures of the prior art, the
`
`motivation to combine the prior art, and what combinations would or would not have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`VII. Unpatentability
`36. The analysis below presents the technical subject matter described in
`
`the ’952 patent, as well as background known in the art as of the earliest priority date
`
`of the ’952 patent. It also presents my opinions regarding the unpatentability of
`
`certain ’952 patent claims based on certain references that I considered.
`
`37.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood claims 9-12 of the ’952 patent to be unpatentable as obvious over U.S.
`
`Patent. No. 8,514,662 (“Paulson”), U.S. Patent No. 8,837,257 (“Surprenant”), U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0171851 (“Beenau”), and/or International
`
`Publication No. WO 97/31437 (“McConnell”). My specific opinions as to the
`
`unpatentability of claims 9-12 are set forth below.
`
`[Unpatentability]
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 15 of 73
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`A. Ground 1
`1. Overview of Paulson
`38. Paulson discloses a system for “wirelessly transmitting and receiving
`
`data through sonic communication.”
`
` (Paulson at Abstract.)
`
` “A digital
`
`representation of . . . data is modulated consistent with a modulation protocol using
`
`one or more sonic transmission frequencies.” (Paulson at Abstract.) Paulson
`
`explains that using sonic communications has “considerable economic advantages”
`
`because the “majority of the hardware required for sonic communication is already
`
`installed on the computers and mobile devices of interest.” (Paulson at 3:51-67.)
`
`39. Figure 1, annotated below, shows an example communication system
`
`using sonic-enabled communication services. (Paulson at 4:1-6.) Within the
`
`system, various mobile devices communicate with sonic stations by using sound
`
`components and capabilities already installed on the mobile devices. (See Paulson
`
`at 6:42-61, 3:51-67.)
`
`[Overview of Paulson]
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 16 of 73
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`
`(Paulson at Fig. 1 (annotated).)
`
`40. Paulson carefully selects the sonic transmission frequencies and timing
`
`of the transmission. (Paulson at 11:13-35.) By using a combination of timing,
`
`frequency selection, and repeated
`
`transmissions, Paulson achieves robust
`
`communication even in noisier environments. (Paulson at 11:13-35.) Paulson also
`
`discloses that its sonic communication system is a beneficial alternative to other
`
`wireless means of conveying information, such as infrared (Paulson at 1:49-57),
`
`Bluetooth (Paulson at 1:58-65), bar codes (Paulson at 1:66-2:7), and radio frequency
`
`identification (“RFID”) (Paulson at 2:8-14).
`
`[Overview of Paulson]
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 17 of 73
`
`

`

`
`
`
`2. Overview of Surprenant
`to Paulson, Surprenant details an “acoustic
`41. Complementary
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`modulation protocol” that may be used in a broader acoustic system like Paulson’s.
`
`(Surprenant at Title.) Surprenant shares an inventor, Brett L. Paulson, with Paulson
`
`and refers to Paulson as a related application that is incorporated by reference.
`
`(Surprenant at 1:6-10.)
`
`42. Figure 3 of Surprenant discloses its process for generating a modulated
`
`acoustic carrier signal.
`
`(Surprenant at Fig. 3.)
`
`
`
`[Overview of Surprenant]
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 18 of 73
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`43. As shown in Figure 3, “binary data is . . . used to modulate one or more
`
`selected frequencies for one or more [of] the acoustic carrier signals to generate one
`
`or more modulated acoustic carrier signals.” (Surprenant at 7:58-8:3.) Most of the
`
`components of the modulated acoustic carrier signal are shown below in Figure 4.
`
`
`
`(Surprenant at Fig. 4.)
`
`44. As shown, the modulated acoustic carrier signal includes “a locking
`
`segment 400, a mark segment 402, and a data segment 404.” (Surprenant at 8:54-
`
`58.) The locking segment “enables the acoustic communication demodulation
`
`component 124 or decoder in the receive device 102 to determine the receiving
`
`signal frequencies” and “to ignore irrelevant signals in the same audio band as well
`
`as equalize its frequency detection channels.” (Surprenant at 8:59-64.) The mark
`
`segment “may be used to reset data reception parameters . . . and prepare for the
`
`reception of the data, looking for a start-bit.” (Surprenant at 9:1-3.) “Data alignment
`
`[Overview of Surprenant]
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 19 of 73
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`may be adjusted to begin at the first start bit after the mark segment 402.”
`
`(Surprenant at 9:6-7.) “The data segment 404 may comprise 2 to N words of data
`
`followed by a cyclic redundancy check, CRC (not shown).” (Surprenant at 9:8-12.)
`
`45.
`
`Surprenant also discloses that “the message may include an AMP ID.”
`
`(Surprenant at 7:44.) It teaches that “the AMP ID is a unique identification string”
`
`that is specific to “the transmit device 101 and/or the user of the transmit device
`
`101.” (Surprenant at 7:45-49.) Surprenant explains that, in one embodiment, “the
`
`AMP ID may comprise credentials that enable the receive device 103 to access an
`
`account and perform various services such as financial transactions, file sharing, or
`
`information exchange, for example.” (Surprenant at 7:53-57.)
`
`46. Like Paulson, Surprenant discloses that its sonic communication
`
`system is a beneficial alternative to other wireless means of conveying information,
`
`including RFID. It explains that “[t]he acoustics modulation protocol of the
`
`exemplary embodiments enable two or more devices to communicate acoustically
`
`with one another without the need for specialized hardware (e.g., . . . RFID tags,
`
`dongles, and the like) other than microphones and speakers found on most computers
`
`and portable devices.” (Surprenant at 4:6-20.)
`
`[Overview of Surprenant]
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 20 of 73
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`Rationale for Combining Paulson and Surprenant
`3.
`In my opinion, it would have been obvious to combine Paulson with
`
`47.
`
`Surprenant to utilize Surprenant’s improved modulation protocol in Paulson’s sonic
`
`communication system.
`
`48.
`
`Initially, both references are within the same field of endeavor, both
`
`being directed to sonic communication systems. (Paulson at Abstract (“sonic
`
`carrier”); Surprenant at Abstract (“acoustic carrier signals”).) In addition, Paulson
`
`and Surprenant appear to be directed to parts of the same or at least similar
`
`inventions because they share an inventor, Brett Paulson, and are assigned to the
`
`same entity. In addition, Surprenant expressly cites to Paulson as a related patent
`
`application that is incorporated by reference into Surprenant.1 (Surprenant at 1:6-
`
`10 (identifying Paulson’s “patent application Ser. No. 12/870,767”).) Thus, a person
`
`of ordinary skill would naturally have been led to consider the teachings of Paulson
`
`and Surprenant together.
`
`
`1 In my opinion, the incorporation by reference shows why one of ordinary
`
`skill would have considered Surprenant’s and Paulson’s complementary disclosures
`
`together in an obviousness analysis, regardless of whether the Board treats them as
`
`a single prior art reference.
`
`[Rationale for Combining Paulson and Surprenant]
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of 73
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`49. Paulson discloses a method and apparatus for wirelessly receiving data
`
`through sonic communications but does not provide details regarding the modulation
`
`protocol used. (Paulson at Abstract.) Instead, Paulson provides an example of a
`
`potential modulation protocol (i.e., “a protocol based upon frequency shift key
`
`modulation”), and states that “alternate modulation protocols may also be used
`
`including minimum shift keying (MSK), quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK) and
`
`others.” (Paulson at 12:19-31.) Surprenant, however, is specifically directed to an
`
`“Acoustic Modulation Protocol” (Surprenant at Title), and provides additional
`
`details about generating “modulated acoustic carrier signals.” (Surprenant at
`
`Abstract, Figs. 3-4, 2:39-54.)
`
`50.
`
`Surprenant provides details for ensuring reliable transmission of a
`
`modulated acoustic signal in a system like Paulson’s, including using binary data to
`
`modulate the signal along with providing the locking segment, mark segment, and
`
`CRC discussed above in Section VII.A.2, as well as ways to receive portions of data
`
`and assemble them into a completed message as discussed in Section VII.A.4.a.ii.
`
`The locking segment beneficially “allows the receive device 103 to ignore irrelevant
`
`signals in the same audio band as well as equalize its frequency detection channels.”
`
`(Surprenant at 8:61-64.) The mark segment provides the advantage of “reset[ting]
`
`data reception parameters (buffers are cleared) and prepar[ing] for the reception of
`
`data,” allowing the start of the data to be identified with a “start-bit.” (Surprenant
`
`[Rationale for Combining Paulson and Surprenant]
`
`19
`
`Page 22 of 73
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`at 9:1-7.) The CRC beneficially “ensures data integrity” by enabling the receiver to
`
`determine if certain errors exist in the received data. (Surprenant at 9:9-11.) And
`
`the data assembly process beneficially allows the receiving device to overcome
`
`momentary noise in the environment by allowing it to receive segments of a message
`
`at one time and then receive other segments at another time. Once all segments have
`
`been received, it assembles the data into a complete message. (Surprenant at 16:23-
`
`29.)
`
`51.
`
`Surprenant also explains that an “[a]coustic transmissions strategy
`
`component 122 includes functions and datasets necessary for identifying the acoustic
`
`transmission frequencies and timing to transmit and receive data acoustically.”
`
`(Surprenant at 5:3-23.) Although it discloses one embodiment in which the system
`
`selects the highest frequency available (Surprenant at 7:58-8:3), it does not provide
`
`the further details that Paulson discloses regarding the strategy for selecting
`
`frequencies and timing. In particular, Paulson discloses specific details regarding
`
`algorithms for selecting an acoustic frequency and the timing for transmitting an
`
`audio signal. (See Paulson at Fig. 4 (flow chart), 11:13-35 (describing careful
`
`selection of the sonic transmission frequencies and timing of the transmission),
`
`12:49-14:18.) Paulson and Surprenant thus provide complementary disclosures
`
`regarding acoustic data transmission.
`
`[Rationale for Combining Paulson and Surprenant]
`
`20
`
`Page 23 of 73
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious
`
`52.
`
`either to implement Surprenant’s entire modulation protocol in Paulson’s sonic
`
`communication system or to add beneficial aspects of Surprenant’s transmission
`
`techniques (e.g., the locking, mark, and CRC to enable more reliable data
`
`transmissions) to Paulson’s transmission protocol.
`
`53. Regarding substituting Surprenant’s modulation protocol
`
`for
`
`Paulson’s, in my opinion, this would have been obvious because it is a mere
`
`substitution of one known element (a modulation protocol) for another (a similar
`
`modulation protocol), with predictable results that provided a reasonable expectation
`
`of success. Paulson contemplates such a substitution, providing a teaching and
`
`suggestion to use other modulation protocols known in the art in its sonic
`
`communication system to replace its exemplary protocols. (Paulson at 12:28-31.)
`
`Likewise, Surprenant states that its modulation protocol is an alternative to and
`
`improvement upon certain prior art modulation protocols. (Surprenant at 2:29-35.)
`
`Thus, in my opinion, implementing Surprenant’s modulation protocol in Paulson
`
`would have been an obvious substitution and, at a minimum, obvious to try.
`
`54. Regarding incorporating aspects of Surprenant’s transmission protocol
`
`into Paulson, it is also my opinion that it would have been obvious to incorporate
`
`the marking, lock, and CRC features of Surprenant to improve the reliability of
`
`Paulson’s transmissions, as discussed above. Doing so would not require any
`
`[Rationale for Combining Paulson and Surprenant]
`
`21
`
`Page 24 of 73
`
`

`

`Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`additional hardwar