`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`Reply Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`
`
`
`1
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1027
`GOOGLE v. UNILOC
`IPR2020-00756
`
`Page 1 of 13
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3
`I.
`Summary of Opinions ...................................................................................... 4
`II.
`III. The Paulson and Surprenant Combination Discloses “Scanning a
`Plurality of Predetermined Frequencies for a Free Frequency” ...................... 4
`IV. Conclusion .....................................................................................................13
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Reply 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.
`
`6.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration in this proceeding (Ex. 1003), as
`
`well as my CV (Ex. 1004), which collectively explain my educational background
`
`and qualifications.
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Reply Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`
`Summary of Opinions
`I have been asked to provide my opinion in response to certain
`7.
`
`arguments put forth by Uniloc in its Patent Owner Response related to the
`
`Paulson/Surprenant system’s disclosure of “scanning a plurality of predetermined
`
`frequencies for a free frequency.” As I explain below, the Paulson/Surprenant
`
`system discloses “scanning a plurality of predetermined frequencies for a free
`
`frequency.”
`
`III. The Paulson and Surprenant Combination Discloses “Scanning a
`Plurality of Predetermined Frequencies for a Free Frequency”
`In my first declaration, I showed that Paulson discloses “scanning a
`8.
`
`plurality of predetermined frequencies for a free frequency.” (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65-75.)
`
`Paulson’s Figure 4 illustrates how Paulson’s system (1) identifies the claimed
`
`“plurality of predetermined frequencies” at Step 402, and then (2) under Steps 404-
`
`414, scans and selects “one or more frequencies” for transmission from the
`
`frequencies identified in Step 402. (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65-75; Paulson at Fig. 4, 14:10-
`
`15.)
`
`9.
`
`Uniloc contends that the set of frequencies identified in Step 402 are
`
`not scanned in subsequent Steps 404-414. (Paper 18, Patent Owner Response
`
`(“POR”) at 10-11.) Paulson discloses that, “[i]n one instance, the sonic
`
`transmission frequencies available according to the noise characteristic may be too
`
`high for the receive device to sample and demodulate.” (Paulson at 13:29-32.)
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`Uniloc contends that this disclosure is inconsistent with Step 402 because, if
`
`“frequencies are initially determined by the highest frequencies the transmit device
`
`can send and the receive device can detect and decode,” there should be no
`
`instance where a selected frequency is too high for the receive device to sample
`
`and demodulate. (POR at 11 (quoting Paulson at 12:53-56, 13:29-32).) According
`
`to Uniloc, this demonstrates that the initial frequency sampling in Step 402 “must
`
`have been outside ‘the highest frequencies … the receive device can detect and
`
`decode,’” so Step 402 is unrelated to Paulson’s later steps. (POR at 11 (emphasis
`
`in original).)
`
`10.
`
`In my opinion, Uniloc’s argument does not account for Paulson’s
`
`central teaching to “use[] modulation frequencies that reduce the probability of
`
`conflict with ambient noise in the environment,” as stated in its title. (Paulson at
`
`Cover, Item (54) (Title).) Figure 4 discloses techniques for achieving this goal,
`
`and Paulson describes Figure 4 as “a flowchart representation of the operations for
`
`implementing sonic transmission strategies that reduce the probability of
`
`interference from noise.” (Paulson at 3:1-4.)
`
`11. To achieve this goal of reducing the probability of interference from
`
`noise, one of ordinary skill would have understood that it is essential for the noise
`
`characteristic created in Step 404 to cover at least the frequencies initially set in
`
`Step 402. If it did not, there would be no way for the system to determine whether
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`noise may interfere with demodulating data transmitted on the set of sonic
`
`transmission frequencies Paulson “initially determined” at Step 402. (Paulson at
`
`12:53-56.)
`
`12. Paulson’s Step 406—called
`
`“Could Noise
`
`Interfere With
`
`Demodulating Data From Set of Sonic Transmission Frequencies?”—is directed to
`
`making this determination. The Figure 4 excerpt below shows that the answers to
`
`Step 406 are “Yes” or “No,” which one of ordinary skill would have understood to
`
`mean that the system determines that noise could interfere or it could not.
`
`
`(Paulson at Fig. 4 (excerpted, annotated); see also Paulson at 13:27-29, 13:50-52.)
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`13. Under Uniloc’s view, where the frequencies scanned in Step 404 do
`
`not correspond to the frequencies initially determined in Step 402, Step 406 would
`
`have no relevant information about whether noise could interfere, so it could not
`
`provide either a “Yes” or a “No.” The answer would be undefined, and in my
`
`opinion the central aim of Paulson’s technology would be frustrated. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not have interpreted Paulson in a way that would
`
`remove the very features that Paulson added to achieve its goal of reducing the
`
`probability of sending sonic transmissions that conflict with ambient noise. One
`
`also would not have interpreted Paulson to achieve an undefined state at Step 406,
`
`preventing Figure 4’s logic from proceeding in a meaningful way.
`
`14. Uniloc’s argument also does not account for
`
`the fact
`
`that
`
`environmental noise, as determined by and reflected in the noise characteristic,
`
`influences what frequencies a receiving device is able to sample and demodulate.
`
`(Paulson at Fig. 4, 13:1-14:9.) In particular, one of ordinary skill would have
`
`understood that, in the absence of noise, a receiving device may be able to sample
`
`and demodulate an incoming transmission on a wide range of frequencies. But
`
`once noise (and the resulting signal-to-noise ratio) is taken into account, that same
`
`device may be incapable of doing so at each of those same frequencies. This is
`
`because reliable demodulation of a signal in the presence of noises requires a
`
`minimum signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) where the signal must exceed the noise by a
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 13
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`certain amount to ensure reliable low error demodulation. Paulson recognizes this
`
`fact by discussing, for example, that “[i]f the signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio at these
`
`frequencies is higher than a predetermined threshold, it is probable that the receive
`
`device could demodulate data when the sonic carrier signals are transmitted.”
`
`(Paulson at 13:52-59.)
`
`15. Paulson further explains this concept in Step 406, which is called
`
`“Could Noise Interfere With Demodulating Data From Set of Sonic Transmission
`
`Frequencies?” (Paulson at Fig. 4.) Paulson’s text discloses at least two examples
`
`when noise may interfere, including Uniloc’s cited example in italics:
`
`Using the noise characteristic, the present invention
`determines whether a receive device could potentially
`demodulate data from sonic carrier signals and sonic
`transmission frequencies (406). In one implementation,
`the noise characteristics are first analyzed to determine
`what sonic transmission frequencies, if any, are available
`within the sample or samples of the sonic spectrum. . . .
`It may be determined that the receive device is incapable
`of demodulating data transmitted over the set of sonic
`transmission frequencies (406-Yes). In one instance, the
`sonic transmission frequencies available according to the
`noise characteristic may be too high for the receive
`device to sample and demodulate. Alternatively, it is
`also possible that noise in the area covers a wide sonic
`spectrum leaving no sonic transmission frequencies
`available even at
`the highest frequencies of
`the
`communication system.
`(Paulson at 13:11-35 (emphasis added).)
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`In the italicized example, if lower frequencies are not available (e.g.,
`
`16.
`
`if there is a continuous low-frequency rumble in the area), the noise characteristic
`
`may show that higher frequencies are the frequencies most likely to result in a
`
`successful transmission. The level of noise at these frequencies, however, may still
`
`be high enough to render the receive device incapable of receiving a transmission
`
`because the resulting signal-to-noise ratio may not meet the receive device’s
`
`requirements for reliable reception. (See Paulson at 13:52-59; see also Paulson at
`
`11:5-12.) Thus, at Paulson’s Step 406, the system determines whether the receive
`
`device is able to sample and demodulate the data in the presence of the known
`
`noise.
`
`17.
`
`In other words, at Step 406 using the noise characteristic, the system
`
`verifies whether the receive device may reliably receive the data at the identified
`
`frequency given the now-known signal-to-noise ratio. (Paulson at 13:50-59.) As
`
`Paulson explains, “[i]f the signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio at these frequencies is
`
`higher than a predetermined threshold, it is probable that the receive device could
`
`demodulate data when the sonic carrier signals are transmitted.” (Paulson at
`
`13:56-59.) If the signal-to-noise ratio is too low, then the system may need to wait
`
`for the noise to abate, such as in Paulson’s example where the system delays
`
`transmitting until after a coffee grinder stops generating noise. (Paulson at 11:27-
`
`35.)
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`18. The is why, after the initial determination at Step 402, one of ordinary
`
`skill would have understood Paulson to perform a secondary check for whether the
`
`receiving device is capable of sampling and demodulating the incoming
`
`transmission. It also explains why Paulson links this secondary check directly to
`
`the noise characteristic, stating in Uniloc’s quoted passage that, “[i]n one instance,
`
`the sonic transmission frequencies available according to the noise characteristic
`
`may be too high for the receive device to sample and demodulate.” (Paulson at
`
`13:29-32.)
`
`19. One of ordinary skill also would have understood that this is why
`
`Paulson states that, in Step 402, the “frequencies are initially determined by the
`
`highest frequencies the transmit device can send and the receive device can detect
`
`and decode.” (Paulson at 12:53-56 (emphasis added).) One of ordinary skill
`
`would have understood the phrase “initially determined,” in conjunction with
`
`Paulson’s disclosures about further refining the available frequencies in light of the
`
`noise characteristic of the surrounding environment, conveys that the range of
`
`frequencies identified at Step 402 is related to the later steps in Paulson’s process.
`
`20. Uniloc’s argument is premised on breaking the link between these
`
`steps, contending that the frequencies scanned in step 404 are an “indiscriminate
`
`range of sonic frequencies.” (POR at 11 (internal quotations omitted).) But
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 13
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`Paulson depicts a direct link between the output of Step 402 and the input of Step
`
`404, as shown in the Figure 4 excerpt below.
`
`(Paulson at Fig. 4 (excerpted, annotated).)
`
`
`
`21.
`
`In addition, Paulson’s Step 402 is an efficient starting point in
`
`advance of the steps that follow because the system may pare down potential
`
`frequency ranges until it selects a free frequency for the transmission. Under
`
`Uniloc’s reading, however, Paulson discloses an inefficient system that generates a
`
`noise characteristic for a wide array of frequencies that its transmitting and
`
`receiving devices have no hope of using and that could have been ruled out at Step
`
`402. For instance, if the transmitting and receiving devices are capable of
`
`communicating only below 15 KHz, it would be wasteful to spend resources
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 13
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`generating a noise characteristic above 15 KHz. But this is how Uniloc
`
`understands Paulson, contending that Paulson “uses a scheme that samples sonic
`
`frequencies regardless of whether they ultimately may be used to effect a
`
`successful transmission.” (POR at 12.) In my opinion, nothing in Paulson
`
`suggests such an inefficient system, and this is not how one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have interpreted Paulson.
`
`22. Finally, even if Uniloc were correct that the frequency range scanned
`
`in Step 404 may differ from the frequency range determined in Step 402, a person
`
`of ordinary skill would have understood that those frequency ranges must at least
`
`partially overlap. If they did not, there would be no way to know whether noise is
`
`likely to interfere with the frequency ranges initially identified in Step 402 as
`
`candidates for transmission. In my opinion, this would strip away the central
`
`purpose of Paulson’s technology, which, as even its title states, is to “use[]
`
`modulation frequencies that reduce the probability of conflict with ambient noise
`
`in the environment.” (Paulson at Cover, Item (54) (Title); see also Paulson at 3:1-
`
`4 (describing Figure 4 as “a flowchart representation of the operations for
`
`implementing sonic transmission strategies that reduce the probability of
`
`interference from noise”).) In my opinion, regardless of whether there is complete
`
`overlap between the frequencies in Steps 402 and 404, the fact remains that the
`
`frequencies scanned at Step 404 are a plurality of frequencies that were
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 13
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff
`U.S. Patent No. 9,564,952
`
`
`predetermined in Step 402. Paulson’s disclosure thus meets the claimed
`
`requirement of “scanning a plurality of predetermined frequencies for a free
`
`frequency.”
`
`IV. Conclusion
`In signing this Declaration, I understand it will be filed as evidence in
`23.
`
`a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office. I understand I may be subject to cross-examination
`
`in this case, and that any cross-examination will take place in the United States. If
`
`cross-examination is required of me, I will appear for cross-examination within the
`
`United States during the time allotted for cross-examination.
`
`24.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true,
`
`and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`that those statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements
`
`and the like so made are punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both, under Section
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: April 14, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`Stuart J. Lipoff A
`
`Page 13 of 13
`
`
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
