IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MAXELL, LTD.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,159,590
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CHARLES D. CREUSERE
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 1
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MAXELL, LTD.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,159,590
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CHARLES D. CREUSERE
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`I, Charles D. Creusere, hereby declare under penalty of perjury:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1. My name is Charles D. Creusere, Ph.D and I am over 21 years of age
`
`and otherwise competent to make this Declaration. I make this Declaration based on
`
`facts and matters within my own knowledge and on information provided to me by
`
`others.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert in this matter by Counsel for Apple
`
`Inc. to provide my independent opinions on certain issues requested by Counsel for
`
`Petitioner relating to the accompanying petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,129,590 (“the ’590 Patent”). I understand that the Challenged Claims
`
`are claims 1-10. My opinions are limited to those Challenged Claims.
`
`3. My compensation in this matter is not based on the substance of my
`
`opinions or the outcome of this matter. I have no financial interest in Petitioner. I am
`
`being compensated at an hourly rate of $350 for my analysis and testimony in this
`
`case.
`
`4.
`
`In writing this declaration, I have considered my own knowledge and
`
`experience, including my work experience in the field of electrical and computer
`
`engineering; my experience in teaching this area; and my experience working with
`
`others involved in this field, including in both the design and analysis of multimedia-
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`focused communication systems and subsystems. In reaching my opinions in this
`
`matter, I have also reviewed the following references and materials:
`
`• U.S. Patent 10,159,590 B2 to Kurita et al. (’590 Patent) (Ex. 1001)
`• File History of U.S. Patent 10,159,590 B2 to Kurita et al. (’590 Patent
`File History) (Ex. 1002)
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0203758 A1 to Tee et al.
`(Tee) (Ex. 1005)
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0135076 A1 to Honkanen
`et al. (Honkanen et al.) (Ex. 1006)
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0109973 A1 to
`Trachewsky (Trachewsky) (Ex. 1012)
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0258289 A1 to Dua (Dua)
`(Ex. 1013)
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0136949 A1 to Barnes Jr.
`(Barnes) (Ex. 1014)
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0101446 A1 to Gautier et
`al. (Gautier et al.) (Ex. 1015)
`• International Publication No. WO 2005/060127 A1 to Sinivaara
`(Sinivaara) (Ex. 1016)
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0215284 A1 to Su et al.
`(Su et al.) (Ex. 1017)
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0238482 A1 to Rayzman et
`al. (Rayzman et al.) (Ex. 1018)
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0275746 A1 to Bitran
`(Bitran) (Ex. 1019)
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0081663 A1 to Kasslin et
`al. (Kasslin et al.) (Ex. 1020)
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0165754 A1 to Kiukkonen
`et al. (Kiukkonen et al.) (Ex. 1021)
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0190747 A1 to Sindwhani
`et al. (Sindhwani et al.) (Ex. 1022)
`• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0249245 A1 to Hazani et
`al. (Hazani et al.) (Ex. 1023)
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,625,547 to Miller II (Miller II) (Ex. 1024)
`• Mobile and Wireless Design Essentials by Martyn Mallick (Ex. 1025)
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,233,359 to Yasuo Suda (“Suda”) (Ex. 1026)
`
`3
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`• Video Streaming: Concepts, Algorithms, and Systems by Apostolopoulos
`et al. (Ex. 1027)
`• Newton’s Telecom Dictionary 20th Update and Expanded Edition by
`Harry Newton (Ex. 1028)
`• “A Flexible Decoder Buffer Model For JVT Video Decoding” by Ribas-
`Corbera et al., IEEE ICIP 2002 (Ex. 1029)
`• “A Buffer Allocation Mechanism for VBR Video Playback” by Sheu et
`al., IEEE (Ex. 1030)
`
`A. Educational Background
`5.
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering from the University of California at Davis in 1985. I received a Master’s
`
`of Science degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of
`
`California at Santa Barbara in 1990, and I received my Ph.D. in Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering, also from the University of California at Santa Barbara, in
`
`1993.
`
`B.
`6.
`
`Professional Experience
`I am currently a Full Professor in the Klipsch School of Electrical &
`
`Computer Engineering at New Mexico State University, and I hold the Frank Carden
`
`Endowed Chair in Telemetering and Telecommunications. I was an Assistant
`
`Professor at New Mexico State from January 2000 until I became an Associate
`
`Professor in 2004. I have been a Full Professor since August 2010. My research and
`
`teaching at New Mexico State have focused on digital signal processing and
`
`communications.
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`I have extensive experience in the technical areas of the ’590 Patent,
`
`7.
`
`including more than 30 years of experience with analog and digital systems and, in
`
`particular, with digital signal processing and its application to communication,
`
`storage, and retrieval systems.
`
`8.
`
`After receiving my B.S. from U. C. Davis in 1985, I went to work for
`
`the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake as a civilian Department of Defense (DoD)
`
`employee. From 1985 until the program was handed off to the contractor in 1989, I
`
`was the lead designer for the guidance electronics of the Laser Guided Training
`
`Round. My work on this project included analog and digital circuit design,
`
`embedded software design, and front-end systems integration and testing. In 1989,
`
`I was awarded a fellowship from the DoD to pursue graduate degrees at the
`
`University of California, Santa Barbara. After returning to China Lake with my PhD
`
`in 1993, I continued to pursue practical engineering projects along with my more
`
`theoretical endeavors. The most encompassing of these projects involved
`
`developing efficient video compression and decompression algorithms for use with
`
`wireless communication channels. These algorithms were designed for real-time
`
`streaming in a manner that maximized bandwidth efficiency while ensuring that the
`
`quality of the most important information in the data stream was preserved. During
`
`my Masters program at UCSB I pursued a dual communications/digital signal
`
`processing coursework specialization and, as a result, took the following relevant
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`graduate classes: ECE242 (Digital Coding of Analog Signals), ECE278 (Image
`
`Processing), ECE258 Digital Signal Processing, ECE148 (Real-Time Digital Signal
`
`Processing), ECE277B (Pattern Recognition), ECE243 (Digital Communication),
`
`ECE594C (Error Control Codes), and ECE205A (Information Theory). All of these
`
`classes have relevance to the patent in suit, but ECE242 (which is focused on data
`
`compression) and ECE243 are particularly pertinent here given that video
`
`compression and digital communication are both critical parts of any system
`
`designed to receive, stream, or store video data. In addition to the above, as part of
`
`my minor area of specialization in computer engineering, I took classes in linear and
`
`nonlinear programming, optimization theory, neural networks, and computational
`
`linear algebra. My Ph.D. research was focused on multimedia data compression
`
`using multirate filter banks and wavelets, and I continued to do research in this area
`
`for the six years I spent working at the Naval Air Warfare Center in China Lake, CA
`
`after completing my dissertation. Some of the papers that I wrote which are relevant
`
`to the claimed invention of the ’590 Patent and related art include:
`
`• C.D. Creusere and A. Van Nevel, "ATR-directed image and video
`compression," Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 626-31, July-August
`1999.
`• C.D. Creusere, "A new method of robust image compression based on the
`embedded zerotree wavelet algorithm," IEEE Trans. on Image Processing, Vol
`6, No. 10, Oct. 1997, pp. 1436-1442.
`• C.D. Creusere, "Fast embedded compression for video," IEEE Trans. on
`Image Processing, Vol. 8,
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`
`No. 12, pp. 1811-16, December 1999.
`
`• C.D. Creusere, "Motion compensated video compression with reduced
`complexity encoding for
`remote transmission," Signal Processing: Image Communications, Vol. 16,
`
`pp. 627-42, April 2000.
`
`9.
`
`Since joining the faculty of New Mexico State University in 2000, I
`
`have taught numerous classes at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. These
`
`include EE497 (Digital Communications), EE585 (Telemetering Systems), EE573
`
`(Signal Compression), EE596 (Image Processing), and EE586 (Information
`
`Theory). In the course of teaching these various classes, I cover much of the signal
`
`processing that facilitates modern digital communication systems, including video
`
`transmission and processing.
`
`10. A listing of the cases (including trials before the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board) in which I have testified within the last four years is found following
`
`my CV in the attached Appendix A. I’ve also listed my publications and patents in
`
`Appendix A.
`
`C. Other Relevant Qualifications
`11.
`In addition to the experience and publications listed above, I have also
`
`received the following awards and distinctions that are relevant to the subject matter
`
`of this declaration. I am currently a Senior Area Editor for IEEE Transactions on
`
`Image Processing and have previously served as an Associate Editor for IEEE
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`Transactions on Image Processing from 2010 through 2014. I have also served in
`
`this capacity from 2002 through 2005. From 2008-2013, I served as an Associate
`
`Editor for IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.
`
`12.
`
`In 2004, I served as the co-general chair for the IEEE Digital Signal
`
`Processing Workshop in Taos, New Mexico. In 2012 and 2014, I served as the co-
`
`technical chair for the Southwest Symposium on Image Analysis and Interpretation
`
`held in Santa Fe, New Mexico and San Diego, CA, respectively. In addition, I also
`
`served as the technical chair for the 2015 International Telemetering Conference
`
`held in Las Vegas, NV. I am also a member of the technical program committees for
`
`the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, the IEEE International
`
`Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, and the IEEE Data
`
`Compression Conference.
`
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`A. Obviousness
`13.
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However,
`
`counsel has informed me as to certain legal principles regarding patentability and
`
`related matters under United States patent law, which I have applied in performing
`
`my analysis and arriving at my technical opinions in this matter.
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)
`
`now applies the claim construction standard applied by Article III courts (i.e., the
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`Phillips standard) regardless of whether a patent has expired. I have been informed
`
`that under the Phillips standard, claim terms are to be given the meaning they would
`
`have to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, taking
`
`into consideration the patent, its file history, and, secondarily, any applicable
`
`extrinsic evidence (e.g., dictionary definitions). I have reviewed the Claim
`
`Construction section in the petition for which this declaration is submitted in
`
`support, and I have applied those constructions in my analyses. For all claim
`
`language not addressed in this section of the petition, I have applied the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning pursuant to the Phillips standard.
`
`15.
`
`I have also been informed that a person cannot obtain a patent on an
`
`invention if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. I have been informed that a
`
`conclusion of obviousness may be founded upon more than a single item of prior art.
`
`I have been further informed that obviousness is determined by evaluating the
`
`following factors: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claim at issue, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. In addition, the
`
`obviousness inquiry should not be done in hindsight. Instead, the obviousness
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`inquiry should be done through the eyes of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`16.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent claim
`
`obvious, counsel has informed me that I can consider the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, including the fact that one of skill in the art would regularly look to the
`
`disclosures in patents, trade publications, journal articles, industry standards,
`
`product literature and documentation, texts describing competitive technologies,
`
`requests for comment published by standard setting organizations, and materials
`
`from industry conferences, as examples. I have been informed that for a prior art
`
`reference to be proper for use in an obviousness analysis, the reference must be
`
`“analogous art” to the claimed invention. I have been informed that a reference is
`
`analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of
`
`endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2)
`
`the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it
`
`is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In order for a reference
`
`to be “reasonably pertinent” to the problem, it must logically have commended itself
`
`to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. In determining whether a
`
`reference is reasonably pertinent, one should consider the problem faced by the
`
`inventor, as reflected either explicitly or implicitly, in the specification. I believe that
`
`all of the references that my opinions in this IPR are based upon are well within the
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`range of references a person having ordinary skill in the art would consult to address
`
`the type of problems described in the Challenged Claims.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that, in order to establish that a claimed invention
`
`was obvious based on a combination of prior art elements, a clear articulation of the
`
`reason(s) why a claimed invention would have been obvious must be provided.
`
`Specifically, I am informed that, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s KSR decision, a
`
`combination of multiple items of prior art renders a patent claim obvious when there
`
`was an apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention,
`
`to combine the prior art, which can include, but is not limited to, any of the following
`
`rationales: (A) combining prior art methods according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (B) substituting one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; (C) using a known technique to improve a similar device in the
`
`same way; (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; (E) trying a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable potential solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F)
`
`identifying that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`(G) identifying an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`
`the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`18.
`
`I am informed that the existence of an explicit teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine known elements of the prior art is a sufficient, but not a
`
`necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness. This so-called “teaching
`
`suggestion-motivation” test is not the exclusive test and is not to be applied rigidly
`
`in an obviousness analysis. In determining whether the subject matter of a patent
`
`claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`patentee controls. Instead, the important consideration is the objective reach of the
`
`claim. In other words, if the claim extends to what is obvious, then the claim is
`
`invalid. I am further informed that the obviousness analysis often necessitates
`
`consideration of the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands
`
`known to the technological community or present in the marketplace, and the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. All of
`
`these issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason
`
`to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent.
`
`19.
`
`I also am informed that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a precise
`
`teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim need not be
`
`sought out because it is appropriate to take account of the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. The prior art considered
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`
`invention and can provide a reason for combining the elements of the prior art in the
`
`manner claimed. In other words, the prior art need not be directed towards solving
`
`the same specific problem as the problem addressed by the patent. Further, the
`
`individual prior art references themselves need not all be directed towards solving
`
`the same problem. I am informed that, under the KSR obviousness standard, common
`
`sense is important and should be considered. Common sense teaches that familiar
`
`items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.
`
`20.
`
`I also am informed that the fact that a particular combination of prior
`
`art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious
`
`even if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it is
`
`likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. I am
`
`further informed that in many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious
`
`techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather
`
`than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an invention. I am
`
`informed that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do more than yield
`
`predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`21.
`
`I am informed that for a patent claim to be obvious, the claim must be
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I am
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`informed that the factors to consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art include (1) the educational level and experience of people working in the field at
`
`the time the invention was made, (2) the types of problems faced in the art and the
`
`solutions found to those problems, and (3) the sophistication of the technology in the
`
`field.
`
`22.
`
`I am informed that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I am informed that a reference may
`
`be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, upon reading
`
`the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference,
`
`or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the patent
`
`applicant. In general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of
`
`development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of
`
`the result sought by the patentee. I am informed that a reference teaches away, for
`
`example, if (1) the combination would produce a seemingly inoperative device, or
`
`(2) the references leave the impression that the product would not have the property
`
`sought by the patentee. I also am informed, however, that a reference does not teach
`
`away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does
`
`not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention
`
`claimed.
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`I am informed that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`23.
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an invention
`
`would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which include: (a)
`
`commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a
`
`long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of others to find the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention
`
`by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the
`
`invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of independent simultaneous invention
`
`within a comparatively short space of time; (h) teaching away from the invention in
`
`the prior art.
`
`24.
`
`I am further informed that secondary considerations evidence is only
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art features.
`
`The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. While I understand that the Patent
`
`Owner here has not offered any secondary considerations at this time, I will
`
`supplement my opinions in the event that the Patent Owner raises secondary
`
`considerations during the course of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 15
`
`
`
`III. OPINIONS
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`
`A. Level of Skill of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`25.
`I was asked to provide my opinion as to the level of skill of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art of the ’590 Patent at the time of the claimed invention,
`
`which counsel has informed me to assume is November 28, 2007, the earliest-
`
`claimed priority date for the ’590 Patent. In determining the characteristics of a
`
`hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’590 Patent at the time of the
`
`claimed invention, I was told to consider several factors, including the type of
`
`problems encountered in the art, the solutions to those problems, the rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made in the field, the sophistication of the technology, and
`
`the education level of active workers in the field. I also placed myself back in the
`
`time frame of the claimed invention and considered the colleagues with whom I had
`
`worked at that time.
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date
`
`of the ’590 Patent would have been a person having a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of wireless
`
`communications. Additional education or experience might substitute for the above
`
`requirements.
`
`27. Based on my education, training, and professional experience in the
`
`field of the claimed invention, I am familiar with the level and abilities of a person
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. Additionally, I met
`
`at least these minimum qualifications to be a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`as of the time of the claimed invention of the ’590 Patent.
`
`B.
`Background of the Technology
`28. The below provides a brief overview of the relevant state of the art at
`
`the time of the ’590 Patent.
`
`29. Various types of mobile wireless communication devices (WCDs) such
`
`as personal device assistants, personal media players (PMDs), cell phones, laptops,
`
`etc. were well-known and commercially available prior to November 28, 2007.
`
`Trachewsky at [0009]. WCDs at the time were capable of processing and
`
`communicating digital media content such as audio, video, or images to other
`
`devices. Dua at [0004]. Many WCDs could also capture new multimedia content
`
`using built-in digital cameras. Dua at [0061], [0085]; see also Barnes at [0116]–
`
`[0117].
`
`30. WCDs at the time of the ’590 Patent included multiple radio
`
`transceivers in a single unit that could establish connections with other devices or
`
`networks using different communication standards. These WCDs were otherwise
`
`known as multimode WCDs. Gautier at [0004]–[0005]; Sinivaara at 2:14–18;
`
`Barnes at [0008]; Su at [0007]; Rayzman at [0001]; Dua at [0014]. Known
`
`communication protocols deployed in these multimode WCDs included Bluetooth,
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`wireless local area network (WLAN), cellular networks, Worldwide interoperability
`
`for Microwave Access (WiMAX), and ultra-wideband (UWB) among others. Bitran
`
`at [0004]; Kasslin at [0004]–[0006].
`
`31. Wireless local area networks (WLANs) were widely used in WCDs.
`
`Kiukkonen at [0016]; see also Kim at 1:25-27, Sindwhani at [0011]. Most commonly,
`
`IEEE 802.11 (frequently referred to as Wi-Fi) transceivers were used in these
`
`devices. Bitran at [0003]. WLANs provided WCDs with Internet access through
`
`access points (e.g., a modem) and could also create “peer-to-peer” or “point-to-
`
`point” connections between WCDs on the WLAN home or office network. Bitran at
`
`[0042]; Kasslin. at [0009]; Sindwhani at [0011]; Hazani at [0019]–[0020]; Miller II
`
`at 1:23-39. In addition to WLANs, wide area networks (WANs) allowed for radio
`
`communication across larger geographical areas. Mobile and Wireless Design
`
`Essentials at 40–41. Often implemented as cellular networks, well-known cellular
`
`communication standards at the time included GSM, CDMA, and EDGE. Id. at 70.
`
`Bluetooth was a third well-known wireless radio technology used in WCDs, which
`
`reliably covered a geographic area of about 10 meters. Kasslin at [0006].
`
`C. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’590 Patent
`32. The ’590 Patent is generally directed to video display and video
`
`processing devices that are capable of supporting simultaneous wireless connections
`
`where at least one wireless connection supports communicating video. ’590 Patent
`
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`at 1:53–2:15. Both described devices include multiple radio communication circuits
`
`to support these simultaneous connections as well as controllers for assigning the
`
`multiple radio connections. Id. at 6:58–64, 7:48–59, 12:11–37.
`
`33. The video processing apparatus 100 could be a digital camera, video
`
`camera, cellular phone, or personal media player among other known types of
`
`portable video processing devices. Id. at 3:43–46. In particular, the video processing
`
`apparatus 100 includes hardware for capturing and storing video or still images. Id.
`
`at 3:50–52, 4:10–14. The display apparatus includes a display for viewing received
`
`videos. Id. at 9:63–10:3.
`
`34. A controller assigns
`
`resources
`
`(e.g., wireless communication
`
`parameters) to the multiple wireless connections in order to support simultaneous
`
`communications. Id. at 7:61–8:6. In one example, unique “schemes” are assigned to
`
`each connection. As depicted in Fig. 9 below, scheme 1 utilizes a larger modulation
`
`constellation and a less robust error correction code to achieve higher throughput
`
`relative to scheme 2:
`
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 9, see also 8:7–34 (describing the same). These distinct schemes can be
`
`used to prioritize one connection over another. For example, a high-quality, high
`
`data rate video connection can be maintained by assigning it scheme 1 while using
`
`scheme 2 for a lower priority, lower data rate Internet connection. Id. The ’590 Patent
`
`also teaches that parameters for active connections can be reassigned in order to
`
`prioritize a new connection over a pre-existing connection. For example, an Internet
`
`connection using scheme 1 can be reassigned to scheme 2 in order to accommodate
`
`a request for a new video connection:
`
`[I]n a situation wherein the user issues an indication to transmit
`video information by radio via the modem 1002 to the display
`apparatus 200 while acquiring information from the Internet
`according to scheme 1 of FIG. 9 by use of the modem 1003, the
`controller 132 outputs a control signal to the assignment controller 1001
`such that the transmission scheme of the modem 1003 is changed
`from scheme 1 to scheme 2 of FIG. 9 and that of the modem 1002 is
`set to scheme 1 of FIG. 9 conduct communications.
`
`Id. at 8:38–47 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`20
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 20
`
`
`
`D. Opinions Regarding Tee (Ex. 1005)
`35. Tee discloses a mobile terminal 110 capable of receiving multimedia
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`
`information (e.g., video) over a first wireless connection and relaying the multimedia
`
`information to an external display using a second wireless connection. Tee at
`
`Abstract, see also id. at [0015] (describing the video relay process allows a user to
`
`view the received video on a bigger and better display than the mobile terminal’s
`
`native display). The mobile terminal 110 may be “any type of mobile wireless device
`
`including a display, including a cellular phone, a PDA, a handheld computer . . . , or
`
`even a laptop.” Id. at [0019]. The mobile terminal 110 includes a control processor
`
`210, memory 215, and display 245 with which a user can view video/multimedia
`
`content. Id. at [0026], [0018] (noting that video data is relayed to the internal display
`
`for local viewing). Figure 2 below depicts the mobile terminal 110 and associated
`
`components:
`
`
`
`21
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 21
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 2, see also [0025] (describing the dame). The memory 115 stores video in
`
`the video/multimedia file 280 while also storing programming such as the video
`
`conversion program 260 for re-formatting incoming video. Id. at [0033], [0037].
`
`36. As depicted above in Figure 2, mobile terminal 110 includes three
`
`distinct wireless transceivers—WAN transceiver 201, WLAN transceiver 202, and
`
`PAN transceiver 203. Id. at [0025]. The WAN transceiver 201 may support a wide
`
`variety of wide area network connections, such as GSM/GPRS/EDGE, CDMA, or
`
`IEEE-802.16. Id. at [0027]. A PHOSITA would have understood these are cellular
`
`communication standards and would have considered the WAN transceiver a device
`
`
`
`22
`
`IPR2021-00400
`Apple EX1003 Page 22
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00400
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,590
`that supports cellular-type communications. The WLAN transceiver 202 supports
`
`IEEE-802.11x connections (id.), which is commonly referred to as WiFi and is
`
`typically deployed in a home network to connect devices to each other and to connect
`
`those devices to the Internet through an access point. Finally, the PAN transceiver
`
`2
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
