UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`APPLE INC, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`———————
`
`IPR2022-00807
`U.S. Patent No. 9,756,168
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL KOTZIN, PH.D.,
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`1
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 1 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5 
`I. 
`Qualifications and Professional Experience .................................................... 8 
`II. 
`III.  Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 12 
`IV.  Relevant Legal Standards .............................................................................. 13 
`V.  Overview of the ’168 Patent .......................................................................... 15 
`VI.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 18 
`VII. 
`Identification of how the Claims are Unpatentable ....................................... 18 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 2-5, 23, and 28 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Sainton in view of Baker and Mueller. ......................... 19 
`1. 
`Summary of Sainton ................................................................ 19 
`2. 
`Summary of Baker ................................................................... 21 
`3. 
`Summary of Mueller ................................................................ 24 
`4. 
`Reasons to Combine Sainton, Baker, and Mueller .................. 24 
`Sainton and Baker .................................................................... 24 
`Sainton and Mueller ................................................................ 29 
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 33 
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 75 
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 77 
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 94 
`Claim 23 ................................................................................... 96 
`Claim 28 ................................................................................... 98 
`
`a) 
`
`b) 
`5. 
`6. 
`7. 
`8. 
`9. 
`10. 
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 2 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Claims 25 and 34 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Sainton in view of Baker, Mueller, and
`Humpleman. ...................................................................................... 100 
`1. 
`Summary of Humpleman ....................................................... 100 
`2. 
`Reasons to Combine Sainton, Baker, Mueller, and Humpleman
` 101 
`Claim 25 ................................................................................. 107 
`3. 
`Claim 34 ................................................................................. 110 
`4. 
`Ground 3: Claim 22 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Sainton in view of Baker, Mueller, and Grube. ................................ 115 
`5. 
`Summary of Grube ................................................................ 115 
`6. 
`Reasons to Combine Sainton, Baker, Mueller, and Grube .... 115 
`7. 
`Claim 22 ................................................................................. 118 
`D.  Ground 4: Claims 19-20 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Sainton in view of Baker, Mueller, and Hsu. ............................ 120 
`8. 
`Summary of Hsu .................................................................... 120 
`9. 
`Reasons to Combine Sainton, Baker, Mueller, and Hsu ....... 121 
`10. 
`Claim 19 ................................................................................. 126 
`11. 
`Claim 20 ................................................................................. 129 
`Ground 5: Claim 21 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Sainton in view of Baker, Mueller, and Camp. ................................. 129 
`1. 
`Summary of Camp ................................................................. 129 
`2. 
`Reasons to Combine Sainton, Baker, Mueller, and Camp .... 130 
`3. 
`Claim 21 ................................................................................. 132 
`Ground 6: Claim 29 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Sainton in view of Baker, Mueller, and Petty. .................................. 135 
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 3 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`Summary of Petty .................................................................. 135 
`1. 
`Reasons to Combine Sainton, Baker, Mueller, and Petty...... 136 
`2. 
`Claim 29 ................................................................................. 140 
`3. 
`VIII.  Conclusion ................................................................................................... 144 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 4 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`I, Michael Kotzin, Ph.D., do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Apple Inc. in the matter
`
`of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,756,168 (“the ’168 Patent”) to Rao
`
`et al.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 2-
`
`5, 19-23, 25, 28-29, and 34 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’168 Patent are
`
`unpatentable as they would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the prior art. It
`
`is my opinion that all of the limitations of the challenged claims would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`the ’168 Patent, Ex.1001;
`
`the prosecution history of the ’168 Patent (“’168 File History”),
`
`4.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Ex.1002;
`
`c.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,854,985 to Sainton et al. (“Sainton”), Ex.1005;
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 5 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`1008;
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`5.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,430,599 to Baker et al. (“Baker”), Ex. 1006;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,185,413 to Mueller et al. (“Mueller”), Ex. 1007;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,532 to Humpleman et al. (“Humpleman”), Ex.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,201,067 to Grube et al. (“Grube”), Ex. 1009;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,587,684 to Hsu et al. (“Hsu”), Ex. 1010;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,252,543 to Camp (“Camp”), Ex.1011;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,337,858 to Petty et al. (“Petty”), Ex. 1012;
`
`
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`the documents listed above;
`
`the relevant legal standards, including the standard for obviousness,
`
`and any additional authoritative documents as cited in the body of this
`
`declaration; and
`
`my own knowledge and experience based upon my work in the field
`
`of networking as described below, as well as portions of the following
`
`additional materials:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,097,707 to Hodzic et al. (“Hodzic”), Ex. 1013;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,590,943 to Ali (“Ali”), Ex. 1014;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,577,855 to Moore et al. (“Moore”), Ex. 1015;
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 6 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`1017;
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`Ex. 1022;
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,356,771 to Dent (“Dent”), Ex. 1016;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,545,990 to Amalfitano et al. (“Amalfitano”), Ex.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,764,704 to Shenoi (“Shenoi”), Ex. 1018;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,600,734 to Gernert et al. (“Gernert”), Ex. 1019;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,963,852 to Schlang et al. (“Schlang”), Ex. 1020;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,295,448 to Hayes et al. (“Hayes”), Ex. 1021;
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2001/0056502 to Hollstrom et al. (“Hollstrom”),
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,886,017 to Jackson et al. (“Jackson”), Ex. 1023;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,574,693 to Kemink (“Kemink”), Ex. 1024;
`
`m. U.S. Patent No. 6,446,192 to Narasimhan et al. (“Narasimhan”), Ex.
`
`1025;
`
`n.
`
`o.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,237,024 to Wollrath et al. (“Wollrath”), Ex. 1026;
`
`David Clark, “Network Nirvana and the Intelligent Device,” IEEE
`
`Concurrency, vol. 7, issue 2, April-June 1999, pp. 16-19 (“Clark”), Ex. 1027;
`
`p.
`
`Olstad et al., “Jini Technology: Impromptu Networking and its Impact
`
`on Telecommunications,” Proceedings of Capstone 1999, University of Colorado
`
`at Boulder (Fall 1999) (“Olstad”), Ex. 1028;
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 7 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`q.
`
`Budka et al., “Cellular Digital Packet Data Networks,” Bell Labs
`
`Technical Journal, Vol. 2, Issue 3, Summer 1997 (“Budka”), Ex. 1029;
`
`r. Michel Mouly and Marie-Bernadette Pautet, The GSM System for
`
`Mobile Communications (1992) (“Mouly”), Ex. 1030; and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,275,695 to Obhan (“Obhan”), Ex. 1031.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis in any quoted material has been
`
`s.
`
`6.
`
`added.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`7. My academic and professional background is in electrical engineering
`
`and computer science, and I have been working in those fields since the
`
`completion of my B.S. in electrical engineering almost 45 years ago. My complete
`
`qualifications and professional experience are described in my Curriculum Vitae, a
`
`copy of which can be found in Ex. 1004. The following is a brief summary of my
`
`relevant qualifications and professional experience.
`
`8.
`
`I received a B.S. in chemistry and a B.S. in electrical engineering
`
`from the University of Illinois in 1975, an M.S. in electrical engineering from
`
`Northwestern University in 1977, and a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and
`
`computer science from Northwestern University in 1981. During my graduate
`
`study at Northwestern (1975-1981), I performed research on communications and
`
`signal processing. My research dissertation was titled “Short Range
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 8 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`Communication Using Diffusely Scattered Infrared Radiation.”
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`9.
`
`I worked at Motorola, Inc. in various professional roles between 1975
`
`and 2009. From 1975 to 1989, I worked for several Motorola Research labs in
`
`Illinois, where I developed technology related to private and public radio
`
`communication systems.
`
`10. Between 1989 and 1998, I was the Vice President of Technical Staff
`
`and Director of Research and Advanced Technology in Motorola’s Cellular
`
`Infrastructure and Networks division. Between 1998 and 2007, I transitioned to the
`
`Office of the Chief Technology Officer for Motorola’s Mobile Devices division. In
`
`these roles, I provided leadership and strategic directions for the adoption and
`
`creation of new technology for cellular base station and handheld devices.
`
`11. Between 2006 and 2009, I was the Vice President of Technical Staff
`
`in the Corporate Law Department of Motorola’s Patent Operations division. In this
`
`role, I created technology portfolio strategy across businesses including
`
`quantitative goals for new and retained intellectual property assets. I also managed
`
`processes and corporate-wide teams related to creating and maintaining patent
`
`portfolios.
`
`12.
`
`In the late 1990s through about 2005, I directly supervised and
`
`worked with engineers in the United States and Europe in developing technology
`
`focused on radio layer and signaling protocols. As part of this work, we developed
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 9 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`and provided technical contributions for the 3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`(“3GPP”) meetings.
`
`13. Since 2009, I have been the President of MDK Consulting, Inc.,
`
`where I regularly provide technical consulting services on all aspects of wireless
`
`systems, products, and technology.
`
`14. Over the past several decades I have performed extensive research on
`
`various aspects of systems, devices, and networks that acquire, store, process, and
`
`transmit information. My research has addressed software, algorithms, hardware,
`
`networking, protocols and other aspects of these systems and devices, and has
`
`included work on wireless mobile devices and systems, signal processing and
`
`communications, hardware design methodologies, and cybersecurity. For example,
`
`in the 1970s and 1980s, I worked on technologies—including cellular, public
`
`safety, and private mobile—that formed the basis and was essential to several new
`
`digital radio systems.
`
`15. This work transitioned in the early 1990s to digital cellular applied
`
`research and development on cellular infrastructure and mobile devices. As a
`
`senior technologist and leader, first in the cellular infrastructure division and
`
`subsequently the mobile device division at Motorola, I was a significant participant
`
`and contributor to the development of new and evolving digital systems. Some of
`
`these evolutions included the adoption of functional improvements, continuing
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 10 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`quality improvements, system generation advancements (e.g., GSM, W-CDMA,
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`LTE, etc.), etc.
`
`16.
`
`I am an inventor on approximately 134 issued U.S. patents and over
`
`500 issued patents worldwide in areas including signal processing, data
`
`compression, communications, and wireless systems. I have published
`
`approximately 20 technical articles in peer-reviewed engineering journals and
`
`conference proceedings.
`
`17.
`
`In addition to my professional experience, I have previously taught
`
`courses in electrical engineering at Northwestern University as an Adjunct
`
`Professor. I have also served as Chairman and member of numerous Motorola
`
`patent committees.
`
`18. My Curriculum Vitae (Ex. 1004) lists my publication record in
`
`archival journals, international conferences, and workshops and further includes a
`
`list of granted patents.
`
`19. Based on my experience and education, I consider myself to be an
`
`expert at least in the fields of telecommunications, cellular networking, and mobile
`
`devices. As of the earliest priority date of the ’168 Patent, I was at least a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the ’168 patent, and I had personal knowledge of the
`
`technologies involved in the ’168 patent.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 11 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`20.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`21. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the
`
`’168 Patent, as of its earliest possible filing date of June 9, 2000, would have been
`
`someone knowledgeable and familiar with the wireless communication arts that are
`
`pertinent to the ’168 Patent. That person would have a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of
`
`experience working in the networking and wireless devices field. Lack of work
`
`experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.
`
`22. For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field as of the earliest
`
`possible priority date of the ’168 Patent (i.e., June 9, 2000). Unless otherwise
`
`stated, when I provide my understanding and analysis below, it is consistent with
`
`the level of a POSITA prior to the alleged priority date of the ’168 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 12 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`23.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ’168 Patent, I am relying on certain basic
`
`legal principles that counsel have explained to me. These principles are discussed
`
`below.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’168 Patent includes patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the alleged
`
`invention recited in the ’168 Patent. For purposes of this Declaration, I am
`
`applying June 9, 2000 as the earliest possible priority date of the ’168 Patent.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 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 to which the subject
`
`matter pertains. I have also been informed by counsel that the obviousness analysis
`
`takes into account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and
`
`the claimed subject matter.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 13 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`27.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the
`
`obviousness of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include,
`
`among other things, commercial success of the patented invention, skepticism of
`
`those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, unexpected results of
`
`the invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the
`
`alleged invention, the failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the
`
`alleged invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the
`
`alleged invention by others in the field. I understand that there must be a nexus—a
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the alleged invention.
`
`I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 14 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`28.
`
`I am not aware of any allegations by the named inventors of the ’168
`
`Patent or any assignee of the ’168 Patent that any secondary considerations are
`
`relevant to the obviousness analysis of any Challenged Claim of the ’168 Patent.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’168 PATENT
`29. The ’168 Patent generally relates to a “wireless communication and
`
`control system including a wireless device.” ’168 Patent, Abstract. According to
`
`the ’168 Patent, “[t]here is a need for a method to bypass the public wireless carrier
`
`… for local office or home networks where the public carrier services are not being
`
`utilized, without changing devices.” ’168 Patent, 1:33-36.
`
`30. The ’168 Patent describes a wireless device that is “software
`
`reconfigurable for the various environments … such as the public networks in one
`
`or more countries, … office locations operating at different frequencies, or in the
`
`home.” ’168 Patent, 2:32-36. The wireless device uses “communication protocols
`
`[that] configure the system for communication.” ’168 Patent, 1:47-50. However,
`
`these concepts were already well known at the time the ’168 Patent was filed.
`
`Indeed, the ’168 Patent itself explains as “Background” that “mobile devices (MD)
`
`include the ability to reconfigure the MD for different environments and
`
`applications.” ’168 Patent, 1:19-21.
`
`31. The ’168 Patent further describes “a communication and control
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 15 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`system” including a “wireless device” and “Server C.” ’168 Patent, Fig. 2A, 3:39-
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`53. In this system, when a wireless device “wishes to use the services of Server C
`
`214, the Server C 214 delivers the content or performs functions as requested.”
`
`’168 Patent, 3:54-56. Fig. 2A below illustrates a wireless device 202 connecting to
`
`Server C 214 via wireless carrier 204. ’168 Patent, Fig. 2A:
`
`’168 Patent, Fig. 2A.
`
`32. The wireless device can also connect to Server C via a “local office
`
`wireless network” or a “local home wireless network.” ’168 Patent, Figs. 2B-2C,
`
`4:26, 5:1. In the office network, the wireless device “also serves as a remote
`
`controller 270 for controlling intelligent office appliances 238 such as copiers and
`
`faxes.” ’168 Patent, 4:50-52. In the home network, the wireless device “can be a
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 16 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`TV remote 272 … or perform other household duties.” ’168 Patent, 4:56-60. For
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`instance, “‘macro commands’ and or detailed FIS 218 [i.e., functional instruction
`
`sets] may be written for specific wireless intelligent appliances 266 or wireless
`
`intelligent equipment 238 to control/command all of these using the CT/MD 202.”
`
`’168 Patent, 5:34-38 (CT/MD standing for “cordless telephone/mobile device,”
`
`3:28-29).
`
`33.
`
`In addition to different appliance controls, the CT/MD “is set to
`
`bypass the public wireless carrier for local office or home networks where the
`
`public carrier services are not required for communication.” ’168 Patent, 2:26-30.
`
`For this, the Server C also serves as “the primary repository/exchange to deliver
`
`various mode reconfiguration requests to the CT/MD 202.” ’168 Patent, 3:61-64.
`
`Depending on environment, the CT/MD (wireless device) sends a mode
`
`reconfiguration request to the Server C to one of multiple modes and, once the
`
`relevant FIS is received, changes modes. ’168 Patent, 3:64-4:2, 5:64-6:5. The
`
`CT/MD may include multiple modes, including a primary mode and secondary
`
`mode including a local office mode, a home loop mode, and a public carrier mode.
`
`’168 Patent, 5:51-56; 4:13-14. Further, there may be one or more primary values
`
`and subsidiary values for transmit and receive frequencies. ’168 Patent, 6:12-14.
`
`34. However, as I explain below, a wireless device switching between
`
`networks, including the mechanisms described in the ’168 patent to do so, was not
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 17 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`new as of the earliest alleged priority date of the ’168 Patent. Nor was the concept
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`of a server delivering functions to a wireless device and enabling dynamic
`
`conversion between functions, or remotely controlling office and home appliances,
`
`new when the ’168 Patent was filed.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`35.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’168
`
`Patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`for the purposes of this inter partes review, the claims are to be construed under
`
`the so-called Phillips standard, under which claim terms are given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in light of the specification and prosecution history, unless the inventor has set
`
`forth a special meaning for a term.
`
`VII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`36.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’168 Patent would have been obvious in view of the prior art. The
`
`discussion below provides a detailed analysis of how the prior art references
`
`identified below teach the limitations of the Challenged Claims of the ’168 Patent.
`
`37. As part of my analysis, I have considered the scope and content of the
`
`prior art and any differences between the alleged invention and the prior art. I
`
`describe in detail below the scope and content of the prior art, as well as any
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 18 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`differences between the alleged invention and the prior art, on an element-by-
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`element basis for each Challenged Claims of the ’168 Patent.
`
`38. As described in detail below, the alleged invention of the Challenged
`
`Claims would have been obvious in view of the teachings of the identified prior art
`
`references as well as the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 2-5, 23, and 28 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Sainton in view of Baker and Mueller.
`1.
`Summary of Sainton
`39. Like the ’168 patent, Sainton describes “frequency and protocol agile,
`
`wireless communication devices … using a variety of different radio frequencies,
`
`transmission protocols and radio infrastructures.” Sainton, 1:8-12. This is achieved
`
`with an “omni-modal circuit” that can be included in “a variety of devices to
`
`provide the devices with radio information transmission capability.” Sainton, 4:55-
`
`5:4; see also 5:30-31. Sainton describes “a communication device 402 employing
`
`the omni-modal circuit 1 of the present invention, and having an integrated display
`
`device for conveying information to a user.” Sainton, 12:65-13:1; see also FIGs.
`
`4A, 4B:
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 19 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`Sainton, FIGs. 4A, 4B.
`
`
`40. Sainton discloses that the device 402 “is capable of switching between
`
`voice and data modes of operation,” either sequentially or in parallel. Sainton,
`
`13:21-33. The device 402, with the omni-modal circuit, is designed for a variety of
`
`radio communications networks ranging from cellular networks including the
`
`“European standard,” TDMA, CDMA, and personal cellular systems to “wireless
`
`LAN systems.” Sainton, 5:13-29.
`
`41. Sainton explains that “a library of command, control and data
`
`transmission protocols appropriate for each supported system may be included in
`
`circuit 1.” Sainton, 5:52-54. This library is consulted to “implement the correct
`
`protocols … during transmissions … appropriate to the system selected.” Sainton,
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 20 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`5:54-57. Library functions include “Select RF modulation frequency; select RF
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`modulation protocol; … request transmission channel in system; obtain signal
`
`strength for all active systems; and initiate a transmission on the selected network.”
`
`Sainton, 5:66-6:14. This library at the device “may be replaced, or supplemented,
`
`by information transmitted over the radio frequencies to the device by the carrier.”
`
`Sainton, 5:57-61. Further, the device 402 can “have a preprogrammed routine for
`
`selecting information carriers based on varying criteria,” whether manually or
`
`automatically. Sainton, 16:30-34.
`
`42. Sainton envisions its library “desirably includ[ing] other functions
`
`which enable desirable computing features” including “data displaying, electronic
`
`mail storage, retrieval, and composition, and other computing functions.” Sainton,
`
`16:17-22. Sainton also discloses the library being expanded “to include substantial
`
`operating system functions” for “full-fledged personal computers and personal
`
`communicators capable of running third party applications programs.” Sainton,
`
`16:22-27.
`
`2.
`Summary of Baker
`43. Baker is directed to “a lightweight framework supporting shareable
`
`services in small footprint devices.” Baker, 1:10-12. Such smart, small footprint
`
`devices include “handheld computers, wearable devices …, personal data assistants
`
`(PDAs), ‘smart’ cellular phones, set-top boxes, game consoles, global positioning
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 21 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`system (GPS) units, electronic textbook devices, etc.” Baker, 5:1-10. The
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`lightweight framework, also referred to as a containment framework, hosts
`
`“service objects” for shareable services. Baker, 7:61-63 (service objects), 7:8-17
`
`(containment framework enables sharing of services and use other devices’
`
`services).
`
`44. Devices make their service(s) available to other devices on one or
`
`more networks and are referred to as service provider devices. Baker, 7:29-31,
`
`7:51-53. Service providers do so by registering their service with a “lookup
`
`service,” which “may reside on a separate device such as a network server.” Baker,
`
`7:35-38, 7:58-60. Some examples of service providers include printers and
`
`internet-enabled televisions, which can also be clients (like a smart cellular phone)
`
`of other service providers as well. Baker, 7:28-35. Clients and service providers
`
`may be located in a local network as well as beyond a local network on the Internet
`
`generally. Baker, 8:36-40. A smart cellular phone 134 (a client), television service
`
`provider 132, printer service provider 130, and lookup service 136 are illustrated in
`
`FIG. 3:
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 22 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`Baker, FIG. 3.
`
`
`45. To register a service, service providers load “service objects” into the
`
`lookup service, along with any other attributes or descriptors as well. Baker, 7:61-
`
`67. These service objects can be “applications located and executable within a
`
`local machine or device.” Baker, 1:41-48; see also 8:18-22 (providing service
`
`object to client). Clients request these service objects by providing a description of
`
`the requested service to the lookup service. Baker, 8:11-14. If a match is found, the
`
`lookup service sends the matching service object to the requesting client. Baker,
`
`8:18-20. A service object may execute local code on a client to obtain a requested
`
`service, or may execute a call back from the client to code located at the service
`
`provider. Baker, 8:30-35.
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 23 of 144
`
`

`

`Kotzin Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,756,168
`
`
`
`3.
`Summary of Mueller
`46. Mueller discloses a mobile device that is able to select which carrier
`
`to use for communication from among multiple available carriers. See Mueller,
`
`Abstract; 5:63-6:22. Mueller provides details about several different known carrier
`
`types, including the “Global System for Mobile Communication” or “GSM,” a
`
`“pan-European digital system,” the Digital Cellular System (DCS 1800), the
`
`American Digital Advanced Mobile Phone System (D-AMPS), the IS-95 system
`
`(CDMA access), and Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT).
`
`See Mueller, 1:15-23, 2:52-59, 3:23-26, 3:30-36, 3:40-47. Muel