UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2022-01004
`Patent 9,614,943
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. TODOR COOKLEV
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 1 of 56
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE .......................................................... 2
`II.
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED ............................................................................ 5
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ..................................................................10
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................12
`VI. LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................12
`VII. BYRNE GROUNDS (GROUNDS 1A-1C) ..................................................15
`A. Petitioner Fails to Prove Obviousness Based on Byrne for Claims
`1, 3-9, and 12 (Grounds 1A-1C) ............................................................ 15
`1. Petitioner Fails to Prove that Byrne Discloses a Processor
`that Processes a First Data Stream and a Second Data
`Stream .......................................................................................... 15
`2. Petitioner Fails to Prove that Byrne Discloses a Processor
`that Processes Two Data Streams in Parallel ............................. 26
`B. Petitioner Fails to Prove that a POSITA Would Have Reasonably
`Expected Success in Making the Byrne-Johnston-Pillekamp
`Combination (Ground 1C) ..................................................................... 28
`VIII. BYRNE-RALEIGH GROUNDS (GROUNDS 2A-2C) ...............................32
`A. Petitioner Fails to Prove Obviousness Based on Byrne in
`Combination with Raleigh for Claims 1, 2-9, and 12 (Grounds
`2A-2C) ................................................................................................... 32
`1. Petitioner Fails to Prove that Either Byrne or Raleigh
`Discloses a Processor that Processes a First Data Stream
`and a Second Data Stream in Parallel ......................................... 32
`2. A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Modify
`Byrne to Incorporate Raleigh’s SOP System .............................. 36
`
`- i -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 2 of 56
`
`

`

`3. A POSITA Would Not Have Had a Reasonable
`Expectation of Success in Modifying Byrne to Incorporate
`Raleigh’s SOP System ................................................................. 43
`B. Petitioner has Failed to Show Obviousness of the Raleigh-Byrne-
`Pillekamp Combination (Ground 2C, 2E) ............................................. 46
`C. The Remaining Grounds Fail Because They Depend on
`Independent Claims as to which Petitioner has Failed to Meet Its
`Burden .................................................................................................... 47
`IX. AUTHENTICATION OF REFERENCES ....................................................47
`X.
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................52
`
`
`- ii -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 3 of 56
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Todor V. Cooklev. I have been retained as an expert
`
`witness to provide my independent opinion in regard to the matters at issue in inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,614,943 (“the ’943 patent”) in IPR2022-01004.
`
`I have been retained by Smart Mobile Technologies LLC (“Smart Mobile”), the
`
`Patent Owner in the above proceedings. Petitioners are Apple Inc., Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Petitioners”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated $400 per hour for my time spent working in
`
`connection with this case. My compensation is in no way related to the outcome of
`
`this litigation. If called as a witness, I would testify as to the statements and
`
`opinions contained in this report.
`
`3.
`
`I am over the age of eighteen and otherwise competent to make this
`
`declaration.
`
`4.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my technical
`
`background and experience in the relevant art.
`
`5.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have considered each of the documents
`
`cited herein, in light of my general knowledge in the art. I provide my testimony
`
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention as Petitioners defined in their petition. I am familiar with the knowledge
`
`- 1 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 4 of 56
`
`

`

`and skill level of these people based on my years of experience in the industry and
`
`frequent interactions with such people.
`
`6.
`
`This Declaration is being submitted together with Patent Owner’s
`
`Response to IPR2022-01004, upon which review of claims 1–9 and 12–20 was
`
`instituted.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
`I am currently the Harris Professor of Wireless Communication and
`7.
`
`Applied Research at Purdue University in Fort Wayne, Indiana in the Department
`
`of Electrical and Computer Engineering. I have served in that endowed
`
`professorship role since 2016. Prior to receiving that endowed professorship, I was
`
`an ITT Associate Professor of Wireless Communication and Applied Research at
`
`Purdue University. Since 2008, I have served as the Director of the Wireless
`
`Technology Center at Purdue University.
`
`8.
`
`I graduated from the Technical University of Sofia, Bulgaria in 1988
`
`with a Diploma of Engineering in the field of Electrical Engineering. I graduated
`
`from Tokyo Institute of Technology in Tokyo, Japan in 1995 with a Doctor of
`
`Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in Electrical Engineering.
`
`9.
`
`In 1997–1999, I was an engineer at 3Com Corp. where I worked on
`
`software and firmware development. At that time, 3Com was a leading computer
`
`networking and data communication company. Palm Computing, which had
`
`- 2 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 5 of 56
`
`

`

`developed the PalmPilot, widely recognized as the first personal digital assistant
`
`(PDA), was a division of 3Com. Additionally, I participated in the Bluetooth
`
`Special Interest Group (SIG) on behalf of 3Com.
`
`10.
`
`In 2007–2008 I served as Principal Investigator of a National Science
`
`Foundation grant awarded to the IEEE. This grant supported numerous
`
`undergraduate and graduate students to work on hardware and software projects
`
`incorporating the IEEE standards. A significant number of software applications
`
`and hardware devices, connected to other devices and/or the Internet using wireless
`
`local or personal area networking standards were developed as a result of this
`
`funding.
`
`11.
`
`I have contributed to the development of several major standards for
`
`communication systems and numerous amendments, including Bluetooth, DSL,
`
`Wi-Fi, cellular, and military radio systems. I have participated in many meetings of
`
`standards committees and prepared, submitted, and presented documents relating
`
`to technical matters considered by these committees. I have also drafted liaison
`
`letters among different standards committees. I have chaired some committee
`
`meetings and served in other leadership roles. For example, I have been a Voting
`
`Member of the IEEE 802.11 Working Group and served as Chairman of the IEEE
`
`Standards in Education Committee. I received an award from IEEE Standards
`
`Association in 2012.
`
`- 3 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 6 of 56
`
`

`

`12. My additional involvement with IEEE includes being elected to serve
`
`on the Board of Governors of the IEEE Standards Association in 2020 for one term
`
`beginning January 2021. The Board of Governors provides overall leadership of
`
`the IEEE Standards Association. Also, I am the Series Editor for Wireless and
`
`Radio Communications for the IEEE Communications Standards Magazine (which
`
`is the premier journal in the field of communication standards) and have held that
`
`position since 2017.
`
`13. My current research interests include most aspects of modern wireless
`
`systems, including hardware and software architectures. A significant part of my
`
`research is specifically focused on standards-related issues. I have received a
`
`number of research grants in these areas. My teaching responsibilities have
`
`included courses in communication systems and networks, signals and systems,
`
`software-defined radio, and digital signal processing.
`
`14.
`
`I am a named inventor on more than thirty U.S. patents, most of which
`
`relate to the hardware or software aspects of communication systems. In 1999, I
`
`was inducted into the Purdue Inventors Hall of Fame. I have also authored and co-
`
`authored more than one hundred peer-reviewed articles. I also authored “Wireless
`
`Communication Standards: A Study of IEEE 802.11, 802.15, and 802.16,”
`
`published by IEEE Press. A list of my publications and patents appears in my
`
`curriculum vitae attached as Exhibit 2005.
`
`- 4 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 7 of 56
`
`

`

`15. A detailed record of my professional qualifications is set forth in
`
`Exhibit 2005, which is my curriculum vitae, including a list of publications,
`
`awards, courses I teach in electrical and computer engineering subjects, research
`
`grants, and professional activities. My curriculum vitae also lists the depositions,
`
`hearings, and trial at which I have testified.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`In the course of conducting my analysis and forming my opinions, I
`16.
`
`have reviewed materials including those listed below:
`
`• The ’943 patent” (EX-1001);
`
`• The prosecution history of the ’943 patent (EX-1002);
`
`• The Declaration signed by Dr. Michael Allen Jensen in IPR2022-01004 (the
`
`“Jensen Declaration”) (EX-1003);
`
`• The Petition in IPR2022-01004;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,144,711 issued to Raleigh, et al. (“Raleigh”) (EX-1005);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,784,032 issued to Johnston, et al. (“Johnston”) (EX-1006);
`
`• International Publication No. WO 98/27748 (“WO748”) (EX-1007);
`
`• European Patent Application 0 660 626 A2 issued to Byrne (“Byrne”) (EX-
`
`1008);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,594,737 issued to Pillekamp (“Pillekamp”) (EX-1009);
`
`- 5 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 8 of 56
`
`

`

`• U.S. Patent No. 5,590,133 issued to Billström, et al. (“Billström”) (EX-
`
`1010);
`
`• P.W. Wolniansky, et al., V-BLAST: An Architecture for Realizing Very
`
`High Data Rates Over the Rich-Scattering Wireless Channel, published in
`
`1998 URSI International Symposium on Signals, Systems, and Electronics.
`
`Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.98EX167) (October 1998)
`
`(“Wolniansky”) (EX-1011);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,005,876 issued to Leonard Joseph Cimini, Jr., et al.
`
`(“Cimini”) (EX-1012);
`
`• ETSI EN 301 344 V6.7.1, Digital cellular telecommunications system
`
`(Phase 2+); General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); Service description;
`
`Stage 2 (GSM 03.60 version 6.7.1 Release 1997) (EX-1014);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,425,050 issued to Schreiber, et al. (EX-1015);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,726,978 issued to Frodigh, et al. (EX-1016);
`
`• J. J. Spicer, et al., “Wireless office data communications using CT2 and
`
`DECT,” IEE Colloquium on Personal Communications: Circuits, Systems
`
`and Technology, 1993, pp. 9/1-9/4. (EX-1018);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,243,581 issued to Jawanda (EX-1019);
`
`• Excerpts from Alan V. Oppenheim, et al., Signals and Systems, Prentice
`
`Hall, New Jersey, 1983 (EX-1020);
`
`- 6 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 9 of 56
`
`

`

`• Excerpts from Theodore S. Rappaport, Wireless Communications Principles
`
`& Practice, Prentice Hall, 1996 (EX-1021);
`
`• R. G. Vaughan, et al., Antenna diversity in mobile communications, in IEEE
`
`Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 149-172, Nov.
`
`1987 (EX-1022);
`
`• S. M. Alamouti, A simple transmit diversity technique for wireless
`
`communications, in IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications,
`
`vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 1451-1458, Oct. 1998 (EX-1023);
`
`• A. A. Abidi, Direct-conversion radio transceivers for digital
`
`communications, in IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 30, no. 12, pp.
`
`1399-1410, Dec. 1995 (EX-1024);
`
`• Yonghong Gao, et al., Low-Power Implementation of a Fifth-Order Comb
`
`Decimation Filter for Multi-Standard Transceiver Applications, Electronic
`
`System Design Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, Nov. 1999 (EX-
`
`1025);
`
`• Reza Karimi, et al., Wideband Digital Receivers for Multi-Standard
`
`Software Radios, Motorola GSM Products Division, Oct. 1997 (EX-1026);
`
`• Dictionary Definitions of “communication port,” “I/O port,” and “port”
`
`(IBM Dictionary of Computing, McGraw-Hill, Inc., August 1993) (EX-
`
`1027);
`
`- 7 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 10 of 56
`
`

`

`• Jon D. Brady, Virtual Private Networking – The Flexible Approach,
`
`Institution of Electrical Engineers, 1997 (EX-1028);
`
`• Excerpts from Ziemer and Tranter, Principles of Communications: Systems,
`
`Modulation, and Noise, Fourth Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
`
`1995 (EX-1029);
`
`• Dictionary Definition of “Nyquist Theorem” (Newton’s Telecom
`
`Dictionary, Flatiron Publishing, 1998) (EX-1030);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,175,737 issued to Kao (EX-1035);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,016,311 issued to Gilbert et al. (EX-1036);
`
`• Douglas E. Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume One, Third
`
`Edition, 1995 (EX-1037);
`
`• S. Segars, The ARM9 family-high performance microprocessors for
`
`embedded applications, in Proceedings of the International Conference on
`
`Computer Design. VLSI in Computers and Processors, 5-7 Oct. 1998 (EX-
`
`1038);
`
`• Chaucer Kuo, John Wong, Multi-Standard DSP based wireless systems, in
`
`Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Signal Processing,
`
`pp. 1712-1728, 12-16 Oct. 1998 (EX-1039);
`
`- 8 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 11 of 56
`
`

`

`• J.-P. van Deursen, et al., Switched antenna diversity within a DECT system,
`
`IEEE Second Symposium on Communications and Vehicular Technology in
`
`the Benelux, 1994, pp. 141-148 (EX-1040);
`
`• P. E. Mogensen, et al., Practical considerations of using antenna diversity in
`
`DECT, Proceedings of IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC),
`
`1994, pp. 1532-1536 vol.3 (EX-1041);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,819,041 issued to Bilgic (EX-1042);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,148,324 issued to Ransom et al. (EX-1043);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,983,366 issued to King (EX-1044);
`
`• Kunle Olukotun, et al., The Case for a Single-Chip Multiprocessor,
`
`Computer Systems Laboratory Stanford University, 1996 (EX-1045);
`
`• Basem A. Nayfeh, et al., Evaluation of Design Alternatives for a
`
`Multiprocessor Microprocessor, Computer Systems Laboratory Stanford
`
`University, 1996 (EX-1046); and
`
`• The exhibits and other documents cited herein.
`
`17.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the materials indicated
`
`above, and considered each of the documents cited herein in light of general
`
`knowledge in the art at the time of the invention. In formulating my opinions, I
`
`have relied upon my experience, education, and knowledge in the relevant art. In
`
`formulating my opinions, I have considered the viewpoint of a person of ordinary
`
`- 9 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 12 of 56
`
`

`

`skill in the art at the time of the invention, as well as the relevant legal standards,
`
`including the standard for obviousness.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`I understand that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) is
`18.
`
`a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time
`
`of the invention. By “relevant,” I mean relevant to the challenged claims of the
`
`’943 patent.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that factual indicators of the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art include the various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the
`
`sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background of those
`
`actively working in the field. I understand that, in assessing the level of skill of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, one should consider the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art, the prior solutions to those problems found in the prior art
`
`references, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, the level of education of active workers in the field, and my own
`
`experience working with those of skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that in this IPR proceeding, Dr. Jensen asserts the
`
`following opinion regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art:
`
`Based on my knowledge and experience in the field and my review of
`the ’434 patent and its file history, I believe that a person of ordinary
`
`- 10 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 13 of 56
`
`

`

`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (POSITA) would have
`had a Bachelor’s degree
`in electrical engineering, computer
`engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years
`of experience related to the design or development of wireless
`communication systems, or the equivalent. Additional graduate
`education could substitute for professional experience, or significant
`experience in the field could substitute for formal education.
`
`EX-1003, ¶27.
`
`21. Dr. Jensen also testified regarding his understanding of the
`
`responsibilities of a POSITA at the time of the invention, stating that a POSITA
`
`would have “a demonstrated capability in just designing some component of the
`
`system and working on that” and “starting to work at a higher level” where “maybe
`
`they’re only designing some piece based on the expertise, but they’re
`
`understanding the architecture into which their piece will fit and how their design
`
`is going to impact that architecture and the overall functioning of the system.” EX-
`
`2006, 29:13-31:5. Dr. Jensen also testified that his definition for this IPR is the
`
`same, indicating that nothing would change about “what [a POSITA] would be
`
`aware of and what their capabilities were at the time” of the critical date. EX-2007,
`
`13:8-14:15.
`
`22. For the purposes of this declaration, I accept Dr. Jensen’s proposed
`
`qualifications of a POSITA and his opinion regarding the responsibilities and
`
`capabilities of his POSITA.
`
`- 11 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 14 of 56
`
`

`

`23. As further discussed below, my opinions as stated in this declaration
`
`are valid even if the Board adopts a slightly different level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`It is my understanding that the ’943 Patent’s challenged claims are to
`24.
`
`be construed “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to
`
`construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b) (Nov. 13, 2018). The ’943 Patent claim terms are therefore construed “in
`
`accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such terms as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the
`
`patent.” Id.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has taken the position that “no formal
`
`constructions are necessary in this proceeding.” To the extent I have opinions
`
`relating to claim construction issues, they are set forth below.
`
`VI. LEGAL STANDARDS
`26. When considering the ’943 patent and stating my opinions, I rely on
`
`the following legal standards as described to me by the attorneys for Patent Owner.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if the claimed
`
`invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the purported invention.
`
`- 12 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 15 of 56
`
`

`

`28.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis involves comparing a claim
`
`to the prior art to determine whether the claimed invention would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view
`
`of the prior art and in light of the general knowledge in the art as a whole. I also
`
`understand that obviousness is ultimately a legal conclusion based on underlying
`
`facts of four general types, all of which must be considered: (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 indicia of
`
`non-obviousness, including any praise of the invention.
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that obviousness may be established under certain
`
`circumstances by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art. Specific
`
`teachings, suggestions, or motivations to combine any first prior art reference with
`
`a second prior art reference can be explicit or implicit, but must have existed
`
`before the date of purported invention. I understand that prior art references
`
`themselves may be one source of a specific teaching or suggestion to combine
`
`features of the prior art, but that such suggestions or motivations to combine art
`
`may come from the knowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`had.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a reference may be relied upon for all that it teaches,
`
`including uses beyond its primary purpose, but also including teachings that lead
`
`- 13 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 16 of 56
`
`

`

`away from the invention. I understand that a reference may be said to teach away
`
`when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged
`
`from following the path set out in the reference, although the mere disclosure of
`
`alternative designs does not teach away.
`
`31.
`
`I further understand that whether there is a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in combining references in a particular way is also relevant to the analysis.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that it is improper to use hindsight to combine references
`
`or elements of references to reconstruct the invention using the claims as a guide.
`
`My analysis of the prior art is made from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`33.
`
`I am not offering any legal opinions in this declaration. I only
`
`consider such legal standards in framing my opinions and conclusions as well as
`
`placing assertions made by Petitioners in the Petition into the proper context.
`
`Additionally, from a subject matter perspective, I understand that Petitioners
`
`always have the burden of persuasion regarding a challenge of patentability of an
`
`invention under an inter partes review.
`
`- 14 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 17 of 56
`
`

`

`VII. BYRNE GROUNDS (GROUNDS 1A-1C)
`Petitioner Fails to Prove Obviousness Based on Byrne for Claims
`A.
`1, 3-9, and 12 (Grounds 1A-1C)
`Petitioner Fails to Prove that Byrne Discloses a Processor
`1.
`that Processes a First Data Stream and a Second Data
`Stream
`34. Limitation 1[e] requires a “processor [that] comprises multiple ones of
`
`the one or more channels and is further configured to process a first data stream
`
`and a second data stream in parallel.” EX-1001, Claim 1. For Grounds 1A-1C,
`
`Petitioner and Dr. Jensen rely solely on Byrne to meet Limitation 1[e], which also
`
`exists in independent claims 5 (Limitation 5[f]), 8 (Limitation 8[e]) and 12
`
`(Limitation 12[e]). Thus, I understand for Grounds 1A-1C, Petitioner’s arguments
`
`stand or fall based on whether Byrne discloses a processor that processes two data
`
`streams in parallel. It is my opinion, however, that the processor that Dr. Jensen
`
`identifies does not disclose a processor that processes two data streams in parallel
`
`because it does not receive either of the data streams identified by Petitioner and so
`
`does not process them.
`
`35. Dr. Jensen relies on an annotated image to claim that Byrne discloses
`
`parallel processing of the data stream by the microprocessor:
`
`- 15 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 18 of 56
`
`

`

`
`
`Pet. 16; EX-1003, ¶87. But Dr. Jensen fails to explain in his expert declaration why
`
`he highlighted the antennas, the cordless and cellular transceivers, and the logic
`
`arrows between the transceivers and the microprocessor.
`
`36. Dr. Jensen states in his declaration that the “cordless data stream”
`
`corresponds to the “first data stream” of the claims, and that the “cellular data
`
`stream” corresponds to the “second data stream” of the claims. I note that Dr.
`
`Jensen acknowledges that the alleged data streams disclosed in Byrne are streams
`
`that “transmit[ted] and receive[d] data carrying digital information on [several
`
`digital protocols].” EX-1003, ¶88; Pet. 17. That is, the data streams are the digital
`
`information received over the antennas carried by the signal. EX-2007, 19:6-17.
`
`- 16 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 19 of 56
`
`

`

`37.
`
`I have not identified where Dr. Jensen (or Petitioner) has submitted
`
`any evidence that either of the data streams received by the antennas are processed
`
`by the processor. I note that Dr. Jensen refers to two arrows between the cordless
`
`and cellular transceivers and the microprocessor. However, those do not represent
`
`the data streams received by the antennas to the microprocessor, so it is impossible
`
`for the microprocessor to have processed the data streams. Instead, a POSITA
`
`would understand that Byrne’s disclosure shows that the microprocessor controls
`
`the transceivers and audio switch but does not process the incoming data streams
`
`received by the antennas.
`
`38. First, Byrne identifies the functions of the microprocessor: “The
`
`microprocessor 210 illustrated in Figure 2 is adapted to operate in accordance with
`
`the flow charts illustrated in Figures 3-4, for controlling CCT 200 as a cordless
`
`telephone, a cellular telephone or a cellular cordless telephone.” EX-1008, 7:56-
`
`8:2. Going on, Byrne describes how the microprocessor listens to control signals
`
`from the transceivers (not the data streams) and acts to operate the CCT. Column 8
`
`describes the CCT “operating” as a cordless telephone device, listing the
`
`processing of control signals from the cordless transceiver that indicate certain
`
`statuses of the transceiver. EX-1008, 8:16-28.
`
`39.
`
`I also note that in a prior deposition in IPR2022-00766, also involving
`
`Byrne, Dr. Jensen acknowledged that this disclosure does not relate to processing
`
`- 17 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 20 of 56
`
`

`

`the incoming data stream: “[t]his paragraph doesn’t deal specifically with what is
`
`happening during the phone call, but more to establish the phone call.” EX-2006,
`
`169:12-171:2. Further, when asked “do you recall anything in Byrne that tells you
`
`that operating also specifically means a – a live connection,” Dr. Jensen replied “I
`
`don’t recall that kind of specificity in the specification.” EX-2006, 172:20-173:2.
`
`40. This is confirmed by Dr. Jensen’s deposition in this proceeding, where
`
`he acknowledged that Byrne does not expressly disclose that the incoming data is
`
`processed by the microprocessor. In again referring to column 8, lines 16-28, Dr.
`
`Jensen testified that “the first sentence talks about control signals for enabling the
`
`cordless transceiver” and the second sentence refers to the microprocessor
`
`receiving “signals from the cordless receiver that indicates the received signal
`
`strength,” “signals for detecting received data,” and signals for “sending transmit
`
`data.” EX-2007, 21:7-23:6. When asked “anywhere in [that disclosure in the
`
`specification] does it refer to the processing of received data,” Dr. Jensen replied
`
`that “It doesn’t expressly use those words processing the received data, but
`
`detecting is a form of processing.” EX-2007, 23:7-11. He was further pressed
`
`about whether the microprocessor receives the same data that the antenna does:
`
`Q. Detecting that the cordless receiver is receiving data, does that mean
`that the microprocessor is also receiving that data?
`A. Well -- so Byrne here -- you know, this is the only sentence we have,
`so Byrne here is not highly clear on everything that he means by this
`
`- 18 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 21 of 56
`
`

`

`sentence, but it certainly leaves a POSITA to understand that data is
`being passed from that receiver to the microprocessor.
`Q. Is it the same data that is being received by the antenna?
`A. Presumably, right. Again, he is not highly explicit here, this is kind
`of the only sentence we have of exactly what that data is and what is
`happening, but data would be coming through the antenna that would
`end up at the microprocessor through this channel, it is just not highly
`explicit or not explicit at all about what form that takes.
`
`EX-2007, 23:14-24:10.
`
`41.
`
`It appears that Dr. Jensen concluded that the microprocessor would
`
`process the incoming data stream because “it says here for detecting received data,
`
`so what’s doing that detecting, what’s doing that processing, the processor he
`
`discloses is the microprocessor 210.” EX-2007, 24:11-17. I disagree that this
`
`supports his inference, and note that Dr. Jensen likewise acknowledged that this
`
`sentence is lacking:
`
`Q. And there is no express disclosure that said that the cordless receiver
`takes the information from the antenna and passes that information to
`the processor, is that correct?
`A. Well, express, I mean, I think that paragraph and that sentence we
`talked about in column 8 about detecting received data does indicate a
`passing of received data from
`the cordless receiver
`to
`the
`microprocessor.
`
`- 19 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 22 of 56
`
`

`

`Q. But it never says the microprocessor receives that data, it says that -
`- only that it detects signal from the cordless receiver for detecting
`received data, correct?
`A. That is the language -- I will agree, that is the language from Byrne,
`yes.
`
`EX-2007, 33:11-34:4.
`
`42.
`
`I disagree with Dr. Jensen. Further confirming that Dr. Jensen has not
`
`interpreted Byrne correctly, he acknowledges that he cannot identify what the
`
`microprocessor would do with the data if it went in the path he suggests, given that
`
`there is no disclosure of the data being passed to the microprocessor and then back
`
`out to the audio outputs:
`
`Q. What would the microprocessor then do with that data?
`A. Again, Byrne has not expressed as to what that processing might
`look like, but there is a lot of processing that might happen to that data
`stream, right? I mean, it is coming in -- it uses digital standards so there
`is all kinds of processing that needs to happen to get that in a form, say,
`where a speaker could actually play that.
`Q. In Figure 2 that you reference what you don't highlight is a line from
`the cordless receiver to the cordless audio, correct?
`A. I don't highlight it, but it's there, yes.
`Q. What is your understanding of what that is passing?
`A. Well, once again, Byrne is not highly explicit about what signals
`go where. At a minimum that is something that the cordless audio could
`do some maybe filtering or amplification of or something like that to
`
`- 20 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2004
`Page 23 of 56
`
`

`

`send it out through the audio switch to the speaker in this particular case
`because we are receiving.
`Q. Is there anything -- is there any disclosure in Byrne that the
`information is sent to the speakers from the microprocessor?
`A. I am not aware of any disclosure, I don't recall any disclosure in
`Byrne that says that the microprocessor 210 sends audio data to the
`speaker.
`
`EX-2007, 26:17-28:2.
`
`43. And Dr. Jensen admits there is no disclosure that says the
`
`microprocessor sends information to the cordless receiver to go to the cordless
`
`audio module. EX-2007, 32:17-33:1.
`
`44. The next disclosure in the specification of how the device operates is
`
`in reference to Figure 3. EX-1008, 8:44-47; EX-2007, 28:12-21. But Figure 3 does
`
`not show that the microprocessor even receives the data streams, let alone
`
`processes them. Instead, as Dr. Jensen has previously stated, “my understanding of
`
`Figure 3 that I have looked at before this obviously, is that this is really about
`
`making a decisio