IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Sanjay K. Rao, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`9,614,943 Attorney Docket No.: 39843-0128IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`April 4, 2017
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 13/621,294
`Filing Date:
`September 17, 2012
`Title:
`SYSTEM TO INTERFACE INTERNET PROTOCOL (IP) BASED
`WIRELESS DEVICES WITH SUBTASKS AND CHANNELS
`
`
`SECOND DECLARATION OF DR. MICHAEL ALLEN JENSEN
`
` 
`
` 
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`2.
`
`I. THE BYRNE GROUNDS RENDER THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`OBVIOUS .................................................................................................................. 4
`A.
`Byrne Renders Obvious The “Processor” Limitations In Claims 1,
`3-9, And 12 (Grounds 1A-1C) ......................................................................... 4
`1.
`Byrne’s “Microprocessor” Receives and Processes First and
`Second Data Streams ....................................................................... 4
`Byrne’s “Microprocessor” Processes Two Data Streams “In
`Parallel” ......................................................................................... 16
`The Byrne-WO748 Combination Renders Obvious Claims 3-4
`B.
`(Ground 1B) ................................................................................................... 20
`C.
`A Reasonable Expectation of Success Exists For The Byrne-
`WO748 Combination (Ground 1B) ............................................................... 23
`D.
`A Reasonable Expectation of Success Exists For The Byrne-
`Johnston-Pillekamp Combination (Ground 1C) ............................................ 26
` THE RALEIGH GROUNDS RENDER THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`OBVIOUS ................................................................................................................ 27
`A.
`The Raleigh-Byrne Combination Renders Obvious The
`“Processor” Limitations In Claims 1-9 And 12 (Ground 2A-2C) ................. 27
`1.
`The Raleigh-Byrne Combination Provides An Additional Way
`That A Processor Processes Two Data Streams In Parallel .......... 27
`2. Abundant Evidence Shows That A POSITA Would Have Been
`Motivated To Combine Raleigh and Byrne .................................. 37
`3. A Reasonable Expectation of Success Exists For The Raleigh-
`Byrne Combination ....................................................................... 47
`The Raleigh-Byrne Combination Renders Obvious Claims 6-7
`B.
`(Ground 2A) ................................................................................................... 50
`C.
`The Raleigh-Byrne-WO748 Combination Renders Obvious
`Claims 3-4 (Ground 2B) ................................................................................ 51
`D.
`The Raleigh-Byrne-Pillekamp Combination Renders Obvious
`Claims 12, 15, 18-20) (Grounds 2C and 2E) ................................................. 52
`E.
`The Raleigh-Based Grounds Render Obvious The Rest of The
`Challenged Claims ......................................................................................... 52
`III. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS CONSIDERED ................................................ 53
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 56
`TV. CONCLUSION... eecceeeeseeeseeeseeeeseesseeeseeeseeeseeeseeesaeeeaeecsaecsaessaesesaeeaeesaeeegs 56
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`This Declaration expands on the conclusions that I have formed based
`
`on the analysis provided in my first declaration (EX-1003, incorporated herein by
`
`reference in its entirety; “Original Declaration”). Consistent with my findings
`
`provided in my Original Declaration and based upon my knowledge and
`
`experience and my review of the prior art publications listed in the first and this
`
`declarations, a POSITA would have found that claims 1-9 and 12-20 (“the
`
`Challenged Claims”) of the ’943 patent are rendered obvious by at least the
`
`combinations of references set forth in my Original Declaration.
`
`I.
`
`THE BYRNE GROUNDS RENDER THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`OBVIOUS
`A. Byrne Renders Obvious The “Processor” Limitations In Claims 1,
`3-9, And 12 (Grounds 1A-1C)
`1.
`Byrne’s “Microprocessor” Receives and Processes First and
`Second Data Streams
`In the Patent Owner’s response (“POR”), Patent Owner contends that
`
`2.
`
`Byrne’s “microprocessor 210” merely controls transceivers 220, 230 and audio
`
`switch 260, and does not receive or process data streams. POR, 7-13. While Byrne
`
`describes the microprocessor as performing certain control operations, the opera-
`
`tions are not limited to what is disclosed in Byrne. EX-1008, 8:16-28. Based on my
`
`review of Byrne’s disclosure and a POSITA’s knowledge of processors by the
`
`Critical Date, a POSITA would have understood and found obvious that Byrne’s
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`microprocessor receives and processes data streams. EX-1049, 20:13-21:4 (Dr.
`
`Cooklev recognized that processors as of 1999 were multitask capable).
`
`3.
`
`First, FIG. 2 clearly shows that Byrne’s microprocessor receives data
`
`from its cellular and cordless transceivers:
`
`
`
`EX-1008, Figure 2 (annotated)
`
`4.
`
`Reviewing Byrne’s FIG. 2, a POSITA would have considered the ar-
`
`rows from Byrne’s transceivers to its microprocessor as depicting a flow of data re-
`
`ceived by the transceivers to the microprocessor. According to Patent Owner, these
`
`arrows allegedly depict a flow of “instructions,” not data. However, neither Patent
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Owner nor Dr. Cooklev clarifies what type of “instructions” Byrne’s transceivers
`
`would be sending to its microprocessor. Based on my review of the record and my
`
`knowledge and experience, a POSITA would not have understood transceivers as
`
`sending instructions to a microprocessor. Instead, a POSITA would have under-
`
`stood transceivers as sending data to a microprocessor for processing.
`
`5.
`
`Byrne’s specification supports this understanding of a POSITA. In
`
`particular, Byrne describes that microprocessor 210 “monitors signals from the
`
`cordless receiver 221 indicating received signal strength and for detecting receive
`
`data.” EX-1008, 8:19-21. Signals that enable Byrne’s microprocessor to detect
`
`“signal strength” and received “data” are not “instructions;” they are data streams
`
`received by the receiver. Id. This is confirmed by Byrne’s disclosure that, “[a]ddi-
`
`tionally, the microprocessor 210 monitors control signals from the cordless trans-
`
`ceiver 220.” EX-1008, 8:23-24. By distinguishing “control signals” as separate
`
`from the “signals” used to detect signal strength and received data, Byrne confirms
`
`that the first-mentioned “signals” are not limited to “control” signals. Again,
`
`Byrne’s “control signals” (which include “security codes and broadcast infor-
`
`mation relevant to the cordless system”) are not simply “instructions,” but, instead,
`
`represent data (e.g., security codes, broadcast information) that is received by
`
`Byrne’s transceiver and passed to its microprocessor for processing. EX-1008,
`
`8:23-28. Furthermore, Byrne nowhere limits transceiver output to instructions, but
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`instead suggests otherwise through reference to the above-noted output of signals
`
`(e.g., data such as security codes, broadcast information, signals that enable micro-
`
`processor detection of signal strength and receive data, etc.).
`
`6.
`
`Further, Byrne describes its cellular operation, which also confirms
`
`that its microprocessor receives and processes data streams. For example, Byrne
`
`describes that “microprocessor 210 controls the CCT 200 in a similar way when
`
`operating as a cellular telephone, but appropriately modified for the signaling pro-
`
`tocols and data encryption used in the cellular system.” EX-1008, 8:29-33. As
`
`Byrne explains, the “signalling protocols, data encryption techniques and the like
`
`… are well known in the art, and the microprocessor can be arranged to operate in
`
`a known manner to effect control of the signals in such systems.” EX-1008, 8:33-
`
`38. Based on my knowledge and experience in the relevant field, a POSITA would
`
`have understood that Byrne’s microprocessor receives and processes the cellular
`
`data to perform known cellular signaling and data encryption operations. In fact,
`
`the microprocessor needs to access the data to perform data encryption and decryp-
`
`tion. EX-1075, 6:5-58 (“The microprocessor 158 continues encrypting until all the
`
`data block has been encrypted.”); EX-1076, 18:10-15 (“In applications where
`
`voice security is desired, the voice signal from microphone 129 is converted to a
`
`digital signal and encrypted by microprocessor 122,” which is included in wireless
`
`device 120), 16:1-3.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`7.
`
`Dr. Cooklev also agrees that data encryption requires a processor and
`
`software embedded therein, such as Byrne’s microprocessor. EX-1049, 19:5-23:10.
`
`According to Dr. Cooklev, different types of processors (e.g., “general-purpose
`
`processors” or “application-specific integrated circuits”) for implementing data en-
`
`cryption and other security software were known before the Critical Date, and such
`
`processors and their operations were well within a POSITA’s knowledge and skill.
`
`EX-1049, 24:5-25:8, 31:19-32:3. Further, Dr. Cooklev was not aware of any trans-
`
`mitters and receivers capable of performing encryption or any components other
`
`than a processor that were responsible for data encryption by the Critical Date. EX-
`
`1049, 26:18-28:15.
`
`8.
`
`Based on my review, Byrne does not provide additional processors or
`
`other components for encryption or other data processing, particularly between the
`
`microprocessor 210 and the respective transceivers 220 and 230. Dr. Cooklev
`
`agreed with this observation. EX-1048, 36:4-12. Therefore, reviewing Byrne’s de-
`
`scription and a POSITA’s general knowledge, a POSITA would have understood
`
`and found obvious that Byrne’s microprocessor processes cordless and cellular
`
`data streams. Byrne does not teach any other scenarios. In particular, Byrne does
`
`not call out any other components (e.g., transceivers 220/230, audio channels
`
`240/250, audio switch 260) that are responsible for any type of data processing.
`
`Id.; EX-1008, 7:25-55, 8:39-43; EX-1049, 46:1-47:4.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`9.
`
`In addition, Byrne describes that its microprocessor is in data commu-
`
`nication with its “display 205” (also referred to as “LCD” in Figure 2). EX-1008,
`
`8:54-56 (“microprocessor 210 updates the display 205”). Dr. Cooklev also recog-
`
`nized this. EX-1049, 32:4-24 (“I think in Figure 2, the microprocessor supplies the
`
`LCD with data.”). Therefore, a POSITA would have understood and found obvious
`
`that the data for updating the display are transmitted from the respective transceiv-
`
`ers 220, 230 to the microprocessor 210, which then processes the received data
`
`streams and supplies data to the “LCD” display 205, as clearly illustrated in
`
`Byrne’s Figure 2.
`
`10. Patent Owner’s limited reading of Byrne’s microprocessor contradicts
`
`its own position that Byrne’s other components, such as transceivers 220/230 and
`
`audio switch 260, would have processing capability that the microprocessor alleg-
`
`edly lacks. Dr. Cooklev indicated that he was not aware of any transceivers de-
`
`signed for processing data streams before the Critical Date. EX-1049, 39:14-20.
`
`However, he still concluded that the processing in Byrne occurs in the transceivers,
`
`instead of the microprocessor. EX-1049, 39:14-20. Based on my review of the rec-
`
`ord, his conclusion relies solely on the illustration of Byrne’s Figure 2 and Byrne’s
`
`description that “conventional” transceivers can implement Byrne’s cordless and
`
`cellular transceivers. EX-1049, 40:2-41:6; EX-1008, 7:39-41, 7:48-49. However,
`
`Dr. Cooklev did not identify any conventional transceivers that were capable of
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`performing data stream processing in cordless/cellular telephone networks as of
`
`1999. EX-1049, 43:16-44:1. In fact, Dr. Cooklev recognized that Byrne did not de-
`
`scribe that the transceivers 220 and 230, “audio channel” 240 and 250, or “audio
`
`switch 260” have data processing capability. EX-1049, 46:1-47:4. Byrne’s disclo-
`
`sure is consistent with abundant evidence confirming that transceivers did not pro-
`
`vide data processing around the Critical Date. The evidence confirms that micro-
`
`processors, not transceivers, process cordless/cellular data streams, and that a
`
`POSITA would have understood or found obvious that, in a system where a micro-
`
`processor receives input from a transceiver, the microprocessor, not the trans-
`
`ceiver, processes data streams received by the transceiver.
`
`11. For example, the technology capabilities around the Critical Date of
`
`the ’943 patent support the need for processing capabilities, such as those provided
`
`by Byrne’s microprocessor, in digital cellular and cordless systems. As an exam-
`
`ple, Analog Devices, a leading manufacturer of semiconductor devices, announced
`
`a chipset, the AD6523 and AD6524, in 1999. EX-1050, 1-3. According to Analog
`
`Devices, “[t]ogether, the two ICs supply the main functions necessary for imple-
`
`menting dual- or triple-band radios for GSM cellular telephones.” EX-1050, 1.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`EX-1050, Figure 1
`
`
`
`12. The figure above shows a simplified block diagram for the AD6523
`
`and AD6524 integrated circuits. According to the description by Analog Devices,
`
`“[t]he receive section is at the top of the figure.” EX-1050, 1. The description in-
`
`cludes a discussion of the “transmit/receive switch” (T/R switch), indicating that
`
`the two receive outputs of the switch are for “925-960 MHz for the GSM band or
`
`1805-1880 MHz for DCS.” The description then discusses filters, low-noise ampli-
`
`fiers, direct conversion mixers that result in quadrature (I and Q) channels, varia-
`
`ble-gain baseband amplifiers, and ultimately analog-to-digital converters (ADC).
`
`13. Similarly, according to the description by Analog Devices, “[t]he
`
`Transmit section begins on the right, at the multiplexed I and Q inputs/outputs.”
`
`EX-1050, 2. The figure shows that these signals enter through a “DAC”, which is a
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`digital-to-analog converter. The figure and description disclose how these base-
`
`band analog signals are then converted to radio signals passed through the power
`
`amplifier (PA) and the T/R switch for transmission by the antenna.
`
`14. Analog Devices indicates that “[t]he AD6524 is a fractional-N synthe-
`
`sizer that features extremely fast lock times.” EX-1050, 1. It is shown in the dia-
`
`gram as the “PLL”, which stands for phase-locked loop. This chip combined with
`
`an external voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO) creates a sinusoidal signal at a pre-
`
`cisely controlled frequency.
`
`15. While additional discussion is possible regarding the operation of this
`
`or other similar chipsets, the key observation is that this chipset, which provides a
`
`cellular transmitter and a cellular receiver, does not perform any of the digital pro-
`
`cessing required for a digital cellular communication system such as GSM. More
`
`specifically, the analog output of the receiver must be digitized by the analog-to-
`
`digital converters (ADCs), with no functions within the chipset controlling how the
`
`resulting digital signals are processed to produce voice or other data outputs. Simi-
`
`larly, the digital signals from a processing block are passed through digital-to-ana-
`
`log converters (DACs) into the chipset to be converted to radio signals. In both
`
`cases, the processing must be accomplished by an additional component or set of
`
`components designed for the purpose of processing the digital signals. This is true
`
`whether the digital signals represent voice or other forms of data.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`16. Given this analysis, a POSITA would have understood or found obvi-
`
`ous that the AD6523/AD6524 chipset, along with some of the other components
`
`shown in Figure 1 of EX-1050, would perform the functionality of the cellular re-
`
`ceiver 231, the cellular transmitter 232, the BPF (band pass filter) 271, and the an-
`
`tenna 238 shown in Figure 2 of Byrne. Because processing is not included in this
`
`chipset and supporting components, it would have been understood that processing
`
`is performed separately.
`
`17. Further, EX-1051 discloses a similar chipset from February 1999 for
`
`DECT cordless telecommunications. This transceiver chipset and supporting cir-
`
`cuitry provides the functionality to the cordless receiver 221, the cordless transmit-
`
`ter 222, the BPF 270, and the antenna 228 in Figure 2 of Byrne. Careful analysis of
`
`EX-1051 shows that for this cordless transceiver, the output of the chipset from the
`
`receiver is a baseband signal that needs to be properly digitized and fed into a pro-
`
`cessor. The transmitter path of the chipset takes data that has already been pro-
`
`cessed and converts it into radio signals that can be transmitted from the antenna.
`
`As in the case of the cellular transceiver chipset, it would have been understood
`
`that the required processing on the digital signals would be performed separately.
`
`18.
`
`In determining where this required processing could be provided in
`
`the embodiment shown in Figure 2 of Byrne, it is noteworthy that Byrne shows a
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`different type of arrow between the microprocessor 210 and the cellular and cord-
`
`less transmitters/receivers than the arrows shown between other blocks, such as be-
`
`tween the BPF 271 and the cellular transmitter/receiver, between the cellular trans-
`
`mitter/receiver and cellular audio 250, or between similar blocks for the cordless
`
`transmitter/receiver. A POSITA would have interpreted this different type of arrow
`
`as a communication bus for transfer of digital information, as opposed to the ana-
`
`log signals contained elsewhere in the block diagram of Figure 2. This is consistent
`
`with the disclosure of Figure 1 of EX-1050. Specifically, the analog output of the
`
`receiver is converted to a digital representation by the ADCs that can be fed to the
`
`microprocessor 210 through this bus. Similarly, digital signals processed by the
`
`microprocessor 210 can be transmitted over the digital bus to the DACs that feed
`
`analog signals into the cellular transmitter. Similar explanations apply for the cord-
`
`less transceiver chipset of EX-1051.
`
`19.
`
` For at least the reasons above, a POSITA would have understood and
`
`found obvious that Byrne’s microprocessor processes data, such as the data
`
`streams from the cordless and cellular transceivers, in addition to controlling the
`
`transceivers and audio switch. EX-1008, 8:16-31, 8:39-43.
`
`20. Acknowledging Byrne’s limited disclosure of the other components
`
`than the microprocessor (e.g., transceivers 220/230 and audio channels 240/250),
`
`Dr. Cooklev turned to a fallback position that the implementation details of the
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`components would have been left to a POSITA, and there would have been multi-
`
`ple ways to implement those. EX-1049, 47:11-50:13. However, his argument actu-
`
`ally supports my (and Petitioner’s) analysis. As discussed above, a POSITA, based
`
`on knowledge and skill, would conclude that the microprocessor processes the data
`
`streams, at least in part, for several obvious benefits and operations, such as
`
`providing data security in transmitting and receiving data (by data encryption),
`
`providing data for displaying (via the “LCD” display), etc. As recognized by Dr.
`
`Cooklev, a POSITA would also have understood and found obvious that even the
`
`switching operations that Byrne’s microprocessor performs for controlling the
`
`transceivers and the audio switch would involve processing of data streams. EX-
`
`1049, 53:7-19 (asserting that Byrne’s audio switch 260 performs “switching func-
`
`tionality,” which “could be referred to as processing,” and acknowledging that
`
`Byrne’s microprocessor also performs control switching operations).
`
`21. Lastly, Patent Owner even attempts to distinguish two different types
`
`of arrowhead lines used in Figure 2 as the reason for its interpretation of the micro-
`
`processor’s operation. POR, 17-18; EX-1049, 34:7-9 (“This big arrow indicates
`
`some control functionality or -- or a flag, but it's clearly not data.”). Such distinc-
`
`tion is arbitrary because the types of arrowhead lines have little weight in under-
`
`standing relevant components, as evidenced in Byrne and the ’943 patent itself.
`
`Byrne offers no definitions associated with those line types. In fact, Byrne uses the
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`“big arrow” to demonstrate the data transmission between the microprocessor 210
`
`and the display 205 (“LCD”), which therefore supports the existence of the data
`
`streams between the microprocessor and the respective transceivers 220, 230 that
`
`are illustrated with similar big arrows. EX-1008, Figure 2. Interestingly, the ’943
`
`patent similarly uses two different arrowhead lines (e.g., thin and thick lines), but
`
`offers no distinction and rather uses them interchangeably. EX-1001, Figures 3, 4
`
`(below), 5A.
`
`EX-1001, Figure 4
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Byrne’s “Microprocessor” Processes Two Data Streams “In
`Parallel”
`In the POR, Patent Owner argues that Byrne’s microprocessor does
`
`22.
`
`not process first and second data streams in parallel because Byrne’s description
`
`of the “operation(s)” does not cover “actual open connections.” POR, 20-22. This
`
`narrow view is inconsistent with Byrne’s disclosure, which repeatedly discusses
`
`simultaneous/parallel operation of its cellular/cordless systems—“the CCT 200
`
`may operate ... simultaneously as a cellular telephone and a cordless telephone”
`
`and “can be so arranged such that both cellular and cordless operations are in
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`progress at the same time.” EX-1008, 8:6-9; 8:1-2 (identifying “cellular cordless
`
`telephone” as a mode of operation). Based on my experience and knowledge in this
`
`field, this disclosure alone is sufficient and a POSITA would have understood and
`
`found obvious that Byrne’s system operates as Byrne describes it—simultane-
`
`ously—and further found obvious that, in doing so, Byrne’s microprocessor pro-
`
`cesses cellular and cordless data streams in parallel.
`
`23. Further, Byrne describes parallel monitoring of signal characteristics
`
`that indicate parallel connections to its cellular and cordless systems. For example,
`
`Byrne describes simultaneously considering “received signal strength,” “bit error
`
`rate, frame error rate or the like” in assessing the cellular and cordless systems.
`
`EX-1008, 4:46-56. To compare signal strength and bit/frame error rate, a POSITA
`
`would have understood and found obvious that Byrne’s system maintains parallel
`
`open connections and processes signals received over the parallel open connections
`
`to assess signal strength and error rate of data (e.g., bit/frame) conveyed in those
`
`signals. Based on my review of the record and my knowledge and experience,
`
`Byrne’s parallel assessment of these data transfer characteristics confirms that
`
`Byrne’s microprocessor processes data from multiple connections simultaneously.
`
`Based on Byrne’s disclosure, a POSITA would have understood that parallel open
`
`connections would have been an obvious way to receive and process signals for the
`
`assessment described in Byrne.
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`24. Simultaneous cellular/cordless operation, including the processing of
`
`two data streams in parallel, was well-known. For example, Gillig, which is refer-
`
`enced in Byrne, describes three-way linking that uses parallel cellular and cordless
`
`connections. EX-1008, 1:27-29, 2:42-46, 2:58-3:11, 10:37-39; EX-1052, 1:62-66,
`
`3:26-31, 6:35-7:16. Given Byrne’s express disclosure of simultaneous operation
`
`(EX-1008, 8:1-15) and Byrne’s reference to Gillig (e.g., three-way linking), a
`
`POSITA would have understood and found obvious that Byrne’s phone (i.e., its
`
`microprocessor) performs parallel processing of cellular/cordless data streams
`
`while Byrne is in simultaneous cellular/cordless operation, consistent with or in a
`
`manner similar to Gillig’s three-way linking.
`
`25. Byrne’s handover, as illustrated in Figures 3-4, further supports that
`
`its microprocessor processes cellular and cordless data streams in parallel. Byrne
`
`describes that, if “the user were travelling out of a system service area and the ser-
`
`vice breaks down,” its device will “automatically handover to a system having a
`
`good service (e.g. cordless to cellular)” so that it does not lose an ongoing call
`
`(“actual open connection”). EX-1008, 4:9-14. Therefore, it would have been un-
`
`derstood and obvious that Byrne’s phone processes both cordless and cellular data
`
`streams in parallel during the handover process, which transitions a call from one
`
`service to another without losing it. The British applications that are referenced in
`
`Byrne confirm this. EX-1069 (“Byrne-730”), 5-6; EX-1070 (“Byrne-731”), 7-9;
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`EX-1071 (“Byrne-198”), 4, 10-12. For example, Byrne-730’s dual-mode terminal
`
`performs a handover from cordless to cellular (“mobile”) where “[a]fter the estab-
`
`lishment of the connection [to cellular/mobile] is completed the mobile station part
`
`informs the cordless telephone part about the matter and the latter releases the ra-
`
`dio path of the cordless telephone system.” EX-1069, 5-6. As such, during the
`
`handover, an existing call connection over one service is released only after a new
`
`connection over the other service is established. Prior to such release, overlap and
`
`processing are both necessary and obvious. Similarly, Byrne-198 confirms that the
`
`handover procedure is performed at the microprocessor that determines a user ve-
`
`locity as a criterion for automatic handover (e.g., if a user is faster than an upper
`
`threshold, the device maintains or transfers to a cellular mode, or if the user is
`
`slower than a lower threshold, it maintains or transfers to a cordless mode). EX-
`
`1071, 4, 10-12. Byrne-198 describes that the user velocity is determined based on
`
`the “[r]ate of change of received signal strength intensity (RSSI),” received from
`
`the cordless and cellular antennas and processed at the “digital signal processor
`
`314” included in the microprocessor. EX-1071, 11-12.
`
`26. Even assuming that Patent Owner is correct that Byrne’s discussion of
`
`simultaneous “cellular and cordless operations” refers only to control operations
`
`and “not actual open connections,” it would have been obvious that Byrne’s micro-
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`processor processes cellular and cordless data streams simultaneously in perform-
`
`ing the control operations. As mentioned above, Byrne’s microprocessor quite
`
`clearly describes parallel consideration of signal strength and bit/frame error rate.
`
`EX-1008, 4:46-56. Even assuming this consideration is limited to assessment of
`
`control signals, it still involves parallel processing of data streams. In fact, Byrne
`
`describes control signals with “broadcast information relevant to the cordless sys-
`
`tem.” EX-1008, 8:23-28. Processing this “information” while a cellular call is in
`
`progress involves processing a first data stream (e.g., the broadcast information) in
`
`parallel with a second data stream (e.g., the cellular call data). Neither the claims,
`
`nor the ’943 patent’s specification, requires audio from two networks to be simul-
`
`taneously processed. Thus, even assuming that Patent Owner is correct in asserting
`
`that Byrne’s simultaneous operation is limited to simultaneous processing of con-
`
`trol information, that simultaneous processing still satisfies the claims.
`
`B.
`
`The Byrne-WO748 Combination Renders Obvious Claims 3-4
`(Ground 1B)
`27. The Petition and my Original Declaration already explained how the
`
`Byrne-WO748 combination renders obvious the well-known use of a “virtual net-
`
`work,” which was commonly used in systems like those described in the Byrne-
`
`WO748 combination. Petition, 30; EX-1003, ¶120. However, Patent Owner criti-
`
`cizes Petitioner’s reasoned analysis because Byrne and WO748 do not expressly
`
`disclose connection to a virtual network. POR, 22-25. However, this rigid approach
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`does not properly account for the knowledge, creativity, and experience of a
`
`POSITA.
`
`28. Based on my knowledge and experience in the relevant field, imple-
`
`menting a VPN for the networks like those described in Byrne-WO748 was well-
`
`known and would have been obvious to a POSITA. EX-1068 (“Paulsen”), 1:13-43,
`
`4:64-5:35. By way of example, it would have been obvious to use a VPN as evi-
`
`denced in Paulsen such that the WO748 network, which includes one or more “re-
`
`mote units 20” and/or “base unit 10,” is used or modified according to known
`
`methods to “establish a secure communications path 56, referred to as a tunnel,
`
`through the public network 44 with the remote client 46 by negotiating the commu-
`
`nications protocol with the client 46 and authenticating the identity of the client.
`
`Once the secure tunnel has been established between the private network 42
`
`through the host computer 48 and the public network 44 with the remote client 46,
`
`the remote client is treated as a node of the private network and uses the communi-
`
`cations protocol of the private network 25 even though the public network uses a
`
`different protocol.” EX-1068, 4:16-26. Such known VPN systems would have been
`
`easily applicable to the building and network components, such as those described
`
`in WO748 (as illustrated below).
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`EX-1007, Figure 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`29. Based on my knowledge and experience in the field, virtual networks
`
`and VPNs were well-known and could be conveniently implemented such that a
`
`POSITA would have found it obvious to consider use of VPNs in such a network
`
`as WO748 given their “strong demand,” prevalent use, and known benefits, such as
`
`“taking advantage of the efficiencies of a common communications infrastructure”
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`and “communications privacy.” EX-1072, 3; EX-1073, 2:3-21 (“to provide ade-
`
`quate protection from unauthorized access to virtual networks served by a common
`
`data network”), EX-1074, 1:48-54 (“Along with the rapid spread of the Internet, as
`
`well as the cost reduction of using the Internet, there have appeared strong de-
`
`mands for forming virtual private networks on the Internet using the functions of
`
`lower layers than the IP layer provided by networks, while suppressing the cost
`
`and isolating each of those virtual private networks from external networks so as to
`
`assure the security and quality thereof.”). Given the popularity and technical con-
`
`venience, a POSITA would have understood that the implementation of VPNs in
`
`the WO748’s system does not require explicit instructions or details in WO748.
`
`30. As such, a POSITA would have understood and found obvious that
`
`the Byrne-WO748 combination renders obvious the “virtual network” features in
`
`claim 3.
`
`C. A Reasonable Expectation of Success Exists For The Byrne-WO748
`Combination (Ground 1B)
`31. Patent Owner argues that “Dr. Jensen’s POSITA could not design a
`
`wired and wireless infrastructure communication system to be used with the Byrne
`
`telephone or to modify Byrne’s telephone to communicate in WO748’s micro-
`
`cells.” POR, 26. I disagree.
`
`32. As discussed in the Petition and my Original Declaration, Petitioner
`
`sufficiently demonstrated how the infrastructure (“microcells”), as known in
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`WO748, would fit for portable devices like Byrne’s CCTs. Petition, 25-27. With
`
`this disclosure, a POSITA would have understood and found it obvious to modify
`
`WO748’s architecture (“microcells”) to accommodate devices like Byrne’s CCTs
`
`(which are already similar to WO748’s subscriber units) because she has an “un-
`
`derstanding [of] the architecture [e.g., WO748’s microcell] into which their pieces
`
`[e.g., Byrne’s CCTs] will fit and how their design is going to impact that architec-
`
`ture and the overall functioning of the system.” EX-2006, 29:13-31:5. Similarly,
`
`based on the understanding of WO748’s “architecture” and “overall functioning,” a
`
`POSITA would have understood how Byrne’s CCTs would be modified to be op-
`
`erable in WO748’s architecture. EX-2006, 29:13-31:5
`
`33.
`
`Indeed, a POSITA would have understood that the Byrne-WO748
`
`combination would be predictable and well within her capabilities. For example, as
`
`noted in the Petition and my Original Declaration, WO748 already describes sub-
`
`scriber units that are similar to Byrne’s portable phones and communicate over
`
`multiple networks in a similar manner to Byrne’s phones. EX-1007, 5 (“subscriber
`
`units such as cellular telephones 32 operating on one or more networks”);