IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Sanjay K Rao, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`8,842,653
`U.S. Patent No.:
`September 23, 2014
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 14/139,817
`Filing Date:
`December 23, 2013
`Title:
`WIRELESS DEVICES WITH TRANSMISSION CONTROL AND
`MULTIPLE PATHS OF COMMUNICATION
`
` Attorney Docket No.: 39843-0125IP1
`
`SECOND DECLARATION OF DR. MICHAEL ALLEN JENSEN
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`I further declare that these statements are made with the knowledge that willful
`
`false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or
`
`both (under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code).
`
`By: _______________________________
`
`Michael Allen Jensen, Ph.D.
`September 1, 2023
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1051
`Samsung v. Smart Mobile
`IPR2022-01248
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`YEGOSHIN-JOHNSTON-BILLSTRÖM RENDERS OBVOIOUS
`I.
`MULTIPLE IP ADDRESSES (CLAIMS 14-16) ...................................................... 4
`A. A POSITA WOULD HAVE FOUND IT OBVIOUS TO MODIFY YEGOSHIN’S
`PHONE BASED ON BILLSTRÖM’S USE OF IP ADDRESS FOR IP-BASED CELLULAR
`COMMUNICATIONS .................................................................................................. 4
`B. MODIFICATION OF YEGOSHIN BASED ON BILLSTRÖM’S GENERAL
`TEACHINGS OF IP-BASED CELLULAR COMMUNICATION WOULD HAVE BEEN
`WITHIN A POSITA’S CAPABILITIES ........................................................................ 9
`II.
`YEGOSHIN-JOHNSTON-BILLSTRÖM-BERNARD-PREISS
`RENDERS OBVIOUS TWO “NETWORK PATHS” TO THE SAME “REMOTE
`SERVER” (CLAIMS 27-30) ................................................................................... 11
`A. YEGOSHIN DISCLOSES OR RENDERS OBVIOUS “REMOTE SERVER” ...... 11
`YEGOSHIN-BERNARD COMBINATION RENDERS OBVIOUS
`III.
`“COMBIN[ING] THE DATA PATHS INTO A SINGLE TRANSMISSION
`INTERFACE TO ONE OR MORE APPLICATIONS” (CLAIMS 6, 17-21, AND
`23-26)
` ................................................................................................................. 13
`IV.
`YEGOSHIN-BASED COMBINATIONS RENDER OBVIOUS THE
`“MULTIPLEXED” LIMITATIONS (CLAIMS 1-13, 27-30)................................. 19
`A. THE ’653 PATENT REQUIRES NO MORE THAN A KNOWN USE OF THE
`TERM “MULTIPLEXED/MULTIPLEXES” .................................................................. 19
`1. The Petition Clarified The Term “Multiplex” ................................. 20
`2. Parties’ District Court Claim Constructions Are Irrelevant ............ 22
`3.
`Intrinsic Record Supports General Understanding of “Multiplex” . 23
`B. YEGOSHIN, ALONE OR AS MODIFIED, RENDERS THE “MULTIPLEXED”
`LIMITATIONS OBVIOUS .......................................................................................... 29
`1. Yegoshin Teaches Both Simultaneous and Selective Cellular and
`WLAN Connections .......................................................................................... 29
`2. Yegoshin-Bernard Based Combination Renders Obvious
`“Multiplexed Signals” ....................................................................................... 31
`3. Patent Owner’s Cherry-Picking Arguments Do Not Impact
`Petitioner’s Prior Art Analysis .......................................................................... 36
`4. Sufficient Motivations Existed To Modify Yegoshin-Johnston-
`Billström Based on Bernard To Satisfy The “Multiplex” Limitations ............. 40
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`GROUNDS 1B AND 1D RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIMS 2, 9, 10, 21,
`V.
` ................................................................................................................. 43
`AND 26
`A. CLAIM 2 ................................................................................................ 43
`B. CLAIM 9 ................................................................................................ 43
`C. CLAIM 10 .............................................................................................. 43
`D. CLAIMS 21 AND 26 ............................................................................... 45
`ADDITIONAL MATERIALS CONSIDERED ..................................... 46
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 47
`
`VI.
`VII.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`This Declaration clarifies 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”) and supplemental declaration
`
`(EX-1050, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety; “Supplemental
`
`Declaration”). Consistent with my findings provided in my Original Declaration
`
`and Supplemental Declaration and based upon my knowledge and experience and
`
`my review of the prior art publications listed in the earlier and this declarations, a
`
`POSITA would have found that claims 1-21 and 23-30 (“the Challenged Claims”)
`
`of the ’653 patent are rendered obvious by at least the combinations of references
`
`set forth in my Original and Supplemental Declarations.
`
`I.
`
`2.
`
`YEGOSHIN-JOHNSTON-BILLSTRÖM RENDERS OBVOIOUS
`MULTIPLE IP ADDRESSES (CLAIMS 14-16)
`A. A POSITA Would Have Found It Obvious to Modify
`Yegoshin’s Phone Based On Billström’s Use of IP Address
`for IP-Based Cellular Communications
`In Patent Owner’s Response (POR), Patent Owner does not dispute
`
`that Yegoshin and Billström describe using IP addresses for communication on
`
`WLAN and cellular networks, respectively. However, Patent Owner asserts that
`
`the combination fails to address how “Yegoshin’s phone decides and enforces
`
`which IP address to use to route each data packet.” POR, 50. This argument adds
`
`requirements into the actually claimed features (14[i]). Notably, claim 14 does not
`
`necessitate how to “select between a first IP address or a second IP address,” but
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`recites that “the mobile device maintains multiple IP addresses, wherein the first
`
`wireless component is accessible on a first IP address and the second wireless
`
`transmit and receive component is accessible on a second IP address.” EX-1001,
`
`13:27-31; POR, 50 (citing EX-2019, ¶111).
`
`3.
`
`Even if it is assumed that selection is required, the selection would be
`
`simple and straightforward—use the first IP address when communicating over the
`
`cellular network and use the second IP address when communicating over the
`
`WLAN. As noted in my Original Declaration, using different IP addresses for dif-
`
`ferent networks was well-known before the Critical Date. EX-1016, 6:42-56, 9:6-
`
`10; EX-1003, ¶85.
`
`4.
`
`Although Billström describes that its phone can switch between “reg-
`
`ular GSM idle mode,” “call-connected mode,” and “PD [packet data] mode,” Bill-
`
`ström’s switching between the modes doesn’t negate Petitioner’s proposed combi-
`
`nation of Yegoshin and Billström. EX-1006, 6:11-21, 8:47-54, 9:19-32, Figure 4;
`
`POR, 50-52. At a minimum, in the Yegoshin-Billström combination, a POSITA
`
`would have understood and found obvious that Yegoshin’s phone would access its
`
`“second communication interface” (“second wireless transmit and receive compo-
`
`nent”) using an IP address (“second IP address”) for forwarding a call to WLAN
`
`in the way Yegoshin describes. EX-1004, 6:15-22, 7:15-19, 8:8-15. Meanwhile
`
`(e.g., while using WLAN for the forwarded call), the modified phone would switch
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`to the “PD mode” to access its “first communication interface” (“first wireless
`
`transmit and receive component”) using an IP address (“first IP address”) for
`
`“add-on” IP-based cellular data transfer (not regular circuit-switched cellular com-
`
`munications) (as taught by Billström) to transmit data packets of various types,
`
`such as those for both voice and data communication (“data-data” and “voice-
`
`data”). Pet., 14 (14[e]), 17-23 (14[i]); EX-1004, 2:1-13; EX-1056, 1:43-45 (“voice
`
`data is currently transmitted over the internet as a continuous stream of small data
`
`packets”). It was well-known before the Critical Date that data packets were routed
`
`over cellular networks using a dedicated IP address. EX-1003, ¶84 (citing EX-
`
`1031, EX-1032, EX-1033).
`
`5.
`
`As discussed in my Original Declaration, a POSITA would have
`
`found it obvious to implement Yegoshin’s phone, which already describes IP-
`
`based communication over its cellular interface, to maintain and use an IP address
`
`dedicated for the cellular communication as described by Billström, so that the
`
`modified phone maintains two IP addresses, one accessible for WLAN communi-
`
`cation (as taught by Yegoshin) and the other accessible for IP-based cellular com-
`
`munication (as taught by Billström). EX-1003, ¶¶80-85; EX-1004, 8:47-56 (“tak-
`
`ing all cellular calls in IP format”), 5:33-37 (“to set-up a temporary IP address on a
`
`network for the purpose of identifying and registering the device for normal opera-
`
`tion on the network”), 5:49-54 (“set up IP addresses”), 7:7-14, 7:44-58, Figures 2-
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`3; EX-1006, 1:6-12, 1:54-60, 3:53-4:22, 4:63-5:3, 5:23-28, 5:60-6:2, 6:5-14, 21:26-
`
`24:28, Figures 2-3, 14-15. Indeed, Yegoshin expressly describes how cellular net-
`
`works were known to use IP and known to include a mobile-switching-center
`
`(MSC). EX-1004, 2:30-36 (“Such an IP network is usually of the form of a wired
`
`LAN such as an Extranet or Intranet. However, it is known to the inventor that
`
`such networks may also operate in various wireless technology modes such as a
`
`code-division-multiple-access CDMA or a time-division-multiple-access (TDMA)
`
`convention. The well-known cellular system is typically a variation of the latter.”),
`
`5:6-9 (“any type of wireless communication device may be used that may also be
`
`adapted for having at least one mode of IP communication via wireless and or
`
`wired connection”), 9:19-29 (“It will be apparent to one with skill in the art that the
`
`present invention may be practiced with wide area networks (WANs) in addition to
`
`LANs without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention. As long
`
`as the appropriate protocol is used and conversion methods are observed when re-
`
`quired, the present invention may be utilized with any IP switched packet network.
`
`Such an example would be that of a mobile overseer of several companies or part-
`
`ners that are interconnected through an IP WAN.”), 6:27-35. Further, Billström de-
`
`scribes assigning a “MS’s IP address [to identify] the MS as belonging to a particu-
`
`lar MSC [mobile switching center]” using “the de facto standard IP protocol.” EX-
`
`1006, 5:60-6:2, 7:40-8:3.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`6.
`
`Again, as evidenced in Billström, a POSITA would have understood
`
`that, in addition to an IP address designed for WLAN communication as disclosed
`
`in Yegoshin, a separate IP address would be useful and a well-known option for
`
`implementing Yegoshin’s IP-based cellular communication. See, e.g., EX-1006,
`
`5:63-6:2 (“an MS’s IP address identifies the MS”), 10:64-66. Therefore, simply
`
`referencing Billström’s use of an IP address in implementing Yegoshin’s already-
`
`contemplated IP-based cellular communication would have been predictable to a
`
`POSITA with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`7.
`
`In POR, Patent Owner contends that Yegoshin assigns an IP address
`
`based on a phone number, and argues that would be a reason that Yegoshin-Bill-
`
`ström’s two IP addresses would not work. POR, 51-52 (citing EX-2019, ¶¶112,
`
`114-115); POPR, 48-49. However, Yegoshin’s description of the phone number
`
`does not disrupt the combination. Patent Owner acknowledges (POPR, 48-49) that
`
`Yegoshin describes the association between the IP address and the phone number
`
`as an example way to forward a regular cellular call (using a telephone number) to
`
`the WLAN when the phone is “not within the range of the local service area.” EX-
`
`1004, 8:16-27, 4:10-14. This forwarding mechanism does not disrupt the combina-
`
`tion because the combination is not limited to implementing call forwarding. As
`
`found by the Board in a relating proceeding, Billström’s use of an IP address
`
`would not be redundant because it is for IP-based cellular data communication,
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`which is independent from IP-based WLAN communication using another IP ad-
`
`dress. EX-1055 (Institution Decision (ID) for IPR2022-012489), 22. For example,
`
`when a call is made using IP-based cellular communication, it is not “regular GSM
`
`voice/circuit data calls,” but in the form of data packets that would employ an IP
`
`address for the IP-based cellular communication (whether or not it is “add-on data
`
`capability,” POR, 52), as taught in Billström and acknowledged by Dr. Cooklev.
`
`EX-1006, 9:41; EX-1053, 18-25 (Dr. Cooklev acknowledged VoIP “refer[s] to
`
`packet-based communications.”); EX-1054, 50:8-13, 58:4-9 (“Well, a person of or-
`
`dinary skill in the art would have known that Internet Protocol relates to the trans-
`
`mission of data packets. I said if they had some knowledge of Internet Protocol and
`
`would have known that that relates to the transmission of data packets.”).
`
`B. Modification of Yegoshin Based on Billström’s General
`Teachings of IP-Based Cellular Communication Would
`Have Been Within a POSITA’s Capabilities
`Based solely on Dr. Cooklev’s testimony, Patent Owner alleges that
`
`8.
`
`the modification would have been beyond a POSITA’s skill, and there would be no
`
`reasonable expectation of success. POR, 54-60 (citing EX-2019, ¶¶120-123). Nota-
`
`bly, Patent Owner requires Petitioner’s demonstration of how to modify
`
`Yegoshin’s system to incorporate Billström’s entire infrastructure for providing
`
`packet data communication services over cellular systems. Id. This represents an
`
`overly narrow view of the combination because, as discussed above, Petitioner’s
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`combination simply modifies Yegoshin’s phone to use Billström’s IP address for
`
`IP-based cellular communication.
`
`9.
`
`Implementing IP-based cellular communication using an IP address
`
`(Billström’s or generally) was well-known and within the skill of a POSITA, and
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that. POR, 54-60. In fact, Dr. Cooklev expressly
`
`acknowledged that “the concept that a mobile device could access the Internet ...
`
`was known.” EX-1053, 28:14-16, 29:10-12. Even Yegoshin acknowledges that
`
`“such [IP] networks may also operate in various wireless technology modes such
`
`as a code-division-multiple-access CDMA or a time-division-multiple-access
`
`(TDMA) convention,” which is a “well-known cellular system.” EX-1004, 2:30-
`
`36. Additionally, Billström references “standard” IP technology. EX-1006, 5:60-
`
`6:2.
`
`10. Again, Billström clearly offers a well-known solution to Yegoshin’s
`
`phone for IP-based data communication over a cellular system. EX-1003, ¶¶82-84;
`
`EX-1006, 1:6-12, 1:54-60, 3:53-4:22, 4:63-5:3, 5:23-28, 5:60-6:2, 6:5-14, 21:26-
`
`24:28, Figures 2-3, 14-15. As discussed in the Original Declaration, abundant evi-
`
`dence support this predictable modification to Yegoshin’s phone based on Bill-
`
`ström’s teaching. EX-1003, ¶¶84-91; EX-1030; EX-1031; EX-1032; EX-1033;
`
`EX-1016, 6:42-56, 9:6-10.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`11. Further, the ’653 patent has limited disclosure of implementing IP,
`
`which indicates that a POSITA would have had the requisite skill needed to imple-
`
`ment IP-based technologies. The ’653 patent is silent as to how to use IP addresses
`
`and only provides superficial discussion of Internet technology. EX-1001, 2:28-31,
`
`4:45-48, 6:14-41, 10:48-11:8. Therefore, the ’653 patent relies on the state of the
`
`art for its disclosure, which confirms that a POSITA would have understood that
`
`the ’653 patent does not teach anything new about implementing IP and a POSITA
`
`would have had sufficient knowledge/skill to implement IP-based cellular commu-
`
`nication, for example Billström’s more detailed description of known IP communi-
`
`cation. EX-1053, 98:17-101:3 (“even if [the ’946 patent, which shares the same
`
`disclosure of the ’653 patent] doesn’t expressly cite to these documents [i.e., docu-
`
`ments describing Internet Protocol], it refers to Internet Protocol, and a person of
`
`skill given astute that it is referring to the set of documents describing Internet Pro-
`
`tocol.”).
`
`II. YEGOSHIN-JOHNSTON-BILLSTRÖM-BERNARD-PREISS
`RENDERS OBVIOUS TWO “NETWORK PATHS” TO THE
`SAME “REMOTE SERVER” (CLAIMS 27-30)
`A. Yegoshin Discloses or Renders Obvious “Remote Server”
`12. Patent Owner mischaracterizes Petitioner’s mapping for “remote
`
`server” (27[i]) by asserting that the Petition only considered “PSTN switch 31” to
`
`be the “remote server.” POR, 60-63. Patent Owner apparently ignores my analysis,
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`which incorporates the analysis of the same term in other claims (17[j], claims 4
`
`and 15). EX-1003, ¶¶94, 148, 179-180. My Original Declaration clearly identified
`
`“PSTN-connected routing server” and “IP telephony server” as “servers.” EX-
`
`1003, ¶94 (citing EX-1004, 3:35-4:34, 5:66-6:4, 6:38-64, 7:15-37, Figure 2). As
`
`generally pointed out in annotated Figure 2 below and also recognized by Patent
`
`Owner (POR, 60-61), “PSTN switch 31” is included in or associated with the
`
`“PSTN-connected routing server” along with “T-server software.” EX-1004, 3:35-
`
`4:34, 7:26-37, 9:1-12.
`
`Pet., 23, 47.
`
`13. Patent Owner’s overly strict interpretation of the Petition’s mapping is
`
`inconsistent with the schematic illustration of Yegoshin’s Figure 2. Figure 2 is “an
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`overview of network connection” and does not disclose all of the elements consti-
`
`tuting the “PSTN network 25.” As acknowledged by Patent Owner, Yegoshin’s
`
`“PSTN network 25” includes more than the “PSTN switch 31,” such as “CTI pro-
`
`cessor 49” and another “PSTN switch 36,” to name a few. EX-1004, 7:26-8:34. A
`
`POSITA would have understood that the PSTN switch 31 does not operate alone in
`
`the PSTN network 25 but works with other components to enable switching in the
`
`PSTN network 25 and thus constitutes at least a part of a server system in the
`
`PSTN network (e.g., “PSTN-connected routing server”).
`
`III. YEGOSHIN-BERNARD COMBINATION RENDERS OBVIOUS
`“COMBIN[ING] THE DATA PATHS INTO A SINGLE TRANS-
`MISSION INTERFACE TO ONE OR MORE APPLICATIONS”
`(CLAIMS 6, 17-21, AND 23-26)
`14. Patent Owner argues that the Yegoshin-Bernard combination does not
`
`teach “combin[ing] the data paths into a single transmission interface to one or
`
`more applications on the mobile device,” as recited in claims 6 and 17 because
`
`Yegoshin and Bernard do not describe that their devices utilize two networks sim-
`
`ultaneously. POR, 37-47. That is, Patent Owner assumes that “combin[ing]” in
`
`claims 6 and 17 requires simultaneous communications of data over two networks.
`
`Patent Owner’s assumption narrows the claim language beyond its plain meaning.
`
`15. Notably, the plain language of claims 6 and 17 requires “data paths”
`
`(not “data”) to be combined. Therefore, simultaneous communication of “data”
`
`over different networks is not required. As discussed in the Original Declaration,
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Yegoshin includes multiple “data paths” from/to different networks (e.g., cellular
`
`and WLAN paths) that combine into a “single transmission interface” that is in-
`
`cluded in or defined by Yegoshin’s phone. EX-1003, ¶181; EX-1004, Figure 2 (be-
`
`low). Specifically, because Yegoshin’s cellular and WLAN paths combine into a
`
`single interface, an application on Yegoshin’s phone (e.g., a call handling applica-
`
`tion) operates in the same way, regardless of whether data is received by the cellu-
`
`lar path or the WLAN path. EX-1004, 3:14-15 (“calls coming from any source net-
`
`work may be routed to the user’s device on the LAN”), 6:65-7:3, 7:15-25, 8:47-56.
`
`Notably, Yegoshin describes an example scenario that considers simultaneous use
`
`of cellular and WLAN communications (“multiple network paths”). For example,
`
`as noted in the Supplemental Declaration, Yegoshin describes that, while its phone
`
`is located at a place where IP calls are available, certain calls can be routed through
`
`the cellular network per a user preference. EX-1004, 8:47-56 (“However, it may be
`
`that certain cellular calls will be exempt from IP delivery at the user’s discre-
`
`tion.”); EX-1050, ¶¶34-36. With these teachings, a POSITA would have under-
`
`stood that, regardless of whether the phone has actually connected to either or both
`
`of the calls, Yegoshin’s phone uses two different network paths or data paths that
`
`are combined into Yegoshin’s phone that defines or includes a single interface to
`
`the call handling application at the phone.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`16.
`
`Indeed, in Yegoshin, a cellular call can be handled by the cellular path
`
`(e.g., when not connected to the WLAN) or handled by the WLAN path (e.g.,
`
`when connected to the WLAN) and it makes no difference to Yegoshin’s phone
`
`because the cellular and WLAN paths combine into a single interface to the appli-
`
`cation handling the cellular call.
`
`17.
`
`I also discussed the serial interface taught in Bernard, which combines
`
`multiple paths into a single interface to “one or more applications” (e.g., Bernard’s
`
`applications 702, 704, 706) running on the mobile device. EX-1003, ¶181; EX-
`
`1004, Figure 2 (below); EX-1007, Figure 10 (below). As noted in the Original
`
`Declaration, the combined “data paths” in Yegoshin-Bernard would permit the sig-
`
`nals received over cellular and WLAN paths to be combined through Bernard’s se-
`
`rial interface 701 (“single transmission interface”). EX-1003, ¶181.
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`18. Patent Owner attacks Bernard, contending that it fails to teach
`
`“combin[ing] the data paths into a single interface to one or more applications” be-
`
`cause “the different data paths [which are already combined into a single transmis-
`
`sion interface—Bernard’s serial interface] are separated upon arrival at the mobile
`
`device.” POR, 44-46. This argument presumes that “data” (not “data paths”) must
`
`be delivered to a single application in the combined form. But the claims do not re-
`
`quire “data paths” (much less “data”) to be directly delivered or connected “to one
`
`or more applications on the mobile device.” EX-1001, cls. 6, 17; EX-1053, 93:1-13
`
`(Dr. Cooklev acknowledged “there’s not a single way that it could be imple-
`
`mented.”). Even if Patent Owner’s interpretation were correct, Bernard clearly de-
`
`scribes an instance where data from multiple networks are combined through Ber-
`
`nard’s serial interface 701 and then delivered to a single application. EX-1007,
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`17:66-18:1 (“For example, the first application 702 may utilize the GPS engine 120
`
`and the packet radio 124[.]”). In this example, Patent Owner’s hypothetical (“the
`
`different data paths are separated upon arrival at the mobile device”) does not oc-
`
`cur. My Original Declaration already provided how a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to modify Yegoshin’s system based on Bernard’s teachings described
`
`above. EX-1003, ¶¶132-142.
`
`19. Further, as Dr. Cooklev acknowledged, “combining” of data is not
`
`necessarily distinct from “interleaving” of data, which employs no temporal limita-
`
`tion, as discussed below (§§IV.A & IV.B.2). EX-1053, 9:17-21, 11:12-13. “Inter-
`
`leaving” can be performed for data being communicated both simultaneously and
`
`sequentially. §§IV.A & IV.B.2. Therefore, “combining” can be similarly per-
`
`formed without requiring data to be transferred simultaneously.
`
`20. Lastly, even if Patent Owner’s assumption (that “combining” requires
`
`simultaneous data communications) were correct, a POSITA would have found it
`
`obvious to communicate simultaneously over Yegoshin’s cellular and WLAN
`
`paths. For example, in the Original Declaration, I explained why it would have
`
`been obvious to transmit data simultaneously using Yegoshin’s cellular and
`
`WLAN interfaces. EX-1003, ¶¶100-101, 122, 150-151, 242. Yegoshin’s cellular
`
`and WLAN interfaces are separate, independent modes of communication and a
`
`POSITA would have found it obvious to use them simultaneously. In fact, a
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`POSITA would have considered only two options for the simultaneity of
`
`Yegoshin’s cellular and WLAN interfaces—simultaneous or non-simultaneous—
`
`and viewed the simultaneous option as an obvious option to consider, particularly
`
`in the combination with Billström where two IP addresses are maintained. Dr.
`
`Cooklev even admitted that using two different networks simultaneously was well-
`
`known in various scenarios before the Critical Date. EX-1053, 64:2-15; EX-1007,
`
`26:60-65; EX-1045, 6:35-7:16. As an example, I referred to three-way calling and
`
`explained how a POSITA would have found it obvious to employ three-way call-
`
`ing in Yegoshin. EX-1003, ¶151. Indeed, my obviousness argument in the Original
`
`Declaration was adding three-way calling, not Gillig’s analog calling. Even if
`
`“data” is limited to digital, the Yegoshin-Billström combination teaches digital
`
`data communication over both of the WLAN and cellular networks because both
`
`WLAN uses IP (which is digital) and Billström’s GSM is digital, whether the com-
`
`munication is routed over the standard GSM communication or over the added
`
`packet data capability. With this, a POSITA would have employed three-way call-
`
`ing using these digital technologies, rather than turning back to Gillig’s older, ana-
`
`log functionality. As acknowledged by Dr. Cooklev, it was well-known for calls to
`
`be simultaneously connected over two different networks. EX-1053, 64:2-15; EX-
`
`1045, 6:35-7:16 (“three-way linking” simultaneously connecting to cellular and
`
`cordless calls).
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`21. Further, as discussed in my Original and Supplemental Declarations,
`
`the Yegoshin-Bernard combination also teaches simultaneous data communication
`
`through multiplexing. EX1003, ¶¶119-131; EX-1050, ¶¶34-41. In particular,
`
`Yegoshin, as a whole, teaches simultaneous connections to cellular and WLAN.
`
`Similarly, Bernard describes that “multiple connections” over different communi-
`
`cation circuits can be “established simultaneously.” EX-1007, 26:56-65. Despite
`
`this express disclosure, Patent Owner relies on a particular example as a support
`
`that Bernard’s device uses “only one of the landline or cellular networks” and thus
`
`“never ‘combin[es]’ the two paths to an application.” POR, 43-44. However, the
`
`example relied upon by Patent Owner is non-limiting and only limited to a manual
`
`selection between cellular and landline telephone calls. EX-1007, 21:30-38, 21:55-
`
`61. This example does not negate Bernard’s express teaching of simultaneous con-
`
`nections to different networks.
`
`IV. YEGOSHIN-BASED COMBINATIONS RENDER OBVIOUS
`THE “MULTIPLEXED” LIMITATIONS (CLAIMS 1-13, 27-30)
`A. The ’653 Patent Requires No More Than A Known Use of
`The Term “Multiplexed/Multiplexes”
`22. As already discussed in my Original Declaration and Supplemental
`
`Declaration, multiplexing was widely known in packet switched networks long be-
`
`fore the Critical Date, such as the IP-based cellular and WLAN systems utilized in
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`the Yegoshin-Johnston-Billström and Yegoshin-Johnston-Billström-Bernard com-
`
`binations. EX-1003, ¶¶122-131; EX-1050, ¶¶6-33. No intrinsic and extrinsic evi-
`
`dence indicates otherwise.
`
`1.
`The Petition Clarified The Term “Multiplex”
`23. As noted in the Original and Supplemental Declarations, there are
`
`several documents (e.g., EX-1011, EX-1012, EX-1013) that demonstrate the term
`
`“multiplex” as used in the ’653 patent, which applies to different signals arriving
`
`either simultaneously or non-simultaneously. EX-1003, ¶¶122-131, 136-137, 150-
`
`151, 165-167; EX-1050, ¶¶6-33.
`
`24. For example, one of these documents (EX-1011) describes synchro-
`
`nous time division multiplexing (STDM) as a method “commonly used in the tele-
`
`phone network” among “several different methods for multiplexing multiple flows
`
`onto one physical link.” EX-1011, 15, Figure 1.7 (below). STDM acknowledges
`
`that multiple data flows do not have to be simultaneously or continuously commu-
`
`nicated together for them to be multiplexed into a single physical link. EX-1050,
`
`¶¶7-8.
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`Figure 1.7 of EX-1011
`
`
`
`25. As further discussed in the Supplemental Declaration, other eviden-
`
`tiary documents recited in the Petition are similarly supportive. EX-1050, ¶9-10;
`
`EX-1013, 33 (“In [time-division multiplexing], information from each data chan-
`
`nel is allocated bandwidth based on preassigned time slots, regardless of whether
`
`there is data to transmit.”). Notably, the known use of “multiplexing” was accom-
`
`plished via time division multiplexing or similar techniques, and does not distin-
`
`guish signals by time scale. Particularly, as I testified, multiplexing, as described in
`
`terms of Petitioner’s district court construction (“interleaving”), does not depend
`
`on “how many packets come through or how much time is elapsed before the next
`
`one comes.” EX-1070 (Dr. Jensen’s Dep. Tr. in IPR2022-01249 for U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,019,946), 66:5-68:6; EX-1050, ¶¶30-32; EX-1071, 1.
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
`Parties’ District Court Claim Constructions Are Ir-
`relevant
`26. While Patent Owner accused Petitioner of not addressing its district
`
`court construction (POR, 12-13), it is my understanding that Petitioner is allowed
`
`to advance a different claim construction position from that in the district court, as
`
`the Board found. ID, 57-60. Furthermore, regardless of either party’s district court
`
`construction, the prior art reads on the claims in a manner that does not require
`
`construction.
`
`27. As discussed in the Supplemental Declaration, both parties’ proposed
`
`district court claim constructions align with the well-known meaning of “multi-
`
`plex” as discussed above (§IV.A.1). EX-1050, ¶¶5-10; EX-2003, 40 (citing Ex. 49-
`
`52 for dictionary definitions of “multiplex,” “multiplexing,” “multiplexer,” etc.).
`
`For example, the “multiplexer” is defined as a device that “select[s]” one of multi-
`
`ple input signals and “switch[es]” it to an output, or “interleaves” multiple signals
`
`to a single path, according to Petitioner’s district court construction, or that “com-
`
`bines (or funnels) multiple input data streams into an aggregate stream,” according
`
`to Patent Owner’s district court construction. EX-1050, ¶10; EX-1061 & EX-1062
`
`(reproducing Ex. 49 and Ex. 50 in EX-2003); EX-1053, 16:6-15 (Dr. Cooklev
`
`acknowledged a “data selector can be called a multiplexer.”). Notably, Dr. Cooklev
`
`acknowledged that “interleaving could be a type of combining” as used in Patent
`
`Owner’s district court construction. EX-1053, 11:12-13, 9:17-21.
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`
`Intrinsic Record Supports General Understanding of
`“Multiplex”
`28. As noted in the Supplemental Declaration, the ’653 patent offers no
`
`specific definition of the term “multiplex,” much less one being different from the
`
`general understanding. EX-1050, ¶¶11-12; EX-1001, 3:47-48, 5:8-67, 8:32-37, 9:4-
`
`44, 10:18-21, 11:1-41. A POSITA would have understood that the ’653 patent pro-
`
`vides no suggestion for deviating from the well-known understanding of the term.
`
`EX-1001, 5:46-67, 11:1-30. For example, a cellular telephone/mobile device
`
`(CT/MD) in Figure 6 (reproduced below) uses a cradle/adapter to access more in-
`
`terfaces. EX-1001, 5:46-59. “One, all, or some of the connections may be used
`
`simultaneously or sequentially for combining multiple data paths into a single
`
`path.” EX-1001, 5:52-54. Additionally, as illustrated in Figure 6 below, the ’653
`
`patent describes that multiple I/O ports 608, 610 of the cellular telephone/mobile
`
`device (CT/MD) 602, 612, and multiple wired connections 606 of the cradle
`
`adapter 604, can be replaced with “a universal port and a universal connection” so
`
`that the “desired signals” selected by “user defined menu driven software” are
`
`“multiplex[ed] [] onto [the] universal input/output port as opposed to the multiple
`
`ports 608, 610 or wired connections 606.” EX-1001, 5:57-67.
`
`23
`
`

`

`
`
`EX-1001, Figure 6
`
`
`
`29. As discussed in the Supplemental Declaration, the ’653 patent’s
`
`claims 2 and 3 further support that multiplexing does not distinguish signals by
`
`how they are communicated, for example simultaneously or sequentially. EX-
`
`1050, ¶12. Notably, the only difference between claims 2 and 3, which both de-
`
`pend from claim 1, is whether “two or more wireless transmit and receive connec-
`
`tions” are “transmitting and receiving using the plurality of antennas” “simultane-
`
`ously” (claim 2) or “sequentially” (claim 3). EX-1001, 12:25-37. The other