`
`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 IPR2022-01248
`Patent 8,842,653
`____________
`
`EXHIBIT 2002
`
`DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR TODOR V. COOKLEV, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 1
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................................................... 1
`
`III. BASES OF OPINIONS ................................................................................. 4
`
`IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ....................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ................................................... 9
`
`B. My Understanding Of Legal Standards .......................................... 10
`
`V. CLAIMS-AT-ISSUE ...................................................................................13
`
`VI. OPINIONS ....................................................................................................13
`
`A.
`
`“Multiplexed” “Signals” (Claims 1, 27). ......................................... 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Bernard’s “Decoder/Multiplexer 112.” .................................... 14
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Combination Of Yegoshin And Bernard.
` .................................................................................................. 18
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Petitioner’s First Scenario ..............................................19
`
`Petitioner’s Second Scenario ..........................................21
`
`B.
`
`“Combin[ing] The Data Paths Into A Single Transmission
`Interface To One Or More Applications” (Claim 17). .................. 25
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................26
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 2
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 8,842,653 (“the ’653 patent”) in IPR2022-01248.
`
`I have been retained by Smart Mobile Technologies LLC (“Smart Mobile”), the
`
`Patent Owner in the above proceedings. Petitioners are Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc. (collectively
`
`“Petitioner”).
`
`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 not a legal expert and offer no opinions on the law. However, I
`
`have been informed by counsel of the various legal standards that apply, and I have
`
`applied those standards in arriving at my conclusions.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`I am currently the Harris Professor of Wireless Communication and
`
`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
`
`
`
`1
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 3
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`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.
`
`6.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`7.
`
`In 2007-2008 I served as Principal Investigator of a National Science
`
`Foundation grant awarded to the IEEE. This grant supported a number of
`
`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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 4
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`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.
`
`9. 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.
`
`10. 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
`
`
`
`3
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 5
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`11.
`
`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 Appendix A.
`
`12. A detailed record of my professional qualifications is set forth in the
`
`attached Appendix A, 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. BASES OF OPINIONS
`
`13.
`
`In the course of conducting my analysis and forming my opinions, I
`
`have reviewed materials including those listed below:
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,842,653 (Ex. 1001) (“the ’653 patent” or “’653”);
`
`The prosecution history of the ’653 patent (Ex. 1002);
`
`
`
`4
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 6
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`iii. The Declaration signed by Dr. Michael Allen Jensen in IPR2022-
`
`01248 (Ex. 1003) (the “Jensen Declaration”);
`
`iv.
`
`The Petition in IPR2022-01248;
`
`v.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,711,146 issued to Leonid A. Yegoshin
`
`(“Yegoshin”) (Ex. 1004);
`
`vi. U.S. Patent No. 5,784,032 issued to Ronald H. Johnston, et al.
`
`(“Johnston”) (Ex. 1005);
`
`vii. U.S. Patent No. 5,590,133 issued to Lars Billström, et al.
`
`(“Billström”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`viii. U.S. Patent No. 5,497,339 issued to Marc A. Bernard (“Bernard”)
`
`(Ex. 1007);
`
`ix.
`
`International Patent Publication No. WO 98/27748 to Allan Farber, et
`
`al. (“WO748”) (Ex. 1008);
`
`x.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,854,985 issued to Joseph B. Sainton, et al.
`
`(“Sainton”) (Ex. 1009);
`
`xi. U.S. Patent No. 6,031,503 issued to Joseph A. Preiss, II, et al.
`
`(“Preiss”) (Ex. 1010);
`
`xii. Larry L. Peterson and Bruce S. Davie, Computer Networks: A
`
`Systems Approach, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., San
`
`Francisco, CA, 1996 (Ex. 1011);
`
`
`
`5
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 7
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`xiii. Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, 3d ed, Prentice Hall
`
`PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996 (Ex. 1012);
`
`xiv. Merilee Ford, H. Kim Lew, Steve Spanier, and Tim Stevenson,
`
`Internetworking Technologies Handbook, New Riders Publishing,
`
`Indianapolis, IN, 1997 (Ex. 1013);
`
`xv. William Stallings, Data and Computer Communications, 5th ed,
`
`Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996 (Ex. 1014);
`
`xvi. Dictionary Definition of “time division multiplex” (Newton’s
`
`Telecom Dictionary, 1998) (Ex. 1015);
`
`xvii. U.S. Patent No. 6,115,615 issued to Takeshi Ota, et al. (Ex. 1016);
`
`xviii. U.S. Patent No. 6,366,622 issued to Stephen Joseph Brown, et al. (Ex.
`
`1017);
`
`xix. U.S. Patent No. 6,560,443 issued to Ari Vaisanen, et al. (Ex. 1018);
`
`xx. U.S. Patent No. 5,680,633 issued to Steven E. Koenck, et al. (Ex.
`
`1019);
`
`xxi. U.S. Patent No. 6,047,322 issued to Aseem Vaid, et al. (Ex. 1020);
`
`xxii. Excerpts from Theodore S. Rappaport, Wireless Communications
`
`Principles & Practice, Prentice Hall, 1996 (Ex. 1021);
`
`
`
`6
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 8
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`xxiii. 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);
`
`xxiv. 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);
`
`xxv. Excerpts from Douglas E. Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP
`
`Volume One, 3d ed, 1995 (Ex. 1024);
`
`xxvi. U.S. Patent No. 5,768,691 issued to Jorma Matero, et al. (Ex. 1025);
`
`xxvii. U.S. Patent No. 5,960,344 issued to Ronald L. Mahany (Ex. 1026);
`
`xxviii.
`
`European Patent Application 0 660 626 A2 to John Daniel
`
`Byrne (EX-1027);
`
`xxix. Excerpts from William C. Jakes, Microwave Mobile
`
`Communications, IEEE Press, 1974 (Ex. 1028);
`
`xxx. Yi-Bing Lin, Cellular digital packet data, in IEEE Potentials, vol. 16,
`
`no. 3, pp. 11-13, Aug.-Sept. 1997 (Ex. 1030);
`
`xxxi. A. K. Salkintzis, Packet data over cellular networks: the CDPD
`
`approach, in IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 152-
`
`159, June 1999 (Ex. 1031);
`
`
`
`7
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 9
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`xxxii. C. E. Perkins et al., A mobile networking system based on Internet
`
`protocol, in IEEE Personal Communications, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 32-41,
`
`1st Qtr. 1994 (Ex. 1032);
`
`xxxiii.
`
`K. C. Budka, H. Jiang and S. E. Sommars, Cellular digital
`
`packet data networks, in Bell Labs Technical Journal, vol. 2, no. 3, pp.
`
`164-181, Summer 1997 (Ex. 1033);
`
`xxxiv. U.S. Patent No. 6,353,443 issued to Zhinong Ying (Ex. 1035);
`
`xxxv. U.S. Patent No. 5,790,176 issued to Bernard Jeff Craig (Ex. 1036);
`
`xxxvi. U.S. Patent No. 6,230,194 issued to Jean-Marc Frailong et al. (Ex.
`
`1037);
`
`xxxvii.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,600,734 issued to Alex Gernert, et al. (Ex.
`
`1038);
`
`xxxviii.
`
`Jon D. Brady, Virtual Private Networking – The Flexible
`
`Approach, Institution of Electrical Engineers, 1997 (Ex. 1039);
`
`xxxix. U.S. Patent No. 6,055,575 issued to Gaige B. Paulsen, et al. (Ex.
`
`1040);
`
`xl. U.S. Patent No. 4,989,230 issued to Steven F. Gillig, et al. (Ex. 1045)
`
`xli. Excerpts from Constantine A. Balanis, Antenna Theory Analysis and
`
`Design, Harper & Row, 1982 (Ex. 1048);
`
`xlii. The exhibits and other documents cited herein.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 10
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`14. My opinions in this declaration are based on the understandings of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, which I understand is sometimes referred to as
`
`an “ordinary artisan” or by the acronyms “POSITA” or “PHOSITA,” as of the time
`
`of the invention, which I understand is here assumed to be the effective filing date
`
`(June 4, 1999) of the provisional application from which the ’653 patent issued. I
`
`understand that the person of ordinary skill in the art is 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 ’653 patent.
`
`15.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 11
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`16.
`
`In this case, Dr. Jensen has asserted in his declaration that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the ʼ653 patent 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 [Jensen Decl.] ¶ 27.
`
`17. For the purposes of this declaration, I accept Dr. Jensen’s proposed
`
`qualifications of a POSITA. I reserve the right to revisit the issue should the
`
`Petition be instituted.
`
`18. 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. For example, as will be discussed throughout my report, even a person with
`
`the level of knowledge or experience described by Dr. Jensen or adopted by the
`
`Board would not have a reasonable expectation of success in implementing certain
`
`aspects of the proposed combination as of the priority date of the ’653 patent.
`
`B. My Understanding Of Legal Standards
`
`19. When considering the ’653 patent and stating my opinions, I rely on
`
`the following legal standards as described to me by the attorneys for Smart Mobile.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 12
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`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.
`
`21.
`
`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.
`
`22.
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 13
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`may come from the knowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`had.
`
`23.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`24.
`
`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.
`
`25.
`
`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.
`
`26.
`
`I am not offering any legal opinions in this declaration nor am I
`
`qualified to do so. I only consider such legal standards in framing my opinions and
`
`conclusions as well as placing assertions made by Petitioner in the Petition into the
`
`proper context. Additionally, from a subject matter perspective, I understand that
`
`the petitioner always has the burden of persuasion regarding a challenge of
`
`patentability of an invention under an inter partes review.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 14
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`V. CLAIMS-AT-ISSUE
`
`27.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has challenged claims 1-21 and 23-30
`
`based on five grounds as follows:
`
`• Claims 14-16 based on obviousness over Yegoshin in view of
`
`Johnston and Billström (Ground 1A);
`
`• Claims 1-11, 17-21, and 23 based on obviousness over Yegoshin in
`
`view of Johnston, Billström, and Bernard (Ground 1B);
`
`• Claim 12 based on obviousness over Yegoshin in view of Johnston,
`
`Billström, Bernard, and WO748 (Ground 1C);
`
`• Claims 13 and 24-26 based on obviousness over Yegoshin in view of
`
`Johnston, Billström, Bernard, and Sainton (Ground 1D);
`
`• Claims 27-30 based on obviousness over Yegoshin in view of
`
`Johnston, Billström, Bernard, and Preiss (Ground 1E).
`
`VI. OPINIONS
`
`A.
`
`“Multiplexed” “Signals” (Claims 1, 27).
`
`28. Claim 1 recites:
`
`Limitation 1[j] “wherein said transmission interface uses a plurality of
`
`IP enabled interfaces on the mobile device which utilize the plurality of
`
`wireless transmit and receive components on the mobile device to
`
`enable a single interface comprised of multiplexed signals from the
`
`plurality of wireless transmit and receive components”
`
`
`
`13
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 15
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`29. Claim 27 recites:
`
`Limitation 27[i] “wherein a plurality of signal are multiplexed to increase
`
`throughput and enable simultaneous multi path communication.”
`
`30.
`
`It is my opinion that Petitioner and Dr. Jensen have not demonstrated
`
`that the proposed combination of Yegoshin and Bernard teaches “multiplexed”
`
`“signals.”
`
`1.
`
`Bernard’s “Decoder/Multiplexer 112.”
`
`31.
`
`I understand that in litigation currently pending in the United States
`
`District Court for the Western District of Texas, entitled Smart Mobile
`
`Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 21-cv-603 and Smart Mobile
`
`Technologies LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-701 (“the District Court Action”), Apple Inc. and
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (referred to in this proceeding as “Petitioner”) have
`
`argued that “multiplex / multiplexes / multiplexed / multiplexing” (collectively,
`
`“multiplexing”) should be construed to mean “to interleave or simultaneously
`
`transmit two or more messages on a single communications channel.” Ex. 2003
`
`[Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief] 37. I also understand that in the
`
`District Court Action, Patent Owner has proposed a construction of “multiplexing”
`
`as “[t]o combine multiple signal streams or data streams into a single signal stream
`
`or data stream for transmission or further processing, or split a single signal stream
`
`
`
`14
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 16
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`or data stream into multiple signal streams or data streams for transmission or
`
`further processing.” Id.
`
`32.
`
`I note that I am not offering any claim construction opinions in this
`
`declaration and am merely applying the claim construction positions proffered in
`
`the District Court Action. To be clear, I am not endorsing Petitioner’s claim
`
`construction positions in this declaration.
`
`33.
`
`In my opinion, the Petition fails to even suggest that the references it
`
`relies on teach the subject matter recited in the challenged claims according to
`
`either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s District Court constructions of
`
`“multiplexing.”
`
`34.
`
`I note that Petitioner argues Bernard’s communication packet
`
`interface 752 “includes or operates as a multiplexer.” Pet., 36-37. To support this
`
`contention, Petitioner cites to Bernard at 3:59-4:15, Figure 4, and 17:10-25. Id.,
`
`37. These passages and figure describe a “decoder/multiplexer 112,” as can be
`
`seen boxed in red in Figure 4 below:
`
`
`
`15
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 17
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] Fig. 4 (annotated), 3:59-4:15 (“The decoder/multiplexer 112
`
`comprises a dual 1:4 decoder or demultiplexer 136 and a dual 4:1 multiplexer or
`
`selector 138.”); 17:10-25 (“Many of the implementation details that have been
`
`described above with respect to the first embodiment 100 also apply to the second
`
`embodiment 100B.”). Consequently, I understand Petitioner to argue that
`
`Bernard’s “decoder/multiplexer 112” performs the alleged “multiplex[ing]” in the
`
`proposed combination.
`
`35. Based on the teachings of Bernard, however, Bernard’s
`
`“decoder/multiplexer 112” does not interleave or simultaneously transmit two or
`
`more messages on a single communications channel, as required by Petitioner’s
`
`District Court construction. Nor does Bernard’s decoder/multiplexer 112”
`
`
`
`16
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 18
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`combine multiple signal streams or data streams into a single signal stream or data
`
`stream for transmission or further processing, or split a single signal stream or data
`
`stream into multiple signal streams or data streams for transmission or further
`
`processing, as required by Patent Owner’s District Court construction.
`
`36.
`
`Instead, Bernard’s “decoder/multiplexer 112” is a simple
`
`combinational logic circuit that can be called a “multiplexer” yet merely “switch
`
`one of several input lines to a single common output line.” Ex. 2006 [Electronics
`
`Tutorial]. These combinational logic circuits are also known as “data selectors.”
`
`Id. The POSITA would realize that although an electrical component may be
`
`called a “decoder/multiplexer,” if the component were merely a data selector, it
`
`would not “multiplex” within the meaning of that term under either Petitioner’s or
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed District Court constructions.
`
`37. Again, Bernard’s “decoder/multiplexer” is consistent with the simple
`
`combinational logic circuit or data selector described above. Bernard teaches that
`
`its decoder/multiplexer “comprises a 74HC153, also from Texas Instruments, or
`
`the like.” Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 5:17-21. The 74HC153 is a “Dual 4-Line To 1-Line
`
`Data Selector[]/Multiplexer[].” Ex. 2007 [74HC153 Data Sheet] 1. It operates by
`
`“select[ing] one of four data sources.” Id. Thus, the POSITA would recognize that
`
`the 74HC153, and consequently Bernard’s multiplexer, is consistent with a data
`
`selector.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 19
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`38. Consistent with data selectors and the 74HC153 data sheet, Bernard
`
`simply teaches selecting an input from the communication circuits and switching
`
`the selected input to the output. Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 5:30-35 (“The microcontroller
`
`104 generates a pair of select signals on a pair of select lines 140 and 142 to the
`
`decoder 136. The two select signals have logical values of 00, 01, 10, or 11 to
`
`control the selection of one of the four output pairs of the decoder 136 to which
`
`the input pair is connected.”); 5:41-44 (“Thus, the microcontroller 104 can send
`
`serial data to any of the installed communication circuits 114, 120 and either 124
`
`or 126 by selecting the appropriate select signals.”); 5:59-62 (“The
`
`microcontroller 104 controls the selection of the multiplexer 138 using the same
`
`select signals as described above with reference to the decoder 136.”).
`
`39. Consequently, the POSITA would understand Bernard’s
`
`“decoder/multiplexer 112” is simply a “device for selecting one of a number of
`
`inputs and switching its information to the output” which does not “multiplex” as
`
`either Petitioner or Patent Owner has proposed that that term be construed in the
`
`District Court Action.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Combination Of Yegoshin And Bernard.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that Petitioner and Dr. Jensen argue that the “POSITA
`
`would have found it obvious to modify Yegoshin-Johnston-Billström’s phone
`
`
`
`18
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 20
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`based on Bernard’s teachings in at least two alternative ways.” Pet., 38; Ex. 1003
`
`[Jensen Decl.] ¶ 132.
`
`41.
`
`It is my opinion that Petitioner and Dr. Jensen have not demonstrated
`
`that the POSITA would be motivated or able to combine Yegoshin and Bernard as
`
`proposed with a reasonable likelihood of success.
`
`a.
`
`Petitioner’s First Scenario
`
`42.
`
`I understand Petitioner proposes a “first scenario” as follows:
`
`In a first scenario, the phone in the combination would have been
`
`modified to be used with Bernard’s cradle to provide multiple network
`
`connections.
`
`Id. Yegoshin actually suggests
`
`two alternative
`
`configurations to implement its dual-mode operation, and, in one of the
`
`alternatives, Yegoshin’s phone uses the adapter port 13 for connecting
`
`a wireless network adapter to enable wireless connection to IP-LAN if
`
`the IP-LAN has “different protocols than the currently available
`
`cellular/PCS networks.” Id.; EX-1004, 5:23-32. In this case, a POSITA
`
`would have understood or found obvious that Bernard’s cradle is an
`
`example of the adapter that can be plugged into Yegoshin’s phone
`
`because Bernard’s cradle provides various wireless connections that are
`
`not available at the phone itself. EX-1003, ¶132; EX-1004, 5:4-8.
`
`Pet., 38-39.
`
`43.
`
`I do not agree that the POSITA would be motivated to combine the
`
`references as proposed or that the resultant combination would meet the claims.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 21
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`Bernard’s cradle includes a landline (boxed in red) and a cellular telephone (boxed
`
`in blue), as illustrated in Bernard’s Figure 10 below:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] Fig. 10 (annotated); 17:40-44 (“The communication device
`
`100B comprises a communication server 750, the GPS engine 120, the cellular
`
`telephone 126, the phone modem 114, a land phone 708, the packet radio 124, and
`
`the pass-thru or external serial port 110.”); 25:29-30 (“The land phone 708
`
`comprises the DAA 116 and the phone jack 118.”). There is no explanation from
`
`Petitioner or Dr. Jensen of why the POSITA would be motivated to add both a
`
`cellular telephone and a land phone to Yegoshin’s phone, which is already a cell
`
`phone.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 22
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`44. Moreover, the resulting combined system would not teach the claims.
`
`The claims recite “[a]n Internet-enabled mobile communication device comprising
`
`…” Ex. 1001 [’653 Patent] cl. 1. The POSITA would understand that by attaching
`
`Yegoshin’s phone to the cradle which in turn contains a “land phone,” the resulting
`
`system would no longer be mobile. Indeed, the primary difference between a
`
`mobile phone and a landline is that the landline is restricted by a wired system and
`
`consequently is not mobile. Ex. 2008 [Alphr] (“In short, the difference between a
`
`cell phone and a landline is that the former uses a wireless connection, and the
`
`latter relies on a physical wire system.”). I do not see any proposal from either
`
`Petitioner or Dr. Jensen to modify Bernard’s cradle to remove the land phone.
`
`Consequently, the resulting system would not be within the scope of the claims
`
`which, again, recite a “mobile communications device.”
`
`b.
`
`Petitioner’s Second Scenario
`
`45.
`
`I understand Petitioner proposes a “second scenario” as follows:
`
`…the phone in the combination would have included at least
`
`communication server 750 (including communication packet interface
`
`752 and communication packet distributor 754), which is connected to
`
`multiple networks such as Yegoshin’s cellular network and WLAN
`
`(similar to Bernard’s cellular telephone and packet radio connections),
`
`and multiplexes, demultiplexes, and routes multiple data packets
`
`between one or more applications running at the phone and the
`
`
`
`21
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2002 - 23
`IPR2022-01248, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v