IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Raman K. Rao, et al.
`In re Patent of:
`9,019,946
`U.S. Patent No.:
`April 28, 2015
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 14/480,584
`Filing Date:
`September 8, 2014
`Title:
`WIRELESS AND CELLULAR VOICE AND DATA TRANSMIS-
`SION WITH MULTIPLE PATHS OF COMMUNICATION
`
` Attorney Docket No.: 39843-0126IP1
`
`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
`IPR2022-01249
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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
`
`YEGOSHIN-BASED COMBINATIONS RENDER OBVIOUS
`II.
`SIMULTANEOUS USE OF MULTIPLE NETWORK PATHS (CLAIMS 14-21
`AND 26) 11
`
`A. THE CLAIMS REQUIRE SIMULTANEOUS USE, NOT SIMULTANEOUS DATA
`TRANSFER 12
`B. PATENT OWNER’S DISTINCTION BETWEEN “NETWORK” VERSUS
`“COMMUNICATION” PATH IS ARBITRARY AND UNSUPPORTED ........................................... 14
`C. WHEN A DEVICE HAS MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT NETWORK PATHS, IT IS
`OBVIOUS TO USE THEM SIMULTANEOUSLY ................................................................................... 17
`
`YEGOSHIN-JOHNSTON-BILLSTRÖM-BERNARD-PREISS
`III.
`RENDERS OBVIOUS TWO “NETWORK PATHS” TO THE SAME “REMOTE
`SERVER” “IN RESPONSE TO A CHANGE IN THE SIGNAL STRENGTH
`AND/OR CONNECTIVITY” (CLAIMS 27-30) ....................................................21
`
`A. YEGOSHIN DISCLOSES OR RENDERS OBVIOUS “REMOTE SERVER” .......... 21
`B. PATENT OWNER’S UNDERSTANDING OF PETITIONER’S PROPOSED
`COMBINATION IS INCORRECT ................................................................................................................. 23
`C. YEGOSHIN AND BERNARD RENDER OBVIOUS “IN RESPONSE TO A
`CHANGE IN THE SIGNAL STRENGTH AND/OR CONNECTIVITY” .......................................... 23
`
`YEGOSHIN-BERNARD COMBINATION RENDERS OBVIOUS
`IV.
`“COMBIN[ING] THE DATA PATHS INTO A SINGLE TRANSMISSION
`INTERFACE TO ONE OR MORE APPLICATIONS” (CLAIMS 6-10, 17-21,
`AND 26) 25
`
`YEGOSHIN-BASED COMBINATIONS RENDER OBVIOUS THE
`V.
`“MULTIPLEXED” LIMITATIONS (CLAIMS 1-13) ............................................31
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`A. THE ’946 PATENT REQUIRES NO MORE THAN A KNOWN USE OF THE
`TERM “MULTIPLEXED/MULTIPLEXES” (CLAIM 1-4) ................................................................. 31
`1. The Petition Clarified The Term “Multiplex” .................................31
`2. Parties’ District Court Claim Constructions Are Irrelevant ............33
`3.
`Intrinsic Record Supports General Understanding of “Multiplex” .34
`B. YEGOSHIN, ALONE OR AS MODIFIED, RENDERS THE “MULTIPLEXED”
`LIMITATIONS OBVIOUS .............................................................................................................................. 40
`1. Yegoshin Teaches Both Simultaneous and Selective Connections of
`Cellular and WLAN Calls .................................................................................40
`2. Yegoshin-Bernard Based Combination Renders Obvious
`“Multiplexed Signals” .......................................................................................42
`3. Patent Owner’s Cherry-Picking Arguments Do Not Impact
`Petitioner’s Prior Art Analysis ..........................................................................47
`4. Sufficient Motivations Existed To Modify Yegoshin-Johnston-
`Billström Based on Bernard To Satisfy The “Multiplex” Limitations .............51
`
`VI.
`
`GROUND 1B RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 2, 5, AND 10 ............54
`
`A. CLAIMS 2 AND 5 ..................................................................................................................... 54
`B. CLAIM 10 ................................................................................................................................... 54
`
`ADDITIONAL MATERIALS CONSIDERED .....................................57
`
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................59
`
`VII.
`
`VIII.
`
`
`
`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 26-30 (“the Challenged Claims”)
`
`of the ’946 patent are rendered obvious by at least the combinations of references
`
`set forth in my Original and Supplemental Declarations.
`
`I.
`
`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
`
`2.
`
`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, 39. 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 unit is accessible on a first IP address and the second wireless transmit
`
`and receive unit is accessible on a second IP address.” EX-1001, 13:35-38; POR,
`
`39 (citing EX-2019, ¶114).
`
`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, 39-41. 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 unit”) using an IP address
`
`(“second IP address”) for forwarding a call to WLAN in the way Yegoshin de-
`
`scribes. EX-1004, 6:15-22, 7:15-19, 8:8-15. Meanwhile (e.g., while using WLAN
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`for the forwarded call), the modified phone would switch to the “PD mode” to ac-
`
`cess its “first communication interface” (“first wireless transmit and receive unit”)
`
`using an IP address (“first IP address”) for “add-on” IP-based cellular data transfer
`
`(not regular circuit-switched cellular communications) (as taught by Billström) to
`
`transmit data packets of various types, such as those for both voice and data com-
`
`munication (“data-data” and “voice-data”). Pet., 14 (14[e]), 16-22 (14[i]); EX-
`
`1004, 2:1-13; EX-1056, 1:43-45 (“voice data is currently transmitted over the in-
`
`ternet 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 dedi-
`
`cated 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, ¶¶81-85; 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, 40-41 (citing EX-2019, ¶¶115,
`
`117-118); POPR, 48-49. However, Yegoshin’s description of the phone number
`
`does not disrupt the combination. Patent Owner acknowledges (POPR, 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, Billström’s use of an IP address would not be redundant be-
`
`cause it is for IP-based cellular data communication, which is independent from IP-
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`based WLAN communication using another IP address. Institution Decision (ID),
`
`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, 41), as taught in Billström and acknowl-
`
`edged by Dr. Cooklev. EX-1006, 9:41; EX-1053, 18-25 (Dr. Cooklev acknowl-
`
`edged VoIP “refer[s] to packet-based communications.”); EX-1054, 50:8-13, 58:4-
`
`9 (“Well, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that Internet Pro-
`
`tocol relates to the transmission 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
`
`8.
`
`Based solely on Dr. Cooklev’s testimony, Patent Owner alleges that
`
`the modification would have been beyond a POSITA’s skill, and there would be no
`
`reasonable expectation of success. POR, 42-48 (citing EX-2019, ¶¶123-126). 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, 42-48. 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 ’946 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 ’946 patent is silent as to how to use IP addresses
`
`and only provides superficial discussion of Internet technology. EX-1001, 2:28-31,
`
`4:44-48, 6:14-41, 10:48-11:8. Therefore, the ’946 patent relies on the state of the
`
`art for its disclosure, which confirms that a POSITA would have understood that
`
`the ’946 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] doesn’t expressly cite to
`
`these documents [i.e., documents describing Internet Protocol], it refers to Internet
`
`Protocol, and a person of skill given astute that it is referring to the set of docu-
`
`ments describing Internet Protocol.”).
`
`II. YEGOSHIN-BASED COMBINATIONS RENDER OBVIOUS
`SIMULTANEOUS USE OF MULTIPLE NETWORK PATHS
`(CLAIMS 14-21 AND 26)
`
`12. As discussed below, Patent Owner’s interpretation of the claimed
`
`“simultaneous use of multiple network paths” is overly narrow and its views of ob-
`
`viousness are unduly restrictive. Specifically, Patent Owner conflates the claimed
`
`“simultaneous use” with “simultaneous data transfer” and offers an arbitrary dis-
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`tinction between “network paths” versus “communication paths.” Additionally, Pa-
`
`tent Owner does not consider the level of skill and creativity of a POSITA in as-
`
`sessing whether it would have been obvious to use Yegoshin’s multiple, independ-
`
`ent interfaces simultaneously.
`
`A. The Claims Require Simultaneous Use, Not Simultaneous
`Data Transfer
`
`13. Patent Owner’s argument for limitations 14[j] and 17[j] is premised
`
`on a requirement that data be simultaneously transferred by two “transmit and re-
`
`ceive units.” POR, 48-55. This language is not in the Challenged Claims. In fact,
`
`limitations 14[j] and 17[j] recite “data transferred by the plurality of transmit and
`
`receive units,” which does not require that data be transmitted simultaneously by
`
`the plurality of transmit and receive units, as acknowledged by Dr. Cooklev. EX-
`
`1053, 105:1-13 (“it doesn't require data to be transmitted via the multiple network
`
`paths at all times.”). Further, limitations 14[j] and 17[j] do not require that the de-
`
`vice simultaneously connects to different networks (e.g., cellular and WLAN), but
`
`only requires “the simultaneous use of multiple network paths.” Limitations 14[j]
`
`and 17[j] confirm this by reciting “at least one connection to a network server,”
`
`which is clearly not limited to multiple established connections to multiple net-
`
`works (e.g., cellular and WLAN).
`
`14. Even assuming that Yegoshin’s disclosure does not render obvious
`
`simultaneous transmission of data through its cellular and WLAN interfaces,
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Yegoshin still simultaneously uses both of its interfaces to improve its data trans-
`
`fer process. I disagree that Yegoshin’s use of the term “while” would not render
`
`obvious a temporal understanding to a POSITA, in view of the ordinary under-
`
`standing of the term “while.” That means “at or during the same time” (EX-1063,
`
`2023; EX-1064, 1736) or “during the time that something is happening” (EX-1065,
`
`910).
`
`15. The Board determined that the example described in Yegoshin’s col-
`
`umn 5 does not establish cellular and WLAN calls at the same time. ID, 34. But, as
`
`mentioned above, the claims do not require simultaneous calls. Furthermore, in
`
`Yegoshin’s example in column 5, the cellular and WLAN paths are used simulta-
`
`neously. EX-1004, 5:55-65. Specifically, “integrating software is provided to coor-
`
`dinate activity between the two paths.” EX-1004, 5:55-65. As an example,
`
`Yegoshin describes that, “if engaged with an IP call” (WLAN path in use), “an in-
`
`coming cell call” (cellular path in use) “would get a busy signal … or it would be
`
`redirected to the IP call point.” EX-1004, 5:55-65. Because a cellular call is pro-
`
`cessed (e.g., redirected to the IP call point) while engaged with a WLAN call, both
`
`cellular and WLAN networks are in use simultaneously, even if the phone does
`
`not establish cellular and WLAN calls simultaneously.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`16. Further, Yegoshin’s description is not limited to the column 5 exam-
`
`ple. For instance, Yegoshin describes that “cell phone 9 may communicate via cel-
`
`lular network in normal fashion as illustrated via dotted double-arrow 43,” and
`
`“[i]n addition to normal cellular communication, cell phone 9 may communicate
`
`in wireless mode on wireless IP LAN 38 as illustrated via dotted double-arrow
`
`45.” EX-1004, 6:65-7:3. Yegoshin also describes that “certain cellular calls will be
`
`exempt from IP delivery” and “will be routed to local cell network 23” and “re-
`
`ceived by the user of telephone 9 in normal cell-phone mode.” EX-1004, 8:47-56.
`
`In this example, a cellular call would not be redirected to the IP call point as in the
`
`column 5 example, but, instead, would be delivered to the cellular interface despite
`
`another IP WLAN call, indicating simultaneous use of both networks.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Distinction Between “Network” Versus
`“Communication” Path is Arbitrary and Unsupported
`
`17. Based on my review, the Board found that the Yegoshin-Johnston
`
`combination describes simultaneous network paths at least based on Johnston’s
`
`teaching of antenna diversity. ID, 23-24. As discussed in the Original Declaration,
`
`the Yegoshin-Johnston combination would implement Yegoshin’s “first communi-
`
`cation interface” for cellular (“first wireless transmit and receive unit”) to be “en-
`
`abled to communicate using one or more antennas simultaneously” (14[h]), as
`
`taught by Johnston’s multiple antennas that “simultaneously receive or transmit
`
`two or three components of electromagnetic energy.” EX-1003, ¶¶77-79; EX-1005,
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`1:5-7. Therefore, the data transferred by the modified “first communication inter-
`
`face” of Yegoshin “is improved by the simultaneous use of multiple network
`
`paths,” as taught by Johnston’s diversity antenna structure enables communication
`
`over multiple paths. EX-1003, ¶¶94-98.
`
`18. Patent Owner recognizes that Johnston teaches multiple, simultaneous
`
`paths, but contends that these paths are communication paths, not network paths.
`
`This contention is unsupported. Claim 14 recites “the simultaneous use of multiple
`
`network paths,” which uses the definite article “the.” The only other instance of
`
`“simultaneous use” in claim 14 is “using one or more antennas [of the first wire-
`
`less transmit and receive unit] simultaneously.” EX-1001, 13:32-34, 41-44. Thus,
`
`a POSITA would have understood that “the simultaneous use of multiple network
`
`paths” refers to communication by the “first wireless transmit and receive unit”
`
`“using one or more antennas simultaneously.” Otherwise, “the simultaneous”
`
`would lack antecedent basis in the claim.
`
`19.
`
`In arguing Petitioner’s analysis, Patent Owner introduces an arbitrary
`
`distinction between “network paths” and “communication paths,” and argues that
`
`“network paths” would indicate different types of networks. POR, 51-52 (citing
`
`EX-2019, ¶¶132-33). This distinction is unsupported, other than by Dr. Cooklev’s
`
`conclusory testimony. In particular, the term “network path” is only found in the
`
`claims of the ’946 patent without any mention in the specification. While the ’946
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`patent uses the term “communication path(s)” in several instances, the use of the
`
`term is at best inconsistent. EX-1001, 6:4-8, 6:26-29, 8:13-14, cls., 1, 15, 18, 20,
`
`21, 26, 28, 29. For example, in column 7:7-12, the ’946 patent equates “communi-
`
`cation path” with “channel.” But, in column 4:8-9, the patent discusses combining
`
`multiple paths into a single communication channel. These two references are in-
`
`consistent. Further, in column 6:26-29, the ’946 patent describes that multiple
`
`transmit/receive units and antennas enable multiple communication paths, which is
`
`satisfied by an antenna diversity arrangement. Moreover, in column 6:6-8, the ’946
`
`patent suggests that each communication path is different communication modality
`
`(optical, wired, wireless). Then, in column 8:13-14, the ’946 patent describes that a
`
`VPN is considered a form of “communication path,” which means a type of net-
`
`work connection. At least these citations indicate that the ’946 patent is incon-
`
`sistent in its use of “communication path.” Additionally, based on my review, the
`
`’946 patent’s specification appears to interchangeably use “path” with several vari-
`
`ants (“communication,” “transmission,” or “data”) to mean a wide range of things.
`
`20. With this limited description in the ’946 patent, a POSITA would
`
`have viewed the term “network path” as generically covering any “path” of a sig-
`
`nal in a network, including multiple paths in the same network. Dr. Cooklev’s own
`
`explanation aligns with this perspective. EX-2019, ¶131 (“A ‘network path’ is typi-
`
`cally understood as a path through a network or from one network to another[.]”).
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`C. When a Device Has Multiple, Independent Network Paths,
`it is Obvious to Use Them Simultaneously
`
`21.
`
`In my Original Declaration, I offered an alternative argument to
`
`preempt the argument that Patent Owner offers in the POR. EX-1003, ¶¶97-98;
`
`POR, 52-55. Particularly, I explained why it would have been obvious to transmit
`
`data simultaneously using Yegoshin’s cellular and WLAN interfaces. EX-1003,
`
`¶¶97-98. 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 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 con-
`
`sider, particularly in the combination with Billström where two IP addresses are
`
`maintained. Dr. Cooklev admitted that using two different networks simultane-
`
`ously 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
`
`22. As an example, I referred to three-way calling and explained how a
`
`POSITA would have found it obvious to employ three-way calling in Yegoshin.
`
`EX-1003, ¶98. Patent Owner’s sole argument against the obviousness of three-way
`
`calling is to attack Gillig, which is the reference cited for corroboration. Patent
`
`Owner contends that the term “data” should be limited to “digital” data and Gillig
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`is an analog system. POR, 53-55. But this misses the point of the obviousness ar-
`
`gument advanced in my Original Declaration column 5, which contemplated add-
`
`ing three-way calling, not Gillig’s analog calling. Even if “data” is limited to digi-
`
`tal, 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 communication is routed over
`
`the standard GSM communication or over the added packet data capability. With
`
`this, a POSITA would have employed three-way calling using these digital tech-
`
`nologies, rather than turning back to Gillig’s older, analog 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).
`
`23. Further, the term data should not exclude analog data. In the POR, Pa-
`
`tent Owner defines the term “data” as being limited to digital data and precludes
`
`analog data from its definition. I disagree with this assertion, as the claims recite
`
`“data” rather than “digital data.” EX-1001, cls. 1, 14, 17, 27. Indeed, the term
`
`“data” broadly refers to both digital and analog information.
`
`24. Notably, the ’946 patent’s specification does not limit the term “data”
`
`to “digital data.” The term “digital” appears only once in the specification and is
`
`used in discussing conversion from “RF [analog] to digital.” EX-1001, 7:10-12.
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`Based on my review, the ’946 patent considers analog-to-digital and digital-to-ana-
`
`log conversion as part of its data transfers. EX-1001, 3:49-59, 6:33-36, 7:12-16.
`
`For example, the ’946 patent explains that computers “need to exchange data
`
`streams at very fast rates,” that data transfer rates are limited by “A/D and D/A 806
`
`conversion rates,” and that enabling “parallel processing of the communications,
`
`and having parallel processing of wireless data streams … increases the data trans-
`
`fer rate.” EX-1001, 6:64-7:20. Here, it is apparent that the data streams exist in
`
`both analog and digital format as the data is converted and transferred between the
`
`computers. EX-1001, 6:64-7:20. Based on my knowledge and experience, Patent
`
`Owner’s interpretation is unsupported because it effectively reads the claims such
`
`that a signal does not represent data in analog format, but is converted to data when
`
`the signal is converted to digital format.
`
`25. Similarly, the ’946 patent’s own provisional application does not sup-
`
`port Patent Owner’s interpretation of “data” as only digital information. As found
`
`at the cover page of the ’946 patent, the ’946 patent claims priority to two earlier
`
`applications filed by the common inventors, one of which was abandoned and the
`
`other of which was issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,169,789 (“’789 patent”). Based on my
`
`review, these applications use “data” broadly and include “data” information that is
`
`“analog.” For example, the ’789 patent refers to a telephone line as a data commu-
`
`nication line. EX-1052, 6:15-19. The other, abandoned application uses the phrase
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`in a similar manner as the ’789 patent. EX-1066, 81 (“Yet another object of the in-
`
`vention is to enable users to communicate with and command the Intellikeyboard
`
`remotely, through either the Internet or through a data communication line such as
`
`a telephone line.”). As such, Patent Owner’s limiting definition of “data” contra-
`
`dicts how the ’946 patent’s own earlier applications have treated the term.
`
`26. Several pieces of evidence support Petitioner’s broad interpretation of
`
`the term “data” that includes “analog data.” Notably, Dr. Cooklev’s own publica-
`
`tions refer to “analog data” and confirm that the term does not require a digital for-
`
`mat and can be used to represent both analog and digital information. EX-1067,
`
`[0031] (“The data are digitized and digital data, plus metadata indicating, e.g., the
`
`carrier frequency, are transmitted to the radio.”), [0045] (“Analog data”), [0076],
`
`[0136] (“digital or analog data streams”); EX-1068 (US6359998B1), Abstract,
`
`1:14-20 (“digital data”), EX-1069 (US6490295B1), 1:23-26 (“The modern society
`
`in almost every respect is crucially dependent on its ability to communicate signals
`
`or data, whether in digital or analog form, from one point to another.”).
`
`27. Based on these arguments, a POSITA would have found it obvious to
`
`use Yegoshin-Billström’s phone, capable of IP-based communication over both
`
`cellular and WLAN, to implement a known “three-way linking” to connect to IP-
`
`based cellular and WLAN calls simultaneously because it provides a cost-effective
`
`manner to communicate with multiple people.
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`III. YEGOSHIN-JOHNSTON-BILLSTRÖM-BERNARD-PREISS
`RENDERS OBVIOUS TWO “NETWORK PATHS” TO THE
`SAME “REMOTE SERVER” “IN RESPONSE TO A CHANGE
`IN THE SIGNAL STRENGTH AND/OR CONNECTIVITY”
`(CLAIMS 27-30)
`
`A. Yegoshin Discloses or Renders Obvious “Remote Server”
`
`28. Patent Owner mischaracterizes Petitioner’s mapping for “remote
`
`server” (27[h]) by asserting that the Petition only considered “PSTN switch 31” to
`
`be the “remote server.” POR, 55-59. Patent Owner apparently ignores my analysis,
`
`which incorporates the analysis of the same term in other claims (17[i] and 14[j]
`
`referenced by 17[i]). EX-1003, ¶¶187-189, 94. My Original Declaration clearly
`
`identified “PSTN-connected routing server” and “IP telephony server” as “network
`
`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 recog-
`
`nized by Patent Owner (POR, 57), “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.
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Pet., 23.
`
`29. Patent Owner’s overly strict interpretat