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 IPR2022-01249
`Patent 9,019,946
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR TODOR V. COOKLEV, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 1 of 50
`
`
`____________
`
`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 IPR2022-01249
`Patent 9,019,946
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR TODOR V. COOKLEV, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 1 of 50
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 1
`II.
`III. BASES OF OPINIONS ................................................................................... 4
`IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................... 8
`A.
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ....................................................... 8
`B. My Understanding Of Legal Standards ............................................... 10
`CLAIMS-AT-ISSUE .....................................................................................12
`V.
`VI. OPINIONS .....................................................................................................12
`A.
`“Multiplexed” “Signals” (Claims 1, 27). ............................................ 12
`1.
`Bernard’s “Decoder/Multiplexer 112.” .................................... 13
`2.
`Petitioner’s Proposed Combination Of Yegoshin And
`Bernard. .................................................................................... 18
`a.
`Petitioner’s First Scenario ..............................................18
`b.
`Petitioner’s Second Scenario ..........................................20
`“Combin[ing] The Data Paths Into A Single Transmission
`Interface To One Or More Applications” (Claim 17). ........................ 25
`VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................25
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`i
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 2 of 50
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Todor V. Cooklev. I have been retained as an expert
`
`witness to provide my independent opinion in regard to the matters at issue in inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,946 (“the ’946 patent”) in IPR2022-01249.
`
`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 3 of 50
`
`
`
`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 4 of 50
`
`
`
`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 5 of 50
`
`
`
`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:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,019,946 (Ex. 1001) (“the ’946 patent” or “’946”);
`
`• The prosecution history of the ’946 patent (Ex. 1002);
`
`
`
`4
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 6 of 50
`
`
`
`• The Declaration signed by Dr. Michael Allen Jensen in IPR2022-01249
`(Ex. 1003) (the “Jensen Declaration”);
`• The Petition in IPR2022-01249;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,711,146 issued to Leonid A. Yegoshin (“Yegoshin”)
`(Ex. 1004);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,784,032 issued to Ronald H. Johnston, et al.
`(“Johnston”) (Ex. 1005);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,590,133 issued to Lars Billström, et al. (“Billström”)
`(Ex. 1006);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,497,339 issued to Marc A. Bernard (“Bernard”) (Ex.
`1007);
`
`• International Patent Publication No. WO 98/27748 to Allan Farber, et al.
`(“WO748”) (Ex. 1008);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,854,985 issued to Joseph B. Sainton, et al. (“Sainton”)
`(Ex. 1009);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,031,503 issued to Joseph A. Preiss, II, et al. (“Preiss”)
`(Ex. 1010);
`
`• Larry L. Peterson and Bruce S. Davie, Computer Networks: A Systems
`Approach, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1996
`(Ex. 1011);
`
`• Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, 3d ed, Prentice Hall PTR,
`Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996 (Ex. 1012);
`
`
`
`5
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 7 of 50
`
`
`
`• Merilee Ford, H. Kim Lew, Steve Spanier, and Tim Stevenson,
`Internetworking Technologies Handbook, New Riders Publishing,
`Indianapolis, IN, 1997 (Ex. 1013);
`
`• William Stallings, Data and Computer Communications, 5th ed, Prentice
`Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996 (Ex. 1014);
`
`• Dictionary Definition of “time division multiplex” (Newton’s Telecom
`Dictionary, 1998) (Ex. 1015);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,115,615 issued to Takeshi Ota, et al. (Ex. 1016);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,366,622 issued to Stephen Joseph Brown, et al. (Ex.
`1017);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,560,443 issued to Ari Vaisanen, et al. (Ex. 1018);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,680,633 issued to Steven E. Koenck, et al. (Ex. 1019);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,047,322 issued to Aseem Vaid, et al. (Ex. 1020);
`
`• Excerpts from Theodore S. Rappaport, Wireless Communications
`Principles & Practice, Prentice Hall, 1996 (Ex. 1021);
`
`• R. G. Vaughan, et al., Antenna diversity in mobile communications, in
`IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 149-172,
`Nov. 1987 (Ex. 1022);
`
`• S. M. Alamouti, A simple transmit diversity technique for wireless
`communications, in IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications,
`vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 1451-1458, Oct. 1998 (Ex. 1023);
`
`• Excerpts from Douglas E. Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume
`One, 3d ed, 1995 (Ex. 1024);
`
`
`
`6
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 8 of 50
`
`
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,768,691 issued to Jorma Matero, et al. (Ex. 1025);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,960,344 issued to Ronald L. Mahany (Ex. 1026);
`
`• European Patent Application 0 660 626 A2 to John Daniel Byrne (EX-
`1027);
`
`• Excerpts from William C. Jakes, Microwave Mobile Communications,
`IEEE Press, 1974 (Ex. 1028);
`
`• Yi-Bing Lin, Cellular digital packet data, in IEEE Potentials, vol. 16, no.
`3, pp. 11-13, Aug.-Sept. 1997 (Ex. 1030);
`
`• 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);
`
`• 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);
`
`• 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);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,353,443 issued to Zhinong Ying (Ex. 1035);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,790,176 issued to Bernard Jeff Craig (Ex. 1036);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,230,194 issued to Jean-Marc Frailong et al. (Ex. 1037);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,600,734 issued to Alex Gernert, et al. (Ex. 1038);
`
`• Jon D. Brady, Virtual Private Networking – The Flexible Approach,
`Institution of Electrical Engineers, 1997 (Ex. 1039);
`
`
`
`7
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 9 of 50
`
`
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,055,575 issued to Gaige B. Paulsen, et al. (Ex. 1040);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 4,989,230 issued to Steven F. Gillig, et al. (Ex. 1045)
`
`• Excerpts from Constantine A. Balanis, Antenna Theory Analysis and
`Design, Harper & Row, 1982 (Ex. 1048);
`
`• The exhibits and other documents cited herein.
`
`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 ’946 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 ’946 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 10 of 50
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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 ʼ946 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
`
`
`
`9
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 11 of 50
`
`
`
`Board would not have a reasonable expectation of success in implementing certain
`
`aspects of the proposed combination as of the priority date of the ’946 patent.
`
`B. My Understanding Of Legal Standards
`
`19. When considering the ’946 patent and stating my opinions, I rely on
`
`the following legal standards as described to me by the attorneys for Smart Mobile.
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 12 of 50
`
`
`
`a second prior art reference can be explicit or implicit, but must have existed
`
`before the date of purported invention. I understand that prior art references
`
`themselves may be one source of a specific teaching or suggestion to combine
`
`features of the prior art, but that such suggestions or motivations to combine art
`
`may come from the knowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`had.
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 13 of 50
`
`
`
`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.
`
`V. CLAIMS-AT-ISSUE
`
`27.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has challenged claims 1-21 and 26-30
`
`based on five grounds as follows:
`
`• Claims 14-15 based on obviousness over Yegoshin, Johnston and
`Billström (Ground 1A);
`
`• Claims 1-11, 16-21based on obviousness over Yegoshin, Johnston,
`Billström, and Bernard (Ground 1B);
`
`• Claim 12 based on obviousness over Yegoshin, Johnston, Billström,
`Bernard, and WO748 (Ground 1C);
`
`• Claims 13 and 26 based on obviousness over Yegoshin, Johnston,
`Billström, Bernard, and Sainton (Ground 1D);
`
`• Claims 27-30 based on obviousness over Yegoshin, Johnston,
`Billström, Bernard, and Preiss (Ground 1E).
`
`VI. OPINIONS
`
`A.
`
`“Multiplexed” “Signals” (Claims 1, 27).
`
`28. Claim 1 recites:
`
`
`
`12
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 14 of 50
`
`
`
`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”
`
`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.
`
`Bernard’s “Decoder/Multiplexer 112.”
`1.
`I understand that in litigation currently pending in the United States
`
`31.
`
`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
`
`
`
`13
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 15 of 50
`
`
`
`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
`
`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., 38. To support this
`
`contention, Petitioner cites to Bernard at 3:59-4:15, Figure 4, and 17:10-25. Id.
`
`These passages and figure describe a “decoder/multiplexer 112,” as can be seen
`
`boxed in red in Figure 4 below:
`
`
`
`14
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 16 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`15
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 17 of 50
`
`
`
`District Court construction. Nor does Bernard’s decoder/multiplexer 112”
`
`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
`
`
`
`16
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 18 of 50
`
`
`
`the 74HC153, and consequently Bernard’s multiplexer, is consistent with a data
`
`selector.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 19 of 50
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Combination Of Yegoshin And
`Bernard.
`I understand that Petitioner and Dr. Jensen argue that the “POSITA
`
`40.
`
`would have found it obvious to modify Yegoshin-Johnston-Billström’s phone
`
`based on Bernard’s teachings in at least two alternative ways.” Pet., 39; Ex. 1003
`
`[Jensen Decl.] ¶ 136.
`
`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.
`
`Petitioner’s First Scenario
`a.
`I understand Petitioner proposes a “first scenario” as follows:
`
`42.
`
`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., 39-40.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 20 of 50
`
`
`
`43.
`
`I do not agree that the POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`combine the references as proposed or that the resultant combination would meet
`
`the claims. 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
`
`
`
`19
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 21 of 50
`
`
`
`cellular telephone and a land phone to Yegoshin’s phone, which is already a cell
`
`phone.
`
`44. Moreover, the resulting combined system would not teach the claims.
`
`The claims recite “[a]n Internet-enabled mobile communication device comprising
`
`…” Ex. 1001 [’946 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.”
`
`Petitioner’s Second Scenario
`b.
`I understand Petitioner proposes a “second scenario” as follows:
`
`45.
`
`…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
`
`
`
`20
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 22 of 50
`
`
`
`between one or more applications running at the phone and the
`respective multiple networks according to Bernard’s teachings. EX-
`1003, ¶134. …
`
`Additionally, in either of the scenarios, it would have been obvious to
`implement or modify Yegoshin’s phone based on Bernard’s teachings
`of the PDA that runs one or more applications and includes application
`server 710 connected to communication server 750 via a single
`interface (e.g., serial interface 701). EX-1003, ¶135.
`
`Pet., 41-42.
`
`46. Bernard uses a serial interface (highlighted in red) between its PDA
`
`and cradle because it is the physical connection between the two devices, as
`
`illustrated in Figure 10 below:
`
`
`
`21
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 23 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007 [Bernard] Fig. 10 (annotated); 17:44-51 (“The application server 710 of
`
`the PDA 102B is coupled to the communication server 750 of the communication
`
`device 100B by a serial interface 701. The serial interface 701 between the
`
`application server 710 and the communication server 750 corresponds to the serial
`
`interface between the PDA 102 and the primary serial port 106 of the first
`
`embodiment communication device 100”); see also id., 6:47-49 (“a serial port of a
`
`PDA 102 is connected to the primary serial port 106, so that the microcontroller
`
`104 can communicate with the PDA 102 over the serial interface.”). As can be
`
`seen in Figure 10 above, the serial interface 701 is the only point of connection
`
`
`
`22
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2002
`Page 24 of 50
`
`
`
`between the PDA and the cradle. The POSITA would have known that serial
`
`interfaces were used in the computer industry as connections to external devices or
`
`to peripherals.
`
`47. A serial interface is a communication interface which sends data
`
`serially, “one bit at a time.” Ex. 2009 [LCD Resources] (“In serial interface the
`
`data is sent or received one bit at a time over a series of clock pulses.”); Ex. 2010
`
`[Techopedia] (“The serial interface acts as a communication interface between two
`
`digital systems that sends data as a series of voltage pulses over a wire.”); Ex.
`
`2011 [Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms] 1029 (defining “serial interface” as
`
`“An interface that transmits data bit by bit rather than in whole bytes.”).
`
`Consequently, the POSITA would understand that Bernard selects each input one-
`
`by-one at the communication server and sends the data one bit a time because the
`
`serial interface connector between t
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
