`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`T-Mobile USA, Inc., AT&T Services Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T
`Corp., Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Nokia of America
`Corporation, Ericsson Inc.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Cobblestone Wireless, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2024-00137
`U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES A. PROCTOR IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 9,094,888
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1005
`
`Ex.1005.00001
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ..................................... 2
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED ................................................................. 8
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS ......................................................................... 9
`A. Obviousness ................................................................................ 10
`B. Claim Construction ..................................................................... 15
`V. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART AND THE TIME OF
`THE ALLEGED INVENTION.......................................................... 16
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................ 17
`A. A Brief History of Cellular Mobile Communications ................ 17
`B. Cellular Network Planning ......................................................... 21
`C. Cellular Standards and Standards Development Organizations . 24
`D. Basic Handover ........................................................................... 26
`E. Types of Handover ...................................................................... 27
`VII. THE ’888 PATENT ............................................................................. 29
`A. Description of the ’888 Patent’s Specification ........................... 29
`B. The ’888 Patent’s Prosecution History ....................................... 33
`VIII. SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................. 34
`A. Chitrapu ....................................................................................... 34
`B. 3GPP TS 36.300 (Ex. 1223) ....................................................... 45
`C. Motivation to Combine ............................................................... 49
`
`Ex. 1005, page ii
`
`Ex.1005.00002
`
`
`
`IX. GROUND 1: CHITRAPU IN VIEW OF TS 36.300 RENDERS
`OBVIOUS CLAIMS 9, 10, 12, 20, 21 AND 23 OF THE ’888 PATENT.
`
`54
`A. Independent claim 9 .................................................................... 54
`B. Dependent claim 10 .................................................................... 75
`C. Dependent claim 12 .................................................................... 77
`D. Independent claim 20 .................................................................. 79
`E. Dependent claim 21 .................................................................... 82
`F. Dependent claim 23 .................................................................... 83
`X. CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 84
`XI. CLAIM LISTING ............................................................................... 85
`
`Ex. 1005, page iii
`
`Ex.1005.00003
`
`
`
`I, James A. Proctor, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I have been retained by T-Mobile USA, Inc., AT&T Services Inc.,
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Corp., Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless,
`
`Nokia of America Corporation, and Ericsson, Inc. (“Petitioners”) as an independent
`
`expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“PTO”) against Cobblestone Wireless, LLC (“Patent Owner”) regarding
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888 (“the ’888 Patent”) (Ex. 1001).1 I have been asked to
`
`submit this Declaration on behalf of Petitioners.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether certain references disclose or
`
`render obvious the features recited in claims 9, 10, 12, 20, 21 and 23 (“the challenged
`
`claims”) of the ’888 patent. My opinions are set forth below. Based on my
`
`experience and expertise, it is my opinion that the prior art renders obvious all
`
`limitations of the challenged claims, as I discuss in detail below.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $550 per hour for my work in this
`
`proceeding. My compensation is in no way contingent on the nature of my findings,
`
`
`
`1 Where appropriate, I refer to exhibits that I understand are to be attached to the
`
`petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’888 patent.
`
`
`
`Ex.1005.00004
`
`
`
`the presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this or any other
`
`proceeding. I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`All of my opinions stated in this Declaration are based on my own
`
`personal knowledge and professional judgment. I am over 18 years of age and, if I
`
`am called upon to do so, I would be competent to testify as to the matters set forth
`
`in this Declaration.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`5. My background and expertise that qualify me as an expert are described
`
`in detail in my Curriculum Vitae attached as Ex. 1229, which further includes an
`
`accurate list of all publications authored by me in the previous 10 years and a list of
`
`all cases in which I testified as an expert at trial or by deposition during the previous
`
`4 years. Below I have summarized those qualifications, as well as any other
`
`background and expertise relevant to the technical issues in this case:
`
`6. My educational background includes a Bachelor of Science in
`
`Electrical Engineering (BSEE) from the University of Florida in 1991 and Master of
`
`Science in Electrical Engineering (MSEE) from the Georgia Institute of Technology
`
`(“Georgia Tech”) in 1992 focusing on digital signal processing.
`
`7.
`
`I have worked as an engineer and entrepreneur in the field of wireless
`
`communications for over 25 years and have been involved with various aspects of
`
`wireless communications for the duration of my career.
`
`Ex. 1005, page 2
`
`Ex.1005.00005
`
`
`
`8.
`
`From 1986 to 1991, while at the University of Florida, I interned with
`
`Harris Corporation in various roles including mechanical design, software
`
`development, and digital design. From 1991 to 1992, while at Georgia Tech, I
`
`worked at the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) as a graduate research
`
`assistant, performing software development on classified government programs.
`
`9.
`
`From 1993 to 1995, while working for Harris Corporation, I designed
`
`various cellular communication systems for voice, data, and tracking/location. Many
`
`of these systems I designed utilized advanced communications technologies, such as
`
`those utilized in the then-developing and future telecommunications (such as IS95,
`
`W-CDMA, and aspects of LTE).
`
`10. From 1995 to 1998, I worked at Spectran in advanced development and
`
`technical marketing. At Spectrian, I interfaced with Nortel’s and Qualcomm’s
`
`product management and performed advanced technology development and systems
`
`analysis. In this role, I designed IS-95 CDMA and GSM base station power
`
`amplifiers and control electronics, and received several patents associated with
`
`advanced linearization techniques for the reduction of transmitted distortion. I note
`
`that the peak to average ratio of various waveforms was of particular concern in the
`
`design of the power amplifiers and associated linearization techniques with the
`
`designs I was involved with during my work at Spectrian.
`
`Ex. 1005, page 3
`
`Ex.1005.00006
`
`
`
`11. From 1998 to 2002, I served as the Director of Strategic and Technical
`
`Marketing at Tantivy Communications, a venture capital-funded 3G cellular data
`
`and chip set company. At Tantivy, I helped to architect and standardize the I-CDMA
`
`Spread Spectrum Systems Air Interface Standard (T1P1.4). I also developed both
`
`wireless access terminals and base stations that complied with the standard. The base
`
`stations utilized various IP protocols, and interfaced with the wire line network
`
`utilizing IP over Ethernet. Additionally, I participated in and provided technical
`
`contributions to 3GPP/3GPP2 standardization efforts related to the development of
`
`CDMA2000 and 1xEV-DO. This work resulted in me being a named inventor on
`
`more than 150 pending or issued U.S. patents or applications.
`
`12. From 2002 to 2007, as co-founder of WiDeFi, Inc., I served in various
`
`roles including President, CEO, CTO, and board member. As the CEO, my
`
`responsibilities included advanced development of platform technologies. I was a
`
`named inventor of wireless technology components, including a frequency
`
`translating TDD repeater, a same frequency repeater architecture for TDD/FDD-
`
`based systems, and physical layer multi-stream MIMO repeater technology. WiDeFi
`
`invented and pro-vided wireless home networking products based on WiFi and
`
`cellular technologies. While at WiDeFi, I was a named inventor on over 25 issued
`
`U.S. patents or patent applications.
`
`Ex. 1005, page 4
`
`Ex.1005.00007
`
`
`
`13. From 2007 to 2009, I consulted as a principal engineer for Qualcomm
`
`Inc. as part of the acquisition of WiDeFi’s technology. While at Qualcomm, I
`
`worked with its corporate R&D division and developed consumer 3G and 4G
`
`cellular coverage enhancement systems utilizing WiDeFi’s baseband interference
`
`cancellation technologies. My responsibilities included working with international
`
`cellular operators on product requirements, detailed W-CDMA simulations, Long
`
`Term Evolution (“LTE”) systems analysis, and participation in prototype product
`
`realization. I am currently a named inventor on roughly 45 issued U.S. patents or
`
`patent applications assigned to Qualcomm.
`
`14. From 2010 to the present, I have served as managing director and co-
`
`founder of Proxicom Wireless, LLC, which has developed and continues to develop
`
`cloud-based, mobile social networking and mobile payments technology based upon
`
`the proximity and location of mobile devices. Proxicom currently holds twelve
`
`issued U.S. patents and multiple pending patent applications, of which I am a named
`
`inventor. Significant aspects of Proxicom’s technology involve a mobile device’s
`
`use of short range wireless technologies (802.11, near field communications,
`
`Bluetooth) in combination with cellular data links (3G/WCDMA or 4G/LTE, for
`
`example) to facilitate frictionless interactions via a wireless networked central cloud
`
`server.
`
`Ex. 1005, page 5
`
`Ex.1005.00008
`
`
`
`15. Since 2007, I have also been the principal of Proctor Consulting, LLC.
`
`In this role, I have been a consultant relating to wired, wireless, and cellular
`
`communication and technologies, start-up companies and intellectual property. I
`
`have also been involved with numerous patent infringement, patent validity, and
`
`patent analysis assignments for public and private companies in the wired, wireless,
`
`and cellular networking industries.
`
`16. Additionally, I have worked and consulted for both cellular
`
`infrastructure and device focused companies (Spectrian, Qualcomm, Fastback
`
`Networks), and defense contractors (Harris Corporation), where I developed covert-
`
`tracking and
`
`location
`
`technologies
`
`involving CDMA and smart-antenna
`
`technologies.
`
`17.
`
`In various of the above-detailed roles, I have been responsible for the
`
`development of business plans, product development plans, product development
`
`budgets, and product bill of materials estimations. I have been responsible for
`
`numerous product development teams, including schedule and costs of the
`
`development process at various stages of my career. For example, at Tantivy
`
`Communications, I ran a joint development of I-CDMA cellular base stations in
`
`Seoul, Korea that were used in a field trial in that country. Additionally, as founder
`
`and CEO of WiDeFi, Inc., I was responsible for similar such activities, as required
`
`to raise venture capital funding and reporting to the board of directors.
`
`Ex. 1005, page 6
`
`Ex.1005.00009
`
`
`
`18.
`
`I am currently a named inventor on more than 325 issued U.S. patents,
`
`and more than 700 international patent publications in total. A substantial portion of
`
`my work has focused on wireless communication systems and products. A number
`
`of these patents and patent applications are related to the subject matter of the patents
`
`asserted in this matter. For example, the following patents, for which I am a named
`
`inventor, are examples of some of my experience relevant to the subject matter of
`
`this declaration:
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,100,843
`
`7,0,02,902
`
`6,400,317
`
`9,974,116
`7,113,786
`
`7,911,993
`
`8,027,642
`7,787,408
`11,443,344
`
`8,477,665
`
`9,135,612
`
`
`
`Priority Date
`Sept. 21, 1998
`
`Feb. 23, 2000
`
`Feb. 2, 2001
`
`Title
`“Adaptive antenna for use in same frequency networks”
`
`“Method and system for economical beam forming in a
`radio communication system”
`“Method and apparatus for antenna control in a
`communications network”
`“Handoff to base station having enhanced capabilities”
`“Antenna adaptation to manage the active set to
`manipulate soft hand-off regions”
`“Method and apparatus for allowing soft handoff of a
`CDMA reverse link utilizing an orthogonal channel
`structure”
`“Transmission canceller for wireless local area network” Apr. 6, 2004
`“Wireless repeater with master/slave configuration”
`May 19, 2006
`“Efficient and secure communication using wireless
`Sept. 8, 2008
`service identifiers”
`“Method in a wireless repeater employing an antenna
`array for interference reduction”
`“Proximity detection, virtual detection, or location based
`triggering of the exchange of value and information”
`
`May 31, 2001
`Mar. 8, 2002
`
`Nov. 20, 2003
`
`July, 14, 2010
`
`Apr. 17, 2011
`
`19. Based on my professional experience, I believe I am qualified to testify
`
`as an expert on matters related to the patent at issue.
`
`Ex. 1005, page 7
`
`Ex.1005.00010
`
`
`
`20.
`
`I am currently consulting, working with and/or advising a number of
`
`companies and universities. For example, I currently serve on the external advisory
`
`board to the University of Florida’s Electrical and Computer Engineering
`
`department. I also perform expert consulting work, research, and development in
`
`the area of wireless communications with Proctor Consulting and Proxicom
`
`wireless. Finally, I perform conceptual and product development in the medical
`
`device field with Genesis Medical Devices.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`21. The opinions contained in this Declaration are based on the documents
`
`I reviewed, my professional judgment, as well as my education, experience, and
`
`knowledge.
`
`22.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this Declaration, I also reviewed
`
`the following materials and information:
`
`1007
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888 (“the ’888 patent”)
`1002
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`1003
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0111149A1 (“Chitrapu”)
`1006
`Expert Declaration of Benoist Sébire on the Prior Art Status of TS
`36.300
`IBM International Technical Support Organization, An Introduction
`to Wireless Communications, 2d ed. (October 1995)
`Taylor, M.S. et al., Internet Mobility: The CDPD Approach (June
`11, 1996)
`Steele et al., GSM, cdmaOne and 3G Systems (2001)
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`Ex. 1005, page 8
`
`Ex.1005.00011
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1010
`Sesia, S. et al., LTE – The UMTS Long Term Evolution, 2d ed.
`(2011)
`3GPP 23.401 V10.3.0 (March 2011)
`3GPP TS 36.300 V10.3.0
`Curriculum Vita of James Proctor
`
`1011
`1223
`1229
`
`
`
`23.
`
`I also reviewed any other materials I refer to in this Declaration in
`
`support of my opinions.
`
`24. My opinions contained in this Declaration are based on the documents
`
`I reviewed and my knowledge and professional judgment. My opinions have also
`
`been guided by my appreciation of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood the state of the art, the prior art, and the claims and the specification
`
`of the ’888 patent at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`25. Petitioners’ attorneys have explained to me the legal standards that
`
`apply in this case. My understanding of those standards is described below. I am not
`
`an attorney, and I do not have formal training in the law regarding patents. I have
`
`used my understanding of the following legal principles set forth in this section in
`
`reaching my opinions.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that, in this proceeding, Petitioners have the burden of
`
`proving that the challenged claims are invalid by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`Ex. 1005, page 9
`
`Ex.1005.00012
`
`
`
`A. Obviousness
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`27.
`
`§ 103 (pre-AIA) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior
`
`art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time
`
`of the invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art. I have been informed that the
`
`following matters are relevant to determining whether the claimed invention would
`
`have been obvious: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the difference or
`
`differences between the patent claim and the prior art, (3) the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time the invention of the patent, and (4) any secondary considerations
`
`or objective indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed that the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`predictable results. When a claim simply arranges prior art elements with each
`
`performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than
`
`one would expect from such an arrangement, then such a combination is obvious.
`
`When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art altered by the mere
`
`substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination is likely
`
`to be obvious unless the combination yields an unpredictable result.
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed that when a work is available in one field of
`
`endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
`
`Ex. 1005, page 10
`
`Ex.1005.00013
`
`
`
`either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can
`
`implement a predictable variation, such a variation is likely unpatentable. For the
`
`same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
`
`way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her
`
`skill. One question to consider is whether the improvement is more than predictably
`
`using prior art elements according to their established functions.
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that it may often be necessary, in a validity
`
`analysis, to consider whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known
`
`elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. This can be accomplished by
`
`looking to interrelated teachings of multiple patents or other publications or pieces
`
`of prior art; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the
`
`marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed that a validity analysis need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim; it is
`
`appropriate to take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ. I have been informed that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.
`
`Ex. 1005, page 11
`
`Ex.1005.00014
`
`
`
`32.
`
`I have been informed that a claim composed of several elements is not
`
`proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each element was, independently,
`
`known in the prior art. I have been informed that it can be important to identify a
`
`reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant
`
`field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does. I am told
`
`that one way that subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting there existed at
`
`the time of the invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution
`
`encompassed by the patent’s claims. I have been informed that any need or problem
`
`known in the field of endeavor at the time of the claimed invention and addressed
`
`by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`33.
`
`I have been informed that one should not assume that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those
`
`elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem. Instead, I have been
`
`informed that since familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary
`
`purposes, in many cases a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple prior art references together like pieces of a puzzle.
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed that, when there is a design need or market
`
`pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions, persons of ordinary skill in the art have good reason to pursue the known
`
`options within their technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, the
`
`Ex. 1005, page 12
`
`Ex.1005.00015
`
`
`
`product was likely not accomplished by innovation but by using ordinary skill and
`
`common sense. I have been informed that, in such an instance, the fact that the
`
`combination was obvious to try may show that the combination was obvious.
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed that, when determining whether a claimed
`
`combination would have been obvious, the correct analysis is not whether a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, writing on a blank slate, would have chosen the particular
`
`combination of elements described in the claim. Instead, I have been informed that
`
`the correct analysis considers whether one of ordinary skill, facing the wide range
`
`of needs created by developments in the field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit
`
`to selecting the combination claimed.
`
`36.
`
`I have been informed that, when determining whether a claimed
`
`invention is obvious, any “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness identified
`
`by the patentee should also be considered. These secondary considerations can
`
`include:
`
`• commercial success of the invention, causally related to the
`
`invention itself rather than to companion factors, such as
`
`advertising or attractive packaging;
`
`• the invention taught away from the technical direction followed
`
`by those skilled in the art;
`
`Ex. 1005, page 13
`
`Ex.1005.00016
`
`
`
`• a long-felt but unsatisfied need for the invention while the needed
`
`implementing arts and elements had long been available;
`
`• the invention achieves results unexpected to those skilled in the
`
`art;
`
`• copying of the invention by competitors as distinguished from
`
`their independent development
`
`• unsuccessful attempts by those skilled in the art to make the
`
`invention;
`
`• acquiescence by the industry to the patent’s validity by honoring
`
`the patent through taking licenses or not infringing the patent, or
`
`both; and
`
`• skepticism, disbelief in or incredulity by those skilled in the art
`
`that the patentee's approach worked.
`
`37.
`
`I have been informed that, for the above information to impact the
`
`obviousness of a patent claim, there must be a nexus between the alleged secondary
`
`considerations and the claims. In addition, I have been informed that the burden of
`
`introducing evidence of secondary considerations generally is on the Patent Owner.
`
`If the Patent Owner or its expert should assert secondary considerations of non-
`Ex. 1005, page 14
`
`Ex.1005.00017
`
`
`
`obviousness, I reserve the right to provide a Declaration addressing assertions of
`
`non-obviousness due to secondary considerations.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`I have been informed that claim terms are typically given their plain
`38.
`
`and ordinary meanings, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the earliest alleged priority date. I have further been informed
`
`that when considering the meaning of any terms in the challenged claims of the ’888
`
`patent, I should apply the plain and ordinary meaning of those terms. I have further
`
`been informed that in considering the meaning of the claims, one must consider the
`
`language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record.
`
`39.
`
`I have been informed that in general, a preamble limits the invention if
`
`it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and
`
`vitality to the claim. I have further been informed that a preamble is not limiting
`
`where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and
`
`uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention. I have
`
`further been informed that dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for
`
`antecedent basis may limit claim scope because it indicates a reliance on both the
`
`preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention. I have further been
`
`informed that clear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the
`
`claimed invention from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation
`
`Ex. 1005, page 15
`
`Ex.1005.00018
`
`
`
`because such reliance indicates use of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`V.
`
`40.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART AND THE
`TIME OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION
`I have been asked to assume that the ’888 patent is entitled to its earliest
`
`alleged priority date of April 29, 2011. See Ex. 1001, Face, item (22) (“PCT Filed”
`
`section).
`
`41. Based on the materials and information I have reviewed and based on
`
`my experience in the technical areas relevant to the ’888 patent, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’888 patent would have had
`
`at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and at least two years of experience
`
`working in the field. Relevant working experience would include experience with
`
`cellular telecommunications and networking, radio-access network architectures,
`
`protocols and signal propagation, and including handovers in wireless networks.
`
`More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Based on my
`
`knowledge and experience, including as discussed above in Section II, I was a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art as of April 29, 2011, and can provide opinions regarding
`
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of that time. My opinions
`
`herein are, where appropriate, based on my understandings as to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at that time.
`
`Ex. 1005, page 16
`
`Ex.1005.00019
`
`
`
`42.
`
`I myself had these capabilities at the time of the alleged invention of
`
`the ’888 patent.
`
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`43. Below, I present a brief overview of certain technical concepts and
`
`features that would have been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to
`
`and at the time of the earliest alleged priority date of the ’888 patent. The technical
`
`concepts and features that I describe in this Technical Background section reflect the
`
`state of the art that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had knowledge
`
`of and would have understood prior to and at the time of the alleged invention of the
`
`’888 patent. I rely on, and incorporate as applicable (even if not expressly mentioned
`
`below in Section IX) the following disclosures to support my opinions in this
`
`Declaration, including those opinions relating to how the prior art discloses and/or
`
`suggests the challenged claims of the ’888 patent and how (and why) a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to consider and combine the
`
`disclosures and suggestions from one or more prior art references.
`
`A. A Brief History of Cellular Mobile Communications
`44. The first mobile telephone system was deployed in St. Louis in 1946,
`
`having a 50 mile coverage range. This service was deployed in 25 states within the
`
`following year. See Ex. 1007 at 6. This system used a number of base stations, each
`
`Ex. 1005, page 17
`
`Ex.1005.00020
`
`
`
`having a frequency modulated transmitter, and was connected to the wired telephone
`
`network using a controller.
`
`Ex. 1007, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`45. This system was replaced in the 1960s with a system called the
`
`“Improved Mobile Telephone Systems” (IMTS), and was a precursor to the so-called
`
`cellular service. Ex. 1007 at 6. It used a larger number of smaller cells operating at
`
`lower power to increase the capacity of the system. Additionally, the system
`
`provided for a number of channels per base station.
`
`46. Every cellular system must apportion some amount of over-the-air
`
`resources for user terminals, like cell phones, for some period of time to transmit
`
`communications to a base station. This communications link from user terminal to
`
`base station is referred to as the “uplink,” or “reverse link” (while the
`
`communications link from base station to user terminal is referred to as the
`
`“downlink,” or “Forward link”):
`
`Ex. 1005, page 18
`
`Ex.1005.00021
`
`
`
`Ex. 1008 at 20.
`
`
`
`
`
`47. Cellular mobile voice and/or data devices additionally must perform
`
`control operations with the cellular networks. These control operation may be
`
`grouped into some general categories: Radio Resource Management, Mobility
`
`Management, and Service (or Session) Management.
`
`Ex. 1008 at 28.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, page 19
`
`Ex.1005.00022
`
`
`
`48. Radio Resource Management is typically concerned with assuring
`
`proper (effective and efficient) use of the RF medium and is part of accessing the
`
`mobile network. Ex. 1008 at 43. In many standards Radio Resource Management
`
`involves the mobile device exchanging messages and transmissions directly with the
`
`base station, or the controller of the base station. The radio resource control
`
`functions may include aspects of handover.
`
`Radio resource management functions Allocation and maintenance
`
`of radio communication channels are provided by these functions. The
`
`GSM radio resources are dynamically shared between the circuit mode
`
`and GPRS. The GPRS radio resource management is concerned with
`
`the allocation and release of timeslots for a GPRS channel; monitoring
`
`GPRS channel utilization; congestion control; and the distribution of
`
`GPRS channel configuration information that is broadcast on the
`
`common control channels.
`
`Ex. 1009 at 418.
`
`49. Mobility Management provides for the ability to send and receive
`
`communication wherever a mobile device is located. This category sometimes is
`
`referred to as, or otherwise includes, location management. Furthermore, Mobility
`
`Management involves the handover of a mobile device between cells (to be
`
`discussed in more detail below), depending upon the system. At the least, it includes
`Ex. 1005, page 20
`
`Ex.1005.00023
`
`
`
`the location management aspects related to changing the point of attachment within
`
`one or more radio access networks.
`
`50. Service or Session Management provides for access to services within
`
`the radio access network. For example, in prior art cellular systems such as GSM
`
`(Global System for Mobile communications), GPRS (General Packet Radio
`
`Services), and UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System), services or
`
`sessions are invoked that are distinct from Mobility Management registration and
`
`authentication, and are related to a user device connecting and disconnecting from
`
`services within the network. For example, in GSM, connection management
`
`involves circuit-switched call control, so-called supplemental services, and SMS
`
`(short messaging services). The services connection management functions
`
`generally must determine which services the user (e.g., based on the user’s
`
`subscriber identification module (SIM)) is authorized to receive, and perform
`
`accounting and charging of the user related to use of those services. In GPRS and
`
`UMTS, access to circuit-switched voice connections and access to packet data
`
`services are invoked separately. In LTE, all communications