`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Cobblestone Wireless, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-00315
`
`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
`
`
`
`02198-00092/14594659.1
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
`
`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
`
`02198-00092/14594659.1 Ex. 1003, page ii
`
`
`
`
`
`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 .................................................................. 80
`
`E. Dependent claim 21 .................................................................... 83
`
`F. Dependent claim 23 .................................................................... 84
`
`X. CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 84
`
`XI. CLAIM LISTING ............................................................................... 86
`
`02198-00092/14594659.1 Ex. 1005, page iii
`
`
`
`
`
`I, James A. Proctor, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained by Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“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,
`
`the presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this or any other
`
`proceeding. I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`02198-00092/14594659.1
`
`
`
`
`
`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. My opinions in this Declaration are substantively identical as
`
`those given in my declaration in support of the Petition in T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al.
`
`v. Cobblestone Wireless LLC, IPR2024-00137.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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:
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888 (“the ’888 patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0111149A1 (“Chitrapu”)
`
`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)
`
`Ex. 1005, page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1223
`
`1229
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Obviousness
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 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
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`• 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
`
`
`
`
`
`obviousness, I reserve the right to provide a Declaration addressing assertions of
`
`non-obviousness due to secondary considerations.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`38.
`
`I have been informed that claim terms are typically given their plain
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`because such reliance indicates use of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART AND THE
`TIME OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION
`
`40.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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 are packet based both
`
`voice and data.
`
`B. Cellular Network Planning
`
`51.
`
`In early cellular sys
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
