Filed on behalf of Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`By: Peter J. McAndrews
`Andrew B. Karp
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 West Madison Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`Tel.: (312) 775-8000
`Fax: (312) 775-8100
`Email: pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET
`
`LM ERICSSON,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`______________
`Case IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`______________
`
`DECLARATION OF GHOBAD HEIDARI, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: Peter J. McAndrews
`Andrew B. Karp
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 West Madison Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`Tel.: (312) 775-8000
`Fax: (312) 775-8100
`Email: pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET
`
`LM ERICSSON,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`______________
`Case IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`______________
`
`DECLARATION OF GHOBAD HEIDARI, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .......................1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ........2
`
`III. COMPENSATION AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED ....................5
`
`IV. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING ...............................................................6
`
`A. Anticipation .................................................................................6
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Obviousness ................................................................................7
`
`Claim Construction .................................................................. 10
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................ 11
`
`VI. THE ’629 PATENT AND TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ........ 12
`
`A.
`
`Circuit-Switched Networks ...................................................... 12
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Packets and Packet-Switched Networks .................................. 13
`
`ATM “Cells” Are Not “Packets” In The Context Of The
`’629 Patent................................................................................ 16
`
`The ’629 Patent Defines Packet-Centric Networks To
`Exclude Circuit-Centric Networks (Including ATM
`Networks) ................................................................................. 20
`
`Related Prosecution History Defines Packet-Centric
`Networks To Exclude Circuit-Centric Networks
`(Including ATM Networks) ..................................................... 21
`
`Dr. Haas Incorrectly Alleges That ATM Is Packet-
`Centric ...................................................................................... 22
`
`G. ATM Does Not Perform Packet Switching ............................. 26
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................... 28
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`A.
`
`“No Periodic Variation” ........................................................... 28
`
`B.
`
`“Packet” .................................................................................... 29
`
`VIII. SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART ................................................... 31
`
`A. Dyson ....................................................................................... 31
`
`B.
`
`Raychaudhuri ........................................................................... 33
`
`IX. OPINIONS REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE ’629
`PATENT ............................................................................................. 34
`
`A. Dyson Does Not Disclose The Claimed “Packets” ................. 34
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Raychaudhuri Does Not Disclose The Claimed “Packets” ..... 36
`
`A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Not
`Have Combined Dyson With Raychaudhuri As
`Hypothesized By Petitioners’ Expert ....................................... 38
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`1. My name is Ghobad Heidari. I am presently the president of
`
`GHB Services, LLC, an engineering and intellectual property consulting
`
`firm, in San Diego, California. I have 26 years of telecommunications and
`
`wireless
`
`industry experience
`
`in
`
`innovation, design, development,
`
`standardization, and management. I have also earned a B.S. degree, an M.S.
`
`degree, and a Ph.D. degree, all in electrical engineering.
`
`2.
`
`I have extensive research and development experience in
`
`various wireless communication systems and networks, including Analog,
`
`TDMA, CDMA, and OFDMA mobile communication, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi,
`
`hardware and software platforms (FPGA, DSP, reconfigurable fabric,
`
`integrated circuits), satellite communication and networks, short and long-
`
`range communication systems, and centralized as well as peer-to-peer
`
`networks.
`
`3.
`
`I have been hired by Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`
`(“IV”) in connection with the above-captioned inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`proceeding. In the paragraphs below, I provide my opinion that at least
`
`claims 1–4 of the ’629 patent in the IPR are not obvious to a person of
`
`1
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention in view of the instituted
`
`grounds for review.
`
`II.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`I have 26 years of post-graduate research and development
`
`experience in wireless communication systems and networks. In 1992, I
`
`received my Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering with an emphasis in
`
`spread-spectrum wireless communications from Purdue University in West
`
`Lafayette, Indiana. I also received an M.S.E.E. degree from Purdue
`
`University in 1990 and a B.S.E.E. degree with a computer engineering
`
`option from Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan in 1988.
`
`5.
`
`Over the last 26 years, I have studied and worked on the
`
`development of many different wireless communication systems, including,
`
`but not limited to, TDMA/CDMA/WCDMA/OFDMA mobile phones and
`
`base stations, IEEE802.11 (Wi-Fi), IEEE802.15 (WiGig, Zigbee), Bluetooth,
`
`ISDB/DVB satellite, and terrestrial broadcast TV. I have worked at all layers
`
`of various communication systems and networks, most extensively at
`
`physical layer, the data link layer (including the MAC sub-layer), as well as
`
`the network layer, developing embedded software/hardware systems suitable
`
`2
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`for integrated circuits as well as large and small communication systems and
`
`networks.
`
`6.
`
` Currently, I am an independent consultant working on various
`
`communication and networking projects (including mobile communications,
`
`satellite communications, wide and local area networks, etc.). I also run an
`
`engineering and intellectual property consulting firm— GHB Services, LLC.
`
`Previously I was vice president of engineering at WiLinx Corporation,
`
`where I led the research, development, and standardization of short-range
`
`wireless communication systems and networks based on Ultra WideBand
`
`(UWB) technology.
`
`7.
`
`From 2003 to 2007, I was vice president of engineering at
`
`Olympus Communication Technology of America (an R&D center of
`
`Olympus Corporation in the US), and I supervised an engineering team in
`
`researching and developing various high-speed wireless communication
`
`systems and networks.
`
`8.
`
`From 2000 to 2003, I was a director of engineering at
`
`Quicksilver Technology, developing mobile communication as well as Wi-
`
`Fi modems and subsystems using a reconfigurable hardware architecture.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`9.
`
`From 1997 to 2000, I was a senior member of technical staff at
`
`Nokia Mobile Phones, analyzing, simulating, and implementing various
`
`systems and algorithms for mobile phones.
`
`10. From 1995 to 1997, I was a senior engineer at Ameritech
`
`Cellular (now AT&T), designing and deploying the first CDMA mobile
`
`network in Chicago.
`
`11. From 1992 to 1994, I was at LCC International, helping to
`
`design and deploy various mobile networks including Analog, IS-54/IS-136,
`
`and GSM. At LCC International, I also led the development of 40 short
`
`courses in wireless and mobile communications.
`
`12. Since 1999, I have also been a part-time faculty member of
`
`University of California at San Diego (UCSD) Extension, where I have
`
`designed and taught various courses in digital and wireless communications.
`
`13.
`
`I am the named inventor on 34 granted patents. I am the author
`
`of several publications, including a book and several journal and conference
`
`papers. I have been a senior member of IEEE, and have contributed to
`
`several standard specifications, including TIA/EIA, 3GPP2, WiMedia, Ecma
`
`International, and USB-IF. I served as the chairman of IEEE Vehicular
`
`Technology Society, San Diego chapter for two years. I also served as the
`
`4
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`Technical Program Committee member of IEEE International Conference on
`
`Wireless for Space and Extreme Environments (WiSEE) for two years.
`
`III.
`
`COMPENSATION AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`14.
`
`I am being compensated for my time as an expert witness on
`
`this matter at $450/hour. My compensation, however, does not depend in
`
`any way on my opinions or conclusions, nor on the result of this proceeding.
`
`15.
`
`I am not an employee of IV or any affiliate, parent, or
`
`subsidiary.
`
`16.
`
`In arriving at my opinions, I considered the following
`
`documents:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Item
`
`1001
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1008
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629 to Jorgensen (“the ’629 patent”)
`
`Expert Declaration of Zygmunt Haas
`
`A Dynamic Packet Reservation Multiple Access Scheme for
`Wireless ATM by Deborah A. Dyson and Zygmunt J. Haas
`(“Dyson”)
`
`WATMnet: A Prototype Wireless ATM System for Multimedia
`Personal Communication by D. Raychaudhuri et al.
`(“Raychaudhuri”)
`
`Packet Reservation Multiple Access for Local Wireless
`Communications by D.J. Goodman et al. (“Goodman”)
`
`Item
`
`U.S. Appl. No. 09/349,975, applicant's response of 2002-11-06
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,188,671 (“Chase”)
`
`5
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`U.S. Appl. No. 09/349,477, applicant's response of 2001-12-20
`
`U.S. Appl. No. 09/349,477,applicant's response of 2001-11-30
`
`Wireless Intelligent ATM Network and Protocol Design for
`Future Personal Communication Systems (“Cheng”)
`
`IPR2018-01007 Petitioners’ expert’s declaration
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 4,916,691 (“Goodman”)
`
`Transcript from cross-examination of Petitioners’ expert Dr.
`Zygmunt Haas, dated November 30, 2018
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2021
`
`
`
`• Institution of Inter Partes Review Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (Case
`
`IPR2018-00727)
`
`• File history of the ’629 patent
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`
`17.
`
`I am not an expert in patent law, and I am not purporting to
`
`provide any opinions regarding the correct legal standards to apply in these
`
`proceedings. I have been asked, however, to provide my opinions in the
`
`context of legal standards that have been provided to me by Patent Owner’s
`
`attorneys.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`18.
`
`I understand that to anticipate a claim, each and every element
`
`of a claim, as properly construed, must be found either explicitly or
`
`inherently as arranged in the claim in a single prior art reference. Even if
`
`6
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`such a reference contains each and every element of a claim, the reference
`
`must be an enabling disclosure, with enough information to enable a person
`
`skilled in the art to reproduce the claimed invention without undue
`
`experimentation. I further understand that while the disclosure requirement
`
`presupposes the knowledge of a person skilled in the art, that presumed
`
`knowledge does not grant a license to read into the prior art reference
`
`teachings that are not there. A person of ordinary skill in the art may not fill
`
`gaps in the reference.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that a patent can be declared invalid if the
`
`subject matter of a claim as a whole would have been obvious at the time of
`
`the invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that
`
`obviousness allows for the combination of prior art references if there exist
`
`sufficient reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have made the
`
`combination. I have been informed that there are four basic inquiries that
`
`must be considered for obviousness:
`
`1. What is the scope and content of the prior art?
`
`2. What are the differences, if any, between the prior art and each
`
`claim of the patent?
`
`7
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`3. What is the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention of the patent was made?
`
`4. Does the prior art enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`make and use the claimed invention?
`
`20.
`
`I further understand that a claimed invention composed of
`
`several elements is not obvious merely because each of the elements may
`
`have been independently known in the prior art. That is because I understand
`
`that it is impermissible to use the claimed invention, or disclosure of the
`
`subject patent, as an instruction manual or template to piece together the
`
`teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.
`
`In other words, I understand that one cannot use hindsight reconstruction to
`
`pick and choose among isolated disclosures in the prior art to invalidate the
`
`claimed invention. As such, I understand that even if the collective prior art
`
`discloses all the claim limitations, it is important to consider whether there is
`
`any evidence, other than hindsight, indicating why a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would combine the references in such a way as to arrive at the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`21.
`
`I understand that even if there would have been in the abstract
`
`an apparent reason for combining prior art references, there must also have
`
`been a reasonable expectation of success. I understand that features from
`
`prior art references need not be physically combinable (i.e., a combination
`
`may be obvious if one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to make
`
`any necessary modifications to combine features from prior art references),
`
`but that there must be a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a combination is more likely to be nonobvious
`
`when the prior art “teaches away” from the proposed combination. I
`
`understand that a prior art reference may be said to teach away when (1) a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would be discouraged by the teachings of
`
`one prior art reference from combining a feature or teaching from another
`
`prior art reference; (2) a person of ordinary skill in the art is led in
`
`a direction divergent from the claimed invention that is alleged to be obvious;
`
`or (3) the proposed combination would render the result inoperable.
`
`23.
`
`I further understand that in relation to analyzing a patent for
`
`obviousness, one must consider certain objective evidence, such as
`
`commercial success, copying, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of
`
`others to solve the problem, unexpected results, and whether the invention
`
`9
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`was made independently by others at the same time of the invention. I
`
`understand that such evidence can outweigh other evidence that might
`
`otherwise tend to prove obviousness.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`24.
`
`I understand that in order to provide an analysis of the claims of
`
`a patent in view of prior art, the claims have to be construed. I further
`
`understand that the challenged claims for the purposes of this inter partes
`
`review should be given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`and in the context of the entire disclosure of the patent. I understand that the
`
`claims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part,
`
`and that the claims themselves may provide guidance as to the meaning of
`
`particular terms.
`
`25.
`
`I further understand that the specification may act as a sort of
`
`dictionary which explains the invention and may define terms used in the
`
`claims.
`
`26.
`
`I also understand that the interpretation to be given to a claim
`
`term can only be determined and confirmed with a full understanding of
`
`what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`I further understand that the construction that stays true to the claim
`
`language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the
`
`invention is usually the correct construction.
`
`27.
`
`I further understand that the prosecution history helps to
`
`demonstrate how the inventor and the Patent Office understood the patent.
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`28.
`
`I understand that an analysis of the claims of a patent in view of
`
`prior art has to be provided from the perspective of a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’629 patent.
`
`29.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I was
`
`asked to consider the patent claims through the eyes of “a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art.” I was told by Patent Owner’s counsel to consider
`
`factors such as the educational level and years of experience of those
`
`working in the pertinent art; the types of problems encountered in the art; the
`
`teachings of the prior art; patents and publications of other persons or
`
`companies; and the sophistication of the technology. I understand that the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art is not a specific real individual, but rather a
`
`hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected by the factors discussed
`
`above.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`30.
`
`I understand that Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Haas, has taken the
`
`position that a person having ordinary skill in the art is someone having a
`
`B.Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering or a related field with at least three
`
`years of experience in the field of telecommunications networks. I agree
`
`with this position.
`
`31. Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the
`
`capability of a person having ordinary skill in the art. As evident from my
`
`CV, I have trained, supervised, evaluated, directed, and worked alongside
`
`many such persons over the course of my career. I am very familiar with the
`
`capabilities and limitations of such person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`VI.
`
`THE ’629 PATENT AND TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A. Circuit-Switched Networks
`
`32. The ’629 patent explicitly describes a fundamental principle of
`
`circuit switching and circuit-centric networks—dedication of a circuit or
`
`channel. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 29:52–53 (“Circuit switching dedicates a
`
`channel to a call for the duration of the call.”); 32:21–23 (“Unlike a circuit-
`
`centric network, a packet-centric network does not use dedicated circuits
`
`through which to transfer packets.”); 34:41–45 (“A packet-switched network
`
`such as, e.g., an IP network, unlike a circuit-switched network, does not
`
`12
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`require dedicated circuits between originating and terminating locations
`
`within the packet switched network.”).
`
`33. The following illustration depicts a dedicated circuit (heavy
`
`black line with arrows) between a source and destination within a circuit
`
`switched-network.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Packets and Packet-Switched Networks
`
`34.
`
`In contrast
`
`to circuit-switched networks, packet-switched
`
`networks share (rather than dedicate) a circuit or channel with multiple
`
`traffic flows without the need to first preconfigure the circuit/channel:
`
`“Packet switched networks transport packets of information which can
`
`include various types of data such as, e.g., digitized voice, data, and video.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`With packet switching, many different calls can share a communication
`
`channel rather than the channel being dedicated to a single call.” Ex. 1001
`
`at 30:52–57.
`
`35. Bandwidth sharing is enabled by a packet-switched network,
`
`which uses “packets”: “Packet switching breaks up traffic into so-called
`
`‘packets’ which can then be independently transported from a source node to
`
`a destination for reassembly. Thus a particular portion of bandwidth can be
`
`shared by many sources and destinations yielding more efficient use of
`
`bandwidth.” Id. at 3:11–16. “In a packet-switched network, there is no
`
`single, unbroken physical connection between sender and receiver. The
`
`packets from many different calls share network bandwidth with other
`
`transmissions. The packets can be sent over many different routes at the
`
`same time toward the destination, and can then be reassembled at the
`
`receiving end.”
`
`
`
`Id. at 31:9–14.
`
` “With packet-switched data
`
`communications, one cannot dedicate a circuit to a particular data
`
`communications session. Indeed, a strength of packet-switching lies in route
`
`flexibility and parallelism of its corresponding physical network.” Id. at
`
`14:43–48. Thus, packet-switching is required to enable packet-centric
`
`14
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`operation, in which a selected portion of bandwidth is shared rather than
`
`being dedicated to a single connection.
`
`36. The figure below illustrates how a packet-switched network
`
`does not require a dedicated path. Each packet (different colors represent
`
`different packets) can be routed independently from the others.
`
`
`
`37.
`
`In a packet-switched network, routers route each packet
`
`independently from other packets (as illustrated in figure above). The route
`
`the packets take through the physical network between the source and
`
`destination depends on network conditions, among other factors. In order to
`
`enable each router to make an independent routing decision for each packet,
`
`15
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`there is a key piece of information that each packet must carry—a
`
`destination address. As such, a packet (and specifically the header of the
`
`packet) must contain a destination address. Ex. 1001 at 34:45–51.
`
`C. ATM “Cells” Are Not “Packets” In The Context Of The
`’629 Patent
`
`38. As taught by the ’629 patent, ATM uses so-called “cells” (and
`
`not packets) to transport information. See, e.g., id. at 16:21–22 (“ATM cell
`
`circuit-centric approaches”); 32:14–15 (“[ATM] is a fixed-size cell switched
`
`circuit-centric data network.”); 35:3–4 (“ATM is a high-bandwidth, low-
`
`delay, fixed-sized cell-based multiplexing network technology.”); 35:4–9
`
`(“ATM uses fixed-length cells with the belief that the fixed length cells can
`
`be switched more easily in hardware than variable size packets . . . .”);
`
`35:11–12 (“ATM segments variable length IP packet flows into fixed size
`
`cells . . . .”); 35:13 (“ATM cell”); 35:25–26 (“[ATM] is a cell based
`
`switching and multiplexing technology . . . .”); 35:35 (“ATM cell”); 35:38–
`
`39 (“All [ATM] cells are transferred, in sequence, over this virtual
`
`connection.”); 35:40 (“transmitted [ATM] cells”); 35:47–48 (“If no hosts are
`
`ready to transmit, then an empty, or idle [ATM] cell is sent.”); 35:57
`
`(“[ATM cells] are mapped into a physical transmission path . . . All
`
`information is multiplexed and switched in an ATM network via these fixed-
`
`16
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`length cells.”); 35:64 (“ATM cell header field”); 35:65 (“ATM cell header”);
`
`36:4–8 (four references to ATM cells); 36:8 (“ATM cell payload field”);
`
`36:13–15 (“The fixed [ATM] cell size simplifies the implementation of
`
`ATM switches and multiplexers and enables implementation at high
`
`speeds.”); 36:16–18 (“When using ATM, longer packets cannot delay
`
`shorter packets as in other packet-Switched networks, because long packets
`
`are separated into many fixed length cells.”); 36:22–24 (“ATM switches take
`
`traffic and segment it into the fixed length cells, and multiplex the cells into
`
`a single bit stream for transmission across a physical medium.”); 36:55
`
`(“ATM cell-switching”); 37:9–10 (“ATM cells”); 37:38–39 (“ATM circuit-
`
`centric cells”).
`
`39.
`
`In one place of the ’629 patent specification, the phrase
`
`“asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) cell packet format” is used. Ex. 1001
`
`at 26:5–6. This instance, however, is in stark contrast to the entirety of the
`
`specification and should not override the fact that ATM cells are not packets
`
`(which is reiterated many times in both the specification and applicants’
`
`statements in related prosecution).
`
`40. Unlike ATM cells, a packet (at least as defined by the ’629
`
`patent) has an address that uniquely identifies the packet’s destination in the
`
`17
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`network—i.e., a “destination address.” As the ’629 patent explains: “The
`
`packet-switched network instead breaks a message into pieces known as
`
`packets of information. Such packets can then be encapsulated with a
`
`header which designates a destination address to which the packet must be
`
`routed. The packet-switched network then takes the packets and routes them
`
`to the destination designated by the destination address contained in the
`
`header of the packet.” Ex. 1001 at 34:45–51; see also id. at 31:28–30
`
`(“Routers look at a packet and determine from the destination address in the
`
`header of the packet, the destination domain of the packet.”).
`
`41. ATM cells do not contain a destination address. Instead, an
`
`ATM cell specifies a “virtual circuit.” Id. at 35:13–15. The virtual circuit
`
`does not identify the destination for the ATM cell, but rather it mandates
`
`what path the ATM cell must take across the network nodes.
`
`42. The lack of a destination address in an ATM cell exposes
`
`another principal difference between packet-switched and circuit-switched
`
`networks. In circuit-switched networks, such as ATM, there must first be a
`
`setup phase before any user data is transferred. According to this setup, a
`
`physical route from a source node to a final destination node is discovered
`
`and each network node along the route is programmed with the proper
`
`18
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`routing information for that virtual circuit. As such, ATM cells do not need
`
`to (and do not) carry the destination address. Instead, the header of an ATM
`
`cell contains a virtual path identifier (VPI) and a virtual channel identifier
`
`(VCI), but no destination address. Ex. 1001 at 35:65–36:1.
`
`43. The VPI and VCI values in an ATM cell are not unique.
`
`Instead, they only identify the next node along the pre-set physical route. Ex.
`
`1001 at 36:1–3. At each node along the route, the VPI and VCI fields are
`
`updated (i.e., changed) to point to the next node along the pre-defined path.
`
`44. Barring any transmission errors, all ATM cells arrive at the
`
`destination in the same order they were transmitted. Ex. 2021 at 27:2–14.
`
`Packets, on the other hand, can be routed individually and independently at
`
`each intermediary node based on the destination address carried by each
`
`packet, even in the absence of any transmission errors. This can result in
`
`packets that are part of the same flow taking different paths and arriving out
`
`of order. Ex. 2021 at 31:18–25.
`
`45. Whereas ATM cells have a fixed length, packets can have
`
`variable lengths. Ex. 1001 at 32:13–14; 37:37–40; 43:20–22.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`D. The ’629 Patent Defines Packet-Centric Networks To
`Exclude Circuit-Centric Networks (Including ATM
`Networks)
`
`46. The ’629 patent explicitly describes how ATM circuit-centric
`
`networks are distinct from and exclusive of packet-centric networks:
`
`e. TCP/IP Packet-centric vs. ATM Circuit-centric Data
`Networks
`
`Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) is a fixed-size cell
`switched circuit-centric data network. ATM implements virtual
`circuits (VCs), virtual paths (VPs) and transmission paths (TPs).
`A circuit-centric network like ATM sets up virtual circuits
`between source and destination nodes which provide QoS by
`dedicating the virtual circuit to a specific traffic type.
`
`Some networks are packet-centric networks. Unlike a circuit-
`centric network, a packet-centric network does not use
`dedicated circuits through which to transfer packets.
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 32:13–23. See also id. at 14:13–14 (“With ATM networking,
`
`telephone companies could continue to provide a circuit-centric QoS
`
`mechanism . . . .”); 16:21–22 (“traditional circuit-centric or ATM cell
`
`circuit-centric approaches”); 32:17 (“A circuit-centric network like ATM”);
`
`34:38–39 (“an asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) circuit-centric network”);
`
`34:64–65 (“Frame relay and ATM are connection-oriented circuit-centric
`
`services.”); 35:10–11 (“The ATM environment sets up virtual circuits in a
`
`circuit-centric manner.”); and 37:38–39 (“ATM circuit-centric cells”).
`
`20
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`E. Related Prosecution History Defines Packet-Centric
`Networks To Exclude Circuit-Centric Networks (Including
`ATM Networks)
`
`47. While prosecuting family members of the ’629 patent, the
`
`applicants repeatedly emphasized that ATM technology is circuit-centric and
`
`not packet-centric. In all of these cases, the applicants overcame prior art
`
`that was rooted in ATM. For example, during the prosecution of one family
`
`member (U.S. Pat. No. 6,680,922), the applicant explained:
`
`As claimed, for a network protocol to be packet-centric, the
`protocol can not be circuit-centric. As clearly defined in the
`specification, a packet-centric protocol “does not use dedicated
`circuits through which to transfer packets.” [Ex. 1001 at 32:22–
`23] . . . A circuit-centric protocol and/or network such as, e.g.,
`an asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) protocol network of
`[prior-art reference] Chase [(Ex. 2006)] is different from a
`packet-centric protocol network, in that the circuit-centric
`network assigns circuits for the ATM network. Unlike the
`circuit-centric ATM protocol, the packet-centric protocol does
`“not specifically route” the packets across a “specific channel.”
`[Ex. 1001 at 32:31–33]. Instead, the packet-centric protocol
`places a header on the packet and lets the network deal with
`routing the packets. [Id. at 32:33–34]. “Therefore, the
`outbound packets can take various routes to get from a source
`to a destination. This means that packets are in a datagram
`form and not sequentially numbered as they are in other
`protocols.” [Id. at 32:34–38] . . . As defined in the specification,
`the packet-centric protocol is not circuit-centric.
`
`Ex. 2005 at pp. 3–4 (Applicant’s response of November 6, 2002 in file
`
`history of U.S. Pat. No. 6,680,922; U.S. Appl. No. 09/349,975) (emphasis in
`
`21
`
`
`
`Dr. Heidari’s Declaration in Support of Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`original). See, also, Ex. 2007 at pp. 8–9 (Applicant’s response of December
`
`20, 2001 in file history of U.S. Pat. No. 6,862,622 (U.S. Appl. No.
`
`09/349,477)) (“A circuit-centric network like ATM is different from a
`
`packet-centric protocol network, in that the circuit-centric network sets up
`
`‘virtual circuits between source and destination nodes . . . by dedicating the
`
`virtual circuit to a specific traffic type.’ [Ex. 1001 at 32:17–20].”); Ex. 2008
`
`at pp. 8–9 (Applicant’s response of November 30, 2001 in file history of U.S.
`
`Pat. No. 6,862,622 (U.S. Appl. No. 09/349,977)) (similar argument); Ex.
`
`2007 at p. 13 (“Furthermore, [prior-art reference] Cheng [(Ex. 2009)] deals
`
`with asynchronous transfer mode (ATM). ATM is a cell centric, circuit
`
`centric protocol, unlike the packet centric protocol of the present
`
`invention.”).1
`
`F. Dr. Haas Incorrectly Alleges That ATM Is Packet-Centric
`
`48.
`
`I understand that in another presently-pending IPR against a
`
`related patent (IPR2018-01007; U.S. Pat. No. 7,412,517), Dr. Haas
`
`incorrectly alleges that “ATM is described by the patent as combining
`
`1 Where applicable, internal citations w
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
