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
`____________
`
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`Title: RESERVATION BASED PRIORITIZATION METHOD FOR WIRELESS
`TRANSMISSION OF LATENCY AND JITTER SENSITIVE IP-FLOWS IN A
`WIRELESS POINT TO MULTI-POINT TRANSMISISON SYSTEM
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ZYGMUNT HAAS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,628,629
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 1
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`Title: RESERVATION BASED PRIORITIZATION METHOD FOR WIRELESS
`TRANSMISSION OF LATENCY AND JITTER SENSITIVE IP-FLOWS IN A
`WIRELESS POINT TO MULTI-POINT TRANSMISISON SYSTEM
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ZYGMUNT HAAS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,628,629
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 1
`Legal Understanding ........................................................................................ 5
`
`I.
`II.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Dyson
`and Raychaudhuri ..................................................................... 45
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 54
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 78
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 80
`
`
`
`Declaration of Zygmunt Haas
`
`I, Zygmunt Haas, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I make this declaration based on my own personal knowledge and, if
`
`called upon to testify, would testify competently to the matters contained herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide technical assistance in the inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629 (“the ’629 Patent”).
`
`3.
`
`This declaration is a statement of my opinions on issues related to the
`
`unpatentability of claims 1-4 of the ’629 Patent.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`In forming my opinions, I have relied upon my knowledge, training,
`
`and experience in the relevant art. While my qualifications are stated more fully in
`
`my curriculum vitae (Ex. 1002), here I provide a brief summary of my qualifications:
`
`5.
`
`I am a Professor and Distinguished Chair in Computer Science at the
`
`University of Texas at Dallas. I am also Professor Emeritus at the School of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering at Cornell University. In addition, I have
`
`provided technical consulting services in intellectual property matters, during which
`
`I have written expert reports and provided deposition and trial testimony involving
`
`wireless communication technologies.
`
`6.
`
`My academic credentials include a Bachelor of Science in Electrical
`
`Engineering, summa cum laude, from Technion (IIT), Israel, in 1979 and a Master
`
`1
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 4
`
`
`
`of Science in Electrical Engineering, summa cum laude, from Tel-Aviv University,
`
`Israel, in 1985. I subsequently authored the thesis titled “Packet Switching in Fiber-
`
`Optic Networks” as part of earning my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from
`
`Stanford University in 1988.
`
`7.
`
` I am being compensated at a rate of $450.00 per hour, with
`
`reimbursement for actual expenses, for my work related to this Inter Partes Review.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on, and in no way affects, the substance of my
`
`statements in this Declaration.
`
`8.
`
`I have worked or consulted for about 35 years in the field of Electrical
`
`Engineering. My primary focus has been on communication and networking
`
`systems, with an emphasis on wireless communication networks. I have authored
`
`and co-authored numerous technical papers and book chapters related to wireless
`
`communication networks. I hold twenty patents in the fields such as high-speed
`
`networking, wireless networks, and optical switching.
`
`9.
`
`My employment history following my graduation from Stanford
`
`University began at the Network Research Department of AT&T Bell Laboratories
`
`in 1988. At AT&T Bell Laboratories, I pursued research on wireless
`
`communications, mobility management, fast protocols, optical networks, and optical
`
`switching. During my tenure at AT&T, I also worked for the AT&T Wireless Center
`
`of Excellence, where I investigated various aspects of wireless and mobile networks.
`
`2
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 5
`
`
`
`10.
`
`In 1995, I joined the faculty of the School of Electrical & Computer
`
`Engineering at Cornell University, and over time was promoted to Full Professor
`
`with Tenure. At Cornell, I headed the Wireless Networks Lab, which is a research
`
`group with extensive contributions in the area of wireless communication systems
`
`and networks. In 2013, I retired from Cornell with the title of Professor Emeritus,
`
`and I joined the Computer Science Department at the University of Texas at Dallas
`
`with the title of Professor and Distinguished Chair in Computer Science. At Cornell
`
`and at the University of Texas, I have taught dozens of courses related to computer
`
`networking and wireless communications. I have also served on various committees
`
`for the benefit of the scientific community.
`
`11.
`
`I am a member of a number of professional societies, including the
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and the Association for
`
`Computing Machinery (ACM). In 2007, I was elevated to an IEEE Fellow. In
`
`general, the number of IEEE Fellows elected each year is limited to 1% of the IEEE
`
`members. I have been responsible for organizing several workshops, and delivering
`
`numerous tutorials at major IEEE and ACM conferences. I have served as editor of
`
`several publications including the IEEE Transactions on Networking, the IEEE
`
`Transactions on Wireless Communications, the IEEE Communications Magazine,
`
`the Springer “Wireless Networks” journal, the Elsevier “Ad Hoc Networks” journal,
`
`the “Journal of High Speed Networks,” and the Wiley “Wireless Communications
`
`3
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 6
`
`
`
`and Mobile Computing” journal. I have also been a guest editor of IEEE Journal on
`
`Selected Areas in Communications issues on “Gigabit Networks,” “Mobile
`
`Computing Networks,” and “Ad-Hoc Networks.” Finally, I have served as the Chair
`
`of the IEEE Technical Committee on Personal Communications (TCPC).
`
`12.
`
`I have received multiple awards in the field of wireless communications
`
`and networks. In 2016, I was awarded the IEEE ComSoc Ad Hoc and Sensor
`
`Networks Recognition Award “for outstanding contributions to securing ad hoc and
`
`sensor networks”. In 2012, I received the IEEE ComSoc WTC Recognition Award
`
`for “outstanding technical contributions in the field for his service to the scientific
`
`and engineering communities.” Also in 2012, I received the “Best Paper Award for
`
`co-authoring “Collaborating with Correlation for Energy Efficient WSN” directed
`
`at Wireless Sensor Networking. I previously received the “Best Paper Award” for
`
`co-authoring “Optimal Resource Allocation for UWB Wireless Ad Hoc Networks”
`
`directed at personal indoor and mobile radio communications. Finally, in 2003, I
`
`received the “Highly Commended Paper Award” for co-authoring “Performance
`
`Evaluation of the Modified IEEE 802.11 MAC for Multi-Channel Multi-Hop Ad
`
`Hoc Network,” directed at advanced information networking and applications.
`
`13. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Ex. 1002. Additional
`
`information regarding my education, technical experience and publications,
`
`4
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 7
`
`
`
`including a list of the US patents of which I am an inventor/co-inventor, is included
`
`therein.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`14.
`I am not an attorney and I render no opinions on legal issues. My
`
`opinions are informed by my understanding of the relevant law, as has been provided
`
`to me by Counsel. I understand that the patentability analysis is conducted on a
`
`claim-by-claim and element-by-element basis, and that there are several possible
`
`reasons that a patent claim may be found to be unpatentable.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that earlier publications and patents may act to render a
`
`patent unpatentable for one of two reasons: (1) anticipation, or (2) obviousness.
`
`5
`
`
`
`patents, or publications) that each disclose fewer than all elements of a patent claim
`
`may nevertheless be combined to render a patent claim obvious if the combination
`
`of the prior art collectively discloses all the elements of the claim, and one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time would have been motivated to combine the prior
`
`art in such a way. I understand that this motivation to combine need not be explicit
`
`in any of the prior art, but may be inferred from the knowledge of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`18.
`
`I also understand that one of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton,
`
`but is a person having ordinary creativity. I further understand that one or more prior
`
`art references, articles, patents, or publications that disclose fewer than all of the
`
`elements of a patent claim may render a patent claim obvious if including the missing
`
`element would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., the missing
`
`element represents only an insubstantial difference over the prior art or a
`
`reconfiguration of a known system).
`
`19. Under the doctrine of obviousness, I understand that a claim may be
`
`invalid if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that obviousness analysis is based on the scope and content
`
`of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claim, the level of
`
`6
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 9
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art, and secondary indicia of obviousness and non-obviousness
`
`to the extent they exist.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that any evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness
`
`should be considered when evaluating whether a claimed invention would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention. These secondary indicia of
`
`non-obviousness may include, for example:
`
` a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the claimed
`
`invention;
`
` commercial success of processes claimed by the patent;
`
` unexpected results achieved by the invention;
`
` praise of the invention by others skilled in the art;
`
` the taking of licenses under the patent by others; and
`
` deliberate copying of the invention.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that there must be a relationship between any such
`
`secondary indicia and the claimed invention.
`
`23.
`
`It is also my understanding that there are additional considerations that
`
`may be used as further guidance as to when the above factors will result in a finding
`
`that a claim is obvious, including the following:
`
` the claimed invention is simply a combination of prior art elements
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results;
`
`7
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 10
`
`
`
` the claimed invention is a simple substitution of one known element for
`
`another to obtain predictable results;
`
` the claimed invention uses known techniques to improve similar devices
`
`or methods in the same way;
`
` the claimed invention applies a known technique to a known device or
`
`method that is ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
` the claimed invention would have been “obvious to try” choosing from a
`
`finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success;
`
` there is known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt variations
`
`of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
`
` there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was
`
`an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims; and
`
` there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`24.
`
`Finally, I understand that a claim may be deemed invalid for
`
`obviousness in light of a single prior art reference, without the need to combine
`
`8
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 11
`
`
`
`references, if the elements of the claim that are not found in the reference could have
`
`been supplied by the knowledge or common sense of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art.
`
`9
`
`
`
`that for any construed terms in this IPR are being construed under the Phillips
`
`standard.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that to determine how a person of ordinary skill would
`
`have understood a claim term, one should look to those sources available that show
`
`what one of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean.
`
`Such sources include the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the
`
`patent’s specification, the prosecution history of the patent (all of which are
`
`considered “intrinsic” evidence), and “extrinsic” evidence concerning relevant
`
`scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that, in construing a claim term, one should look primarily
`
`to the intrinsic patent evidence, including the words of the claims themselves, the
`
`remainder of the patent specification, and the prosecution history.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that extrinsic evidence, which is evidence external to the
`
`patent and its prosecution history, may also be useful in interpreting patent claims
`
`when the intrinsic evidence itself is insufficient.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that words or terms should be given their ordinary and
`
`accepted meaning unless it appears that the inventors were using them to mean
`
`something else. In making this determination, the claims, the patent specification,
`
`and the prosecution history are of paramount importance. Additionally, the
`
`specification and prosecution history must be consulted to confirm whether the
`
`10
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 13
`
`
`
`patentee has acted as its own lexicographer (i.e., provided its own special meaning
`
`to any term to be construed), or intentionally disclaimed, disavowed, or surrendered
`
`any claim scope.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that in general, a term or phrase found in the introductory
`
`words of the claim the preamble of the claim should be construed as a limitation
`
`if it recites essential structure or steps, or is necessary to give life, meaning, and
`
`vitality to the claim. Conversely, a preamble term or phrase 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. In making this
`
`distinction, one should review the entire patent to gain an understanding of what the
`
`inventors claim they actually invented and intended to encompass by the claims.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that language in the preamble limits claim scope (i) if
`
`dependence on a preamble phrase for antecedent basis indicates a reliance on both
`
`the preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention; (ii) if reference to the
`
`preamble is necessary to understand the limitations or terms in the claim body; or
`
`(iii) if the preamble recites additional structure or steps that the specification
`
`identifies as important.
`
`III. THE PRIOR ART
`33.
`In addition to the ’629 Patent, I have considered the following
`
`provisional applications, prior art patents, and printed publications. It is my
`
`11
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 14
`
`
`
`understanding that all of these prior art patents and printed publications pre-date
`
`the ’629 Patent.
`
`34.
`
`I have considered the following materials in forming my opinions:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Item
`
`1001
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629 to Jorgensen (“the ’629 Patent”)
`
`“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”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,020,056 to Chennakeshu (“Chennakeshu”)
`
`“A Multimedia Synchronization Model and Its Implementation in
`Transport Protocols” by Chun-Chuan Yang and Jau-Hsiung Huang
`(“Yang”)
`
`for Local Wireless
`“Packet Reservation Multiple Access
`Communications” by D.J. Goodman et al. (“Goodman”)
`
`“PRMA/DA: A New Media Access Control Protocol for Wireless
`ATM” by Jeong Geun Kim et al. (“Kim”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,287,347 to Spanke
`
`IV Infringement Contentions, Exhibit B.
`
`“Computer Dictionary & Handbook” by Charles J. Sippl et al., 3rd ed.
`(1981) (“Computer Dictionary”)
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/092542
`
`Computer Networks by Andrew S. Tanenbaum, 3rd ed. (1996)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,754,181 to Elliott
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,185,860 to Wu.
`
`12
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 15
`
`
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`
`“SWAN: An Indoor Wireless ATM network” by E. Hyden, et al. (1995)
`
`“Mobile Cellular Telecommunications: Analog and Digital Systems”
`by William C.Y. Lee, 2nd ed. (1995)
`
`“NEC Combines High-Speed IP Packet Processing with ATM
`Switching”, Japan Industrial Journal, May 22, 1998.
`
`RFC 2063
`
`RFC 1483
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`35.
`I understand that the person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)
`
`is a hypothetical person who is presumed to know the relevant prior art. I understand
`
`that the actual inventor’s skill is not determinative of the level of ordinary skill. I
`
`further understand the factors that may be considered in determining the level of
`
`skill include: the types of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those
`
`problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the
`
`technology; and educational level of active workers in the field. I understand that
`
`not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of them may
`
`predominate.
`
`36.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA for the ’629 Patent in the years 1998-1999
`
`would have been a person having a B.Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering or a
`
`13
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 16
`
`
`
`related field with three years of experience in the field of telecommunications
`
`networks.
`
`37.
`
`I was familiar with this level of skill at the time of the ’629 Patent. For
`
`example, by 1998-1999 I had graduated with my Ph.D., worked for seven years in
`
`the Network Research Department of AT&T Bell Laboratories researching wireless
`
`networks, wireless communications, and mobility management; and worked for
`
`three years as a member of the faculty of the School of ECE at Cornell University.
`
`See Section I (Background and Qualifications).
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’629 PATENT
`
`14
`
`
`
`with a superior quality of service, Ex. 1001, 3:40-41 (“The present invention
`
`provides a wireless telecommunications network having superior quality of
`
`service.”), the claims focus solely on isochronous reservation of slots in future
`
`frames.
`
`39.
`
`Specifically, in assigning the appropriate bandwidth to an IP flow, the
`
`system “provides for discrete slots for transmission of data, rather than allowing the
`
`transmission of data at any point.” Ex. 1001, 58:36-38. “In the present invention,
`
`an advanced reservation algorithm assigns future slots to data packets based on the
`
`priority of the IP data flow with which the packet is associated.” Id. at 61:37-40.
`
`40.
`
`The ’629 Patent specification explains that the system implements the
`
`“advanced reservation algorithm for use in scheduling, e.g., isochronous traffic,” and
`
`provides an example in Figure 14. Ex. 1001, 50:59-61. “FIG. 14 is an exemplary
`
`two-dimensional block diagram 1400 of the advanced reservation algorithm,” and
`
`illustrates “frames current frame, n 1402, and future frames, n+1 1404, n+2 1406,
`
`n+3 1408, n+4 1410, n+5 1412, n+6 1414 . . . n+x 1416, representing frames of data
`
`packets to be transmitted at times n, n+1, n+2 . . . n+x.” Ex. 1001, 61:12-18.
`
`The ’629 Patent specification recognizes that certain types of traffic may require a
`
`particular assignment of slots, and provides an example: “For calls that are sensitive
`
`to jitter, meaning calls that are time sensitive, it is important to maintain an
`
`isochronous (i.e., in phase with respect to time) connection. With such signals, it is
`
`15
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 18
`
`
`
`important that the data be dispersed in the same slot between frames, or in slots
`
`having a periodic variation between frames.” Ex. 1001, 61:41-45. Figure 14 of
`
`the ’629 Patent illustrates two different types of isochronous reservations—one with
`
`no periodic variation and one with a periodic variation:
`
`41.
`
`The ’629 Patent provides a specific example of “vertical reservation
`
`1480” (shown as “no periodic variation” in the annotated Fig. 14 above) and explains
`
`that this vertical reservation “shows a jitter sensitive signal receiving the same slot
`
`[1422] for downlink communications in each frame” (e.g., frame n, frame n+1,
`
`frame n+2, etc.). Ex. 1001, 61:46-48; id. at 61:48-51 (“Specifically, the signal is
`
`assigned slot 1422 in frames 1402-1416. If the frame-to-frame interval is 0.5 ms,
`
`then a slot will be provided to the IP flow every 0.5 ms.”). The ’629 Patent also
`
`16
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 19
`
`
`
`provides an example of “diagonal reservation 1482” (shown as “periodic variation”
`
`in the annotated Fig. 14 above) that shows “a jitter sensitive signal receiving a slot
`
`varying by a period of one between sequential frames.” Ex. 1001, 61:51-54
`
`(“Specifically, the signal is assigned slot 1440 in frame 1402, slot 1438 in slot
`
`1404, . . . slot 1426 in frame 1416, to create a ‘diagonal.’ ”). The ’629 Patent
`
`specification uses “advanced reservation algorithm” to “assign the slots from the
`
`highest priority to the lowest priority, exhausting the number of available slots in
`
`future frames.” Ex. 1001, 62:18-21.
`
`17
`
`
`
`44. Based on counsel’s explanation, it is my understanding that the
`
`challenged claims of the ’629 Patent are entitled to the priority date of the ’542
`
`Provisional only if the prior patent application discloses the subject matter recited in
`
`the challenged claims. In my opinion, the challenged claims of the ’629 Patent are
`
`not entitled to the priority date of the ’542 Provisional application, because the
`
`challenged claims recite subject matter that is not described in the prior patent
`
`applications. Rather, the prior patent applications do not disclose the subject matter
`
`of the challenged claims of the ’629 Patent.
`
`45.
`
`For example, Claim 1 recites “wherein said second data packet is placed
`
`in said second slot in an isochronous manner to the placing of said first data packet
`
`in said first slot.” Ex. 1001. The ’542 Provisional application does not mention or
`
`otherwise disclose any sort of placement of the data packets, much less in an
`
`isochronous manner. As another example, Claim 1 recites a “reservation algorithm”
`
`that performs the reservation of the slots in future frames. The ’542 Provisional
`
`application provides no detail or description of any “reservation algorithm” beyond
`
`generically reciting “[t]he number of contention time slots is controlled dynamically
`
`with a proprietary algorithm that responds to changing bandwidth utilization
`
`conditions.” Ex. 1013, p. 10. Nor does the ’542 Provisional application provide any
`
`suggestion of reserving slots “in a future transmission frame based on said
`
`reservation algorithm,” as recited in Claim 1.
`
`18
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 21
`
`
`
`46.
`
`Furthermore, Claim 2 recites “wherein there is a periodic variation
`
`between the placing of said first data packet in said first slot and the placing of
`
`second data packet in said second slot” and Claim 3 recites “wherein there is no
`
`periodic variation between the placing of said first data packet in said first slot and
`
`the placing of second data packet in said second slot.” The ’542 Provisional
`
`application does not mention or otherwise disclose any sort of placement of the data
`
`packets, much less the placements that have “a periodic variation” or “no periodic
`
`variation.” Finally, Claim 4 recites “wherein said reservation algorithm determines
`
`whether said IP flow is jitter-sensitive.” As I explained above with regard to Claim
`
`1, the ’542 Provisional application provides no detail or description of this
`
`“reservation algorithm” or having it identify anything about the IP flow.
`
`47. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the priority date of Claim 1, and
`
`Claims 2-4 which depend therefrom, should be July 9, 1999, the filing date of
`
`the ’629 Patent. Ex. 1001. However, because the dates of public availability of the
`
`prior art are all before the provisional date of July 10, 1998, the obviousness analysis
`
`applies regardless of whether the priority date of Claims 1-4 is July 9, 1999 or July
`
`10, 1998.
`
`19
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 22
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART
`
`48. As I explained above, the aspects of reserving slots in future frames
`
`recited in the claims of the ’629 Patent were well known before the claimed priority
`
`date of the ’629 Patent.
`
`20
`
`
`
`voice terminals.”); Ex. 1004, p. 688 (“The PRMA protocol allows multiple users to
`
`share the resources of one frequency channel. The channel is divided into time slots
`
`which are grouped into frames. The size of the slots and frames are set such that a
`
`voice user’s packet generation rate matches its transmission rate when it transmits
`
`during one slot in each frame.”). PRMA provides mobile terminals access to the
`
`shared frequency channel by reserving isochronous time slots in multiple future
`
`frames for transmission of packets between a mobile terminal and the network.
`
`50. Goodman, published in 1989, is one of the earliest disclosures
`
`regarding the PRMA scheme. Dyson, published in 1997, incorporates the PRMA
`
`disclosure as it relates to CBR traffic, and further proposes enhancements for
`
`variable bit rate (VBR) traffic. Ex. 1004, p. 687. I am the co-author of the Dyson
`
`paper, and I was familiar with Goodman’s PRMA scheme when I co-wrote the
`
`Dyson paper.
`
`Goodman2
`1.
`51. Goodman discloses using the PRMA scheme in a wireless network
`
`where the wireless bandwidth is divided in the time domain such that multiple
`
`2 My understanding is that “Packet Reservation Multiple Access for Local Wireless
`
`Communications,” by D.J. Goodman, et al., (“Goodman”) was published by at least
`
`August 7, 1989, and was publicly accessible at that time. Ex. 1017 at ¶¶ 35-39, 50.
`
`21
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 24
`
`
`
`devices can share access to the bandwidth over time. Ex. 1008, p. 885-86 (“The
`
`PRMA protocol is organized around time frames with duration matched to the
`
`periodic rate of the voice packets. In each frame, time slots are dynamically reserved
`
`for packets from active voice terminals.”). Goodman discloses that time slots are
`
`used to transmit data between the mobile terminals (referred to as “speech
`
`terminals”) and the base stations of the wireless network. Ex. 1008, p. 886. “The
`
`time slots are grouped into frames” and “[e]ach slot in a frame is recognized as
`
`‘reserved’ or ‘available.’ ” Ex. 1008, p. 886. When a continuous transmission of
`
`speech/voice data (“a talkspurt”) begins, “the terminal uses the ALOHA protocol to
`
`contend for an available slot.” Id. A “talkspurt” is used to describe a transmission
`
`of speech data and continues until there is a pause in the speech. Thus, one telephone
`
`conversation typically has multiple talkspurts as the participants each take turns
`
`speaking and pausing.
`
`52. Without PRMA, under the conventional ALOHA and R-ALOHA
`
`techniques, “all slots are unreserved, and all periodic information packets [(e.g.,
`
`voice data)] must contend with transmissions from other terminals.” Ex. 1008, p.
`
`887. Goodman recognized that these packet contention techniques “often make
`
`inefficient use of the shared transmission medium” and “when too many terminals
`
`try to communicate at once,” it may create “unpredictable, possibly long delays” that
`
`are “unattractive for voice transmission.” Ex. 1008, p. 886. For example, if each of
`
`22
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 25
`
`
`
`the voice data packets in a single talkspurt has to contend for transmission, there is
`
`no guarantee that each voice packet will receive a slot to transmit at the right time.
`
`Thus, many voice data packets may be delayed and possibly dropped, such that the
`
`speech reproduced at the receiving end may be distorted/corrupted.
`
`53.
`
`To solve this problem, just like the ’629 Patent,3 Goodman’s PRMA
`
`protocol builds on the ALOHA protocol, creating a technique where “time slots are
`
`dynamically reserved for packets from active voice terminals,” which allows for “a
`
`bandwidth efficiency improvement.” Id. In particular, rather than making the
`
`terminal contend for slots in each frame, Goodman discloses “[w]hen [the terminal]
`
`successfully transmits a speech packet, it reserves that slot in future frames and there
`
`are no subsequent collisions with packets from other terminals.” Id. In other words,
`
`the future speech packets receive an allocation in each future frame, without the need
`
`to contend and possibly cause collision, so that the packets are transmitted on a
`
`regular interval.
`
`3 The ’629 Patent specification similarly explains that “[t]he radio contention method
`
`of the present invention builds upon aspects of the ‘Slotted Aloha’ method developed
`
`by L. Roberts in 1972, as a refinement of the ‘Aloha’ method developed by N.
`
`Abramson in the early 1970’s, and so-called bit-mapped reservation protocols.” Ex.
`
`1001, 58:31-35.
`
`23
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 26
`
`
`
`54. Goodman recognized that “a variety of information sources . . . share
`
`the same wireless access channel,” and that different information sources may have
`
`different kind of traffic. Ex. 1008, p. 885 (Abstract). Specifically, “some of the
`
`sources, such as speech terminals, are classified as ‘periodic’ and others, such as
`
`signaling, are classified as ‘random.’ ” Id.
`
`55.
`
`To ensure that slots are reserved in future frames for speech packets,
`
`Goodman discloses each terminal containing a “packet assembler,” which includes
`
`a “sensitive voice activity detector” that distinguishes between “periodic information
`
`packets” and “random information packets.” Ex. 1008, p. 886 (“Each terminal
`
`contains a sensitive voice activity detector, a 32 kbit/s speech encoder, and a packet
`
`assembler.”); see also id. at p. 888 (“Compared to other activity detectors, [the
`
`speech activity detector] is very sensitive, with an ability to detect silent intervals as
`
`short as 16ms. Thus, it switches frequently between ‘speech’ and ‘no speech’
`
`states.”) Because “speech packets are always labeled as ‘periodic,’” Goodman is
`
`able to identify voice data that will be handled by the PRMA reservation scheme.
`
`Ex. 1008, p. 887. Specifically, once the packet assembler identifies the packet
`
`category (periodic or random), the “packet category is communicated by means of
`
`one bit of the packet header.” Id. “When the base station acknowledges accurate
`
`reception of a periodic information packet, the terminal that sent the packet reserves
`
`that time slot for future transmissions.” Id. In other words, Goodman’s scheme
`
`24
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 27
`
`
`
`identifies packets that are speech/periodic packets and communicates that to the base
`
`station, so that PRMA can reserve time slots in future frames for the entire talkspurt
`
`of such speech packets.4 Thus, Goodman discloses identifying voice packets, which
`
`were well known as being jitter sensitive, and utilizing the PRMA scheme to reserve
`
`isochronous slots in future frames to ensure that these voice packets are properly
`
`transmitted.
`
`Dyson5
`2.
`56. Dyson discloses a “Dynamic Packet Reservation Multiple Access”
`
`(DPRMA) scheme for wireless ATM networks. Ex. 1004, p. 687 (“Dynamic Packet
`
`Reservation Multiple Access (DPRMA) is a medium access control protocol for
`
`4 Goodman discloses that data packets (random information packets) continue to
`
`contend for every slot and that such data packets receive no future reservations. Ex.
`
`1008, p. 887 (“When a random packet is successfully transmitted, the terminal does
`
`not obta
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
