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. 7,412,517
`
`Title: METHOD FOR PROVIDING DYNAMIC BANDWIDTH ALLOCATION
`BASED ON IP-FLOW CHARACTERISTICS IN A WIRELESS POINT TO
`MULTI-POINT (PTMP) TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ZYGMUNT HAAS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,412,517
`
`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. 7,412,517
`
`Title: METHOD FOR PROVIDING DYNAMIC BANDWIDTH ALLOCATION
`BASED ON IP-FLOW CHARACTERISTICS IN A WIRELESS POINT TO
`MULTI-POINT (PTMP) TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ZYGMUNT HAAS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,412,517
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 1
`Legal Understanding ........................................................................................ 5
`
`I.
`II.
`
`
`
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 74
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 77
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 82
`Claim 15 .................................................................................... 83
`
`
`
`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. 7,412,517 (“the ’517 Patent”).
`
`3.
`
`This declaration is a statement of my opinions on issues related to the
`
`unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 13, and 15 of the ’517 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 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, provided depositions, and given 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
`
`2
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Wireless Center of Excellence, where I investigated various aspects of wireless and
`
`mobile networks.
`
`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
`
`3
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Magazine, the Springer “Wireless Networks” journal, the Elsevier “Ad Hoc
`
`Networks” journal, the “Journal of High Speed Networks,” and the Wiley
`
`“Wireless Communications 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
`
`4
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 7
`
`
`
`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,
`
`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 the law itself. My
`
`opinions are informed by my understanding of the relevant law, as it 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
`
`
`
`necessarily present in the apparatus or a natural result of the method disclosed, i.e.,
`
`the missing element is “inherent.”
`
`6
`
`
`
`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 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.
`
`7
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 10
`
`
`
`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;
`
` 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;
`
`8
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 11
`
`
`
` 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`26.
`
`It is my understanding that in proceedings before the USPTO the
`
`claims of an unexpired patent are to be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in light of the specification from the perspective of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. It is my further understanding
`
`that claim terms of an expired patent, or a patent that will expire during the
`
`pendency of an IPR proceeding, are given the meaning that the term would have
`
`had to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in
`
`view of the specification and the file history. I understand that the standard used
`
`for expired patents is similar to that used in district court litigation, and that this
`
`standard is sometimes referred to as the “Phillips standard.” It is my understanding
`
`that any construed terms in this IPR are subject to 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.
`
`10
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 13
`
`
`
`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
`
`patentee has acted as its own lexicographer (i.e., provided the patentee’s 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
`
`11
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 14
`
`
`
`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 the language in the preamble limits the 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 ’517 Patent,1 in forming my opinions, I have
`
`considered the following provisional applications, prior art patents, and printed
`
`publications (all exhibit numbers for the items in the table have been provided by
`
`counsel).
`
`Exhibit
`
`1001
`
`1004
`
`Item
`
`U.S. Pat. 7,412,517 to Jorgensen (“the ’517 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Pat. 5,463,620 (“Sriram”)
`
`1 I also considered the prosecution history of the patent, but it did not impact my
`
`analysis and is therefore not included here as an exhibit.
`
`12
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 15
`
`
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`Quality of Service-Oriented Medium Access Control for Wireless
`ATM Networks by Nikos Passas et al. (“Passas-I”)
`
`U.S. Pat. 6,157,614 to Pasternak
`
`U.S. Pat. 4,916,691 to Goodman
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/092,542
`
`Patent Owner Infringement Contentions, Exhibit E.
`
`U.S. Pat. 6,400,701 to Lin
`
`“The Magic WAND Wireless ATM MAC-Final Report” by Passas et
`al. (“Passas-II”)
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`
`Quality of Service-Oriented Medium Access Control for Wireless
`ATM Networks by Nikos Passas et al. (“Passas-I”) (color copy of Ex.
`1005)
`
`Quality of Service-Oriented Medium Access Control for Wireless
`ATM Networks by Nikos Passas et al. (“Passas-I”) (second color
`copy of Ex. 1005)
`
`34.
`
`It is my understanding that all of the cited art references relied on in
`
`the Grounds below (i.e., all exhibits except for the ‘517 Patent, Provisional Patent
`
`Application, Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions, and the Expert Declaration
`
`of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis) in this table are prior art to the ’517 Patent. I note that
`
`while Passas-II is dated August 1998, and was therefore written before the ’517
`
`Patent, I do not rely on it as invalidating prior art—as I will explain in more detail
`
`13
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 16
`
`
`
`below. Rather, I rely on Passas-II to corroborate my understanding as to how a
`
`POSITA would understand the disclosure of Passas-I.
`
`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 ’517 Patent in the years 1998-1999
`
`would have been a person having a B.Sc. degree in Electrical Engineering or a
`
`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 ’517 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
`
`14
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 17
`
`
`
`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 ’517 PATENT
`
`15
`
`
`
`40.
`
`The concept of TDMA involves dividing a frequency bandwidth into
`
`a sequence of repeating frames. A frame is further divided evenly into a number of
`
`time slots that can be assigned to subscriber terminals. A POSITA would have
`
`understood that there are several ways to assign time slots to the various subscriber
`
`terminals. For example, a subscriber terminal could be given a cyclically repeating
`
`time slot in every frame, or the subscriber terminals could be informed as to which
`
`slots to use in each time frame at the beginning of the frame. Both methods of
`
`assignment were well known before the ‘517 Patent.
`
`41.
`
`TDD involves using some time slots (e.g., within the frame) for uplink
`
`communications and some time slots for downlink communications. Consistently,
`
`the ‘517 Patent describes that “[i]n a TDMA/TDD, for one interval of time,
`
`transmission is from a CPE station 294 to a wireless base station 302, and in
`
`another instance of time, it is from a wireless base station 302 to a CPE station.”
`
`Ex. 1001, at 53:18-22. According to the ‘517 Patent, the shared bandwidth is
`
`divided into “slots” as in conventional TDMA/TDD systems. Id. The ‘517 Patent
`
`describes a well-known variant of TDMA/TDD systems, where any number of
`
`time slots can be dynamically allocated for use in either uplink or downlink
`
`transmissions by the scheduler. Id. at 53:23-24 (describing that “any number of
`
`slots can be used for the uplink or for the downlink” and “the number of slots is
`
`dynamically assigned for both the uplink and the downlink.”).
`
`16
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 19
`
`
`
`42.
`
`In the dynamic TDMA/TDD allocation method described by the ‘517
`
`Patent, the wireless base station’s scheduler is illustrated by Figure 13, which
`
`includes “flow scheduler 604, 634 (which is a combination of downlink flow
`
`scheduler 604 and uplink flow scheduler 634).” Ex. 1001, at 58:53-57 (flow
`
`scheduler is shown as the orange box in annotated Figure 13 below).
`
`43. As can be seen from the figure above, the ‘517 Patent scheduler
`
`purports to allocate a shared wireless bandwidth (red annotated box above)
`
`between downlink sub-frames (1202) and uplink sub-frames (1204) by (1) making
`
`downlink reservations by classifying downlink packets into queues of Classes 1, 2,
`
`and 3 as shown in the green annotated boxes above and (2) making uplink
`
`reservations by receiving uplink reservation requests from subscriber CPE stations
`
`17
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 20
`
`
`
`(e.g. Class 1, 2, and 3 reservation requests shown in the blue annotated boxes
`
`above). See also id. at 58:60-59:48.
`
`44. Downlink packets may be classified according to “packet header field
`
`information 700 which can be used to identify IP flows and the QoS requirements
`
`of the IP flows,” while uplink reservation requests may include “a request for a
`
`number of slots for a single IP flow with an IP flow identifier # and class of the
`
`flow.” Id. at 52:38-40, 59:40-43. Accordingly, “[f]low scheduler 604 . . . and
`
`634 . . . uses these downstream reservations and upstream reservation requests to
`
`assign slots to data packets in the next downstream transmission subframe 1202
`
`and upstream transmission subframe 1204, respectively.” Id. at 59:49-53.
`
`45. Notably, while the Figure 13 embodiment refers to “IP” packet flows,
`
`the challenged claims are not limited to “IP” packets flows, but refer more
`
`generally to “packets.” There were numerous well-known packetized systems at
`
`the time of the ‘517 Patent, and ATM was one such system.
`
`18
`
`
`
`downlink direction. These features of packetized wireless transmission systems
`
`were well known before the ’517 Patent.
`
`47.
`
`For example, techniques for sharing a wireless bandwidth in a
`
`TDMA/TDD system between uplink and downlink transmissions were well
`
`known, including the ability for a wireless base station to dynamically allocate
`
`uplink and downlink time slots based on the QoS requirements of downlink
`
`packets and reservation requests received from the end user device (e.g., a CPE
`
`station or mobile terminal).
`
`48. Moreover, it was well known and commonly understood that the QoS
`
`requirements for downlink packets could be determined from analyzing the
`
`contents of those packets. Indeed, the packet header was intended to be read and
`
`analyzed in packet switched networks so that the network elements would
`
`understand how to route each packet towards its intended destination. ATM was
`
`designed to support QoS-based switching of ATM cells by placing information in
`
`the ATM cell header that allowed the ATM switch to know what connection and
`
`traffic class was associated with each ATM cell.
`
`49. Reservation-based access for uplink transmissions was also well
`
`researched and understood before the time of the ‘517 Patent. The claims require
`
`“analyzing” and “processing” the contents of reservation requests—and a POSITA
`
`19
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 22
`
`
`
`would have understood how to use data analyzed and processed from reservation
`
`requests to process and allocate slots for uplink transmissions.
`
`50.
`
`The dependent claims add insignificant implementation details to the
`
`independent claims that would have been apparent to a POSITA before the ‘517
`
`Patent. For example, Claims 2 and 13 merely state that the allocation step in the
`
`independent claims is “dynamic,” which is already contemplated by the
`
`independent claims and, in any event, is evident by the prior art. The allocation
`
`method disclosed by the references discussed below disclose methods for
`
`“dynamic” allocation in TDMA/TDD systems in the same manner as it is
`
`described by the ‘517 Patent.
`
`51. Claims 4 and 15 merely require including a quality of service
`
`classification in a reservation request. See, e.g. Ex. 1001, Claims 4, 15. Details of
`
`reservation requests including specifying the type or class of data being requested,
`
`was already well known at the time of the ‘517 Patent. The grounds presented
`
`below disclose using identifiers in reservation requests that inform the base station
`
`as to what type of service is requesting access to the uplink resource. It would also
`
`have been obvious to include an express identifier of the class of service in the
`
`request itself.
`
`52. As discussed in more detail below, the challenged claims are invalid
`
`in view of the prior art.
`
`20
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 23
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`56.
`
`The Provisional describes a “MAC transmission frame” that may
`
`“contain multiple cells of data to or from one or more users in sequence.” Ex.
`
`1010, at 16. It further suggests that the frame includes “acknowledgments of
`
`receipt for previously transmitted cells.” Id. However, the Provisional does not
`
`describe how allocations are communicated to the CPE station. It is my opinion
`
`that the Provisional does not provide support for these limitations.
`
`57. As another example, the independent claims specify that a reservation
`
`request includes a “subscriber identifier” and “at least one other subscriber
`
`attribute.” See Ex. 1001, at Claim 12. The method further recites an analyzing
`
`step that “includes processing the subscriber identifier and the at least one other
`
`subscriber attribute to schedule packets in the uplink direction.” Id.
`
`58.
`
`The Provisional describes “automatic time slot reservation” for real
`
`time applications requiring “CBR-like QoS handling” and that “reservations for
`
`other types of traffic can also be placed in the upstream by user stations.” Ex.
`
`1010, at 16. The Provisional, however, provides no details on what the reservation
`
`requests need to include (other than a suggestion that they indicate the type of
`
`traffic), and does not further describe processing the contents of the reservation
`
`request to schedule packets. It is my opinion that the Provisional does not provide
`
`support for these limitations.
`
`22
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 25
`
`
`
`59. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the priority date of Claims 1 and 12
`
`together with their respective dependent claims should be July 9, 1999, the date of
`
`filing of the earliest non-provisional application to which the ‘517 Patent claims
`
`priority. Ex. 1001.
`
`60.
`
`I note that because the dates of public availability of the prior art for
`
`all Grounds are all before the provisional date of July 10, 1998, the obviousness
`
`analysis applies regardless of whether the priority of the challenged claims is
`
`assumed to be July 9, 1999 or July 10, 1998.
`
`VI.
`
`SUMMARY OF PRIOR ART
`
`61.
`
`The aspects of dynamically allocating a shared bandwidth between
`
`uplink and downlink transmissions based on the analyzed contents of reservation
`
`requests in the uplink and the contents of downlink packets, as recited in the claims
`
`of the ’517 Patent, were well known before the ’517 Patent. It is my opinion that
`
`the following art renders the claims invalid as obvious in view of the knowledge of
`
`prior art references, together with POSITA’s knowledge and understanding.
`
`23
`
`
`
`62.
`
`The claims of the ’517 Patent include the concept of analyzing
`
`packets to be transmitted in a downlink direction and then using those analyzed
`
`contents to allocate resources in the form of a shared wireless bandwidth. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1. This was a concept underlying ATM’s well-known ability to
`
`provide QoS to different traffic classes.
`
`63.
`
`Sriram describes methods for bandwidth allocation and transmission
`
`scheduling in ATM networks. Ex. 1004 (Title). Sriram discloses prior art ATM
`
`concepts, including that a field in the ATM cell header is used to identify the
`
`virtual circuit associated with the cell and thereby accomplish traffic classification.
`
`Id. at 4:54-63. Sriram also confirms that ATM cells are packets, stating that in
`
`ATM, “[i]nformation is transmitted through the network by means of special kinds
`
`of digital information packets known as ATM cells.” Id. at 3:16-18 (emphasis
`
`added). According to Sriram, an ATM cell includes a 5-octet (i.e., byte) header
`
`and a 48 octet (i.e., byte) information field. Id. at 3:19-23. The header includes a
`
`“virtual channel” field (id. at 3:28-30), as shown in Figure 2 as reproduced below:
`
`24
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 27
`
`
`
`64. According to Sriram, traffic in an ATM network can be classified into
`
`one of several traffic types, including (1) Type 1A delay-sensitive isochronous
`
`high-bandwidth services (such as constant bit rate (CBR) conference video), (2)
`
`Type 1B delay-sensitive non-isochronous high-bandwidth services (such as
`
`variable bit rate (VBR) video), (3) Type 2 delay-insensitive high-bandwidth
`
`services (such as data, documents, images), or (4) Type 3 delay-sensitive low
`
`bandwidth services (such as voice). See id. at 3:56-4:45. Sriram further discloses
`
`that these traffic types are also called “traffic classes.” Id. at 7:8-10.
`
`65.
`
`Sriram discloses that an ATM switch classifies traffic into these traffic
`
`classes at a virtual circuit level using a virtual channel identifier (VCI) within the
`
`virtual channel field of each ATM cell header. See Ex. 1004, at 4:54-63 (“The
`
`traffic classification described here may be accomplished at a virtual circuit level.
`
`25
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 28
`
`
`
`The header in each ATM cell may provide virtual channel identifier (VCI)
`
`information in a virtual channel field.”). Specifically, Sriram describes that the call
`
`type may be determined “[b]ased on information obtained from the sending
`
`terminal at call setup time.” Id. “Each ATM switch involved in the call routing
`
`can maintain a table which maps VCIs to call types for all the calls flowing
`
`through that switch.” Id. A POSITA would have understood that each “call types”
`
`would be classified into one of the traffic classes discussed above (e.g., CBR, VBR
`
`traffic). Accordingly, a POSITA would understand that an ATM switch can
`
`maintain a table of VCI values, allowing the switch to map each incoming ATM
`
`cell to its call type and traffic class.
`
`66.
`
`This is described by Sriram in more detail with respect to Figure 5,
`
`which illustrates a method for allocating bandwidth to the classified ATM cells
`
`according to the traffic classes discussed above.
`
`26
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 29
`
`
`
`67.
`
`In the above figure, each incoming ATM cell is classified into a queue
`
`according to traffic service class. See Ex. 1004, at 5:7-34. Cells are withdrawn
`
`from each queue by dynamic time slice server 48 according to the traffic
`
`characteristic requirements of each cell, including the bandwidth and delay
`
`requirements of each traffic service class. See id.at 5:34-6:62. A POSITA would
`
`27
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 30
`
`
`
`have understood that bandwidth and delay requirements are among the QoS
`
`requirements that would be established for each connection during connection
`
`setup.
`
`28
`
`
`
`terminals (MTs), [which are] the end user equipment,” and “[a]ccess points,
`
`[which are] the base stations of the cellular environment.” Id. The WAND system
`
`is illustrated in Figure 1,4 reproduced below:
`
`70.
`
`Passas-I’s WAND system uses TDMA/TDD to multiplex uplink and
`
`downlink traffic, in which “[s]lot allocation is performed dynamically.” Id. at 44.
`
`Passas-I further discloses a scheduling algorithm to provide “the QoS required by
`
`the individual connections.” Id. “The task of the Scheduler is to determine how the
`
`slots of each time frame are allocated to its associated MTs and to downlink
`
`4 For clarity, the figures reproduced herein are from the second color copy of
`
`Passas-I. See Ex. 1016.
`
`29
`
`Ericsson Exhibit 1003
`Page 32
`
`
`
`transmissions. A well-designed scheduling mechanism should allocate the slots in
`
`a way that maintains
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
