IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`
`Trial Number: IPR2014-01170
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`Attorney Docket No. 4472-00300
`
`Issued: June 10, 2008
`
`Petitioners: Ericsson Inc. and
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`
`Inventor: Timothy James Speight
`
`Panel: To be assigned
`
`Assignee: Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`
`
`Title: Packet Data Queuing and Processing
`
`DECLARATION OF MARK R. LANNING
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,385,994
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. LIST OF REPORT APPENDICES AND EXHIBITS .................................. 5
`
`II. INTRODUCTION AND BASES FOR OPINIONS ....................................... 7
`
`A. EDUCATION AND WORK EXPERIENCE ............................................................... 7
`B. SCOPE OF WORK AND COMPENSATION ............................................................. 8
`C. DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON ............................................................................... 9
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS.......................................................................10
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES .....................10
`
`A. ANTICIPATION .................................................................................................11
`B. OBVIOUSNESS .................................................................................................11
`C. PRIORITY DATE ...............................................................................................13
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’994 PATENT ..........................................................13
`
`A. THE FIELD OF ART .........................................................................................13
`i.
`The Invention Disclosed .............................................................................13
`
`VI. ANALYSIS OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS ..............................................14
`
`A. PRIORITY DATE FOR THE ’994 PATENT ...........................................................14
`B. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL ..........................................................................15
`C. CHALLENGED CLAIMS ....................................................................................15
`D. LEGAL STANDARD FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..............................................15
`E. CONSTRUED TERMS ........................................................................................16
`i.
`“User” ........................................................................................................16
`F. MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION ................................................................................17
`
`VII. TECHNICAL BASIS UNDERLYING THE GROUNDS OF
`REJECTIONS SET FORTH IN THE PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW .................................................................................................................23
`
`A. GROUND 1: CHALLENGED CLAIMS 1-7, 10-17, AND 20-25 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE AS OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF MÄKELÄ AND GIROUX ............................25
`i. Disclosure of Mäkelä .................................................................................25
`ii. Disclosure of Giroux ..................................................................................27
`iii. Claim 1 is Obvious in view of Mäkelä and Giroux ....................................27
`iv. Claim 2 is Obvious in view of Mäkelä and Giroux ....................................32
`v. Claim 3 is Obvious in view of Mäkelä and Giroux ....................................32
`vi. Claim 4 is Obvious in view of Mäkelä and Giroux ....................................33
`vii. Claim 5 is Obvious in view of Mäkelä and Giroux ....................................34
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`viii. Claim 6 is Obvious in view of Mäkelä and Giroux ................................35
`ix. Claim 7 is Obvious in view of Mäkelä and Giroux ....................................36
`x. Claim 10 is Obvious in view of Mäkelä and Giroux ..................................37
`xi. Claim 11 is Obvious in view of Mäkelä and Giroux ..................................38
`xii. Claims 12-17 are Obvious in view of Mäkelä and Giroux ........................41
`xiii. Claim 20 is Obvious in view of Mäkelä and Giroux ..............................42
`xiv. Claim 21 is Obvious in view of Mäkelä and Giroux ..............................42
`xv. Claim 22 is Obvious in view of Mäkelä and Giroux ..................................43
`xvi. Claim 23 is Obvious in view of Mäkelä and Giroux ..............................44
`xvii. Claim 24 is Obvious in view of Mäkelä and Giroux ..............................44
`xviii. Claim 25 is Obvious in view of Mäkelä and Giroux ..............................46
`B. GROUND 2: CHALLENGED CLAIMS 8, 9, 18, AND 19 ARE UNPATENTABLE AS
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF MÄKELÄ, GIROUX, AND YAMAMOTO .......................................47
`i. Disclosure of Yamamoto ............................................................................47
`ii. Claim 8 is Obvious in view of Mäkelä Giroux and Yamamoto .................48
`iii. Claim 9 is Obvious in view of Mäkelä, Giroux, and Yamamoto ................49
`iv. Claims 18-19 are Obvious in view of Mäkelä, Giroux and Yamamoto .....50
`C. GROUND 3: CHALLENGED CLAIMS 1-7, 10-17, 20, AND 23-25 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE AS OBVIOUS OVER HLUCHYJ IN VIEW OF TZENG ...........................51
`i. Disclosure of Hluchyj .................................................................................51
`ii. Disclosure of Tzeng ....................................................................................53
`iii. Claim 1 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj and Tzeng .....................................54
`iv. Claim 2 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj and Tzeng .....................................59
`v. Claim 3 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj and Tzeng .....................................59
`vi. Claim 4 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj and Tzeng .....................................60
`vii. Claim 5 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj and Tzeng .....................................61
`viii. Claim 6 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj and Tzeng ..................................62
`ix. Claim 7 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj and Tzeng .....................................64
`x. Claim 10 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj and Tzeng ...................................65
`xi. Claim 11 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj and Tzeng ...................................65
`xii. Claims 12-17 are Obvious over Hluchyj in view of Tzeng ........................68
`xiii. Claim 20 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj and Tzeng ................................69
`xiv. Claim 23 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj and Tzeng ................................69
`xv. Claim 24 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj and Tzeng ...................................70
`xvi. Claim 25 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj and Tzeng ................................72
`D. GROUND 4: CHALLENGED CLAIMS 8, 9, 18, AND 19 ARE UNPATENTABLE AS
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF HLUCHYJ, TZENG, AND YAMAMOTO .......................................72
`i. Disclosure of Yamamoto ............................................................................72
`ii. Claim 8 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj and Tzeng and Yamamoto ............73
`iii. Claim 9 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj, Tzeng and Yamamoto ..................75
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`iv. Claims 18 and 9 are Obvious in view of Hluchyj, Tzeng, and Yamamoto 76
`E. GROUND 5: CHALLENGED CLAIMS 21 AND 22 ARE UNPATENTABLE AS
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF HLUCHYJ, TZENG, AND MÄKELÄ ............................................77
`i. Claim 21 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj, Tzeng, and Mäkelä ....................77
`ii. Claim 22 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj and Tzeng and Mäkelä ...............78
`F. GROUND 6: CHALLENGED CLAIMS 1-7, 10-17, 20, AND 23-25 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE AS OBVIOUS OVER HLUCHYJ IN VIEW OF GIROUX .........................79
`i. Disclosure of Hluchyj .................................................................................79
`ii. Disclosure of Giroux ..................................................................................81
`iii. Claim 1 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj and Giroux ...................................82
`iv. Claim 2 is Obvious over Hluchyj in view of Giroux ..................................85
`v. Claim 3 is Obvious over Hluchyj in view of Giroux ..................................86
`vi. Claim 4 is Obvious over Hluchyj in view of Giroux ..................................87
`vii. Claim 5 is Obvious over Hluchyj in view of Giroux ..................................88
`viii. Claim 6 is Obvious over Hluchyj in view of Giroux ...............................89
`ix. Claim 7 is Obvious over Hluchyj in view of Giroux ..................................91
`x. Claim 10 is Obvious over Hluchyj in view of Giroux ................................92
`xi. Claim 11 is Obvious over Hluchyj in view of Giroux ................................92
`xii. Claims 12-17 are Obvious over Hluchyj in view of Giroux.......................95
`xiii. Claim 20 is Obvious over Hluchyj in view of Giroux .............................96
`xiv. Claim 23 is Obvious over Hluchyj in view of Giroux .............................96
`xv. Claim 24 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj and Giroux .................................97
`xvi. Claim 25 is Obvious over Hluchyj in view of Giroux .............................98
`G. GROUND 7: CHALLENGED CLAIMS 8, 9, 18, AND 19 ARE UNPATENTABLE AS
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF HLUCHYJ, GIROUX, AND YAMAMOTO .....................................99
`i. Claim 8 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj, Giroux, and Yamamoto ...............99
`ii. Claim 9 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj, Giroux, and Yamamoto .............101
`iii. Claims 18 and 19 are Obvious in view of Hluchyj, Giroux, and Yamamoto
`
`102
`H. GROUND 8: CHALLENGED CLAIMS 21 AND 22 ARE UNPATENTABLE AS
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF HLUCHYJ, GIROUX, AND MÄKELÄ ........................................102
`i. Claim 21 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj, Giroux, and Mäkelä ................102
`ii. Claim 22 is Obvious in view of Hluchyj, Giroux, and Mäkelä ................103
`
`VIII. OTHER COMMENTS ..............................................................................105
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`LIST OF REPORT APPENDICES AND EXHIBITS
`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`Appendix No.
`
`Appendix 1
`Appendix 2
`
`Mark Lanning C.V.
`Claim Charts
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994 to Speight (“’994 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,336,661 to Mäkelä, et al. (“Mäkelä”)
`
`International Publication No. WO97/14240 to
`Inventors/Applicants Giroux, et al. (“Giroux”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,231,633 to Hluchyj, et al. (“Hluchyj”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,438,135 to Tzeng (“Tzeng”)
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,041 to Yamamoto (“Yamamoto”)
`
`Office Action issued February 8, 2007, Prosecution History of
`’994 Patent
`
`Amendment in Response to Office Action, filed May 8, 2007,
`Prosecution History of ’994 Patent
`
`First Notice of Allowance issued July 23, 2007, Prosecution
`History of ’994 Patent
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, GB-2338372, 12-15-1999
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,614,790 to Veres, et al. (“Veres”)
`
`Office Action issued September 12, 2007, Prosecution History of
`’994 Patent
`
`Page 5 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`Amendment in Response to Office Action filed December 12,
`2007, Prosecution History of ’994 Patent
`
`Second Notice of Allowance issued January 29, 2008, Prosecution
`History of ’994 Patent
`
`Expert Declaration of Mark Lanning
`
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary 134, 509 (17th ed. 2001)
`(“Newton”)
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BASES FOR OPINIONS
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained in the above-referenced inter partes review
`
`proceeding by Conley Rose, P.C., on behalf of Ericsson Inc. and
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively “Ericsson” or “Petitioners”),
`
`as a technical expert to evaluate U.S. Patent 7,385,994 (“the ’994 Patent”).
`
`(Ex. 1001)
`
`2.
`
`Specifically, I have been requested to evaluate Claims 1-25 of
`
`the ’994 Patent. As detailed in this report, it is my opinion that each of the
`
`asserted claims is rendered obvious by prior art references that predate the
`
`’994 Patent. If requested by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), I
`
`will testify at trial about my opinions expressed herein.
`
`3.
`
`I reserve the right to modify or supplement my opinions, as
`
`well as the basis for my opinions, based on the nature and content of the
`
`documentation, data, proof, and other evidence or testimony that other
`
`experts may present or based on any additional discovery or other
`
`information provided to me or found by me in this matter.
`
`A. Education and Work Experience
`
`4.
`
`I am currently the President of Telecom Architects, Inc., a
`
`technical consulting company that I own. I have over 35 years of experience
`
`in the design and implementation of voice and data telecommunication
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`networks and also the development of the equipment used in these networks
`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`and by their users.
`
`5.
`
`Along with the experience listed in my C.V., I note the
`
`following experience that is uniquely situated to the technology at issue in
`
`this matter. I have extensive experience in the design and development of the
`
`software and hardware for communication protocols and, specifically, data
`
`communication systems, including queuing and scheduling transmission of
`
`data in communication devices.
`
`6.
`
`I received a B.S. in Computer Science from SMU in 1983.
`
`More detail on my education and work experience is contained in my C.V. in
`
`Appendix 1.
`
`7.
`
`The cases that I have previously given testimony within the past
`
`four years are also listed in my C.V. in Appendix 1.
`
`B. Scope of Work and Compensation
`
`8.
`
`I have reviewed the ’994 Patent, the prosecution history, and
`
`references cited therein.
`
`9.
`
`I have been asked to compare the subject matter recited for
`
`Claims 1-25 of each of the ’994 Patent to publications, systems, and patents
`
`that predate the filing date of the ’994 Patent. I have been asked to express
`
`my opinion on the differences, if any, between the subject matter recited in
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`each of those claims and each of the foregoing items. To the extent I
`
`conclude there are any differences, I have also been asked to express my
`
`opinion on whether the subject matter recited in each of those claims would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’994 Patent in
`
`light of the technical information available to such a person at the time the
`
`application for these patents were filed.
`
`10.
`
`My detailed analysis is included in claim charts attached as
`
`Appendix 2.
`
`11.
`
`I was requested to specifically address the following topics:
`
`a.
`
`the level of skill of persons who would have worked in the field
`
`around the time the ’994 patent was filed; and
`
`b. whether the claims are unpatentable as anticipated or obvious in
`
`view of the prior art to one of skill in the art.
`
`12.
`
`I am being paid an hourly rate of $550 per hour, plus reasonable
`
`expenses. I have received no additional compensation of any kind for my
`
`work on this case. No part of my compensation is dependent on the
`
`conclusions that I reach or the outcome of this case.
`
`C. Documents Relied Upon
`
`13.
`
`In performing my analysis, I have relied on my own personal
`
`knowledge and extensive experience, including my extensive experience in
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`the design, development, network design, and operation of relevant systems
`
`as well as my review of the ’994 Patent and its prosecution history.
`
`14.
`
`A list of all other documents that I relied upon in preparing this
`
`report is listed in the list of Exhibits.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`15.
`
`Based on my experience, knowledge of the art at the earliest
`
`priority date of the patent application for the ’994 Patent, and my analysis of
`
`references, it is my opinion that Claims 1-25 of the ’994 Patent are
`
`unpatentable as being obvious to one of skill in the art in view of one or more
`
`of the prior art references cited in this report and as further identified in the
`
`claim charts in Appendix 2, attached hereto.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES
`
`16.
`
`I am not an attorney and I will offer no opinions on the law. I
`
`am, however, informed on several principles concerning patentability, which
`
`I have used in arriving at my stated conclusions in this report.
`
`17.
`
`I have written my report with the understanding that the
`
`standard for instituting an inter partes review is on showing there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that at least one or more of the challenged claims is
`
`unpatentable.
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`18.
`
`It is my understanding that claims of a patent are anticipated
`
`(and therefore unpatentable) by a prior art reference if each and every
`
`element of the claim, as properly construed, is found either explicitly or
`
`inherently in a single prior art reference.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that, although anticipation cannot be established
`
`through a combination of references, additional references may be used to
`
`interpret the allegedly anticipating reference by, for example, indicating what
`
`the allegedly anticipating reference would have meant to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. However, for the claim to be anticipated, I understand that these
`
`other references must make clear that the missing descriptive matter in the
`
`patent claim is necessarily or implicitly present in the allegedly anticipating
`
`reference, and that it would be so recognized by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`20.
`
`I further understand
`
`that a claimed
`
`invention may be
`
`unpatentable even if each and every limitation is not disclosed in a single
`
`reference. I have been informed that, under the doctrine of obviousness, a
`
`claim may be unpatentable if the differences between the ’994 Patent and the
`
`prior art are such that the claims would have been obvious at the time the
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the
`
`subject matter pertains. Obviousness, as I understand, 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 a claim can be found unpatenable as obvious
`
`if the design incentives or market forces provided a reason to make an
`
`adaptation, and the invention resulted from the application of the prior
`
`knowledge in a predictable manner. I understand that a claim can be found
`
`unpatentable as obvious if the claim would have been obvious because the
`
`substitution of one known element for another would have yielded
`
`predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention. I understand that a claim can be found unpatentable as obvious if
`
`the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a
`
`particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a claim can be found unpatentable as obvious
`
`if the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique
`
`was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. I
`
`understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference, without
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not
`
`found in the reference can be supplied by the common sense of one of skill in
`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`the art.
`
`C. Priority Date
`
`23.
`
`As further discussed below, I have been instructed to rely on
`
`certain dates for priority for the ’994 Patent.
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’994 PATENT
`
`A. The Field Of Art
`
`24.
`
`The field of art for the ’994 Patent is systems and methods for
`
`packet data scheduling and queuing in communications systems.
`
`25.
`
`In citing portions of the specification, I will refer to the ’994
`
`Patent unless otherwise noted. Additionally, where I provide a citation to a
`
`column and line number in the specification of the ’994 Patent, it should be
`
`understood that this citation is an example of where support can be found in
`
`the specification and is not intended to suggest that the cited portion is the
`
`entirety of support in the specification. If asked to explain my conclusions
`
`about the scope, meaning or disclosure of the ’994 Patent, I intend to use any
`
`and all parts of the patent, including the drawings and prosecution history.
`
`i. The Invention Disclosed
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`26.
`
`The ’994 Patent generally relates to packet data queuing and
`
`scheduling methods for allocating shared bandwidth. The specification
`
`purports to describe assigning queues to different tiers of service, allocating
`
`different weights to each tier of service based on a number of users, and
`
`allocating the bandwidth among the queues in proportion to the allocated
`
`weights. (Ex. 1001)
`
`27.
`
`It is my opinion that the invention disclosed by the ’994 Patent
`
`is nothing more than the predictable integration of methods that were already
`
`in existence, and the invention was common knowledge to persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art long before its filing. The following paragraphs
`
`describe how all of the components and concepts claimed by the ’994 Patent
`
`existed prior to their filing date in the same arrangement or combination as in
`
`the selected claims. Each of the components and concepts using the methods
`
`claimed by the ’994 Patent were common sense to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`VI. ANALYSIS OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`A. Priority Date for the ’994 Patent
`
`28.
`
`The filing date of the ’994 Patent is October 23, 2002. The
`
`’994 Patent claims priority to a foreign application filed on October 24, 2001.
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`I have been informed that I should consider the priority date of the ’994
`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`Patent to be October 24, 2001.
`
`B. Person of Ordinary Skill
`
`29.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`’994 Patent around October 24, 2001 is a person with at least a Bachelors or
`
`Masters level college degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering,
`
`Electrical Engineering or equivalent training and experience. This person
`
`would also have at least three to five years of academic or industrial
`
`experience in the field of digital communication systems, including data
`
`communication systems and networks. Such person would be familiar with
`
`the design and configuration of packet-based data communication systems
`
`and with the operation and functionality provided by packet data schedulers,
`
`including packet processing and queuing methods.
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`
`30.
`
`I have been asked to opine on challenged Claims 1-25 of the
`
`’994 Patent for which I have provided detailed analysis tables in Appendix 2.
`
`D. Legal Standard for Claim Construction
`
`31.
`
`My understanding is that a primary step in the patentability of a
`
`patent’s claims is to properly ascertain the meaning of the claims to
`
`determine the claim scope.
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`I have been informed that in an inter partes review proceeding,
`
`32.
`
`the claims are to be given their broadest reasonable construction in light of
`
`the patent’s specification. I contrast this with the different standard I
`
`understand is used in District Court litigation, where the claims are to be
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in light of the specification and prosecution history.
`
`33.
`
` Accordingly, any
`
`interpretation or construction of
`
`the
`
`challenged claims in this proceeding, either implicitly or explicitly, should
`
`not be viewed as constituting, in any way what I consider to be the proper
`
`interpretation or construction of these claims for litigation.
`
`34.
`
`For any claim terms in which a particular claim construction is
`
`not provided or discussed, the claims terms have been construed as one of
`
`skill in the art applying the broadest reasonable interpretation around the time
`
`of invention of the ’994 Patent.
`
`E. Construed Terms
`
`i.
`
` “User”
`
`35.
`
`The specification of the ’994 Patent does not provide a
`
`corresponding definition for the term “user”. The specification rather
`
`inconsistently refers to any of “users,” “clients,” “nodes,” and “sources,”
`
`which transmit data packets.
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`36.
`
`In particular, the specification states that “individual clients
`
`112, 114, 116 have data packets to be transferred through a network.” (Ex.
`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`1001, Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 45-50)
`
`37.
`
`The specification further refers to “separate queues for packets
`
`from each user 112, 114, 116” and also that “users transmit data packets.”
`
`(Ex. 1001, col. 2, l. 67-col. 3, l. 1; col. 6, l. 34, see also col. 5, ll. 31-33)
`
`38.
`
`The specification also refers to “packet data sources” and
`
`“sources not using their full share of the available communication
`
`bandwidth.” (Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 31-34)
`
`39.
`
`One of skill in the art would have understood that “user”
`
`includes at least “a source of a data packet,” but does not limit the source of
`
`the data packet to any particular node or device. This understanding further
`
`encompasses any clients, nodes, connections, and sessions. In my opinion,
`
`this interpretation would have been reasonable to one of skill in the art and
`
`does not conflict with usage of the term in the specification.
`
`F. Means-Plus-Function
`
`40.
`
`I have been informed to assume that Claims 11-19 of the ’994
`
`Patent recite claim limitations with “means for” language and thus are
`
`presumed to invoke “means-plus-function” analysis. I have been further
`
`informed that Claim 24 recites claim limitations using “logic for” which
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim does not invoke “means-plus-
`
`function” analysis. In my opinion, the term “logic” would not be recognized
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art as providing sufficiently definite structure
`
`for performing the claimed functions. Therefore, I have provided analysis of
`
`Claim 24 as a “means-plus-function” claim.
`
`41.
`
`To provide means-plus-function analysis, I have been asked to
`
`identify structures, materials, or acts described in the ’994 specification that
`
`may be relied on for structure for the recited functions of Claims 11-19 and
`
`24. In my opinion, the table below identifies the only possible disclosure that
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art could rely on for structure for the recited
`
`functions in Claims 11-19 and 24 at the time of the filing of the ’994 Patent.
`
`Claim Term
`“means for allocating a
`tier of service for each
`of a plurality of
`individual packet data
`queues, wherein the
`means for allocating
`allocates different
`weights to each tier of
`service based on a
`number of users
`requiring access to the
`available
`communication
`resource” (Claim 11)
`
`Function(s)
`Allocating a tier of
`service for each of a
`plurality of individual
`packet data queues,
`wherein the means for
`allocating allocates
`different weights to
`each tier of service
`based on a number of
`users requiring access
`to the available
`communication
`resource
`
`Corresponding Structure
`“the queuing algorithm
`function is implemented
`preferably in a digital signal
`processor. However, it is
`within the contemplation of
`the invention that the queuing
`algorithm function described
`in the above embodiments
`can be embodied in any
`suitable form of software,
`firmware or hardware.” (Ex.
`1001 at 8:26-31) See also col.
`6, ll. 14-16 (“one or more
`processing elements 248
`contained with one or more
`RNCs 236-240”), ll. 46-47
`(“The packet data queuing
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`algorithm in the RNC
`processor 248”)
`
`“means for determining
`a total number of data
`packets that can use an
`available
`communication
`resource”
`(Claim 11)
`“means, operably
`coupled to the
`aforementioned means,
`for allocating a
`proportion of said total
`number of data packets
`to a number of the tiers
`of service to allow
`individual packet data
`queues on a number of
`tiers to share a
`communication
`resource”
`(Claim 11)
`“scheduling means to
`provide said
`communication
`resource to queued
`packet data users on a
`tier-by-tier basis, such
`that said resource is
`made available to all
`tiers”
`(Claim 11)
`“means for allocating a
`proportion of a total
`number of data packets
`provides a commitment
`that a proportion of an
`entire communication
`system bandwidth is
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`Determining a total
`number of data packets
`that can use an
`available
`communication
`resource
`
`Allocating a proportion
`of said total number of
`data packets to a
`number of the tiers of
`service to allow
`individual packet data
`queues on a number of
`tiers to share a
`communication
`resource
`
`Provide said
`communication
`resource to queued
`packet data users on a
`tier-by-tier basis, such
`that said resource is
`made available to all
`tiers
`
`Provides a commitment
`that a proportion of an
`entire communication
`system bandwidth is
`allocated to users
`operating on a
`particular tier
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`allocated to users
`operating on a particular
`tier”
`(Claim 12)
`“means for allocating
`different weights to
`each tier of service is
`operable for providing a
`differential level of
`service in the allocation
`of said communication
`resource between said
`tiers”
`(Claim 13)
`“means for allocating a
`proportion of a total
`number of data packets
`allocates data packets
`using rate allocating
`service disciplines”
`(Claim 14)
`“means for allocating a
`proportion of a total
`number of data packets
`provides a packet data
`user with an
`identification code to
`assist in the tier
`allocation step, wherein
`the identification code
`provides at least one of
`the group consisting of:
`an identifier for the user
`and an indication of a
`number of data packets
`that the user wishes to
`transfer”
`(Claim 15)
`“means for allocating a
`proportion of a total
`
`Id.
`
`Providing a differential
`level of service in the
`allocation of said
`communication
`resource between said
`tiers
`
`Allocates data packets
`using rate allocating
`service disciplines
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`Provides a packet data
`user with an
`identification code to
`assist in the tier
`allocation step,
`wherein the
`identification code
`provides at least one of
`the group consisting of:
`an identifier for the
`user and an indication
`of a number of data
`packets that the user
`wishes to transfer
`
`Determines, for each
`respective tier, that a
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 105
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1015
`
`
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`number of data packets
`determines, for each
`respective tier, that a
`number of data packets
`are requested to be
`processed: and allocates
`a proportion of said
`communication
`resource to each tier in
`response to said
`determination”
`(Claim 16)
`“schedul