UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`U.S. Patent Nos. 5,963,557 and 6,370,153
`
`Ericsson Inc. and 
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson,
`Petitioner 
`v.
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`Patent Owner
`IPRs 2014‐01412 and 01471
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`Oral Argument ‐ December 15, 2015
`
`IPR 2015-01077 (“’1077 IPR”) has been joined with IPR 2014-01412
`
`1
`
`

`
` Overview of the ’557 and ’153 Patents
` Grounds Instituted for Review
` Overview of the ’450, ’219 and ’398 Patents and APA
` ’557 Patent
` Claim Construction 
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’219 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
` ’219 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’153 Patent
` Claim Construction
` Disputes For Independent Claims
` Disputes For Dependent Claims
`
`2
`
`

`
`ABSTRACT
`A method and system are disclosed for
`enabling point-to-point and multicast
`communication in a multiple access
`network using three types of
`communication channels, namely, one
`or more upstream payload channels,
`one or more upstream control channels
`and one or more downstream channels.
`
`3
`
`

`
`’557 Petition, pgs. 4-5; ’153 Petition, pg. 5, citing common figures from ’557 and ’153 Patents
`
`4
`
`

`
`“both the specification and prosecution history distinguish prior art (e.g.,
`Ex. 1001, Figs. 2 and 3) based on this two-up, one-down configuration.”
`’557 Patent, Reply, pg. 1
`
`’557 Ex. 1004, pg. 111-12 cited at ’557 Reply, pg. 1.
`
`5
`
`

`
`’153 Patent, Ex. 1004, p. 110 (Amendment A at pg. 8), cited at ’153 Reply, pg. 1.
`
`6
`
`

`
` Overview of the ’557 and ’153Patents
` Grounds Instituted for Review
` Overview of the ’450, ’219 and ’398 Patents and APA
` ’557 Patent
` Claim Construction 
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’219 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
` ’219 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’153 Patent
` Claim Construction
` Disputes For Independent Claims
` Disputes For Dependent Claims
`
`7
`
`

`
`Common Limitations of ’557 Patent 
`Representative Claim A
`
`Representative Claim A
`(Claims 1-14 Base Language)
`
`Claims 15-28 Base Language
`
`A. [A network comprising:
`
`1. a centralized controller],I
`
`[A multiple access method via a shared medium of a network, said
`network comprising a centralized controller]I and
`
`2. [a station connected to said centralized
`controller over a shared medium,]II
`
`[stations connected to said centralized controller over a shared
`medium],II
`
`3. [a first distinct shared unidirectional transmission path being
`established between said centralized controller and said station for
`transmitting data from said centralized controller to said station, wherein
`the first path being a downstream channel],III
`
`[wherein a first distinct shared unidirectional transmission path is
`established between said centralized controller and said stations for
`broadcasting data from said centralized controller to said stations],III
`
`4. [at least a second and third distinct shared unidirectional transmission
`paths being established between said centralized controller and said
`station for transmitting data from said station to said centralized
`controller, wherein the second and third paths each being an upstream
`channel,]IV
`
`5. [wherein said station transmitting reservation requests data on said
`second path and receiving a payload data transmission grant from said
`centralized controller on said first path to transmit payload data on said
`third path from said station to said centralized controller on time-slots
`allocated by said centralized controller],V
`
`6. [wherein said centralized controller receiving said reservation request
`data on said second path from said station and transmitting on said first
`path a payload data transmission grant to said station for transmitting
`payload data on said third path on said time-slots allocated by said
`centralized controller.]VI
`
`[at least second and third distinct shared unidirectional transmission
`paths for transmitting data from said stations to said centralized
`controller, wherein the first path being a downstream channel and said
`second and third paths each being an upstream channel, said multiple
`access method comprising the steps of] IV
`
`transmitting from a particular station reservation request data on said
`second path and controller on payload time-slots receiving a payload
`data transmission grant message from said centralized controller on said
`first path to transmit payload data packets on said third path from said
`particular station to said centralized allocated by said centralized
`controller]V
`
`[receiving by said centralized controller said reservation request data on
`said second path from said particular station, and transmitting on said
`first path said payload data transmission grant data to said particular
`station for transmission on said third path of payload data on said payload
`time-slots allocated by said centralized controller, and]VI
`
`8
`
`

`
`B.
`
`A multiple access method via a network of Claim A, further comprising:
`
`1.
`
`a plurality of said stations,
`
`transmitting from said particular station said reservation request
`2.
`data on said second path if said particular station fails to receive a grant message from
`said centralized controller within a predetermined time delay or if said particular station
`receives a collision status message from said centralized controller on said first path to
`retransmit said reservation request according to a collision resolution algorithm; and
`
`optionally detecting by said centralized controller a collision due to
`3.
`simultaneous transmission of said reservation requests by two or more stations on the
`same reservation time-slot of said second path, and then transmitting said collision
`statuses of said reservation requests on said first path to said stations, which will
`retransmit their reservation requests according to said collision resolution algorithm.
`
`’557 Patent, Petition, pgs. 8-9
`
`9
`
`

`
`Claims
`
`’450
`Patent -
`§102
`
`’450
`Patent -
`§103
`
`’219
`Patent -
`§103
`
`’219
`Patent -
`§102
`
`’450
`Patent &
`APA -
`§103
`
`’450
`Patent &
`’219
`Patent
`§103
`
`’450
`Patent &
`’219
`Patent &
`APA -
`§103
`
`’450
`Patent &
`’398
`Patent -
`§103
`
`’450
`Patent &
`’398
`Patent &
`APA -
`§103
`
`’450
`Patent &
`Bungum -
`§103
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`4
`
`5 & 19
`
`6 & 20
`
`7 & 21
`
`10
`
`11 & 25
`
`12 & 26
`
`13 & 27
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`18
`
`24
`
`28
`
`32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (5)
`
` (19)
`
` (20)
`
` (7)
`
` (21)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (13)
`
` (27)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`▼or ▼ = Instituted
`Claim
`
`▼ = PO argued only
`that Representative
`Claims A or B not
`disclosed
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Claims
`
`’450 Patent - §102
`
`’450 Patent - §103
`
`’450 Patent &
`’219 Patent - §103
`
`’450 Patent &
`APA - §103
`
`’450 Patent &
`’219 Patent - §103
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`▼or▼= Instituted
`Claim
`
`▼ = PO argued only
`that independent
`claim elements are
`not disclosed
`
`11
`
`

`
` Overview of the ’557 and ’153Patents
` Grounds Instituted for Review
` Overview of the ’450, ’219 and ’398 Patents and APA
` ’557 Patent
` Claim Construction 
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’219 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
` ’219 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’153 Patent
` Claim Construction
` Disputes For Independent Claims
` Disputes For Dependent Claims
`
`12
`
`

`
`’557 Petition, pgs. 4-5; ’153 Petition, pg. 5, citing common figures from ’557 and ’153 Patents
`
`13
`
`

`
`Admitted Prior Art — '557 Patent, 1:41-7:61
`
`93. I:1sunm
`
`[APJ-'L1:] Upstream and downstream charulels separated in Erequency.
`
`[APE-1.2:] Detection of collisions of reservatioris transnlitted on the same
`
`fIEq_1l.E11C‘_'y' channel.
`
`[APJ-13:] Collision 1'ESDl11‘[‘.iO11 algorithms (CRAS) for resrnlving collisions of
`
`UPS IIEZLILTI IE servatioris .
`
`[APJ-14:] flssignnieilt of time slots for upstream traiismissions by a central
`
`controller.
`
`Ex. 1003, Stark Declaration, ¶93, identical for IPR2014-01412 and IPR2014-01471; see also Ex. 1003,
`[APJ-15:]
`I\-'.[Dd.l.1l‘flti.O11 and baridwidfln used for reservatirms would be different
`¶83 for IPR2015-01077
`
`from modulatir:-11 and bandwidths used for pa}-'1r:-ad or user data. 15:59-67]
`
`14
`
`Ex. 1003, Stark Declaration, 1193, identical for IPR20l4-01412 and IPR20l4-01471; see also Ex. 1003,
`
`1183 for IPR20 15-0 107']
`
`

`
`Ex. 1005, Figure 3, cited by both Petitions, i.e., ’557 Petition, pg. 14; ’153 Corr. Petition, pg. 8-9.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Ex. 1008, Figure 13 (both actions), cited i.e., ’557 Petition, pg. 21; ’153 Corr. Petition, pg. 36.
`
`16
`
`

`
`Ex. 1022, Fig. 2, cited at ’557 Petition, pg. 42; Ex. 1007, Fig. 2, cited at ’153 Corr. Petition, pg. 37.
`
`17
`
`

`
` Overview of the ’557 and ’153 Patents
` Grounds Instituted for Review
` Overview of the ’450, ’219 and ’398 Patents and APA
` ’557 Patent
` Claim Construction 
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’219 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
` ’219 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’153 Patent
` Claim Construction
` Disputes For Independent Claims
` Disputes For Dependent Claims
`
`18
`
`

`
`• The Board properly construed “Transmission Path” as “A
`communication path in a communications network, such as a
`channel.” ID, pg. 8, Petition, pg. 12 (Petitioner’s proposed construction).
`• Patent Owner argues that the term should be given its plain
`meaning, but does not offer one or say why the Board’s construction
`does not provide it. Reply Br., pg. 2.
`• Appropriate for Board to rely on IEEE 802.14 for support because
`the ‘557 Patent cites it multiple times. See Ex. 1001, 2:52-53; 3:48-49;
`5:28-30. Reply Br., pg. 2.
`• The claim language states that a transmission path can be a channel.
`
`“a first distinct shared unidirectional transmission path … wherein
`the first path being a downstream channel .. Wherein the second
`and third paths each being an upstream channel.”
`
`Reply Br., pg. 2. (citing Ex. 1001, cl. 1-14)
`
`19
`
`

`
`• The Federal Circuit “ha[s] consistently interpreted the word ‘or’ to mean
`that the items in the sequence are alternatives to each other.” Schumer v.
`Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Reply Br. Pg. 3.
`• Both expert agree that even a “logical or” means “either or both”. (Wells
`Depo., Ex. 1023, 81:11-81:13 (“Q: Okay. So, a logical or means either or
`both in your opinion? A: Yes.”); Stark Decl., Ex. 1024, ¶¶12-15). Reply Br. Pg. 3.
`• Patent Owner attempts to re-write “or” as “and.” Reply Br., pg. 3.
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 15, Element “B.2”
`
`Ex. 2002, Well’s Decl., ¶47.
`
`20
`
`

`
`• “Optionally” was properly construed by the Board as “left to choice,
`not compulsory.” ID., pg. 17. Petition, pg. 12-13.
`• “As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow
`the claim because they can always be omitted.” In re Johnston, 435
`F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Reply Br. Pg. 4.
`• “We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the
`preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the
`only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the
`specification.” In re Am Acad. Of Science Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369
`(Fed. Cir. 2004). ID., pg. 16.
`• “When a claim language has a plain meaning on an issue as the
`language does here, leaving no genuine uncertainties on interpretive
`questions relevant to the case, it is particularly difficult to conclude
`that the specification reasonably supports a different meaning.”
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., 2015 WL 7567492 at *8
`(Fed. Cir. Nov. 25, 2015)(addressing “is”).
`
`21
`
`

`
` Overview of the ’557 and ’153 Patents
` Grounds Instituted for Review
` Overview of the ’450, ’219 and ’398 Patents and APA
` ’557 Patent
` Claim Construction 
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’219 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
` ’219 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’153 Patent
` Claim Construction
` Disputes For Independent Claims
` Disputes For Dependent Claims
`
`22
`
`

`
`’450 Patent Teaches Multiple-Slot Assignments For Each Request
`
`2 (45 msec) slots
`
`> 2 slots
`
`See Ex. 1005 4:59 (a slot is 45 msec); 5:4 (sync is two
`slots); 7:37-60 (describing assignment); Ex. 1024,
`Stark Reply Decl., ¶¶25-27 (Cited at Reply, pg. 6);
`Petition, pg. 13-16.
`
`Ex. 1023, Wells Depo., 35:7-13 (cited at
`Reply, pg. 6)
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Assignment Is Not “Arbitrary”
`
`“The CROW may include … message
`lengths or voice duration …” (Ex. 1005,
`8:45-51).
`
`“… message starting time, data rate,
`and transmission duration are all
`controlled by the NCT” (Id., 3:56-60).
`
`See Ex. 1024, ¶29 (cited at Reply, pgs. 6-7).
`
`23
`
`

`
`Not Limited To Multiple Slots For Each Reservation Request
`
`Claims– slots allocated for multiple requests
`
`Specification – “one or more slots” used
`throughout
`
`Claims 1-14; Claim 15-28 recite “request
`data”
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:6-9; See also 8:67 – 9:12; 9:13-
`22; 18:43-49; Ex. 1024, ¶23.
`
`Specification – Equates “one or more slots” with “slots”
`
`Ex. 1001, 18:8-11, Reply, pg. 7-8.
`
`Wells Depo, Ex. 1023, 52:22-53:8 (discussing ,
`Ex. 1001, 4:50-55) cited at Reply, pg. 8; accord
`Ex. 1024, ¶23.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 13 (step 15)
`
`24
`
`

`
`Ex. 1005, 7:59-65 (stating “A PT sending a
`request and not receiving an acknowledgment
`within several frames will assume that the
`request of that PT was not heard and will then
`send another CROW 40”); Cited at Petition, pg. 16-17.
`
`Exact Delay Time Part of System Set-up
`
`Well’s Depo.; Ex. 1023, 90:6-91:10 (cited at Reply, pg. 9);
`Stark Reply Decl., ¶36, cited at Reply, pg. 9
`
`Stark Reply Decl., Ex. 1024, ¶¶34-36, cited at
`Reply, pg. 9
`
`Ex. 1023; 90:6-91:10
`
`25
`
`

`
`B.2
`
`B.3
`
`• This element is “Optional[]” and the second part of the “Or,” so disclosure is
`not required to show anticipation/obviousness. Petition, pg. 42-43; 53-54.
`• A collision status message is indisputably disclosed by APA. Ex. 1001, 5:11-13
`(“If the head end 12 detects a collision, the head end 12 transmits a message
`via the downstream channel DC indicating in which slots a collision was
`detected.”) Id.
`• Not dispute as to obviousness of the ’450 Patent / APA combination. Only two
`ways existed to indicate a collision – either silence as done in the ’450 Patent or
`through an affirmative collision status message as done in the APA. Id., Ex. 1003, ¶¶
`134-135, 155-156, 233; Ex. 1024, ¶¶ 43-44, 50-51, 85-86; Reply at pg. 10.
`• APA’s alleged lack of a “predetermined time delay” is irrelevant because it is
`not a limitation for B.3, or the second part of the “or” in B.2. Reply, pg. 11.
`
`26
`
`

`
` Overview of the ’557 and ’153 Patents
` Grounds Instituted for Review
` Overview of the ’450, ’219 and ’398 Patents and APA
` ’557 Patent
` Claim Construction 
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’219 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
` ’219 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’153 Patent
` Claim Construction
` Disputes For Independent Claims
` Disputes For Dependent Claims
`
`27
`
`

`
`’219 Patent
`
`Review Instituted on §103 in view of ’219 patent (ID, pg. 47),
`and not separately disputed in Patent Owner Response
`
`’450 + ’398 Patent
`
`•
`
`•
`
`’398 Patent indisputably discloses a “base station.” Ex. 1022, 1:13-15, 6:21-43; 8:6-23; Figs. 3-4,
`cited at Petition, pg. 47.
`
`’557 Patent only disclosure regarding use in a basestation concedes that
`implementation of “two up, one down” with a base station would be known.
`
`“As noted above, the implementation of the invention in a cable network was
`merely illustrative. The invention may for instance may be employed in a
`wireless network. In this case, the central controller is a base station, the
`subscriber stations are communication units such as cordless of cellular
`telephones or terminals and the shared medium is the air.” Ex. 1001, 19:39-44, cited at
`Reply, pg. 12.
`• Dr. Well’s alleged differences for cellular networks are (i) never alleged to create any
`difficulties for implementation, and (ii) contradicted by the ‘557 patent’s sparse
`disclosure. See Stark Reply Decl., Ex. 1024, ¶66, cited at Reply, pg. 12.
`
`28
`
`

`
`’450 Patent Alone
`
`’557 Patent does not limit base station to
`Cellular
`
`’450 Patent’s NCT meets definition
`
`’557 Patent, Ex. 1001, 6:61-66, cited at Ex.
`1003, Stark Decl., ¶214 (cited at Petition, pg.
`47; Reply, pg. 11-12.
`
`’833 Patent, Ex. 1020, Fig. 1 cited at ’557 Patent
`Reply, pg. 11-12. See also, Petition, pg. 19 (stating
`that ’450 NCT discloses a base station).
`
`’Well’s Depo., , Ex. 1023, 17:7-22; cited at Reply, pg.
`12; Stark Decl., Ex. 1024, ¶¶59-60, cited at Reply, pg.
`12.
`
`29
`
`

`
`’450 Patent Alone
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“…[A] hub network control terminal (NCT) which receives requests from the
`PTs, allocates channel resources, and broadcasts housekeeping messages.”
`Ex. 1005, Abstract, cited at ‘1077 Petition, pg. 29.
`
`“[T]he NCT broadcasts the outbound FOW to enable all PTs to request
`network services over the contention channel.” Ex. 1005, 10:62-64, cited at ‘1077 Petition,
`pg. 29.
`
`• Claims do not require that the MPEG-2 transport packets are broadcast.
`
`Wells Deposition, Ex. 1023, 155:6-10 (“Q: Okay. Now, if turn to Figure 3 of the ’450
`patent, I’m looking specifically at the forward channel 25-1. Would you agree that
`the FOW portion of the channel is broadcast? A: Yes.”); Stark Reply Decl., Ex. 1024,¶¶61-64,
`cited at Reply, pg. 13; ‘1077 IPR, Ex. 1003, Stark Decl., ¶107.
`
`30
`
`

`
`’450 Patent Alone
`
`• MPEG2 transport packets were a well-known data format that a POSA would have
`understood could be sent over the ’450 Patent’s network. See Stark ‘1077 IPR Declaration, Ex.
`1003, ¶107-10, citing IEEE 802.14 proposed standard, and MPEG-2 standard (Exs. 1009 and 1023, respectively);
`’1077 Petition, pg. 30.
`• High data rates and latency requirements relied on by Dr. Wells are for streaming
`live video, not transmitting MPEG2 transport packets. Ex. 1023, Wells Deposition, 134:5-136:1
`(“Q: Okay, so this is talking about viewing, if you have a picture quality, this is talking about a bit rate required to
`view the picture, Right?. A: Yes, it would. Q: Okay, it is not talking about a bit rate just to transmit it if you want to
`view it later, correct? A: It is not talking about a bit rate so that you could store it up to see it later.”); addressing
`Ex. 2002, ¶85 and ’1077 IPR Ex. 1023, pg. 151; Ex. 1024, ¶71, Reply, pg. 15.
`• Claims only require transmitting MPEG2 transport packets, not streaming live video.
`Ex. 1023, Wells Deposition, 130:4-22; 131:1-15 (“Q: So [Claim 11] is talking about sending the MPEG-2 transport
`packet on the downstream channel, correct? A: On a broadcasting downstream channel. Q: Okay. It is not
`saying anything about decoding an MPEG-2 transport packet, correct? A: That is correct.”); Ex. 1024, ¶71, Reply,
`pg. 15.
`
`•
`
`’450 Patent’s data rates could indisputably transmit ten MPEG2 transport packets
`per second. Ex. 1023, Wells Deposition, 138:1-140:1 (“So, if it is two kilobytes per second, and we have a
`packet that was approximately 200 bytes, that means you would be able to send ten packets, approximately ten
`MPEG-2 packets per second, if my math is correct.”); accord Ex. 1024, ¶71, Reply, pg. 15.
`• By 1997, satellites capable of faster data rates (e.g., 25-50 Mbits/s) were well known,
`and it would have been obvious to use them if faster data rates were needed. Ex. 1041,
`p. 1; Ex. 1023, Wells Depo., 146:13-147:16; 150:14-153:22; Ex. 1024, Stark Reply Decl. ¶¶71, 75, cited at Reply, pgs.
`15-16.
`
`31
`
`

`
`’450 Patent + Bungum
`
`Transmultiplexing, Transcontrol and
`Transscrambling of MPEG-2/DVB Signal
`
`Broadcasting over satellite, telecom, cable
`and terrestrial now turns into digital delivery
`using the MPEG-2/DVB standards.
`
`“…[T]he maximum bitrate for a 36 MHz
`satellite transponder is around 45,4 Mbit/s.”
`(pg. 289).
`
`“Etters assertions that Azure cannot be
`incorporated in Ambrosio are basically
`irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the
`references could be physically combined but
`whether the claimed inventions are rendered
`obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a
`whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir.
`1985)(en banc) (cited at Reply, pg. 16).
`
`‘1077 Ex. 1011, cited at ‘1077 Petition, pg. 47-51.
`
`32
`
`

`
`’450 and ’219 Patents, alone and in combination
`
`• No dispute that both the ’450 and ’219 Patents teach using a different
`modulation scheme on the disclosed, separate upstream control channel (UCC)
`and upstream payload channel (UPC). Petition, pg. 19-20 (’450 Patent); pg. 29-30 (’219
`Patent).
`• A POSA would understand that a modulation scheme on one channel would not
`“degrade robustness” on a separate channel.
`
`Q: Okay. So, if channels aren’t interfering, then the modulation scheme on one channel
`won’t impact the robustness, efficiency on the other channel?”
`
`If you have set up the two channels so that they truly are independent from one
`A:
`another, then you can apply things to one channel such as modulation without it affecting
`the utilization of another channel.”
`
`Ex. 1023, Well’s Depo., 115:18-116:4; Accord, Stark Decl., Ex. 1003, ¶141, cited at Petition, pg. 20;
`Ex. 1024, Stark Reply Decl., ¶¶ 76-78 (cited at Reply, pgs.18-19.).
`• The ‘557 Patent teaches nothing more. Ex.1023, Wells Depo., 114:7-16; Ex. 1001, 18:66-19:1
`(“Because the upstream control and payload bitstreams are separated into different channels, each
`channel can be individually optimized for the best mode of operation.”), Ex. 1024, ¶¶ 76-78 (cited at Reply,
`pgs.18-19.)
`
`33
`
`

`
`’219 Patent Alone
`
`Plurality of upstream control channels
`
`• Fully Addressed in
`Petition (Petition, pg. 30, citing Ex. 1008,
`
`and Ex. 1003, Stark Decl., ¶166)
`
`• No Response from Patent
`Owner (other than for A
`& B) (Reply, pg. 19)
`
`Ex. 1008, Fig. 13
`
`34
`
`

`
`’450 Patent Alone
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 3 – Multiple TDMA Channels on
`UCC
`• Claim does not distinguish between FDMA channels (i.e., frequencies) and TDMA
`channels (i.e., time slots), which are disclosed. Petition, pg. 20, citing Ex. 1003, ¶142; Ex. 1023,
`Wells Depo., 122:9-123:5 (“But, it doesn’t limit it to an FDMA channel.”): Id, 123:13-18 (agreeing that TDMA
`“was known to be a type of channel.”); Ex. 1024, Stark Reply Decl., ¶179-80, cited at Reply, pg. 18;
`• A POSA would have found it obvious to use multiple frequencies (i.e., FDMA)
`channels rather than multiple time slots (i.e, TDMA). Petition, pg. 20, citing Ex. 1003, ¶142.
`• Patent Owner does not dispute motivation to combine, i.e., to reduce the
`possibility of collisions. Petition, pg. 20, citing Ex. 1003, ¶142.
`• PO gives no reason for why differences between TDMA and FDMA are
`material here (and they are not). Reply, pg. 18, citing Ex. 1024, Stark Reply Decl., ¶179-80.
`
`35
`
`

`
`’450 + ’219 (claim 13) and APA (claim 27)
`
`• Fully Addressed in Petition (Petition, pg. 58, citing Ex. 1008, and Ex.
`
`1003, Stark Decl., ¶240)
`
`• PO Does Not Challenge Substance of
`Argument (Reply, pg. 19; see POR, pg. 42)
`
`36
`
`

`
`’450 + ’219 and APA
`
`• Patent owner only contends “Petitioner never explained how the ’450
`patent would be or could be modified to incorporate components
`disclosed in the ’219 Patent. (Response, pg. 45). Petition, pg. 58, citing Ex. 1008, and Ex. 1003,
`Stark Decl., ¶240)
`• How the ‘450, ’219 and APA would be combined is fully explained at
`Petition, pages 59-60, and Stark’s Decl., ¶243.
`• Patent Owner provides no challenge to that explanation.
`• Again, the criterion is “not whether the references could be physically
`combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by
`the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859
`(Fed. Cir. 1985)(en banc) (cited at Reply, pg. 16).
`
`37
`
`

`
` Overview of the ’557 and ’153 Patents
` Grounds Instituted for Review
` Overview of the ’450, ’219 and ’398 Patents and APA
` ’557 Patent
` Claim Construction 
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’219 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
` ’219 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’153 Patent
` Claim Construction
` Disputes For Independent Claims
` Disputes For Dependent Claims
`
`38
`
`

`
`• For each contested element of Representative Claim A, Patent Owner
`only challenges whether the Petition had sufficient evidence and/or
`explanation that the element is disclosed (in each instance, only citing
`a small portion of the evidence and explanation in the Petition).
`• But the Board has already instituted review, meaning that it has already
`determined that the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner will prevail.
`
`•
`
`In spite of the instituted review, Patent Owner provides no explanation
`for why any of the contested elements in Representative Claims A are
`not disclosed by, or obvious in view of, the ’219 Patent.
`
`39
`
`

`
`Ex. 1008, Fig. 1, cited at Pet, pg. 20-23; Ex.
`1003, Stark Decl., ¶150; See also, Ex. 1024,
`Stark Reply Decl., ¶82.
`
`Ex. 1023, Wells Depo., 121:22-122:8:7-13
`(cited at Reply, pg. 21)
`
`• Patent owner incorrectly states that Petition only cited Ex. 1008, 30:7-8
`for support. See page 23, also citing 19:19-21 and Figure 1, and Ex.
`1003, Stark Decl., ¶150.
`• Patent owner never contends that the ’219 Patent does not disclose a
`shared medium.
`
`40
`
`

`
`Ex. 2008, Fig.13, described at Petition, pgs. 21-22; Ex.
`1003, 151-152. “The upstream and downstream band
`allocations are preferably symmetric.” Ex. 1008; 56:5-7.
`
`Petition, pgs. 23-24
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Patent owner incorrectly states that “To support their position with respect to this claim, Petitioners
`only cite” ’219 patent, 4:59-63. Response, pg. 47 (see above further cited evidence)
`
`Patent owner also incorrectly states that Petitioners “do not explain how this quotation – or any
`quotation in from the ’219 patent – maps to the claims ‘distinct shared unidirectional transmission
`path.” Id. (ignoring the discussion at Petition, pg. 22-23 and Stark Declaration, ¶¶151-152
`
`Patent Owner never contends that this element is not disclosed.
`
`41
`
`

`
`• Patent Owner again only challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and
`explanation in the Petition. But, again, the Board found that the cited
`disclosures “provided sufficient evidence that establishes a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in showing element A.5 is obvious over the ‘219 Patent.
`ID, pg. 28
`• Patent owner again only cites a small portion of the Petition’s evidence (’219
`patent 11:25-29) while ignoring the other evidence. Petition, pg. 24-25 (citing Ex. 1008,
`35:35-37, 125:5-9, 113:49-57; 63:14-30; 103:64-104:1, 112:2-8; 125:1-14; Ex. 1003, Stark Decl., ¶153).
`• The cited evidence, credited by the institution decision, shows that a POSA
`would understand that the ‘219 Patent transmits upstream control information
`(reservation request data) on the second path (the upstream channel), and
`down stream control information (grant messages) on the first path (the
`downstream channel). Petition, pg. 25, citing Ex. 1003, Stark Decl., ¶153.
`• Patent Owner likewise ignores the cited evidence, credited by the institution
`decision, that allocating time slots would be obvious. Id.
`• Patent Owner never contends that this element is not disclosed.
`
`42
`
`

`
`B.2
`
`• Patent Owner only contends that
`the first part of the “or” (failure to
`receive grant message) is not
`disclosed. Response, pg. 48.
`• No dispute that the second part
`of the “or” (collision status
`message) is disclosed. See Petition,
`pg. 22, 25-26, and evidence cited therein;
`Reply, pg. 23.
`• Under Board’s construction of
`“or,” disclosure of the collision
`status message portion discloses
`this entire limitation.
`
`43
`
`

`
` Overview of the ’557 and ’153 Patents
` Grounds Instituted for Review
` Overview of the ’450, ’219 and ’398 Patents and APA
` ’557 Patent
` Claim Construction 
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’219 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
`
` ’219 Patent-Based Grounds -- Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’153 Patent
` Claim Construction
` Disputes For Independent Claims
` Disputes For Dependent Claims
`
`44
`
`

`
`Control Data Packets
`First Path
`
`• Not separately disputed that the
`’450 Patent alone or in
`combination with the ’219 Patent
`renders claims 5 and 19 obvious.
`Petition, pg. 18 and 55-56, Reply pg. 23; see also
`POR, pgs. 42-43.
`• The ’219 Patent likewise teaches
`this element, as shown. See Petition, pg.
`28; Ex. 1003, Stark Decl., ¶151, 160; Reply, pg. 24, Ex. 1024,
`Stark Reply Decl., ¶87.
`
`Ex. 1008, Fig. 13
`
`Payload Data Packets
`Plural such 6 MHz band channels.
`Ex. 1008, 25:28-36
`
`45
`
`

`
`’450 and ’219 Patents, alone and in combination
`
`• No dispute that both the ’450 and ’219 Patents teach using a different
`modulation scheme on the disclosed, separate upstream control channel (UCC)
`and upstream payload channel (UPC). Petition, pg. 19-20 (’450 Patent); pg. 29-30 (’219
`Patent).
`• A POSA would understand that a modulation scheme on one channel would not
`“degrade robustness” on a separate channel.
`
`Q: Okay. So, if channels aren’t interfering, then the modulation scheme on one channel
`won’t impact the robustness, efficiency on the other channel?”
`
`If you have set up the two channels so that they truly are independent from one
`A:
`another, then you can apply things to one channel such as modulation without it affecting
`the utilization of another channel.”
`
`Ex. 1023, Wells Depo., 115:18-116:4; Accord, Stark Decl., Ex. 1003, ¶141, cited at Petition, pg. 20;
`Ex. 1024, Stark Reply Decl., ¶¶ 76-78 (cited at Reply, pgs.18-19.).
`• The ’557 Patent teaches nothing more. Ex.1023, Wells 114:7-16; Ex. 1001, 18:66-19:1
`(“Because the upstream control and payload bitstreams are separated into different channels, each
`channel can be individually optimized for the best mode of operation.”), Ex. 1024, ¶¶ 76-78 (cited at Reply,
`pgs.18-19.)
`
`46
`
`

`
`head end 32
`
`“The head end includes an
`HDT that operates as a circuit
`located at the central
`controller” Ex. 1003, Stark Decl.,
`¶168, cited at petition, pg. 30-31.
`
`• Patent owner again ignores the totality of the evidence in the Petition
`and supporting declaration. See Petition, pp. 29-30, citing Ex. 1003, ¶ ¶ 165-66, 168 and
`complete disclosures under A1 and A2.
`• Patent Owner only challenges whether the ’219 patent discloses the
`recited “circuit located at a central controller.”
`• The petition demonstrated how this element was taught (see above and Petition,
`pg. 23, A1 (“The hybrid fiber-coaxial distribution network 11 utilizes optical fiber feeder lines to deliver
`telephony and video service to a distribution node 18 . . . remotely located from a central office or a head end
`32.” 18:38-42. “The system 10 includes host digital terminals 12 (HDTs) which implement all common
`equipment functions for telephony transport.” 19:1-3; 18:49-52; Fig. 1; Ex. 1003, ¶ 149).
`• Patent owner and Dr. Wells never dispute this explanation, or contend
`that this element is not taught.
`
`47
`
`

`
` Overview of the ’557 and ’153 Patents
` Grounds Instituted for Review
` Overview of the ’450, ’219 and ’398 Patents and APA
` ’557 Patent
` Claim Construction 
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
` ’450 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’219 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes for Representative Claims A and B
` ’219 Patent‐Based Grounds ‐‐ Disputes For “Wherein” Clauses in Claims
` ’153 Patent
` Claim Construction
` Disputes F