Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`
`
`Trial Number: IPR2014-01872
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`Attorney Docket No. 4472-00301
`
`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 76
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`LIST OF REPORT APPENDICES AND EXHIBITS .................................... 4
`II.
`INTRODUCTION AND BASES FOR OPINIONS ....................................... 5
`A.
`EDUCATION AND WORK EXPERIENCE ..................................................... 5
`B.
`SCOPE OF WORK AND COMPENSATION ................................................... 6
`C.
`DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON .................................................................... 7
`III.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 8
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES ............................ 8
`A. ANTICIPATION ........................................................................................ 9
`B.
`OBVIOUSNESS ......................................................................................... 9
`C.
`PRIORITY DATE .................................................................................... 11
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’994 PATENT .......................................................... 11
`A.
`THE FIELD OF ART ............................................................................... 11
`B.
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION ........................................................ 11
`C.
`THE ’994 PATENT ................................................................................. 13
`D.
`PRIORITY DATE FOR THE ’994 PATENT ................................................. 15
`E.
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL ............................................................... 15
`F.
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS .......................................................................... 15
`G.
`LEGAL STANDARD FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.................................... 16
`H.
`CONSTRUED TERMS .............................................................................. 17
`I.
`MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION ...................................................................... 17
`VI. GROUNDS OF INVALIDITY ..................................................................... 29
`A. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-25 ARE OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF LU AND
`PANKAJ ................................................................................................. 29
`B.
`LU ......................................................................................................... 29
`C.
`PANKAJ ................................................................................................. 30
`D.
`COMBINATION OF LU AND PANKAJ ........................................................ 30
`CLAIMS 1, 11, AND 24 ........................................................................... 32
`E.
`i.
`Claim 1 is obvious in view of Lu and Pankaj ........................... 34
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 76
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`Claims 2 and 12 are obvious in view of Lu and Pankaj ........... 49
`ii.
`iii. Claims 3 and 13 are obvious in view of Lu and Pankaj ........... 51
`iv.
`Claims 4 and 14 are obvious in view of Lu and Pankaj ........... 53
`v.
`Claims 5 and 15 are obvious in view of Lu and Pankaj ........... 54
`vi.
`Claim 6 and 16 are obvious in view of Lu and Pankaj ............. 58
`vii. Claims 7 and 17 are obvious in view of Lu and Pankaj ........... 61
`viii. Claims 8 and 18 are obvious in view of Lu and Pankaj ........... 63
`ix.
`Claims 9 and 19 are obvious in view of Lu and Pankaj ........... 67
`x.
`Claim 10 is obvious in view of Lu and Pankaj ......................... 68
`xi.
`Claim 20 is obvious in view of Lu and Pankaj ......................... 69
`xii. Claim 21 is Obvious in view of Lu and Pankaj ........................ 70
`xiii. Claim 22 is obvious in view of Lu and Pankaj ......................... 72
`xiv. Claim 23 is obvious in view of Lu and Pankaj ......................... 73
`xv. Claim 25 is obvious in view of Lu and Pankaj ......................... 74
`VII. OTHER COMMENTS .................................................................................. 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 76
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`LIST OF REPORT APPENDICES AND EXHIBITS
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`
`
`
`
`Appendix
`No.
`Appendix 1
`Appendix 2
`
`Description
`Mark Lanning C.V.
`Claim Charts
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994 to Speight (“’994 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,480,911 to Lu (“Lu”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0183066 to Pankaj
`(Pankaj)
`IPR2014-01170 Petition filed August 6, 2014
`IPR2014-01170 Institution Decision entered February 17, 2015 as
`Paper 9
`Expert Declaration of Mark Lanning
`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
`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
`Rate Controlled Servers for Very High-Speed Networks
`
`Page 4 of 76
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`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 networks and also the
`
`development of the equipment used in these networks and by their users.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 76
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`Along with the experience listed in my C.V., I note the following
`
`5.
`
`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.
`8.
`
`Scope of Work and Compensation
`
`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 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
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 76
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`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 includes 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 the
`
`design, development, network design, and operation of relevant systems as well as
`
`my review of the ’994 Patent and its prosecution history.
`
`14.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 76
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`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.
`
`15. 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
`
`16. 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
`
`17.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 76
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`I have written my report with the understanding that the standard for
`
`18.
`
`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.
`
`A. Anticipation
`19.
`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.
`
`20.
`
`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
`21.
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 76
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`the differences between the ’994 Patent and the prior art are such that the claims
`
`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. 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.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a claim can be found unpatentable 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.
`
`23.
`
`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 the need to
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 76
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`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 the art.
`
`C.
`Priority Date
`24. 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
`25. The field of art for the ’994 Patent is systems and methods for packet
`
`data scheduling and queuing in communications systems.
`
`B.
`Background of the Invention
`26. The Background section of the ’994 Patent notes that in a packet-
`
`based system “where a high number of subscriber units may require resources for
`
`packet transmissions at unknown and irregular intervals, it is important to optimise
`
`use the limited communication resource.” (Ex. 1001, 2:23-26) In general, “most
`
`packet based systems contain schedulers which control when the individual data
`
`packets are transmitted in order to share the available resource, whether time-slots
`
`in a TDMA system or power and codes in a CDMA system.” (Ex. 1001, 2:31-34)
`
`For example, a scheduler may employ a queuing algorithm such as Weighted Fair
`
`Queueing or Hierarchical Round Robbin “that determines how the resource is to be
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 76
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`shared between queued data packets from the respective clients.” (Ex. 1001, 2:56-
`
`57)
`
`27.
`
`In a Weighted Fair Queueing scheme, a “gateway 120 processes the
`
`queues in a bit-by-bit round-robin manner by knowing the throughput of the time-
`
`shared resource/server 130.” (Ex. 1001, 3:1-3) This scheme may be extended “by
`
`defining parameters φ1 . . . φN (weights) that set the number of bits allocated to each
`
`user per round,” and this “allows differential service rates to be provided to
`
`different users.” However, the ’994 Patent suggests that “in a system where
`
`different users experience very different throughputs (e.g. when they experience
`
`different radio conditions) a weighted fair queuing system faces problems in fair
`
`allocation to users.” (Ex. 1001, 3:63-66)
`
`28. The ’994 Patent summarizes a Hierarchical Round Robin scheme as
`
`follows:
`
`A hierarchical round-robin scheme employs multiple levels or tiers.
`Within each tier a round-robin service is provided to users using a
`fixed number of slots. A user is allocated a fixed number of slots in
`each tier. The time taken to service all the slots within a level (or tier)
`is termed the frame time. Clearly the shorter the frame time the
`greater the proportion of the bandwidth allocated to this level. Thus,
`differential service can be provided to users on a level or tier basis.
`(Ex. 1001, 3:38-45)
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 76
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`29. The ’994 Patent also suggests that while it can provide differential
`
`service, “the hierarchical round robin system does not provide fair allocation of
`
`bandwidth to users because resources cannot be transferred between tiers.” (Ex.
`
`1001, 3:46-48)
`
`C. The ’994 Patent
`30. As mentioned above, the ’994 Patent acknowledges that Weighted
`
`Fair Queueing and Hierarchical Round Robin are “well know[n] queue service
`
`algorithms, to allocate the communication resource between queued data packets.”
`
`(Ex. 1001, 2:58-59) However, the ’994 Patent states that an “approach of
`
`combining hierarchical round robin and weighted fair queuing has not be
`
`considered in the past.” (Ex. 1001, 4:1-2) Therefore, “there exists a need in the
`
`field of the present invention to provide an improved packet data queuing method,
`
`algorithm and associated elements wherein the abovementioned disadvantages may
`
`be substantially alleviated.” (Ex. 1001, 4:6-9) The specification purports to address
`
`this need by providing a method comprising:
`
`allocating a tier of service for substantially each of a plurality of
`individual packet data queues; wherein the method is characterised by
`the steps of: 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; and providing said communication resource
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 76
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`to queued packet data users on a tier-by-tier basis, such that said
`communication resource is made available to a substantial number of
`tiers. (Ex. 1001, 4:17-29)
`
`31. To determine the total number of data packets, the ’994 Patent
`
`“assume[s] that allocation of resources . . . can only be made at certain time
`
`interval or rounds (also possibly referred to as frames), as occurs in known packet
`
`data systems.” (Ex. 1001, 6:29-32) The ’994 Patent explains: “for example, users
`
`compete for a 10 Mbps link, the users transmit data packets of length 1 kbit [sic,
`
`“Kbit”] and that the round period is 10 msec. Therefore, in each round [cycle] 100
`
`packets are allocated.” (Ex. 1001, 6:32-35) Furthermore, “in order to control the
`
`relative proportions of system bandwidth allocated to each tier, different weights
`
`are allocated for each tier.” (Ex. 1001, 6:60-62)
`
`32. Based on at least the disclosures of the ’994 Patent above, 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. Additionally, 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
`
`obvious combinations to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 76
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`D.
`Priority Date for the ’994 Patent
`33. 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. I have
`
`been informed that I should consider the priority date of the ’994 Patent to be
`
`October 24, 2001.
`
`E.
`34.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill
`
`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.
`
`F. Challenged Claims
`35.
`I have been asked to opine on challenged Claims 1-25 of the ’994
`
`Patent for which I have provided detailed analysis herein and in Appendix 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 76
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`G. Legal Standard for Claim Construction
`36. 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.
`
`37.
`
`I have been informed that in an inter partes review proceeding, 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.
`
`38. 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.
`
`39. 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 the priority
`
`date of the ’994 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 76
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`
`H. Construed Terms
`40. For the purposes of this inter partes review petition, other claim terms
`
`will be given their broadest reasonable construction as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Although the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation is applied here, other claim constructions including narrower ones
`
`may apply in contexts outside the present inter partes review.
`
`I. Means-Plus-Function
`41.
`I have been asked 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 creates a rebuttable presumption
`
`that the claim invokes “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.
`
`42. 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 possible disclosure that a person of ordinary
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 76
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`skill in the art (“POSA”) could rely upon for structure to perform the recited
`
`functions in Claims 11-19 and 24 at the time the’994 Patent was filed.
`
`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 or
`level 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
`
`“means for determining a
`total number of data packets
`that can use an available
`communication resource”
`
`Determining a total
`number of data
`packets that can
`use an available
`Page 18 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`Corresponding Algorithm or
`Structure
`“[T]he 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. The queuing
`algorithm function may be
`controlled by processor-
`implementable instructions
`and/or data, for carrying out
`the methods and processes
`described, which are stored
`in a storage medium or
`memory.” (Ex. 1001, col. 8,
`ll. 26-34)
`
`“The packet data queuing
`algorithm in the RNC
`processor 248 [firmware
`and/or software] is based
`around the concept of
`employing different tiers of
`service.” (Ex. 1001, col. 6,
`ll. 46-48)
`“Each RNC 236-240
`[firmware and/or software]
`may control one or more
`Node-Bs 222-232 and
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`(Claim 11)
`
`communication
`resource
`
`“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)
`
`Allocating a
`proportion of the
`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
`
`“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)
`
`Provide a
`communication
`resource to queued
`packet data users
`on a tier-by-tier
`basis, such that
`said resource is
`
`Page 19 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`includes both processing
`elements 248 and logical
`elements 250.” (Ex. 1001,
`col. 6, ll. 5-7)
`
`“The total number of data
`packets that can be allocated
`in a single round, β310, can
`then be determined.
`Assuming that there are L
`tiers we define the number
`of packets allocated to each
`tier; θ1 . . . θL. Thus,
`θi packets 345 can be
`allocated to the ith tier,
`where:
`θi=φtier — *β.” (Ex. 1001,
`col. 7, ll. 45-51)
`“In the ith tier, let us assume
`
`that Ntier — i users are
`determined as wishing to
`transmit data packets. Thus,
`the proportion of the entire
`system resource, allocated
`to the 1th tier, (within a
`system employing a total of
`L tiers), can be defined by
`the following function 325:”
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 33-44)
`“Therefore, most packet
`based systems contain
`schedulers which control
`when the individual data
`packets are transmitted in
`order to share the available
`resource.” (Ex. 1001, col. 2,
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`made available to
`all tiers
`
`“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 allocated
`to users operating on a
`particular tier”
`(Claim 12)
`
`Provides a
`commitment that a
`proportion of an
`entire
`communication
`system bandwidth
`is allocated to users
`operating on a
`particular tier
`
`“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)
`
`Providing a
`differential level of
`service in the
`allocation of said
`communication
`resource between
`said tiers
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 76
`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,994
`ll. 31-33)
`
`“[O]ne or more processing
`elements 248 contained with
`one or more RNCs 236-240
`have been adapted, to
`facilitate packet data
`queuing and scheduling.”
`(Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 14-17)
`“The packet data queuing
`algorithm in the RNC
`processor 248 [firmware
`and/or software] is based
`around the concept of
`employing different tiers of
`service. In particular, each
`tier, of a number of tiers of
`service, is configured to
`provide users with a
`commitment that a
`proportion of the entire
`system bandwidth will be
`allocated to users operating
`on that particular tier.” (Ex.
`1001, col. 46-51)
`“[P]rocessor-implementable
`instructions and/or data may
`include any of the
`following:
`(i) The algorithm for
`determining the tier-based
`queuing scheme, or
`(ii) A new or adapted
`lookup table containing
`revised queuing parameters
`or weights.
`(iii) New values of Stier — i
`for allocating respective
`proportions of the available
`communication resource to
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1006
`ERICSSON V. IV
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`“means for allocating a
`proportion of a total number
`of data packets allocates data
`packets using rate allocating
`service disciplines”
`(Claim 14)
`
`Allocating data
`packets using rate
`allocating service
`disciplines
`
`“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 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
`
`Provide 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
`Determine, for
`each respective
`tier,