throbber
Page 1
`
` UNITED STATED PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`NOKIA SOLUTIONS & NETWORKS
`US LLC and NOKIA SOLUTIONS
`AND NETWORKS OY,
` Petitioners,
`vs.
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES, CO, LTD.,
` Patent Owner.
`_________________________________/
`
` DEPOSITION OF DR. DAVID LYON
` San Francisco, California
` Tuesday, October 10, 2017
`
`Reported By:
`LINDA VACCAREZZA, RPR, CLR, CRP, CSR. NO. 10201
`JOB NO. 19828
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`1
`
`HUAWEI 2003
`NOKIA V. HUAWEI
`IPR2017-00660
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`
`
`
` October 10, 2017
` 9:04 a.m.
`
`
` Deposition of DAVID LYON, held at 560
`Mission Street, Suite 2100, San Francisco,
`California, pursuant to Subpoena before Linda
`Vaccarezza, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the
`State of California.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`2
`
`

`

`Page 3
`
`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
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
` FISH & RICHARDSON
` By: Brian Strand, Esq.
` Andrew Patrick, Esq.
` 500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
` Redwood City, California 94063
` Strand@fr.com
` patrick@fr.com
`
`FOR THE PETITIONERS:
` ALSTON & BIRD
` By: Ross Barton, Esq.
` Samuel Merritt, Esq.
` 101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000
` Charlotte, North Carolina 28280
` ross.barton@alston.com
` sam.merritt@alston.com
`
`
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`3
`
`

`

`Page 4
`
` I N D E X
`WITNESS: PAGE
` DAVID LYON
`EXAMINATION BY:
` MR. STRAND 5
`
` E X H I B I T S
`Exhibit 1
` Declaration of David Lyon 5
`
`
`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
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`4
`
`

`

`Page 5
`
`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
`
` (Exhibit 1 was marked for identification.)
` DAVID LYON,
` Having been duly sworn, by the Certified
`Shorthand Reporter, was examined and testified as
`follows:
` EXAMINATION
`BY MR. STRAND:
` Q. Good morning, Dr. Lyon.
` A. Good morning.
` Q. Could you please state your full name for the
`record?
` A. David Lyon, L-Y-O-N.
` Q. Very good.
` MR. BARTON: Do you want to do introductions
`just for the record?
` MR. STRAND: Absolutely, yes. I'm Brian
`Strand with Fish & Richardson representing Huawei.
` MR. PATRICK: Andrew Patrick with Fish &
`Richardson representing Huawei.
` MR. BARTON: Ross Barton from Alston & Bird
`representing the petitioner NSN.
` MR. MERRIT: Sam Merrit, also with Alston
`Bird for petitioner.
`BY MR. STRAND:
` Q. All right. Dr. Lyon, you've been deposed
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`5
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`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
`
`before?
` A. Sure. I have.
` Q. About how many times?
` A. Maybe 15 or 20.
` Q. Very good. So I won't waste a lot of
`everybody's time here on procedure. You know it
`probably better than I do. You understand you're
`under oath, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And is there any reason that you can't
`testify fully and truthfully today?
` A. There's no reason.
` Q. If you don't understand any of my questions
`at any time, just let me know. Okay?
` A. Of course.
` Q. All right. You submitted a declaration in
`this proceeding, didn't you?
` A. I did.
` Q. And we had the court reporter go ahead and
`mark Exhibit 1. If you could look over and verify
`that's a copy of your declaration?
` A. Appears to all be here, yes.
` Q. And your declaration concerns Huawei U.S.
`Patent Number 9,060,268, right?
` A. Yes.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`6
`
`

`

`Page 7
`
`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
`
` Q. And it's okay with you if I just refer to
`that as the '268 patent?
` A. Yes.
` MR. BARTON: Just so the record's clear, this
`deposition is being taken in IPR 2017-00661.
` MR. STRAND: That's a lot.
` THE WITNESS: Excuse me for a second. I'm
`going to grab a bottle of water.
` (Pause in proceedings.)
`BY MR. STRAND:
` Q. All right. So Dr. Lyon, the first question I
`had was in your professional background. If you turn
`to Paragraph 9 of your declaration on Page 3. And you
`talk quite a bit about a communication system that you
`helped design. If you just tell me a little bit about
`that?
` A. Sure. So in this Paragraph 9, I'm referring
`to the period from 1982 to 1987. At that time, I was
`working for a company -- a division of, called
`Linkabit, which was owned by a public company called
`M/A-COM, which is M/A-COM. And the company, when I
`joined 1982, had a majority of its business in the
`defense industry, and wished to use its already
`developed technology and capture business in the
`commercial realm.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`7
`
`

`

`Page 8
`
`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
`
` And when I joined in 1982, all my background
`was in commercial activity, and I was tasked by my
`direct boss, Andrew Viterbi, to take on a project
`where we created satellite-based communication system
`to replace what then was land line, mainly telephone
`line and T1 line communication, and that was the
`nature of the project.
` Q. Okay. So this was the mid '80s. There were
`other satellite communication networks in use at that
`time?
` A. Not of this type. Yes, there were other
`satellite communication networks in use, but not of
`this type.
` Q. Okay. And how was yours different?
` A. It was different because it was suitable for
`use by very large, highly distributed organizations
`that had most of their computing power in a central
`location. Most of the predecessor satellite
`applications were either for military, which tended to
`be point-to-point sort of technical links or
`strategic, but mainly, point-to-point, where the
`emphasis was on security and reliability, or they were
`broadcast type networks.
` There was -- we are all familiar with TV
`delivered by broadcast, but there were also early
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`8
`
`

`

`Page 9
`
`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
`
`examples of networks where data was being delivered by
`broadcast. But this was a two-way interactive network
`that could be used by very large, highly distributed
`commercial organizations.
` Q. So you would say it had a significantly
`different architecture than previous commercial
`satellite systems?
` MR. BARTON: Objection. Vague.
` A. Well, when we decided to take on the project,
`we had to create for ourselves our own architecture.
`There was no archetype or no example that I was aware
`of in the satellite realm that would have met the
`requirements that were placed on us.
` Q. Okay. So without any examples in the
`industry, you then sat down and developed your own
`from scratch; is that right?
` A. Well, we developed our own without their
`being a model from the satellite industry use. We
`were having to connect to equipment that was already
`communicating via land line. So we knew what the
`interface requirements were, we knew what the overall
`performance requirements were. I was quite familiar
`with various kinds of land line-based network
`architecture. So we could study all that. But we had
`to make our own decisions and our own innovations to
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`9
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`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
`
`move it to the satellite realm.
` Q. Was there any particular part of the system
`that you focused on?
` A. I was in charge of the whole development.
`And so my focus, if you will, was to make sure that
`everything from the very top level functional
`requirements all the way down to the blocks where the
`teams of engineers were implementing were consistent,
`and were meeting the overall goals of the project.
`And although I spent a fair amount of time managing
`and supervising, I also spent a fair amount of time
`and share of mind watching over the specifications
`that would allow me to monitor and assure myself that
`the quality of what was being created was suitable for
`what we needed.
` Q. And were you actually involved in developing
`some of the specifications themselves?
` A. Oh, yes.
` Q. Could you give me any examples?
` A. Oh, sure. If a customer comes, like our
`customers did, and said, "We deploy our teams anywhere
`in the United States, and within" -- this happened to
`be the very first customer, a company called
`Schlumberger. And when we deploy a team to a site of
`an exploration well, oil well, we need to be -- we
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`10
`
`

`

`Page 11
`
`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
`
`need them to be communicating to us at speeds of at
`least one megabit per second within one hour of their
`arriving on site. So that's how the customer
`expressed one of the requirements.
` My job, as the lead, both to manage the
`project, but also to be the primary interface to the
`customer, was to interpret that English language, but
`very clear functional requirement, into first high
`level architecture for the network, and then to break
`down the high level architecture into all the sub
`pieces. If you like, I can start explaining how I do
`that, if you want.
` Q. I think that's fine for this answer. Thank
`you.
` A. Okay.
` Q. If you could turn to Paragraph 21 of your
`declaration.
` A. (Witness complies.)
` Q. You list a number of documents that you
`reviewed and considered in your analysis.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes, I do.
` Q. And that includes Huawei '268 patent, right?
` A. Of course.
` Q. Did you fully review the '268 patent prior to
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`11
`
`

`

`Page 12
`
`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
`
`signing your declaration?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And when you read the '268 patent, did you
`understand its contents?
` A. Yes.
` Q. You don't recall anything that you didn't
`understand?
` A. I don't recall that I had any problems
`understanding how the words read, and I don't recall
`any particular confusion on my part.
` Q. If you hadn't understood something, would you
`have mentioned that your declaration?
` A. Well.
` MR. BARTON: Objection. Calls for
`hypothetical.
` THE WITNESS: You know, I just don't recall
`there being any point of confusion that rose to that
`level that I would mention it, so no.
`BY MR. STRAND:
` Q. Fair enough. And you didn't see anything in
`the '268 patent that you wouldn't have known how to
`implement?
` MR. BARTON: Object to the form. Vague.
` THE WITNESS: Wouldn't have known how to
`implement? So I didn't consider that question. What
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`12
`
`

`

`Page 13
`
`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
`
`I considered was the asserted claims and what the
`context of the specification was so I could understand
`the asserted claims. I didn't try to read every
`reference to a potential embodiment and try to imagine
`how I would build it.
`BY MR. STRAND:
` Q. If you could turn to Paragraph 42 of your
`declaration, Exhibit 1. And you say, "The '268 patent
`was the result of the inventor's work with 3G."
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes, I see that.
` Q. I don't actually see any support in your
`declaration for that statement. Did you include any?
` MR. BARTON: Object to form. Argumentative.
` THE WITNESS: My support is stated right
`below it. The face -- indeed, the face of the '268
`cites a number of the 3GPP documents. And then I go
`on to reference the amended complaint of Huawei. So
`that's my support.
`BY MR. STRAND:
` Q. Okay. And you go on to say that "Below is a
`summary of the 3GPP organization and the state of the
`relevant technology as of the priority date of the
`'268 patent."
` Did I read that right?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`13
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`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
`
` A. You did.
` Q. And when you say below, you're talking about
`the next section from Paragraph 43 in Paragraph 68?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So I would like to take a look at the section
`for a little bit. In Paragraphs 46 to 49, you discuss
`various generations of the 3GPP standard.
` Do you see that?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And you talk about GSM and GPRS systems, and
`you refer to that as a second generation or 2G system,
`right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And then you talk about UMTS, and you refer
`to that as a 3G system, right?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. And then you talk about LTE, and you refer to
`that as a 4G system, correct?
` A. Indeed, yes.
` Q. And that's generally the terminology that you
`use throughout your declaration, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So then looking specifically at Paragraph 49,
`you're talking about 4G. You mention the data rate of
`the difference between 4G and earlier generation
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`14
`
`

`

`Page 15
`
`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
`
`networks, right?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And what are some of the other primary
`differences between LTE and the earlier generation
`networks, other than the data rate?
` A. Okay. Well, to be specific, we'll compare,
`let's say, 4G LTE to 3G UMTS. A convenient way to
`think about any of these networks is in terms of the
`so-called protocol stack. The protocol stack starts
`at the bottom with a so-called physical layer. So the
`physical layer of 4G LTE is completely or distinctly
`different than the physical layer of 3G.
` Not only does it permit higher, what I'll
`call raw data rates and also net data rates, but to a
`specialist in the field, they would recognize that one
`is based on so-called OFDM type modulation schemes and
`the other is based more on a CDMA scheme. So the PHY
`layer big, differences. As we go up, there's many
`differences in the Mac layer and so on.
` I think something that's very distinctive
`about LTE, and when we say LTE, we also include in 4G
`the nature of the core network architecture, which is
`SAE, system architecture evolved or evolution. And
`the big distinction there is that the standards were
`written, and they imply that the core network for 4G
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`15
`
`

`

`Page 16
`
`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
`
`will be run on using IP protocols. So Internet
`protocols, as opposed to what was going on before,
`where there were, if you will, custom -- some custom
`protocols that were used in prior implementations of
`the core network.
` So those, to me, stand out. So at the very
`top level and at the very lowest level, there were
`differences. And because of that, at each layer, you
`can find differences. But you have to sort of go
`through it in detail to point at each of the
`differences.
` Q. So focusing more on the core network side,
`what would you say are the other significant
`differences between 4G and 3G other than the use of IP
`protocols?
` MR. BARTON: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: One of the other very obvious
`sort of high level or top level differences is
`illustrated by comparison of these diagrams I
`included, one right above Paragraph 52, which is
`labeled "4G architecture," and one just above
`Paragraph 51, which are labeled "3G architecture."
` And the distinction here is that in 4G, the
`3GPP decided to separate the path that the user plane
`traffic, whatever kind of traffic it is, data or --
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`16
`
`

`

`Page 17
`
`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
`
`well, it's IP. So the user plane task had its own
`pathway to the core network as opposed to the control
`and signaling traffic, which is designated by the
`dotted lines that are shown in 4G.
` In prior generations, a single node in the
`core network, the so-called SGSN, I'll just say it
`once and I'll just call it SGSN, serving GPRS node,
`the SGSN, actually performed both control as well as,
`if you will, user data functions. And in 4G, those
`functions were separated out so that the control
`portion of the SGSN became part of what was now the
`MME, the mobility management entity. And then the
`serving gateway, SGW, only dealt with user traffic.
` It also -- it reminds me that another modest
`change was the fact that in the radio access part of
`the network in 4G, one relies on so-called eNodeBs for
`base stations, as opposed to prior generations, where
`the base stations also were accompanied with another
`kind of node called network controller, radio network
`controller in 3G.
` Q. Are there any other significant differences
`between the 4G and 3G core networks that come to mind?
` A. There may be. But I mean, as I sit here now,
`you're asking for a summary on two networks that are
`characterized by tens of thousands of pages of
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`17
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
`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
`
`specifications. That's my first cut. That's my best
`first cut.
` Q. So circling back the use of IP protocols.
`Why was that relevant to the development of 4G?
` MR. BARTON: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, it's relevant just
`because it allowed 3GPP to, if you will, tag onto all
`the development that was going on in the world of the
`Internet protocols. So that it was not incumbent upon
`the 3GPP to continue inventing new features within
`their own protocol. They could use what was being
`developed in this, if you will, parallel set of
`organizations.
` That's not to say that the 3GPP gave up all
`of its proprietary or its distinctive protocols;
`others continue to survive. But by defining the
`working of the 4G network as IP, it instantly enriched
`a few other capabilities and the possibilities for
`future development.
`BY MR. STRAND:
` Q. So 3GPP was an off-the-shelf transport
`protocol, and they were able to focus more on higher
`level of signaling protocols. Is that fair?
` MR. BARTON: Object to form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, that's -- I wouldn't put
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`18
`
`

`

`Page 19
`
`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
`
`it that way. I would say that they used and invoked
`IP protocols where they thought it was appropriate,
`and they kept their -- call it their distinctive
`non-IP protocols where they thought that was
`appropriate. You would have to go through case-by-
`case to see how they interacted.
`BY MR. STRAND:
` Q. Was there also a benefit of being able to use
`the grounding capabilities IPA as opposed to
`hierarchical set of point-to-point connections?
` MR. BARTON: Objection. Vague.
` THE WITNESS: So you asked about routing
`capabilities and point0to-point. I'm not quite sure
`what you're getting at. Maybe if you could sort of
`help me with a little bit better understanding of what
`your question is implying.
`BY MR. STRAND:
` Q. In earlier generation of core networks, how
`were they -- network nodes connected to each other?
` MR. BARTON: Objection. Vague.
` THE WITNESS: So the -- depending on the kind
`of traffic and depending on the kind of node, the
`connections that could be made could be based on
`protocols had already been established and existing in
`prior generations. So-called GTP protocols, GPRS
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`19
`
`

`

`Page 20
`
`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
`
`tunneling protocols.
` But beyond that, in actually building a
`network to make a network that looks as simple as the
`drawing above Paragraph 52, it's not as though a
`cellular operator has four boxes and he has to connect
`four boxes. So each of these boxes might be
`implemented with dozens of similar functionality boxes
`that are either spread out or close together.
` So there's other kinds of connectivity other
`than functional element to functional element
`connectivity. That connectivity would benefit from or
`could benefit from some of the routing protocols that
`exist in the world of Internet protocol.
`BY MR. STRAND:
` Q. So just looking at a concrete example, you
`talk about the -- one of the differences between the
`functionality of the SGSN and the 3G and the MME and
`4G being the fact that in 3G, the SGSN routes' use of
`plane traffic, correct? Carries use of plane traffic,
`sorry.
` MR. BARTON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: So your question -- or you're
`asking me to confirm that SGSN carries user plane
`traffic in a 3G network?
`BY MR. STRAND:
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`20
`
`

`

`Page 21
`
`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
`
` Q. Right.
` A. Yes, it does.
` Q. And then in 4G, the MME does not carry user
`plane traffic. User plan traffic goes directly from,
`I think you said the SGW to the eNodeB, right?
` A. In 4G networks, the MME does not handle user
`plane traffic. Does not directly transfer user plane
`traffic.
` Q. So in the 3G network, why doesn't the user
`plane traffic just go from the GGSN to the RNC? Why
`did it have to go through the SGSN?
` MR. BARTON: Objection. Compound. Vague.
`Calls for speculation.
` THE WITNESS: So the GGSN and the SGSN in 3G
`each have distinctive roles to play. Because they
`have distinctive roles to play, it gives the
`operator -- and the manufacturers, but in the end,
`it's the operator's decision -- more flexibility about
`how many devices of each type to purchase. How many
`to deploy, where to deploy them geographically.
` It, I would say from the point of view of
`someone who has been in the field for a while, that
`it's my guess, my belief that the objectives had to do
`with making the implementation of the networks as
`efficient as possible in terms of the requirement for
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`21
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`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
`
`hardware and keeping the proximity of hardware to the
`various other nodes is to say as simple and as tight
`as possible.
` Q. The SGSN carrying user plane traffic caused
`scalability problems, right?
` MR. BARTON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: I don't know that it caused
`scalability problems. There's quite very large
`networks got built on SGSNs. There's -- to me, it's
`obvious that when you put two different kinds of
`functions inside of one node, there's a certain level
`of, if you will, flexibility that may not be
`available.
` So if you need to scale up the number of SGNs
`because there's a lot of user plane traffic, and
`that's the reason that you have to put more SGSNs out,
`but there was really no need because the control
`traffic was not stretching the limits, well, you could
`argue that was not as an efficient way to go and vice
`versa. So my speculation, and that's all it is, is
`that the objective was to give more degrees of freedom
`in the way that the functions could be deployed.
` Q. And when you say the objective, you're
`talking about the objective of the MME not carrying
`user plane traffic, right?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`22
`
`

`

`Page 23
`
`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
`
` MR. BARTON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: I meant, the objective in very
`general sense. That when the groups that come
`together in the task groups and working groups that
`represent both carriers and manufacturers, when they
`come together, the notion that control plane and user
`plane would be separated in 4G, it's my guess was
`being driven by this desire for higher degree of
`flexibility in deployment scenarios.
`BY MR. STRAND:
` Q. Fair enough. And so the act of separating
`control and user plane traffic in the LTE and core
`network, there's a fairly significant architectural
`change from 3G, right?
` MR. BARTON: Object to the form.
` THE WITNESS: Not as fundamental as you
`think, because -- or let me say it this way. The
`notion of so-called one tunnel operation, where the
`data in a 3G network could be transferred from the
`radio access part of the network to the GGSN was
`already pretty well understood. I am trying to
`remember the first documents that talked about one
`tunnel or direct tunnel were, I think late '90s.
`Might have been early 2000s. So that was already
`known.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`23
`
`

`

`Page 24
`
`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
`
` And in fact, that was an option for carriers
`who wanted to effectively allow the SGSN to more
`completely deal with control matters and have very
`little interaction with the user plane data. So that
`was already well known. 4G, if you will, just took it
`farther, and completely defined two separate nodes for
`the two functions.
` Q. So if I'm understanding you right, 3G already
`had the capability to separate control and user plane
`traffic from the SGSN?
` A. They had -- within 3G, within the UMTS
`family, there were standards that read on what I think
`in the standard called one tunnel operation, as
`sometimes referred to as direct tunnel operation. To
`be clear, the user data would still traverse through
`the SGSN, but it would not be operated upon. The SGSN
`was merely shuffling it from an input to an output.
`That was the notion of direct tunnel.
` So it achieved one of the goals, which is it
`meant that SGSNs would be spending eventually all of
`their processing power on control matters, which meant
`that the operator, the carrier only had to reproduce
`SGSNs when the control traffic got so great that they
`needed another node. It helped with the flexibility
`issue that we discussed earlier.
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`24
`
`

`

`Page 25
`
`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
`
` Q. So it reduced the processing burden on the
`SGSN, but the SGSN still had to have enough physical
`bandwidth capacity to handle all the traffic for all
`connected users, right?
` A. Well, just to be clear, it did not require
`any -- the objective of direct tunnel was to make sure
`that there was virtually -- I mean, practically no
`processing power of the SGSN devoted to doing anything
`with the user traffic other than moving it from one
`interface to another. So yes, it passed the data, but
`it was not processing it, the user data.
` Q. And so the act of separating the control and
`the user plane in the LTE would have resulted in a
`different set of process flows, if you will, than in
`3G, right?
` MR. BARTON: Objection. Vague.
` THE WITNESS: So I don't know about process
`flows, but when you have -- when you decide to relabel
`elements and rearrange their physical connection, of
`course, that's going to give way to all kind of
`changes in the precise detail specifications that you
`write at the different layers.
`BY MR. STRAND:
` Q. It affects how the nodes would communicate
`with each other to get something done, right?
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`25
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
`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
`
` MR. BARTON: Objection. Vague.
` THE WITNESS: That would be one aspect, yes.
`BY MR. STRAND:
` Q. And so you couldn't just take a signaling
`flow from the 3G network and transplant it to 4G
`network and expect it to do the same thing because of
`those architectural changes, right?
` MR. BARTON: Objection. Vague. Calls for
`speculation.
` THE WITNESS: Well, on the one hand, taking a
`precise -- let's call it a precise process that's
`defined for 3G set of nodes, and then applying that to
`a 4G network without at least recognizing changes in
`nomenclature, and potentially changes in physical
`interconnect, you couldn't operate these devices
`without making at least those changes.
` The key here, though, and where I believe I
`think this is relevant to answering your question, is
`that there's always been an obligation felt by the
`drafters of the new specifications to maintain as much
`compatibility backward and forward with the prior
`general relations. So it is typical in every
`transition, but in particular, with 4G from 3G, to
`maintain as much common use of techniques as possible.
` So although at the most detailed level, you
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`26
`
`

`

`Page 27
`couldn't simply tell someone to take, for example, the
`same software out of a device that had only been
`designed and tested for 3G and have it run a device
`that was going to be used not just for 3G, but for 4G,
`that's true. But there would be a lot of commonality
`to what was being transferred back and forth.
` Q. Can you give me an example of how LTE is
`backwardly compatible to 3G?
` A. Uh-huh. So, for example, in thinking about
`the use of keys for encryption algorithms and for
`purposes of authentication and authorization, it was a
`key objective as expressed in the working documents
`that there be as much commonality and compatibility
`between 3G and 4G as was possible, and that's
`certainly what resulted.
` Q. And I just want to make sure I'm
`understanding what you mean by backward compatibility.
`Are you meaning I can take a 3G phone and use it on an
`LTE network the same way that I would use on a 3G
`network?
` MR. BARTON: Objection. Vague.
` THE WITNESS: Backward compatibility, as I'm
`using it, would mean that you could take 4G devices
`and use them very simply in 3G networks, so you that
`you don't design a 4G functionality that would be
`
`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
`
`TransPerfect Legal Solutions
`212-400-8845 depo@transperfect.com
`
`27
`
`

`

`Page 28
`
`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
`
`inoperable in a 3G environment. That's in general
`what I'm referring to.
` And in the case here, that would be true,
`that, for example, you could operate 4G devices in the
`3G network without any trouble. But more than that, I
`was saying that 3G devices -- or, sorry, concepts from
`3G were carried forward to 4G to make the forward and
`backward compatibility that much easier and simpler.
`BY MR. STRAND:
` Q. The example you just gave was an example of
`backward compatibility on the handset side, right?
` A. No, no. The keys affect both sides of the
`network.
` Q. So again, I guess I'm trying to understand.
`Are you saying that I could take a 3G phone and use it
`on an LTE network?
` MR. BARTON: Objection. Mischaracterizes the
`witness's testimony. Asked and answered. Vague.
` THE WITNESS: So if I have a 3G phone, and I
`step out on to the street here, and for the sake of
`argument, let's say a 3G phone operates under the
`T-Mobile network. The T-

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket