`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET
`LM ERICSSON (“Ericsson”),
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC (“IV”),
`
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF VIJAY K. MADISETTI, PH.D.,
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`Ericsson v. IV II LLC
`Ex. 1003 / Page 1 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 4
`I.
`II. EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND CREDENTIALS .............................. 6
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................14
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................16
`A. Obviousness ................................................................................................16
`B. Claim Interpretation in Inter Partes Review ..........................................18
`V. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW ...................................................................19
`A. Wireless Network Elements ......................................................................19
`B. Paging in Wireless Networks ....................................................................21
`VI. THE ’357 PATENT ......................................................................................23
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .........................................................................26
`“first network device” .................................................................................26
`A.
`“second network device” (claim 11) / “network device” (claim 30) ........28
`B.
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`30
`A. Challenge #1 – Claims 11, 13, 30, 32, 47, and 49 are unpatentable as
`obvious under 35 U.S.C § 103 over CATT in view of LG ...............................30
`1.
`Summary of CATT...................................................................................30
`2.
`Summary of LG ........................................................................................34
`3. Reasons to Combine CATT and LG ........................................................34
`4. Claim 11 ...................................................................................................39
`5. Claim 13 ...................................................................................................60
`6. Claim 30 ...................................................................................................61
`7. Claim 32 ...................................................................................................65
`8. Claim 47 ...................................................................................................66
`9. Claim 49 ...................................................................................................73
`B. Challenge #2 – Claims 12, 19, 31, 38, 48, and 54 are unpatentable as
`obvious under 35 U.S.C § 103 over CATT in view of LG, further in view of
`CATT2. ................................................................................................................73
`
`
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 2 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`Summary of CATT2.................................................................................73
`1.
`2. Reasons to Combine CATT and CATT2 .................................................74
`3. Claim 12 ...................................................................................................77
`4. Claim 19 ...................................................................................................82
`5. Claim 31 ...................................................................................................84
`6. Claim 38 ...................................................................................................84
`7. Claim 48 ...................................................................................................85
`8. Claim 54 ...................................................................................................86
`C. Challenge #3 – Claims 14, 33, and 50 are unpatentable as obvious
`under 35 U.S.C § 103 over CATT in view of LG, further in view of Huawei
`
`87
`Summary of Huawei.................................................................................87
`1.
`2. Reasons to Combine CATT and Huawei ................................................87
`3. Claim 14 ...................................................................................................91
`4. Claim 33 ...................................................................................................94
`5. Claim 50 ...................................................................................................95
`IX. DECLARATION ..........................................................................................96
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 3 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I, Vijay K. Madisetti, do hereby declare:
`
`1. My name is Vijay K. Madisetti, and I have been retained by counsel
`
`for Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively “Petitioner,”
`
`“Ericsson”) as a technical expert in connection with the proceeding identified
`
`above. I submit this declaration in support of Ericsson’s Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in this matter at an hourly rate. I
`
`am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses associated with
`
`my work and testimony in this matter. My compensation is not contingent on the
`
`outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony. I have no personal or
`
`financial stake or interest in the outcome of the present proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`(1) U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357 to Worrall (“the ’357 Patent”), Ex. 1001;
`
`(2) The Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,682,357, Ex. 1002;
`
`(3) CATT, “PCH mapping and Paging Control,” 3GPP RAN1/RAN2
`
`joint meeting on LTE, Athens, Greece, 27-31 March, 2006, R2-
`
`060988 (“CATT”), Ex. 1005;
`
`(4) LG Electronics, “Discussion on LTE Paging and DRX,” Joint RAN
`
`WG1 and RAN WG2 on LTE, Athens, Greece, 27-31 March, 2006,
`
`
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 4 of 96
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`R2-061014 (“LG”), Ex. 1006;
`
`(5) CATT and RITT, “Access Procedure for TDD,” 3GPP RAN1/RAN2
`
`joint meeting on LTE, Athens, Greece, 27-31 March, 2006, R2-
`
`060905 (“CATT2”), Ex. 1007;
`
`(6) Huawei, “Inter-cell Interference Mitigation,” 3GPP TSG RAN WG1
`
`Ad Hoc on LTE, Sophia Antipolis, France, 20-21 June, 2005, R1-
`
`050629 (“Huawei”), Ex. 1008;
`
`(7)
`
` PCT Publication No. WO2004/057896 to Seidel et al. (“Seidel”), Ex.
`
`1009;
`
`(8) Harri Holma & Antti Toskala, WCDMA for UMTS: Radio Access for
`
`Third Generation Mobile Communications
`
`(Rev. ed. 2001)
`
`(“Holma”), Ex. 1010;
`
`(9) Andrew Richardson, WCDMA Design Handbook
`
`(2005)
`
`(“Richardson”), Ex. 1011;
`
`(10) Theodore S. Rappaport, Wireless Communications, Principles &
`
`Practices (1st ed. 1996) (“Rappaport”), Ex. 1012;
`
`(11) 3GPP Technical Report, Technical Specification Group Radio Access
`
`Network, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) and
`
`Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN),
`
`Radio Interface Protocol Aspects (Release 7), TR 25.813, v.0.6.0
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 5 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`(March 2006) (“TR25.813”), Ex. 1013;
`
`(12) Hannes Ekström et al., Technical Solutions for the 3G Long-Term
`
`Evolution, IEEE Communications Magazine, March 2006, pp. 38-45
`
`(“Ekström”), Ex. 1014;
`
`(13) Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 14th Ed. (1998)
`
`(selected pages), Ex. 1017 (“Newton”); and
`
`(14) 3GPP Technical Report, Technical Specification Group Radio Access
`
`Network, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) and
`
`Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN),
`
`Radio Interface Protocol Aspects (Release 7), TR 25.813, v.0.6.0
`
`(March 2006) (same as Ex. 1013 but accepting all changes shown in
`
`document as track changes; references to the document are to Ex.
`
`1013).
`
`4.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`(1) The documents listed above, and
`
`(2) My knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area as
`
`described below.
`
`II. EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND CREDENTIALS
`
`5.
`
`I am qualified by education and experience to testify as an expert in
`
`the field of telecommunications. Ex. 1004 is a copy of my curriculum vitae
`
`
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 6 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`detailing my experience and education. Additionally, I provide the following
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`overview of my background as it pertains to my qualifications for providing expert
`
`testimony in this matter.
`
`6.
`
`I obtained my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`
`at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1989. I received the Demetri
`
`Angelakos Outstanding Graduate Student Award from the University of California,
`
`Berkeley and the IEEE/ACM Ira M. Kay Memorial Paper Prize in 1989.
`
`7.
`
`I joined Georgia Tech in the Fall of 1989 and am now a Professor in
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering. I have been active in the areas of wireless
`
`communications, digital signal processing, integrated circuit design (analog &
`
`digital), software engineering, system-level design methodologies and tools, and
`
`software systems. I have been the principal investigator (“PI”) or co-PI in several
`
`active research programs in these areas, including DARPA’s Rapid Prototyping of
`
`Application Specific Signal Processors, the State of Georgia’s Yamacraw
`
`Initiative, the United States Army’s Federated Sensors Laboratory Program, and
`
`the United States Air Force Electronics Parts Obsolescence Initiative. I have
`
`received an IBM Faculty Award and the NSF’s Research Initiation Award. I have
`
`been awarded the 2006 Frederick Emmons Terman Medal by the American
`
`Society of Engineering Education for contributions to Electrical Engineering,
`
`
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 7 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`including authoring a widely-used textbook in the design of VLSI digital signal
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`processors.
`
`8.
`
`I have developed and taught undergraduate and graduate courses in
`
`hardware and software design for signal processing and wireless communication
`
`circuits at Georgia Tech for the past twenty years. I graduated more than 20 Ph.D.
`
`students that now work as professors or in technical positions around the world.
`
`9.
`
`I have been an active consultant to industry and various research
`
`laboratories (including Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) Lincoln
`
`Labs and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory). I have founded
`
`three companies in the areas of embedded software, military chipsets involving
`
`imaging technology, and wireless communications. I have supervised the Ph.D.
`
`dissertations of over twenty engineers in the areas of computer engineering, signal
`
`processing, communications,
`
`rapid prototyping, and system-level design
`
`methodology, five of which have resulted in thesis prizes or paper awards.
`
`10. My consulting work for MIT Lincoln Labs involved high resolution
`
`imaging for defense applications, where I worked in the area of prototyping
`
`complex and specialized computing systems. My consulting work for Johns
`
`Hopkins Applied Physics Lab (“APL”) mainly involved localization of objects in
`
`image fields, where I worked on identifying targets in video and other sensor fields
`
`
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 8 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`and identifying computer architectures and circuits for power and space-efficient
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`designs.
`
`11.
`
`I have developed wireless baseband and protocol stack software and
`
`assembly code for a leading telecommunications handset vendor that focused on
`
`efficient realization of speech codecs and echo-cancellation.
`
`12. The first of the companies I founded, VP Technologies, offers
`
`products in the area of semiconductor integrated circuits, including building
`
`computing systems for helicopter imaging systems for the United States Air Force.
`
`I remain a director of VP Technologies. The second of these companies, Soft
`
`Networks, LLC, offers software for multimedia and wireless computing platforms,
`
`including the development of a set-top box for Intel that decodes MPEG-2 video
`
`streams and imaging codes for multimedia phones. The technology involved with
`
`the design, development, and implementation of the Intel set-top box included
`
`parsing the bit streams, decoding communications protocols, extracting image and
`
`video data, and then processing for subsequent display or storage. The third of
`
`these companies, Elastic Video, uses region-of-interest based video encoding or
`
`decoding for capturing high quality video at very low bit rates, with primary
`
`application for wireless video systems.
`
`13.
`
`I have been active in the area of 4G-related communications in several
`
`areas of technologies, including orthogonal frequency division multiplexing
`
`
`
`9
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 9 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`(OFDM)-multiple input multiple output (MIMO) communications systems for
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`several years, and some of my publications in this area include “Frequency
`
`Dependent Space-Interleaving of MIMO OFDM Systems,” Proc. IEEE Radio and
`
`Wireless Conference (RAWCON ’03), 2003; “Embedded Alamouti Space Time
`
`Codes for High Rate and Low Decoding Complexity”, Proc. Of IEEE Asilomar
`
`Conf. on Signals, Systems and Computers, 2008; and “Asymmetric Golden Codes
`
`for Fast Decoding in Time Varying Channels”, Wireless Personal Communications
`
`(2011).
`
`14.
`
`I have authored or co-authored several books, including VLSI Digital
`
`Signal Processors (IEEE Press 1995) and the Digital Signal Processing Handbook
`
`(CRC Press, 1998). I am Editor of the three-volume DSP Handbook set (Volume 1:
`
`Digital Signal Processing Fundamentals; Volume 2: Video, Speech, and Audio
`
`Signal Processing and Associated Standards; and Volume 3: Wireless,
`
`Networking, Radar, Sensory Array Processing, and Nonlinear Signal Processing),
`
`which was published in 2010 by CRC Press in Boca Raton, Florida.
`
`15. Additional representative peer-reviewed publications in the area of
`
`wireless communications are the following: (i) Turkboylari, M. and Madisetti,
`
`V.K., “Effect of Handoff Delay on System Performance of TDMA Cellular
`
`Systems,” 4th International Workshop, Mobile & Wireless Communication
`
`Network, pp. 411-415, 2002;
`
`(ii)
`
`Jatunov, L. and Madisetti, V.K.,
`
`
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 10 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`“Computationally-Efficient SNR Estimation for Bandlimited Wideband CDMA
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, Issue 12, pp. 3480-
`
`3491, December 2006, and (iii) N. Radia, Y. Zhang, M. Tatipamula, V. Madisetti,
`
`“Next Generation Applications on Cellular Networks: Trends, Challenges, and
`
`Solutions,” Proceedings on IEEE, vol. 100, Issue 4, pp. 841-854, April 2012.
`
`16.
`
`I am knowledgeable and familiar with standards related to the wireless
`
`and telecommunications systems industry, and as shown in Ex. 1004, some of my
`
`papers describe the application of these standards in optimizing design and testing
`
`of these systems. I am also knowledgeable and familiar with microprocessor
`
`architecture and associated software and firmware design for wireless and
`
`telecommunications terminals and base stations. In addition, since 2017, I have
`
`been Georgia Tech’s official representative to the Third Generation Partnership
`
`Project (3GPP), a standards body responsible for the development of wireless
`
`standards. In this role, I represent European Telecommunications Standards
`
`Institute (ETSI) member Georgia Tech in several task forces for the development
`
`of 5G technology and will attend in-person meetings regarding the same later this
`
`year (2018).
`
`17.
`
`I have designed several specialized computer and communication
`
`systems over the past two decades at Georgia Tech for tasks including wireless
`
`audio and video processing and protocol processing for portable platforms, like
`
`
`
`11
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 11 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`cell phones and Person Digital Assistants. I have worked on designing systems that
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`are efficient from a performance, size, weight, area, and thermal point of view. I
`
`have developed courses and classes for the industry on these topics, and many of
`
`my lectures in advanced computer system design, developed under the sponsorship
`
`of the United States Department of Defense in the late 1990’s, are available for
`
`educational use at http://www.eda.org/rassp. These lectures have been used by
`
`several U.S. and international universities as part of their course work. Some of my
`
`recent publications in the area of design of wireless communications systems and
`
`associated protocols are listed in Ex. 1004.
`
`18.
`
`In conjunction with a leading telecom vendor in Asia, through a joint
`
`venture called Soft Networks (“SN”), LLC in Atlanta in the late 1990’s and early
`
`2000’s, I collaborated with a team of engineers to support mobile and wireless
`
`services offerings in India. These involved the design and development of
`
`micropayment services for mobile phones, design of smartphones, soft switches,
`
`and telecom customer billing and fraud detection algorithms that included
`
`establishment of secure sessions and privileged access to customer account and
`
`billing data.
`
`19.
`
`I have proposed several draft proposals for standards to the Internet
`
`Engineering Task Force (“IETF”) in the area of VOIP and Voice/Video streaming
`
`over the internet, including, “A Transport Layer Technology for Improving QoS of
`
`
`
`12
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 12 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Networked Multimedia Applications,”
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`IETF Draft,
`
`July
`
`25,
`
`2002
`
`(http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-madisettiargyriou-qos-sctp-00.pdf); “Voice & Video
`
`Over Mobile IP Networks,” IETF Draft, May 2002, (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
`
`madisetti-argyriou-voice-video-mip-00); and “Enhancements to ECRTP with
`
`Applications to Robust Header Compression for Wireless,” January 2003, IETF
`
`Draft, (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-madisetti-rao-suresh-rohc-00).
`
`20.
`
`I have been elected a Fellow of the IEEE. The Fellow is the highest
`
`grade of membership of the IEEE, a world professional body consisting of over
`
`300,000 electrical and electronics engineers, with only one-tenth of one percent
`
`(0.1%) of the IEEE membership being elected to the Fellow grade each
`
`year. Election to Fellow is based upon votes cast by existing Fellows in IEEE.
`
`21.
`
`I have also been awarded the 2006 Frederick Emmons Terman Medal
`
`by the American Society of Engineering Education for contributions to Electrical
`
`Engineering, including authoring a widely used textbook in the design of VLSI
`
`digital signal processors. I was awarded the VHDL International Best PhD
`
`Dissertation Advisor Award in 1997 and the NSF Research Initiation Award in
`
`1990. I was Technical Program Chair for both the IEEE MASCOTS in 1994 and
`
`the IEEE Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation in 1990. In 1989 I was
`
`recognized with the Ira Kay IEEE/ACM Best Paper Award for Best Paper
`
`presented at the IEEE Annual Simulation Symposium.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 13 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`22.
`
`In view of the above and my curriculum vitae in Ex. 1004, I had (i) a
`
`Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering; (ii) over ten years lecturing at the college
`
`level on
`
`the
`
`topic of electrical engineering,
`
`including digital wireless
`
`communications; and (iii) several years of experience in the design and
`
`development of digital wireless communication systems prior to the earliest
`
`priority date of the ’357 patent. Thus, as of the earliest possible priority date of the
`
`’357 patent (i.e., May 2, 2006), I was at least a person of ordinary skill in the art of
`
`the ’357 patent (Section IV, infra), and I had direct personal knowledge of the
`
`technologies involved in the ’357 patent.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill may be reflected by the
`
`prior art of record and that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) to
`
`which the claimed subject matter pertains would have the capability of
`
`understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent
`
`art.
`
`24.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention, (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology, (3) the types of problems encountered in the field,
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 14 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the earliest possible priority date
`
`for the ’357 Patent is May 2, 2006. I am familiar with the wireless communications
`
`art pertinent to the ’357 Patent. I am also aware of the state of the art at the time
`
`the application resulting in the ’357 Patent was filed. Based on the technologies
`
`disclosed in the ’357 Patent, I believe that a POSITA would include someone who
`
`had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer
`
`science or similar field, and three to five years of experience in digital
`
`communications systems, such as wireless communications systems and networks,
`
`or equivalent, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`computer science or similar field, and at least two years of work or research
`
`experience in digital communications systems, such as wireless communications
`
`systems and networks, or equivalent. Moreover, I recognize that someone with
`
`more technical education but less experience could have also met this standard. I
`
`believe that I possessed and exceeded such experience and knowledge before and
`
`at the earliest claimed priority date and that I am qualified to opine on the ’357
`
`Patent.
`
`26. For the purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field before the earliest
`
`
`
`15
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 15 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`priority date of the ’357 Patent.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`27.
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ’357 Patent, I am relying on certain basic
`
`legal principles that counsel have explained to me. These principles are presented
`
`below.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`A. Obviousness
`
`29.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims
`
`11-14, 19, 30-33, 38, 47-50, and 54 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’357 Patent
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention, in light
`
`of the prior art.
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that a claim preamble may or may not limit the
`
`claim scope. For the purposes of this Inter Partes Review, I have been informed to
`
`include the preamble in the analysis for obviousness in order to follow a
`
`conservative approach.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claimed invention is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and
`
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to
`
`
`
`16
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 16 of 96
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
` POSITA at the time the invention was made. I understand that the obviousness
`
`
`
`
` a
`
`analysis takes into account factual inquiries, including the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior
`
`art and the claimed subject matter.
`
`32.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success when there is a design need or market pressure
`
`to solve a problem; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art
`
`that would have led a POSITA to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior
`
`art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`33. Also, I have been informed and understand that obviousness does not
`
`require physical combination/bodily incorporation, but rather consideration of what
`
`
`
`17
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 17 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`the combined teachings would have suggested to a POSITA at the time of the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`alleged invention.
`
`
`
`B. Claim Interpretation in Inter Partes Review
`
`34.
`
`I understand that one step in determining the validity of a claim is for the
`
`claim to be properly construed.
`
`35. For purposes of Inter Partes Review, I understand that each challenged
`
`claim must be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification. I
`
`am informed that broadest reasonable construction standard dictates that claim terms be
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure of the patent, unless the
`
`inventor, as a lexicographer, has set forth a special meaning for a term. To the extent
`
`the claims and specification do not resolve the meaning of a claim term, the
`
`prosecution history should be consulted in construing claim terms. Additionally, claim
`
`terms are normally not interpreted in such a way that exclude embodiments disclosed in
`
`the specification, except in cases of clear disclaimer in the specification or prosecution
`
`history.
`
`36.
`
` I have been further informed that there is another standard referred to as
`
`the Phillips standard, and that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is considering
`
`changing the claim construction standard to the Phillips standard, potentially during the
`
`pendency of this IPR. I have been informed that the Phillips standard also dictates that
`
`
`
`18
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 18 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`the claim terms be given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`by one of ordinary skill in the art. I have been informed that the Phillips standard
`
`dictates that claim construction begins with the claim language itself, further informed
`
`by the intrinsic evidence of the specification and the prosecution history. In my analysis
`
`below, I look to the claim language first, followed by the intrinsic evidence including
`
`the specification, such that the conclusions I arrive at would not be different between
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation and the so-called Philips standard.
`
`V. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
`
`A. Wireless Network Elements
`37. Wireless cellular communication
`
`relies upon mobile devices
`
`communicating with fixed transceiver stations, sometimes referred to as base
`
`stations, situated within cells (i.e., geographic regions demarcated as cells). See,
`
`e.g., Rappaport, p. 14. The fixed transceiver stations convey information between
`
`the mobile devices and a core network, which is part of the cellular network. Id.
`
`The core network, in turn, communicates with one or more other networks to reach
`
`an end destination. Id.
`
`38. The mobile devices in cellular networks have been referred to as “user
`
`equipment,” or “UE.” TR25.813, p. 8; Holma, p. xxii. A UE is the interface for a
`
`user to the network; examples of UEs include mobile phones, laptop computers
`
`equipped with cellular modems, and tablets equipped with cellular modems. The
`
`
`
`19
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 19 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`fixed transceiver stations have been referred to as “NodeBs.” Holma, p. 53. It was
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`known to POSITAs that “NodeBs” are examples of base stations.
`
`39. Wireless cellular communication continues to evolve. In the 2006
`
`time
`
`frame, one phase of continued development of wireless cellular
`
`communication under discussion and development was referred to as “long term
`
`evolution” or “LTE.” Ekström, p. 38. LTE provided a pathway for transitioning
`
`wireless cellular communication to networks that would provide increased
`
`bandwidth and speed. Id. With this evolution, “NodeBs” are referred to as
`
`“evolved NodeBs,” “eNodeBs,” or “E-UTRAN NodeBs.” TR25.813, p. 8.
`
`40. UEs communicate with eNodeBs over a wireless interface to reach
`
`their destinations over a core network. The eNodeBs provide user and control
`
`plane termination to the UEs. The eNodeBs interface to the core network as well.
`
`One component of a core network being considered in LTE was an access gateway
`
`(“aGW”). The aGW being considered in LTE had multiple functions, including
`
`paging origination and idle mode management. See TR25.813, p. 11; Ekström, pp.
`
`39-40. The figure below illustrates an eNodeB and aGW with aspects of the radio
`
`interface protocol:
`
`
`
`20
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 20 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`TR25.813, p. 10
`
`
`
`Paging in Wireless Networks
`B.
`41. Paging is a well-known tool in wireless cellular networks used to
`
`reach UEs with messages directed to the UEs, when the UEs are in an idle state
`
`waiting to receive a message, such as a phone call. Paging has existed in some
`
`form to serve this purpose for decades. For example, in the technologies known in
`
`the mid-1990’s, it was known for “every phone [to] scan[] the same [control]
`
`
`
`21
`
`Ex. 1003 / Page 21 of 96
`
`

`

`
`
`
`channels while idle.” Rappaport, p. 16. When a call was placed to a mobile phone,
`
`Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,682,357
`
`a wireless network component sent a request to base stations in the cellular
`
`network, and the base stations in turn would broadcast an identifying value for the
`
`phone (the mobile identification number at that time) “as a paging message” on the
`
`control channels. Id. The phone, upon receiving the paging message, would
`
`respond to the base station from which it received the paging message and
`
`handshaking would continue between the base station and phone to establish