UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,229,586
`Case No. IPR2021-00964
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. STEPHEN B. WICKER
`
`-1-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 1
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 5
`EDUCATION BACKGROUND, PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, AND
`OTHER QUALIFICATIONS.......................................................................... 5
`III. ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED ................................. 10
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ............................................................ 12
`V.
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................. 16
`VI. THE ’375 PATENT’S EFFECTIVE FILING DATE ................................... 17
`VII. THE ’586 PATENT ....................................................................................... 18
`A.
`Technological Background ................................................................. 18
`1.
`Information Transmission .........................................................18
`2.
`Local Area Networks ................................................................21
`3.
`802.11/WiFi ..............................................................................22
`4. Wireless Mesh Networks ..........................................................27
`B. Overview of the ’586 Patent ................................................................ 29
`C.
`Prosecution History of the ’586 Patent ............................................... 32
`D.
`The ’586 Patent’s Claims .................................................................... 33
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 40
`A.
`Claim Preambles .................................................................................. 41
`B.
`“Reset element” ................................................................................... 45
`C.
`“Preamble Portion”.............................................................................. 47
`D. Other Terms ......................................................................................... 48
`IX. UNPATENTABILITY ANALYSIS ............................................................. 48
`A. Overview of the Prior Art .................................................................... 49
`1.
`Baker .........................................................................................49
`
`-2-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 2
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`2. Marman .....................................................................................58
`3.
`Bruckert .....................................................................................62
`4. McMillian ..................................................................................64
`5. Shoemake ..................................................................................................65
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1, 5, 8-9, and 14-15 Are Obvious Over Baker and
`Bruckert ............................................................................................... 66
`1.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................67
`2.
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................87
`3.
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................89
`4.
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................90
`5.
`Claim 14 ....................................................................................91
`6.
`Claim 15 ....................................................................................92
`C. Ground 2: Claims 2-5, 7, 10-12, 16, 18, and 20 Are Obvious Over
`Baker and Bruckert in Further View of McMillin .............................. 93
`1.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................94
`2.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................95
`3.
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................96
`4.
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................96
`5.
`Claim 10 ....................................................................................98
`6.
`Claim 11 ....................................................................................98
`7.
`Claim 12 ....................................................................................99
`8.
`Claim 16 ....................................................................................99
`9.
`Claim 18 ..................................................................................100
`10. Claim 20 ..................................................................................100
`11. Motivation to Combine ...........................................................101
`D. Ground 3: Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-16, 18 and 20 Are Obvious Over
`Marman and Shoemake ..................................................................... 103
`
`-3-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 3
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`Claim 1 ....................................................................................104
`1.
`Claim 2 ....................................................................................116
`2.
`Claim 3 ....................................................................................117
`3.
`Claim 4 ....................................................................................118
`4.
`Claim 5 ....................................................................................118
`5.
`Claim 7 ....................................................................................119
`6.
`Claim 8 ....................................................................................120
`7.
`Claim 9 ....................................................................................122
`8.
`Claim 10 ..................................................................................123
`9.
`10. Claim 11 ..................................................................................124
`11. Claim 12 ..................................................................................124
`12. Claim 14 ..................................................................................125
`13. Claim 15 ..................................................................................125
`14. Claim 16 ..................................................................................126
`15. Claim 18 ..................................................................................127
`16. Claim 20 ..................................................................................128
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ............................... 128
`
`E.
`
`-4-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 4
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`I, Dr. Stephen B. Wicker declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained by Sonos, Inc. (“Sonos”) as an independent
`
`expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“PTO”). I am not an employee of Sonos or any affiliate or subsidiary of
`
`Sonos.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether certain references teach or
`
`suggest the features recited in certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,229,586, which
`
`I refer to herein as the ’586 patent.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`My opinions and the bases for my opinions are set forth below.
`
`I am being compensated at my ordinary and customary rate of $800
`
`per hour for my work, plus reimbursement for any reasonable expenses. My
`
`compensation is based solely on the amount of time that I devote to activity related
`
`to this case and is in no way contingent on the nature of my findings, the
`
`presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this or any other
`
`proceeding. I have no other financial interest in this proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`EDUCATION BACKGROUND, PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE,
`AND OTHER QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`My curriculum vitae (“CV”) is attached hereto as Attachment A and
`
`provides an accurate identification of my background and experience.
`
`-5-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 5
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`6.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from the University of Virginia in 1982. In 1983, I received a Master of Science
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering from Purdue University, and in 1987, I received a
`
`Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Southern California. My
`
`doctoral studies focused on the theory of sequences and error control codes for
`
`digital communication systems.
`
`7.
`
`From May 1982 to August 1983, I worked for the Network
`
`Architecture Research Group of Bell Laboratories, in Columbus, Ohio. While with
`
`Bell Laboratories, I worked on digital switching systems for the messages that
`
`control the telephone network. From August 1983 through September 1987, I was
`
`a System Engineer for the Space and Communications Group of the Hughes
`
`Aircraft Company, in El Segundo, California. While at Hughes Aircraft, I
`
`designed and developed wireless communication payloads for commercial,
`
`military, and NASA spacecraft. My work at Hughes included acting as the
`
`Principal System Engineer for new business in advanced satellite systems.
`
`8.
`
`From September 1987 through June 1996, I was a member of the
`
`faculty of the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Georgia Tech.
`
`Since July 1, 1996, I have been a member of the faculty of the School of Electrical
`
`and Computer Engineering at Cornell University, where I teach and conduct
`
`-6-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 6
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`research in wired and wireless information networks, digital telephony,
`
`information theory, security, and privacy.
`
`9.
`
`I have consulted extensively in the telecommunications industry,
`
`working with Motorola, Lockheed, Integrated Device Technologies, Unisys, Texas
`
`Instruments, and other corporations to develop advanced technologies for their
`
`telecommunications products. This experience includes extensive work with
`
`wireless transceivers and information networks, with an emphasis on mobile
`
`messaging networks and cellular telephony.
`
`10. My current research focuses on wireless and wired communication
`
`networks, with an emphasis on network security and privacy.
`
`11.
`
`I have written and/or edited six books and roughly two hundred fifty
`
`journal and conference papers, most of which focus on digital communication
`
`systems and information networks. My most recent book, entitled Cellular
`
`Convergence and the Death of Privacy, was published by Oxford University Press
`
`in 2013. I am also the author of Error Control Systems for Digital
`
`Communications and Storage (Prentice Hall, 1995), which has been adopted as a
`
`text for courses around the world. I am the co-author of Reed-Solomon Codes and
`
`their Applications, published in 1994 by the IEEE Press; Turbo Coding, published
`
`in November 1998 by Kluwer Academic Press; and Fundamentals of Codes,
`
`Graphs, and Iterative Decoding, published in 2002 by Kluwer Academic Press.
`
`-7-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 7
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`12.
`
`I am the author of numerous papers on WiFi, cellular systems,
`
`security, and their underlying technologies. The following are examples:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Andrea Goldsmith And Stephen B. Wicker, “Design Challenges For
`Energy-Constrained Ad Hoc Wireless Networks,” IEEE Wireless
`Communications Magazine, August, 2002.
`Allen B. MacKenzie and Stephen B. Wicker, “Game Theory and the
`Design of Self-Configuring, Adaptive Wireless Networks,” IEEE
`Communications Magazine, November 2001.
`Bhaskar Krishnamachari and Stephen B. Wicker, “Global Search
`Techniques
`for Problems
`in Mobile Communications,”
`in
`Telecommunications Optimization: Adaptive
`and Heuristic
`Approaches, Eds. David Corne et al., John Wiley & Sons Publishers,
`October 2000.
`Wicker, S. B., Error Control Systems for Digital Communication and
`Storage, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1995.
`
`13. A complete list of my publications is contained in my CV (attachment
`
`A to this declaration).
`
`14.
`
`I am a named inventor on the following patents.
`
`
`
`
`
`Wicker, S.B., “Private Overlay for Information Networks”, U.S.
`Patent No. 9,813,233, 7 November, 2017 – assigned to Cornell
`University.
`
`Ober, C.K., O'Rourke, T.D., Spencer, M.G., Turner, J.N., Wicker,
`S.B., “Flexible Substrate Sensor System For Environmental And
`
`-8-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 8
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`Infrastructure Monitoring”, U.S. Patent No. 8,701,469, 22 April 2014
`– assigned to Cornell University.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fontaine, F. and Wicker, S.B., “Method and Apparatus for Turbo
`Decoding Block Codes”, U.S. Patent 7,243,288, 10 July 2007 –
`assigned to Motorola Inc.
`
`Wicker, S.B. and Fine, T.L., “Sensor-Assisted ALOHA Multiple
`Access”, U.S. Patent No. 6,404,750, 11 June 2002 – assigned to
`Cornell University.
`
`Wang, X.A. and Wicker, S. B., “Artificial Neural Network Viterbi
`Decoding System and Method,” U.S. Patent No. 5,548,684, 20
`August, 1996 – assigned to Georgia Tech Research Corporation.
`
`15.
`
`I have served as an Associate Editor for the IEEE Transactions on
`
`Communications and the ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks. I was twice
`
`elected to the Board of Governors of the IEEE Information Theory Society. I have
`
`also edited several special issues for a variety of journals and technical magazines,
`
`and served a three-year term on the Information Science and Technology Panel for
`
`the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This panel is
`
`responsible for technology assessment for the U.S. Department of Defense. My
`
`DARPA duties included leading a one-year study on wireless sensor networks. In
`
`2010, I was appointed to the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board.
`
`16.
`
`From 2005 – 2018 I served as the Cornell University Principal
`
`Investigator for the TRUST Science and Technology Center – a National Science
`
`-9-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 9
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`Foundation center dedicated to the development of technologies for securing the
`
`nation’s critical infrastructure.
`
`17.
`
`In 2011, I was named a Fellow of the IEEE for contributions to
`
`wireless information systems. In 2014 I briefed the staff of the National Economic
`
`Council at the White House on the subject of privacy-aware designs for cellular
`
`and the smart grid. In 2020 I received a $1.5 million grant from the National
`
`Science Foundation to explore the use of wireless technologies to extend
`
`broadband Internet service to underserved communities.
`
`18.
`
`I have taught wireless technology to thousands of students at Georgia
`
`Tech and Cornell over the past thirty-plus years. I have been the recipient of four
`
`Cornell University College of Engineering faculty teaching awards.
`
`III. ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`19.
`I have been asked to provide analysis and explain the subject matter of
`
`the ’586 patent, including the state of the art when the ’586 patent application was
`
`filed. I have also been asked to consider, analyze, and explain certain prior art to
`
`the ’586 patent including how that art relates to the challenged claims of the ’586
`
`patent and to provide my opinions regarding whether that art invalidates the
`
`claimed subject matter.
`
`20.
`
`The opinions expressed in this declaration are not exhaustive of
`
`opinions I may offer in the future regarding the unpatentability of the claims of
`
`-10-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 10
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`the ’586 patent. Therefore, the fact that I do not address a particular point should
`
`not be understood to indicate an agreement on my part that any claim complies
`
`with the requirements of any applicable patent or other rule.
`
`21.
`
`I reserve the right to amend and supplement this declaration in light of
`
`additional evidence, arguments, or testimony presented during this IPR or related
`
`proceedings on the ’586 patent.
`
`22.
`
`In forming the opinions set forth in this declaration, I have considered
`
`and relied upon my education, knowledge of the relevant field, knowledge of
`
`scientific and engineering principles, and my experience. I have also reviewed and
`
`considered the ’586 patent (Exhibit 1001), its prosecution history (Exhibit 1002),
`
`and the following additional materials:
`
`Exhibit
`1004
`
`Description
`U.S. Publication No. 2006/0120433 A1 to Baker et al.
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/518,327
`
`WO 00/21053A1 to Marman et al.
`
`EP 0 416 732 B1 to Bruckert et al.
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2002/0122413 A1 to Shoemake
`
`File History of U.S. App. 15/601,705
`
`File History of U.S. App. 15/090,973
`
`Excerpt from the Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards
`Terms, Seventh Edition (2000)
`
`-11-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 11
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Redline comparison of the specifications of U.S. Publication No.
`2006/0120433 A1 to Baker et al. and U.S. Provisional App. No.
`60/518,327.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,585,906 to Matthews et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,493,824 to Novoa et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,496,858 to Frailong et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,773 to McMillin
`
`IEEE 802.11 Specification (1999 Edition)
`
`IEEE 802.11a Specification (1999 Edition, R2003)
`
`Akyildiz et. al., “Wireless Mesh Networks: A Survey,” Computer
`Networks (2004)
`
`Beckman et al., “Use of mobile mesh networks for inter-vehicular
`communication,” 2003 IEEE 58th Vehicular Technology
`Conference (VTC 2003-Fall)
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`23.
`I am not an attorney, but have been instructed in and applied the law
`
`as described in this section.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the first step in comparing an asserted claim to the
`
`prior art is for the claim to be properly construed. I address how a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claims of the alleged invention
`
`in Section 0 below.
`
`25.
`
`I have been further instructed and understand that a patent claim is
`
`unpatentable and invalid as obvious if the subject matter of the claim as a whole
`
`-12-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 12
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of the claimed
`
`subject matter as of the time of the invention at issue. I understand that when
`
`assessing the obviousness of claimed subject matter, the following factors are
`
`evaluated: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the difference or
`
`differences between each claim of the patent and the prior art; and (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that claimed subject matter may be obvious in view of
`
`more than one item of prior art. I understand, however, that it is not enough to
`
`show simply that all the limitations of the claimed subject matter are spread
`
`throughout the prior art. Instead, for claimed subject matter to be obvious over
`
`multiple references, there must be some reason or motivation for one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to combine the prior art references to arrive at the claimed subject
`
`matter.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed that, in seeking to determine whether an
`
`invention that is a combination of known elements would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, one must consider
`
`the references in their entirety to ascertain whether the disclosures in those
`
`references render the combination obvious to such a person.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed and understand that, while not required, the
`
`prior art references themselves may provide a teaching, suggestion, motivation, or
`
`-13-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 13
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`reason to combine, but other times the motivation linking two or more prior art
`
`references is common sense to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious by
`
`showing that it was obvious to try the combination. I have been informed that, if a
`
`technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
`
`using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her
`
`skill.
`
`30.
`
`I further understand that an obviousness analysis recognizes that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references also may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace. For example, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve
`
`a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a
`
`person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or
`
`her technical grasp because the result is likely the product not of innovation but of
`
`ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed that the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
`
`yield predictable results. Thus, where all of the elements of a claim are used in
`
`-14-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 14
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`substantially the same manner, in devices in the same field of endeavor, the claim
`
`is likely obvious.
`
`32. Additionally, I understand that a patent is likely to be invalid for
`
`obviousness if a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation or if
`
`there existed at the time of the invention a known problem for which there was an
`
`obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims. Therefore, when a work is
`
`available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can
`
`prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one.
`
`33.
`
`I further understand that combining embodiments related to each other
`
`in a single prior art reference would not ordinarily require a leap of inventiveness.
`
`34.
`
`I also understand that one of ordinary skill in the art must have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success when combining references for claimed subject
`
`matter to be obvious.
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed and I understand that factors referred to as
`
`“objective indicia of non-obviousness” or “secondary considerations” are also to
`
`be considered when assessing obviousness when such evidence is available. I
`
`understand that these factors can include: (1) commercial success; (2) long-felt but
`
`unresolved needs; (3) copying of the invention by others in the field; (4) initial
`
`expressions of disbelief by experts in the field; (5) failure of others to solve the
`
`problem the claimed subject matter solved; and (6) unexpected results.
`
`-15-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 15
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`36.
`
`I also understand that evidence of objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. I
`
`further understand that there must be a relationship, sometimes referred to as a
`
`“nexus,” between any such secondary indicia and the claimed invention.
`
`37.
`
`Finally, I have been informed that one cannot use hindsight to
`
`determine that an invention was obvious.
`
`38.
`
`I provide my opinions in this declaration based on the guidelines set
`
`forth above.
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`39.
`I have been informed and understand that the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the relevant art at the time of the invention is relevant to inquiries such as the
`
`meaning of claim terms, the meaning of disclosures found in the prior art, and the
`
`reasons one of ordinary skill in the art may have for combining references.
`
`40.
`
`I have been informed and understand that factors that may be
`
`considered in determining the level of ordinary skill include: (1) the education of
`
`the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions
`
`to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication
`
`of the technology; and (6) education level of active workers in the relevant field. I
`
`have been further informed and understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`is also a person of ordinary creativity.
`
`-16-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 16
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`41. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention would have had at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering or
`
`Computer Science (or an equivalent field), with at least two years of experience
`
`developing wireless sensor systems. This person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have been, in my opinion, aware of and generally knowledgeable about the types
`
`of components found in wireless networks, communication protocols, packet
`
`structure, and industry standards and best practices that were known and available
`
`at the time the ’586 patent was filed.
`
`42.
`
`In view of my educational background (e.g. a Ph.D. in Electrical
`
`Engineering obtained in 1987) and decades of experience with wireless networks
`
`in general and wireless sensor networks in particular, as discussed in Section II, I
`
`was a person of more than the ordinary level of skill in the art as of May 2004. In
`
`forming my opinion, I have drawn on my academic background and professional
`
`experiences. My opinions herein, however, were formed while taking into account
`
`the perspective of an ordinarily skilled artisan.
`
`VI. THE ’375 PATENT’S EFFECTIVE FILING DATE
`43.
`I understand that the application leading to the ’586 patent was filed
`
`on May 13, 2018.
`
`-17-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 17
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`44. Based on my review of the ’586 patent, I note that it also makes
`
`reference back through a chain of continuation applications to a May 27, 2004
`
`filing.
`
`45.
`
`For purposes of this declaration, I have been instructed to use May 27,
`
`2004 as the effective filing date of the ’586 patent. My opinions in this declaration
`
`were formed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art as of May
`
`27, 2004, including both the knowledge of a person or ordinary skill in the art at
`
`that time as well as how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`the prior art.
`
`VII. THE ’586 PATENT
`A.
`Technological Background
`1.
`Information Transmission
`46. A digital communication system supports the transmission and
`
`reception of information using digital signals (signals that represent data as a
`
`sequence of discrete values, often as a series of bits).
`
`47. Digital communication systems organize transmissions into
`
`“packets.”1 By using packets, a transmission can be broken up into blocks of
`
`appropriate size for transmission.
`
`1 Some systems use the term “frames,” while others use “cells.” There are
`distinctions than can be drawn between frames, cells, and packets, but they are not
`necessary here. I will use the term “packet” in a general sense.
`
`-18-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 18
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`48. At the receiving side, the receiver must know how to “read” and
`
`“interpret” the packets to reproduce the transmitted information.
`
`49.
`
`Packets are contiguous collections of bits in which the position of the
`
`bits within the packet indicate how the bits are to be interpreted. A typical packet
`
`is divided up into “fields.” If one knows the packet format, one can partition a
`
`received string of bits into the appropriate fields and interpret the bits accordingly.
`
`You can think of an envelope in the postal service as an example of a packet in the
`
`physical world. You know to look at the bottom right corner of the front of the
`
`envelope to find the destination address. You know to look at the top left corner to
`
`find the return (or source) address. And the information that is being sent—the
`
`letter—is inside the envelope.
`
`50. Digital packets work in a similar fashion. The destination and source
`
`addresses are placed in a particular, known location, as is the information that is
`
`actually being transmitted. An example packet is shown in the figure below. The
`
`“Information” field in the packet represents the actual message—the information
`
`that is being transmitted. This field is also sometimes referred to as the “Payload.”
`
`The rest of the fields of the packet constitute “overhead” —additional information
`
`that the network uses to reliably transfer the packet from its source to its
`
`destination. The fields between the start of the packet and the Information or
`
`Payload are often referred to as the “Header.”
`
`-19-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 19
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`51. Returning to the postal service analogy, the postal system uses the
`
`addresses on the envelope to route the letter to the intended recipient (or back to
`
`us, if the letter cannot be delivered as addressed). At a high level, a digital network
`
`uses the source and destination addresses of a packet in a similar way.
`
`52. An individual packet—even if it is one of several packets that make
`
`up a single transmission—is self-contained in that it has all of the information
`
`needed by the network to forward the packet to its destination. As a result, packets
`
`that make up a single transmission may take different routes between source and
`
`destination.2 More importantly, packets from different transmissions (e.g. different
`
`phone calls) may share the same route. Figure 2 below illustrates two
`
`transmissions: first, A is communicating with D. The packets in that transmission
`
`are labeled “1.” Second, B is communicating with C. The packets of that
`
`2 Imagine using the postal service to ship several boxes to someone across the
`country. The source and destination addresses are the same on all the boxes, but
`there is nothing requiring that each box travel in the same truck, or even along the
`same route, as the others.
`
`-20-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 20
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`transmission are labeled “2.” Note that 1’s and 2’s can share the same path. Note
`
`also that not all 1’s take the same path as each other (and similar to 2’s).
`
`Local Area Networks
`2.
`53. One of ordinary skill would have understood that local area networks
`
`(LANs) as of May 2004 employed wired (e.g. Ethernet) and/or wireless (e.g. WiFi)
`
`data communication.
`
`54.
`
`Ethernet is a wired LAN technology that is well-known to the public.
`
`The original Ethernet network was constructed by the Xerox Corporation in 1976.
`
`It consisted of over 100 personal workstations connected together on 1 km cable.
`
`The data rate was 2.94 Mbps (million bits per second).
`
`55.
`
`Ethernet is now standardized, though there are many versions. The
`
`most prominent version is the IEEE 802.3 standard for local area networks. This
`
`was originally a 10 Mbps standard developed by Xerox, DEC, and Intel.
`
`56.
`
`There are many other types of wired local area networking standards,
`
`including, for example, token bus (802.4) and token ring (802.5) protocols.
`
`-21-
`
`Sonos Ex. 1003, p. 21
` Sonos v. Google
` IPR2021-00964
`
`

`

`57.
`
`The earliest wireless LAN was the ALOHA system, developed at the
`
`University of Hawaii in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. In the ALOHA system
`
`users transmit whenever they wish. If two users transmit at the same time, they are
`
`said to have “collided.” Both users then wait a random amount of time and then
`
`retransmit. The “random” element is important, as the goal is to have the two users
`
`select different retransmission times, thus avoiding anoth