EXHIBIT 14 

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 1 of 100 PageID #:932
Exhibit 10 - 1

Exhibit 10

U.S. Patent No. 7,548,553

(Exemplary Infringement Position)

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 2 of 100 PageID #:933
Exhibit 10 - 2

U.S. Patent No. 7,548,553 and Defendants’ 802.11-based Wireless LANs (Block ACK Operation)

7,548,553

For example:

Claims 10 and 11, 12, 17, 19 

and 20

Primary standards document for the analysis:

(“BASE DOC”)

Many of the amendments (i.e., 1-8) incorporated into the above document were authored during 

development of later versions of 802.11. For example, 802.11-2007 effectively merges 802.11a, b 

and g.

Regarding 802.11n, see:

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 3 of 100 PageID #:934
Exhibit 10 - 3

Thus, the October 2009 approved amendment expresses relationship between the 802.11n 

amendment and the 2007 version of 802.11.

The following analysis will discuss amendments made to 802.11-2007 by 802.11n-2009, where 

applicable.

Additionally, in the following discussion, original excerpts from the 802.11 standard will be boxed 

with added notations thereon highlighted in red. Discussion of such excerpts will be in unboxed 

plain text.

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 4 of 100 PageID #:935
Exhibit 10 - 4

The following discussion generally concerns the EDCAF (Enhanced Distributed Channel Access 

Function) portion of the HCF, in particular operating on the STA. Though the following discussion 

generally concerns the ECDAF, there is also an infringement position from the perspective from the 

HCCA operating at the AP (access point) of the BSS (basic service set) performing the coordination 

function.

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 5 of 100 PageID #:936
Exhibit 10 - 5

10. A method of 

performing a data 

exchange over a wireless 

communication channel 

between a destination 

device and a sending 

device, the method 

comprising:

In general, a coordination function determines when and how a station (STA) is permitted to transmit

data. A Quality-of-Service (or QoS) system will gain access to the wireless medium and transmit data 

over the wireless medium in accordance with the Hybrid Coordination Function (HCF). For example:

AND

AND

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 6 of 100 PageID #:937
Exhibit 10 - 6

BASE DOC - no 802.11n-2009 amendment

Thus, communicating data in accordance with the 802.11 HCF is an example of the claimed “performing 

a data exchange over a wireless communication channel between a destination device and a sending 

device”.

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 7 of 100 PageID #:938
Exhibit 10 - 7

For the following discussion, note that the standard defines a station (“STA”) as follows:

and defines an Access Point Station (“AP-STA” or “AP”) as a specific type of STA:

There are also Non-Access Point Stations (“non-AP STA”). For example:

Thus, any general STA requirement that does not specify the type of STA to which it applies, generally 

applies to both access points and non-access points.

The standard also defines specialized Quality-of-Service (or QoS) APs and non-APs. For example:

Much of the following discussion will refer to QoS Station (or “QoS STA”) operation.

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 8 of 100 PageID #:939
Exhibit 10 - 8

waiting, by the sending 

device, a period of time 

that is at least as long as a 

first predetermined time 

period and detecting no 

communication on the 

wireless communication 

channel throughout the 

period of time;

Regarding “sending device”:

An 802.11 Quality-of-Service Station (or “QoS STA”) is an example of the claimed “sending device”.

Regarding “waiting, by the sending device, a period of time that is at least as long as a first 

predetermined time period and detecting no communication on the wireless communication 

channel throughout the period of time”:

A QoS STA (or “the sending device”), for example, gains access to the wireless medium in accordance 

with the Hybrid Coordination Function (HCF). In particular, such a QoS STA generally gains access to 

the wireless medium in accordance with the Enhanced Distributed Channel Access Function (EDCAF) of 

the HCF. For example:

AND

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 9 of 100 PageID #:940
Exhibit 10 - 9

During typical non-QoS operation, which is discussed in another infringement chart, in intervals where 

medium access is governed by the DCF (Distributed Coordination Function), a STA (station) listens to 

the channel for at least a DIFS (Distributed [Coordination Function] Interface Space) interval, ensuring 

such channel is clear, before attempting to begin a new communication. In such operation, the DIFS is an 

example of a minimum specified idle duration time.

HOWEVER, the EDCAF, utilized for example by a QoS STA, is different from the DCF (e.g., utilizing a 

minimum specified idle duration time that is selected, based on communication priority, from a set of 

selectable minimum specified idle duration times). In such operation, a particular type of communication 

(e.g., a voice communication, a video communication, etc.) corresponds to a particular respective 

minimum specified idle duration time, or Arbitration InterFrame Space (AIFS). For example:

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 10 of 100 PageID #:941
Exhibit 10 - 10

AND

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

AND 

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 11 of 100 PageID #:942
Exhibit 10 - 11

AND Graphically:

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

Thus, during QoS operation, during which access to and utilization of the communication channel is 

governed by the EDCAF, there are different predetermined AIFS time periods corresponding to 

respective different priority levels of information being communicated. Accordingly, for a given data 

communication, the corresponding AIFS[AC] time period associated with such data communication is an 

example of the claimed “first predetermined time period”.

In the language of the claim, the EDCAF is an example of “waiting, by the sending device [or QoS STA] 

a period of time that is at least as long as a first predetermined time period [or at least as long as the 

AIFS] and detecting no communication on the wireless communication channel throughout the period of 

time”.

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 12 of 100 PageID #:943
Exhibit 10 - 12

after said detecting no 

communication on the 

wireless communication 

channel throughout the 

period of time, 

attempting, by the 

sending device, to initiate 

communication with the 

destination device; 

For example, after the AIFS waiting period discussed above, during which the communication channel 

must be idle, the QoS STA (or “the sending device”) attempts to transmit to another STA (or “the 

destination device”). Such attempted transmission is an example of the claimed “attempting, by the 

sending device, to initiate communication with the destination device”. For example:

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

AND

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 13 of 100 PageID #:944
Exhibit 10 - 13

BASE DOC, § 9.9.1.3 – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

AND

BASE DOC, § 9.9.1.3 – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 14 of 100 PageID #:945
Exhibit 10 - 14

As a more specific example, in a Block Acknowledgment (Block ACK) communication in which a STA 

(or “the sending device”) utilizes the Block Acknowledgment functionality provided by the 802.11 

standard, the initial request by the QoS STA to set-up the Block ACK communication after winning 

EDCA contention (e.g., the transmission of an ADDBA Request) is an example of the claimed 

“attempting ... to initiate communication with the destination device”. For example:

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

AND

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 15 of 100 PageID #:946
Exhibit 10 - 15

BASE DOC – minor 802.11n-2009 amendment (no substantial impact)

AND Graphically:

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 16 of 100 PageID #:947
Exhibit 10 - 16

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 17 of 100 PageID #:948
Exhibit 10 - 17

and if said attempt to initiate 

communication with the 

destination device proves 

successful, then: 

communicating, between the 

sending device and the 

destination device, a series 

of packets, where said 

communicating comprises 

communicating at least one 

of the series of packets 

within a second 

predetermined time period 

that is less than the first 

predetermined time period; 

Generally:

If the “attempt to initiate communication” discussed above is successful (e.g., the originator STA has 

successfully gained access to (and control of) the communication medium, successfully communicated 

the ADDBA Request message to the recipient STA, and received a positive ADDBA Response 

message from the recipient STA indicating successful establishment of a Block ACK communication), 

then a series of packets is communicated between the recipient STA and the originator STA. 

Regarding “if said attempt to initiate communication with the destination device proves 

successful”:

The conditional determination of whether the attempt to initiate communication with the destination 

device proves successful is, for example, satisfied when the originator STA (or “the sending device”) 

receives an ADDBA Response message from the recipient STA (or “the destination device”) indicating 

successful setup of the Block ACK communication desired by the originator STA. For example, see:

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 18 of 100 PageID #:949
Exhibit 10 - 18

BASE DOC – no 802.11-2009 amendment

where the ADDBA Response packet from the recipient STA indicates whether the request for a Block 

ACK communication (i.e., the request corresponding to the ADDBA Request packet discussed above) 

has been granted by the recipient STA. See, for example:

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 19 of 100 PageID #:950
Exhibit 10 - 19

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

where the Status Code field indicates success or failure of the request for a Block ACK 

communication. See:

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 20 of 100 PageID #:951
Exhibit 10 - 20

BASE DOC – no 802.11-2009 amendment

Thus, the Status Code field of the ADDBA Response frame will indicate success or failure of the 

request for a Block ACK communication.

Regarding “..., then: communicating, between the sending device and the destination device, a 

series of packets ...”:

As illustrated in the message flow diagram in Figure 9-21 below, after successful initiation of the Block 

ACK communication with the destination device (e.g., as exemplified by successful communication of

a positive ADDBA Response message from the recipient STA (or “the destination device”) to the 

originator STA (or “the sending device”), the originator STA and the recipient STA communicate a 

series of packets between them. Such operation is an example of the claimed “communicating, 

between the sending device and the destination device, a series of packets”. For example:

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 21 of 100 PageID #:952
Exhibit 10 - 21

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

Such a series of packets, for example, includes the remainder of the packets communicated between the 

originator and recipient STAs during the “(a) Setup” process (e.g., the ACK from the originator STA), 

and the QoS data MPDU packets and BlockAckReq packet communicated during the “(b) Data & 

Block Ack” process. For more information regarding such packets, see, for example:

series of packets

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 22 of 100 PageID #:953
Exhibit 10 - 22

BASE DOC – 802.11n-2009 amendment (no substantial impact)

AND

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 23 of 100 PageID #:954
Exhibit 10 - 23

BASE DOC – minor 802.11n-2009 amendment (no substantial impact)

Regarding “where said communicating comprises communicating at least one of the series of 

packets within a second predetermined time period”:

There are multiple infringement positions with regard to such clause, two examples of which will now 

be presented. 

First exemplary infringement position:

The first exemplary infringement position focuses on communication of the first packet of the 

exemplary “series of packets”, which is the ACK packet transmitted by the originator STA (or “the 

sending device”) following receipt of the ADDBA Response packet by the originator STA.

In such case, the maximum allowable 802.11 Short Interframe Space (SIFS) interval specified by the 

802.11 standard is an example of the claimed “second predetermined time period”. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 24 of 100 PageID #:955
Exhibit 10 - 24

In general, when a STA (or “the sending device”) gains control over the medium for a communication 

(e.g., for a frame exchange sequence), the STA and the second STA with which the STA is 

communicating (or “the destination device”) maintain control over the medium using the SIFS interval 

between transmissions. 

More specifically, during a Block ACK communication, after the successful set-up of the Block ACK 

communication (indicated by a positive ADDBA Response packet, as discussed above), the originator 

STA (or “the sending device”) responds to the ADDBA Response packet from the recipient STA (or 

“the destination device”) with an ACK packet followed by a block of data (or QoS Data MPDU) 

packets, followed by a Block ACK Request (or BlockAckReq) packet. As discussed above, such a 

series of packets is an example of the claimed “series of packets”, the first packet of which being the 

ACK packet following the ADDBA Response packet. For example, graphically: 

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 25 of 100 PageID #:956
Exhibit 10 - 25

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

Communicating such ACK packet by the originator STA (or “the sending device”) to the recipient STA 

(or “the destination device”) must begin at a Short InterFrame Space (SIFS) interval after the ADDBA 

Response packet. For example:

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 26 of 100 PageID #:957
Exhibit 10 - 26

BASE DOC – minor 802.11n-2009 amendment (no substantial impact)

AND

BASE DOC – minor 802.11n-2009 amendment (no substantial impact)

The SIFS interval, while having a nominal value, also has a maximum allowable value that is specified 

by the 802.11 standard. For example:

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 27 of 100 PageID #:958
Exhibit 10 - 27

BASE DOC, § 9.2.3.1 – 802.11n-2009 amendment below

Such maximum allowable value for the SIFS (i.e., the nominal SIFS value plus 10% of a slot time) is 

an example of the claimed “second predetermined time period”, within which communicating the ACK 

packet must be occurring.

Thus, in the language of the claim, “where said communicating comprises communicating at least one 

of the series of packets [communicating the ACK packet following the ADDBA Response packet] 

within a second predetermined time period [within the maximum allowable SIFS interval]”.

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 28 of 100 PageID #:959
Exhibit 10 - 28

Second exemplary infringement position:

The second exemplary infringement position focuses on communication of the block of QoS data 

packets of the claimed “series of packets” (which themselves are examples of the claimed “series of 

packets”), each two consecutive packets of which must be separated by either the SIFS interval or the 

shorter RIFS interval added by 802.11n.

In such case, the maximum allowable 802.11 Short Interframe Space (SIFS) interval specified by the 

802.11 standard is an example of the claimed “second predetermined time period”. 

More specifically, when a STA (or “the sending device”) gains control over the medium for a 

communication (e.g., for a frame exchange sequence), the STA and the second STA with which the 

STA is communicating (or “the destination device”) maintain control over the medium using the SIFS 

interval. For example:

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 29 of 100 PageID #:960
Exhibit 10 - 29

802.11n-2009 amendment

During Block ACK communication, the QoS data frames (e.g., “at least one of the series of packets”) 

will be either separated by such SIFS interval or the recently introduced RIFS interval (smaller than the 

SIFS interval), which was added by the 802.11n-2009 amendment. 

Regarding the SIFS interval, for example:

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 30 of 100 PageID #:961
Exhibit 10 - 30

BASE DOC – minor 802.11n-2009 amendment (no substantial impact)

AND graphically:

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 31 of 100 PageID #:962
Exhibit 10 - 31

BASE DOC – minor 802.11n-2009 amendment (no substantial impact)

Thus, when operating in accordance with 802.11-2007 (without the 802.11-2009 amendments), the 

consecutive packets transmitted by the sending device during a Block ACK communication are 

separated by the SIFS interval. 

SIFS

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 32 of 100 PageID #:963
Exhibit 10 - 32

Regarding the RIFS interval, for example:

The 802.11n-2009 amendment to the standard introduced a new interframe spacing (i.e., the RIFS, 

Reduced InterFrame Space) that is smaller than the SIFS, where the RIFS may optionally be utilized 

between transmissions from a single station (e.g., during a data block transmission). For example:

802.11n-2009 amendment

AND

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 33 of 100 PageID #:964
Exhibit 10 - 33

802.11n-2009 amendment

where Table 20-24 reads, in relevant part:

802.11n-2009 amendment

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 34 of 100 PageID #:965
Exhibit 10 - 34

So transmissions from a single transmitter may be separated by the RIFS instead of the SIFS. During a 

Block-ACK communication, a single transmitter (e.g., the claimed “sending device”) must separate 

consecutive non-ACK’d packets by either the RIFS interval or the SIFS interval. 

Graphically:

BASE DOC – minor 802.11n-2009 amendment (no substantial impact)

SIFS or RIFS

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 35 of 100 PageID #:966
Exhibit 10 - 35

Thus, in 802.11n operation, the consecutive data packets transmitted by the sending device during a 

Block ACK communication may be separated by either of the SIFS interval or the RIFS interval (which 

is shorter than the SIFS interval). 

As discussed above in detail, the SIFS interval, while having a nominal value, also has a maximum

allowable value that is specified by the 802.11 standard. Such maximum allowable value for the SIFS 

(i.e., the nominal SIFS value plus 10% of a slot time) is an example of the claimed “second 

predetermined time period”, within which consecutive data packets of the Block ACK communication 

must occur.

Thus, in the language of the claim, “where said communicating comprises communicating at least one 

of the series of packets [the QoS data packets of the block of data packets] within a second 

predetermined time period [within the maximum allowable SIFS interval]”.

Summarizing:

In either of the two exemplary infringement positions discussed above, the maximum specified SIFS 

interval is an example of the claimed “second predetermined time period”.

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 36 of 100 PageID #:967
Exhibit 10 - 36

Regarding “within a second predetermined time period that is less than the first predetermined time 

period”:

As discussed above, the specified maximum allowable SIFS interval (e.g., the nominal SIFS value plus 

10% of a slot time) is an example of the claimed “second predetermined time period”, and the AIFS 

interval (e.g., any of the AIFS[AC] intervals) is an example of the claimed “first predetermined time 

interval”.

The following discussion will explain that the maximum allowable SIFS interval (e.g., the claimed 

“second predetermined time period”) is less than any of the AIFS[AC] intervals discussed above (e.g., 

the claimed “first predetermined time period”).

Regarding the relationship between the AIFS intervals and the SIFS interval, see:

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 37 of 100 PageID #:968
Exhibit 10 - 37

Since AIFSN[AC] is always at least 1, according to the above formula, AIFS[AC] is always at least 

SIFS plus 1 slot time. Also, as discussed above, the maximum allowable SIFS interval is the nominal 

SIFS value plus 10% of the slot time. Thus, the maximum value of the SIFS (e.g., the claimed “the 

second predetermined time period”) is always less than the AIFS[AC] (e.g., the claimed 

“predetermined time period”). Graphically:

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

smallest

possible AIFS

maximum

allowable SIFS

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 38 of 100 PageID #:969
Exhibit 10 - 38

AND

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 39 of 100 PageID #:970
Exhibit 10 - 39

after said communicating 

the series of packets, 

communicating, between 

the sending device and the 

destination device, a 

packet that indicates 

successful communication 

of the series of packets.

As mentioned above, the series of packets ending with the Block ACK Request (or BlockAckReq) packet 

is an example of the claimed “series of packets”. 

Following the BlockAckReq packet, the recipient STA (or “the destination device”) communicates a 

BlockAck packet to the originator STA (or “the sending device”).

The BlockAck packet, in turn, “indicates successful communication of the series of packets”. For 

example:

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 40 of 100 PageID #:971
Exhibit 10 - 40

802.11n-2009 amendment

AND Graphically:

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 41 of 100 PageID #:972
Exhibit 10 - 41

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

AND

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 42 of 100 PageID #:973
Exhibit 10 - 42

BASE DOC – minor 802.11n-2009 amendment (no substantial impact)

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 43 of 100 PageID #:974
Exhibit 10 - 43

Thus, in 802.11 Block Acknowledgment operation, the communication of the BlockAck frame from the 

recipient STA to the originator STA is an example of the claimed “communicating, between the sending 

device and the destination device”, and the BlockAck frame is an example of the claimed “a packet that 

indicates successful communication of the series of packets”.

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 44 of 100 PageID #:975
Exhibit 10 - 44

11. The method of claim 

10, wherein 

communicating the series 

of packets between the 

sending device and the 

destination device 

comprises transmitting 

each of the series of 

packets from the sending 

device to the destination 

device. 

As explained above in the discussion of claim 10, in one example, the series of packets including: the 

ACK packet following the ADDBA Response packet, the series of QoS Data MPDU packets, and the 

BlockAckReq packet, is an example of the claimed “series of packets”. Each of such exemplary series of 

packets is transmitted by the originator STA (or “the sending device”) to the recipient STA (or “the 

destination device”). For example:

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 45 of 100 PageID #:976
Exhibit 10 - 45

AND

BASE DOC – minor 802.11n-2009 amendment (no substantial impact)

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 46 of 100 PageID #:977
Exhibit 10 - 46

12. The method of claim 

11, wherein 

communicating the 

packet that indicates 

successful 

communication of the 

series of packets 

comprises receiving, at 

the sending device, the 

packet that indicates 

successful 

communication of the 

series of packets. 

As mentioned above in the discussion of claim 10, the recipient of the data block (or “the destination 

device”) transmits the Block ACK (or “the packet that indicates successful communication of the series of 

packets”) to the originator of the data block (or “the sending device”), which then receives such packet. 

For example:

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 47 of 100 PageID #:978
Exhibit 10 - 47

AND

BASE DOC – minor 802.11n-2009 amendment (no substantial impact)

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 48 of 100 PageID #:979
Exhibit 10 - 48

17. The method of 

claim 10, wherein each 

of the series of packets 

has a predetermined 

maximum length.

As explained above in the discussion of claim 10, in one example, the series of packets including: the 

ACK packet following the ADDBA Response packet, the series of QoS Data MPDU packets, and the 

BlockAckReq packet, is an example of the claimed “series of packets”. 

Each of such packets has a predetermined maximum length. For example:

With regard to the ACK packet:

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

Thus, the ACK packet has a predetermined maximum length of 14 octets.

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 49 of 100 PageID #:980
Exhibit 10 - 49

With regard to the data packets:

The fragments transmitted by the STA (or “the sending device”) are examples of “data packets of the 

series of packets that are sent by the sending device”.

Additionally, the length of the fragments of the multiple-fragment MSDU is limited by the fragmentation 

threshold parameter (expanded by IV and ICV when Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) is invoked) and 

thus “have a predetermined maximum length”. For example:

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 50 of 100 PageID #:981
Exhibit 10 - 50

BASE DOC, § 9.4, page 279 – minor 11n amendment (no substantial impact)

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 51 of 100 PageID #:982
Exhibit 10 - 51

AND

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 52 of 100 PageID #:983
Exhibit 10 - 52

With regard to the BlockAckReq packet:

Prior to the 802.11n-2009 amendment, there was only a single variant of the Block ACK Request packet. 

For example:

BASE DOC – 802.11n-2009 amendment below

Thus, in 802.11-2007 operation (without the 802.11n-2009 amendment), the Block ACK Request packet

has a predetermined maximum length of 24 octets.

The 802.11n-2009 amendment specifies multiple variants of the Block ACK Request frame, each with a

specific size, depending on the particular communication being performed. For example:

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 53 of 100 PageID #:984
Exhibit 10 - 53

802.11n-2009 amendment

where the “BAR Information” field can be either:

BASE DOC

or

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 54 of 100 PageID #:985
Exhibit 10 - 54

802.11n-2009 amendment

Thus, for a particular communication in 802.11n-2009 operation, the BlockAckReq packet can be either 

24 or 26 octets in size.

Accordingly, the BlockAckReq packet in 802.11n operation has a predetermined maximum size of 26 

octets.

Summarizing, each of the ACK packet, QoS data packets, and BlockAckReq packets has a predetermined 

maximum size.

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 55 of 100 PageID #:986
Exhibit 10 - 55

19. The method of claim 

10, wherein the 

destination device is a 

polling device. 

There are multiple infringement positions with regard to claim 19.

First exemplary infringement position:

An 802.11 access point station (AP STA, or AP) is an example of the claimed “sending device”, and an 

802.11 non-access point station (non-AP STA) is an example of the claimed “destination device”.

In such a scenario, the 802.11 non-AP STA (or “destination device”), for example, polls the AP STA with

a PS-Poll to retrieve messages stored at the AP STA, and thus “the destination device is a polling device”. 

For example:

BASE DOC – minor 802.11n-2009 amendment (no substantial impact)

AND

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 56 of 100 PageID #:987
Exhibit 10 - 56

BASE DOC, § 11.2.1 – minor 802.11n-2009 amendment (no substantial impact)

AND

BASE DOC – no 802.11n-2009 amendment

Reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery will likely show that Defendants’ wireless 

communication networks include a destination device that operates in accordance with the 802.11 powersave (PS) mode and thus is a polling device. 

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 57 of 100 PageID #:988
Exhibit 10 - 57

Second exemplary infringement position:

An 802.11 non-AP STA is an example of the claimed “sending device”, and an 802.11 AP STA is an 

example of the claimed “destination device”. 

In such a scenario, the 802.11 AP (or “destination device”), for example, polls the non-AP STA with a

CF-Poll, and thus, “the destination device is a polling device”. For example:

BASE DOC, page 286 – no 11n amendment

Thus, in such a scenario, the AP (e.g., the claimed “destination device”) is a polling device.

Reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery will likely show that Defendants’ wireless 

communication networks include a destination device that operates in accordance with the HCCA of the 

Hybrid Coordination Function (HCF) and thus is a polling device.

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 58 of 100 PageID #:989
Exhibit 10 - 58

20. The method of claim 

10, further comprising if 

the beginning of the 

period of time through 

which no communication 

is detected coincides with 

the end of a detected 

transmission, then 

attempting to avoid 

collisions by delaying a 

random period before 

attempting to initiate 

communication between 

the sending device and 

the destination device.

See, for example:

(continued on next page)

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 59 of 100 PageID #:990
Exhibit 10 - 59

BASE DOC, pages 290-291 – no 802.11n-2009 amendment to the highlighted portion

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 60 of 100 PageID #:991
 

EXHIBIT 15 

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 61 of 100 PageID #:992
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary

Database updated January 2011

Steven S. Gensler

Appendix A

Rule 19. Required Joinder of Parties

Advisory Committee Notes

1937 Adoption

Note to Subdivision (a). The first sentence with verbal differences (e.g., “united” interest for “joint” interest) is to be found in [ former] Equity Rule 37 (Parties Generally—Intervention). Such compulsory joinder

provisions are common. Compare Alaska Comp.Laws (1933) § 3392 (containing in same sentence a “class suit”

provision); Wyo.Rev.Stat.Ann. (Courtright, 1931) § 89-515 (immediately followed by “class suit” provisions, §

89-516). See also former Equity Rule 42 (Joint and Several Demands). For example of a proper case for involuntary plaintiff, see Independent Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 269 U.S. 459, 46 S.Ct. 166,

70 L.Ed. 357 (1926).

The joinder provisions of this rule are subject to Rule 82 (Jurisdiction and Venue Unaffected).

Note to Subdivision (b). For the substance of this rule see [former] Equity Rule 39 (Absence of Persons

Who Would be Proper Parties) and U.S.C., Title 28, § 111 [now § 1391] (When part of several defendants cannot be served); Camp v. Gress, 250 U.S. 308, 39 S.Ct. 478, 63 L.Ed. 997 (1919). See also the second and third

sentences of [former] Equity Rule 37 (Parties Generally— Intervention).

Note to Subdivision (c). For the substance of this rule see the fourth subdivision of [former] Equity Rule 25

(Bill of Complaint—Contents).

1966 Amendment

General ConsiderationsWhenever feasible, the persons materially interested in the subject of an action—see

the more detailed description of these persons in the discussion of new subdivision (a) below—should be joined

as parties so that they may be heard and a complete disposition made. When this comprehensive joinder cannot

be accomplished—a situation which may be encountered in Federal courts because of limitations on service of

process, subject matter jurisdiction, and venue— the case should be examined pragmatically and a choice made

between the alternatives of proceeding with the action in the absence of particular interested persons, and dismissing the action.

Even if the court is mistaken in its decision to proceed in the absence of an interested person, it does not by

that token deprive itself of the power to adjudicate as between the parties already before it through proper service of process. But the court can make a legally binding adjudication only between the parties actually joined in

the action. It is true that an adjudication between the parties before the court may on occasion adversely affect

the absent person as a practical matter, or leave a party exposed to a later inconsistent recovery by the absent

person. These are factors which should be considered in deciding whether the action should proceed, or should

rather be dismissed; but they do not themselves negate the court's power to adjudicate as between the parties

who have been joined.

Defects in the Original RuleThe foregoing propositions were well understood in the older equity practice,

see Hazard, Indispensable Party: The Historical Origin of a Procedural Phantom, 61 Colum.L.Rev. 1254 (1961),

FRCP-RC APP A RULE 19 Page 1

2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary Appendix A Rule 19

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 62 of 100 PageID #:993
and Rule 19 could be and often was applied in consonance with them. But experience showed that the rule was

defective in its phrasing and did not point clearly to the proper basis of decision.

Textual defects.—(1) The expression “persons ... who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between those already parties,” appearing in original subdivision (b), was apparently intended as a description of the persons whom it would be desirable to join in the action, all questions of feasibility of joinder being

put to one side; but it was not adequately descriptive of those persons.

(2) The word “indispensable,” appearing in original subdivision (b), was apparently intended as an inclusive

reference to the interested persons in whose absence it would be advisable, all factors having been considered, to

dismiss the action. Yet the sentence implied that there might be interested persons, not “indispensable,” in

whose absence the action ought also to be dismissed. Further, it seemed at least superficially plausible to equate

the word “indispensable” with the expression “having a joint interest,” appearing in subdivision (a). See United

States v. Washington Inst. of Tech., Inc., 138 F.2d 25, 26 (3d Cir. 1943); cf. Chidester v. City of Newark, 162

F.2d 598 (3d Cir. 1947). But persons holding an interest technically “joint” are not always so related to an action

that it would be unwise to proceed without joining all of them, whereas persons holding an interest not technically “joint” may have this relation to an action. See Reed, Compulsory Joinder of Parties in Civil Actions, 55

Mich.L.Rev. 327, 356 ff., 483 (1957).

(3) The use of “indispensable” and “joint interest” in the context of original Rule 19 directed attention to the

technical or abstract character of the rights or obligations of the persons whose joinder was in question, and correspondingly distracted attention from the pragmatic considerations which should be controlling.

(4) The original rule, in dealing with the feasibility of joining a person as a party to the action, besides referring to whether the person was “subject to the jurisdiction of the court as to both service of process and venue,”

spoke of whether the person could be made a party “without depriving the court of jurisdiction of the parties before it.” The second quoted expression used “jurisdiction” in the sense of the competence of the court over the

subject matter of the action, and in this sense the expression was apt. However, by a familiar confusion, the expression seems to have suggested to some that the absence from the lawsuit of a person who was

“indispensable” or “who ought to be [a] part[y]” itself deprived the court of the power to adjudicate as between

the parties already joined. See Samuel Goldwyn, Inc. v. United Artists Corp., 113 F.2d 703, 707 (3d Cir. 1940);

McArthur v. Rosenbaum Co. of Pittsburgh, 180 F.2d 617, 621 (3d Cir. 1949); cf. Calcote v. Texas Pac. Coal &

Oil Co., 157 F.2d 216 (5th Cir. 1946), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 782 (1946), noted in 56 Yale L.J. 1088 (1947);

Reed, supra, 55 Mich.L.Rev. at 332–34.

Failure to point to correct basis of decision. The original rule did not state affirmatively what factors were

relevant in deciding whether the action should proceed or be dismissed when joinder of interested persons was

infeasible. In some instances courts did not undertake the relevant inquiry or were misled by the “jurisdiction”

fallacy. In other instances there was undue preoccupation with abstract classifications of rights or obligations, as

against consideration of the particular consequences of proceeding with the action and the ways by which these

consequences might be ameliorated by the shaping of final relief or other precautions.

Although these difficulties cannot be said to have been general analysis of the cases showed that there was

good reason for attempting to strengthen the rule. The literature also indicated how the rule should be reformed.

See Reed, supra (discussion of the important case of Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. (58 U.S.) 130 (1854), appears

at 55 Mich.L.Rev., p. 340 ff.); Hazard, supra; N.Y. Temporary Comm. on Courts, First Preliminary Report, Legis.Doc.1957, No. 6(b), pp. 28, 233; N.Y. Judicial Council, Twelfth Ann.Rep., Legis.Doc.1946, No. 17, p. 163;

Joint Comm. on Michigan Procedural Revision, Final Report, Pt. III, p. 69 (1960); Note, Indispensable Parties in

the Federal Courts, 65 Harv.L.Rev. 1050 (1952); Developments in the Law—Multiparty Litigation in the Federal Courts, 71 Harv.L.Rev. 874, 879 (1958); Mich.Gen.Court Rules, R. 205 (effective Jan. 1, 1963);

N.Y.Civ.Prac.Law & Rules, § 1001 (effective Sept. 1, 1963).

FRCP-RC APP A RULE 19 Page 2

2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary Appendix A Rule 19

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 63 of 100 PageID #:994
The Amended RuleNew subdivision (a) defines the persons whose joinder in the action is desirable. Clause

(1) stresses the desirability of joining those persons in whose absence the court would be obliged to grant partial

or “hollow” rather than complete relief to the parties before the court. The interests that are being furthered here

are not only those of the parties, but also that of the public in avoiding repeated lawsuits on the same essential

subject matter. Clause (2)(i) recognizes the importance of protecting the person whose joinder is in question

against the practical prejudice to him which may arise through a disposition of the action in his absence. Clause

(2)(ii) recognizes the need for considering whether a party may be left, after the adjudication, in a position

where a person not joined can subject him to a double or otherwise inconsistent liability. See Reed, supra, 55

Mich.L.Rev. at 330, 338; Note, supra, 65 Harv.L.Rev. at 1052–57; Developments in the Law, supra, 71

Harv.L.Rev. at 881–85.

The subdivision (a) definition of persons to be joined is not couched in terms of the abstract nature of their

interests—“joint,” “united,” “separable,” or the like. See N.Y. Temporary Comm. on Courts, First Preliminary

Report, supra; Developments in the Law, supra, at 880. It should be noted particularly, however, that the description is not at variance with the settled authorities holding that a tortfeasor with the usual “joint-and-several”

liability is merely a permissive party to an action against another with like liability. See 3 Moore's Federal Practice 2153 (2d ed. 1963); 2 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure § 513.8 (Wright ed. 1961). Joinder

of these tortfeasors continues to be regulated by Rule 20; compare Rule 14 on third-party practice.

If a person as described in subdivision (a)(1)(2) is amenable to service of process and his joinder would not

deprive the court of jurisdiction in the sense of competence over the action, he should be joined as a party; and if

he has not been joined, the court should order him to be brought into the action. If a party joined has a valid objection to the venue and chooses to assert it, he will be dismissed from the action.

Subdivision (b).—When a person as described in subdivision (a)(1)-(2) cannot be made a party, the court is

to determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties already before

it, or should be dismissed. That this decision is to be made in the light of pragmatic considerations has often

been acknowledged by the courts. See Roos v. Texas Co., 23 F.2d 171 (2d Cir. 1927), cert. denied 277 U.S. 587

(1928); Niles-Bement-Pond Co. v. Iron Moulders' Union, 254 U.S. 77, 80 (1920). The subdivision sets out four

relevant considerations drawn from the experience revealed in the decided cases. The factors are to a certain extent overlapping, and they are not intended to exclude other considerations which may be applicable in particular

situations.

The first factor brings in a consideration of what a judgment in the action would mean to the absentee.

Would the absentee be adversely affected in a practical sense, and if so, would the prejudice be immediate and

serious, or remote and minor? The possible collateral consequences of the judgment upon the parties already

joined are also to be appraised. Would any party be exposed to a fresh action by the absentee, and if so, how serious is the threat? See the elaborate discussion in Reed, supra; cf. A. L. Smith Iron Co. v. Dickson, 141 F.2d 3

(2d Cir. 1944); Caldwell Mfg. Co. v. Unique Balance Co., 18 F.R.D. 258 (S.D.N.Y.1955).

The second factor calls attention to the measures by which prejudice may be averted or lessened. The

“shaping of relief” is a familiar expedient to this end. See, e.g., the award of money damages in lieu of specific

relief where the latter might affect an absentee adversely. Ward v. Deavers, 203 F.2d 72 (D.C.Cir.1953); Miller

& Lux, Inc. v. Nickel, 141 F.Supp. 41 (N.D.Calif.1956). On the use of “protective provisions,” see Roos v.

Texas Co., supra; Atwood v. Rhode Island Hosp. Trust Co., 275 Fed. 513, 519 (1st Cir. 1921), cert. denied, 257

U.S. 661 (1922); cf. Stumpf v. Fidelity Gas Co., 294 F.2d 886 (9th Cir. 1961); and the general statement in National Licorice Co. v. Labor Board, 309 U.S. 350, 363 (1940).

Sometimes the party is himself able to take measures to avoid prejudice. Thus a defendant faced with a prospect of a second suit by an absentee may be in a position to bring the latter into the action by defensive interpleader. See Hudson v. Newell, 172 F.2d 848, 852 mod., 176 F.2d 546 (5th Cir. 1949); Gauss v. Kirk, 198 F.2d

FRCP-RC APP A RULE 19 Page 3

2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary Appendix A Rule 19

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 64 of 100 PageID #:995
83, 86 (D.C.Cir. 1952); Abel v. Brayton Flying Service, Inc., 248 F.2d 713, 716 (5th Cir. 1957) (suggestion of

possibility of counter-claim under Rule 13(h)); cf. Parker Rust-Proof Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 105 F.2d

976 (2d Cir. 1939), cert. denied, 308 U.S. 597 (1939). So also the absentee may sometimes be able to avert prejudice to himself by voluntarily appearing in the action or intervening on an ancillary basis. See Developments

in the Law, supra, 71 Harv.L.Rev. at 882; Annot., Intervention or Subsequent Joinder of Parties as Affecting

Jurisdiction of Federal Court Based on Diversity of Citizenship, 134 A.L.R. 335 (1941); Johnson v. Middleton,

175 F.2d 535 (7th Cir. 1949); Kentucky Nat. Gas Corp. v. Duggins, 165 F.2d 1011 (6th Cir. 1948); McComb v.

McCormack, 159 F.2d 219 (5th Cir. 1947). The court should consider whether this, in turn, would impose undue

hardship on the absentee. (For the possibility of the court's informing an absentee of the pendency of the action,

see comment under subdivision (c) below.)

The third factor—whether an “adequate” judgment can be rendered in the absence of a given person—calls

attention to the extent of the relief that can be accorded among the parties joined. It meshes with the other

factors, especially the “shaping of relief” mentioned under the second factor. Cf. Kroese v. General Steel Castings Corp., 179 F.2d 760 (3d Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 983 (1950).

The fourth factor, looking to the practical effects of a dismissal, indicates that the court should consider

whether there is any assurance that the plaintiff, if dismissed, could sue effectively in another forum where better joinder would be possible. See Fitzgerald v. Haynes, 241 F.2d 417, 420 (3d Cir. 1957); Fouke v. Schenewerk, 197 F.2d 234, 236 (5th Cir. 1952); cf. Warfield v. Marks, 190 F.2d 178 (5th Cir. 1951).

The subdivision uses the word “indispensable” only in a conclusory sense, that is, a person is “regarded as

indispensable” when he cannot be made a party and, upon consideration of the factors above mentioned, it is determined that in his absence it would be preferable to dismiss the action, rather than to retain it.

A person may be added as a party at any stage of the action on motion or on the court's initiative (see Rule

21); and a motion to dismiss, on the ground that a person has not been joined and justice requires that the action

should not proceed in his absence, may be made as late as the trial on the merits (see Rule 12(h)(2), as amended;

cf. Rule 12(b)(7), as amended). However, when the moving party is seeking dismissal in order to protect himself

against a later suit by the absent person (subdivision (a)(2)(ii)), and is not seeking vicariously to protect the absent person against a prejudicial judgment (subdivision (a)(2)(i)), his undue delay in making the motion can

properly be counted against him as a reason for denying the motion. A joinder question should be decided with

reasonable promptness, but decision may properly be deferred if adequate information is not available at the

time. Thus the relationship of an absent person to the action, and the practical effects of an adjudication upon

him and others, may not be sufficiently revealed at the pleading stage; in such a case it would be appropriate to

defer decision until the action was further advanced. Cf. Rule 12(d).

The amended rule makes no special provision for the problem arising in suits against subordinate Federal

officials where it has often been set up as a defense that some superior officer must be joined. Frequently this

defense has been accompanied by or intermingled with defenses of sovereign community or lack of consent of

the United States to suit. So far as the issue of joinder can be isolated from the rest, the new subdivision seems

better adapted to handle it than the predecessor provision. See the discussion in Johnson v. Kirkland, 290 F.2d

440, 446–47 (5th Cir. 1961) (stressing the practical orientation of the decisions); Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349

U.S. 48, 54 (1955). Recent legislation, P.L. 87-748, 76 Stat. 744, approved October 5, 1962, adding §§ 1361,

1391(e) to Title 28, U.S.C., vests original jurisdiction in the District Courts over actions in the nature of mandamus to compel officials of the United States to perform their legal duties, and extends the range of service of

process and liberalizes venue in these actions. If, then, it is found that a particular official should be joined in the

action, the legislation will make it easy to bring him in.

Subdivision (c) parallels the predecessor subdivision (c) of Rule 19. In some situations it may be desirable

to advise a person who has not been joined of the fact that the action is pending, and in particular cases the court

FRCP-RC APP A RULE 19 Page 4

2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary Appendix A Rule 19

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 65 of 100 PageID #:996
in its discretion may itself convey this information by directing a letter or other informal notice to the absentee.

Subdivision (d) repeats the exception contained in the first clause of the predecessor subdivision (a).

1987 AmendmentThe amendments are technical. No substantive change is intended.

2007 AmendmentThe language of Rule 19 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil

Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules.

These changes are intended to be stylistic only.

Former Rule 19(b) described the conclusion that an action should be dismissed for inability to join a Rule

19(a) party by carrying forward traditional terminology: “the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable.” “Indispensable” was used only to express a conclusion reached by applying the tests of Rule 19(b). It has

been discarded as redundant.

Westlaw. © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

FRCP-RC APP A RULE 19

END OF DOCUMENT

FRCP-RC APP A RULE 19 Page 5

2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary Appendix A Rule 19

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 66 of 100 PageID #:997
 

EXHIBIT 16 

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 67 of 100 PageID #:998
Case 1:09-cv-00495-KAJ Document 30 Filed 11/20/09 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 278

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

STORED VALUE SOLUTIONS INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARD ACTIVATION

TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 09-495-JJF

Alan M. Fisch, Esquire, Jason F. Hoffman, Esquire, Coke Morgan

Stewart, Esquire, and R. William Sigler, Esquire of Kaye Scholer

LLP, Washington, D.C.

Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire and David E. Moore, Esquire of

Potter, Anderson, & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware.

Attorneys for Plaintiff.

J. David Wharton, Esquire, Mark J. Peterson, Esquire, and Nora M.

Kane, Esquire of Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Omaha, Nebraska.

Keith H. Orum, Esquire and Mark D. Roth, Esquire of Orum & Roth

LLC, Chicago, Illinois.

Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esquire and Julie Heaney, Esquire of Morris,

Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware.

Attorneys for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

November dt/, 2009

Wilmington, Delaware

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 68 of 100 PageID #:999
Case 1:09-cv-00495-KAJ Document 30 Filed 11/20/09 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 279

Pending before the Court is a Motion To Transfer (0.1. 18)

to the Northern District of Illinois, filed by Defendant Card

Activation Technologies, Inc. Plaintiff, Stored Value Solutions,

Inc., opposes the Motion. (0.1. 23.) For the reasons discussed

below, the Motion will be denied.

I. THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

A change of venue or "transfer" may be granted by a district

court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) which provides:

For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest

of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to

any other district or division where it might have been

brought.

Id. Section 1404(a) is not complicated.

court that it may transfer a case if:

It instructs a district

1) the case could have been filed initially in the district

the court is considering transferring the case to;

2) the parties and witnesses for both sides of the case would

find it more convenient to litigate in the district under

consideration by the court; and

3) the transfer to another court for the convenience of the

parties and witnesses is in the interest of justice, or to

state another way, it is fair and reasonable to send the

parties and witnesses to another federal district for

convenience purposes.

From these simple, straightforward principles, a legend of

case law has developed concerning the transfer of venue for the

convenience of the parties and witnesses. In the Third Circuit

district courts are required to analyze and weigh a set of eleven

2

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 69 of 100 PageID #:1000
Case 1:09-cv-00495-KAJ Document 30 Filed 11/20/09 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 280

(11) private/public factors. Those factors are best set forth in

Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995):

The Private Factors:

1) The plaintiff's forum preference as manifested in

the original choice;

2) the defendant's preference;

3) whether the claim arose elsewhere;

4) the convenience of the parties;

5) the convenience of the witnesses, but only to the

extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable

for trial in one of the fora; and

6) the location of books and records, but only to the

extent that they may actually be unavailable for trial

in one of the fora.

The Public Factors:

1) The enforceability of the judgment;

2) practical considerations that could make the trial

easy, expeditious, or inexpensive;

3) the relative administrative difficulty in the two

fora resulting from court congestion;

4) the local interest; and

5) the public policies of the fora.

II. THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

The parties' contentions concerning these private and public

3

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 70 of 100 PageID #:1001
Case 1:09-cv-00495-KAJ Document 30 Filed 11/20/09 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 281

factors are:

Private Factors - Parties' Contentions

1. Plaintiff's

preference as

manifested by its

choice of forum

2. The defendant's

preference

3. Whether the

plaintiff's claim

arose elsewhere

4. The convenience

of the parties

5. The convenience

of the witnesses,

but only to the

extent that the

witnesses may

actually be

unavailable for

trial in one of

the fora

Plaintiff

Plaintiff's choice of

forum is due great

deference under Third

Circuit precedent.

Additionally, the

"home turfH argument

is not applicable

because Plaintiff is

incorporated in

Delaware.

No argument made.

No argument made.

The Delaware Court is

at least as

convenient as the

Illinois Court.

Additionally,

Defendant's

incorporation in

Delaware makes it

impossible for

Defendant to argue

that it is not

convenient to

litigate in its home

state, Delaware.

There is no evidence

that any witnesses

are unable or

unwilling to come to

Delaware and

traveling to Delaware

is not more difficult

than traveling to

Illinois.

Defendant

Plaintiff's choice

of forum should

receive

considerably less

deference because

Plaintiff is not

physically located

in Delaware and

thus it is not

Plaintiff's "home

turf. H

Defendant prefers

transfer.

No argument made.

The convenience of

the parties weighs

in favor of

transfer because of

the extensive

litigation that has

already taken place

in the Illinois

Court.

The ease of travel

to Chicago will

make travel easier

for any out of town

witnesses in

traveling to

Illinois as opposed

to Delaware.

4

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 71 of 100 PageID #:1002
Case 1:09-cv-00495-KAJ Document 30 Filed 11/20/09 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 282

6. The location of Defendant does not One of Defendant's

books and records, contend that records counsel is located

but only to the could not be produced in Illinois and has

extent that they in Delaware or to physical custody of

may actually be Plaintiff's counsel. the files.

unavailable for

trial in one of

the fora

Public Factors - Parties' Positions

1. The

enforceability of

the judgment

2. Practical

considerations

that could make

the trial easy,

expeditious, or

inexpensive

3. The relative

administrative

difficulty in the

two fora resulting

from court

congestion

4. The local

interest

Plaintiff

No argument made.

The Delaware Court is

on a faster track

than the Illinois

Court in deciding the

related matters.

One of the reasons

Plaintiff filed this

case in the Delaware

Court was the Court's

lighter, more

efficient docket.

There is no local

interest in the

Illinois Court

because the relevant

cases are before a

number of different

judges meaning the

court does not have

increased efficiency

because the cases

have not been heard

Defendant

No argument made.

Judicial economy

dictates a transfer

so that multiple

cases stemming from

the same

transaction are

before the same

court.

The Delaware

Court's docket is

not more efficient

than the Illinois

Court's docket

because the cases

in Illinois are on

similar time lines

to this case.

The Illinois Court

has a greater

interest in this

case because the

cases pending

before that court

relating to the

same parties and

patent.

5

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 72 of 100 PageID #:1003
Case 1:09-cv-00495-KAJ Document 30 Filed 11/20/09 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 283

by a single judge.

5. The public No argument made. No argument made.

policies of the

fora

When viewed outside the scope of the factors, Defendant's

main contention is that the case should be transferred so that it

is heard by the same court that has heard the other cases

stemming from the alleged patent infringement at issue in this

case. Plaintiff counters that efficiency may be found when a

single judge presides over similar cases, not when a single

court, but multiple judges in that court (Illinois) preside over

the cases, which is the situation here.

III. DISCUSSION OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS

With regard to the parties' positions, the following are the

Court's findings on each factor.

Private Factors - Court's Findings

Court's Finding

l. Plaintiff's A plaintiff's choice of venue is given

forum preference great deference, and the Court will give

as manifested in such deference to Plaintiff because it

the original filed this case in this Court for

choice legitimate reasons. Accordingly, this

factor weighs against transfer.

2. The defendant's Defendant clearly prefers a transfer, and

preference thus, this factor favors transfer.

3. Whether the This factor is not relevant in this case.

claim arose

elsewhere

4. The convenience Although Defendant may find it more

6

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 73 of 100 PageID #:1004
Case 1:09-cv-00495-KAJ Document 30 Filed 11/20/09 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 284

of the parties

5. The convenience

of the witnesses,

but only to the

extent that the

witnesses may

actually be

unavailable for

trial in one of

the fora

6. The location of

books and records,

but only to the

extent that they

may actually be

unavailable for

trial in one of

the fora

convenient to litigate in Illinois,

Plaintiff chose to litigate in Delaware

because it believed this Court was more

convenient for it. Thus, this factor is

neutral with regard to transfer.

Defendant did not establish that witnesses

would refuse or be physically unable to

attend trial in Delaware nor that the ease

of travel to Illinois is substantially

different than travel to Delaware.

Accordingly, the Court finds that this

factor weighs against transfer.

Defendant has not shown that there would

be any difficulty in producing records in

Delaware. Thus, the Court finds that this

factor weighs against transfer.

Public Factors - Court's Findings

Court's Findings

l. The This factor is not an issue in this case,

enforceability of thus, the Court finds that this factor is

the judgment neutral with regard to transfer.

2. Practical Although the Illinois Court does have

considerations multiple cases pending relating to the

that could make same materials, these cases are before

the trial easy, multiple jUdges. With multiple judges

expeditious, or presiding, any efficiency that is gained

inexpensive by similar cases being in the same court

is lost. The existence of a proposed

Markman decision does not change the

Court's view on this argument. Thus, the

Court finds that this factor weighs

against transfer.

7

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 74 of 100 PageID #:1005
Case 1:09-cv-00495-KAJ Document 30 Filed 11/20/09 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 285

3. The relative The efficiency of the dockets of the two

administrative courts is not dramatically different.

difficulty in the Accordingly, the Court finds that this

two fora resulting factor is neutral with regard to transfer.

from court

congestion

4. The local For the same reasons as explained in

interest Public Factor 2, the Court finds that this

factor weighs against transfer.

5. The public This factor is not an issue in this case,

policies of the thus, the Court finds that this factor is

fora neutral with regard to transfer.

IV. DECISION

In sum, after considering the private and public factors the

Court finds that this case could have been filed in the District

of Northern Illinois. However, Plaintiff chose to file the case

in Delaware because both Plaintiff and Defendant are incorporated

in and thus, residents of Delaware.

Defendant's principal argument for transfer is that the case

should be transferred for judicial efficiency because several

cases are pending in the Northern District of Illinois regarding

actions brought by Defendant against Plaintiff's customers.

While judicial efficiency is an important concern, the cases are

presently distributed among five different judges. In order for

efficiency to be achieved, the cases would have to be before a

single judge. The result is that transferring this case to

Illinois would not increase efficiency over what it is currently.

The proposed claim construction from the Illinois Court does not

8

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 75 of 100 PageID #:1006
Case 1:09-cv-00495-KAJ Document 30 Filed 11/20/09 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 286

change the Court's opinion because the construction was not

adopted and related to different parties.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant has not

established that a transfer of venue to the Northern District of

Illinois would be more convenient than the District of Delaware

for the parties nor that it is needed to promote the interests of

justice.

v. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed, the Motion to Transfer Venue

(D.I. 18) to the Northern District of Illinois will be denied.

An appropriate order will be entered.

9

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 76 of 100 PageID #:1007
 

EXHIBIT 17 

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 77 of 100 PageID #:1008
II

Electronic Version v1.1

Stylesheet Version v1.1

PATENT ASSIGNMENT

~.~~.: ~::~.-:.~ ..: ~-- :-:t

~~~- ~: :-~.-'-._<- '.--~ - - - -

II

ISUBMISSION TYPE: II NEW ASSIGNMENT I INATURE OF CONVEYANCE: " ASSIGNMENT I

CONVEYING PARTY DATA

I Name II Execution Da~ I

IBroadcom Corporation 11 02/28/2011 I

RECEIVING PARTY DATA

IName: Illnnovatio IP Ventures ,

IStreet Address: 116 Clawon Street

ICity: IILadera Ranch

IState/Country: IICALIFORNIA

Ipostal Code: 1192694 ,

PROPERTY NUMBERS Total: 31

I Property Type Number .

IApplication Number: 12323036 - I

IApplication Number: 12121536 I

IPatent Number: 5740366

IPatent Number: 15940771 i

IPatent Number: 6374311 I

IPatent Number:

. I

7457646

Patent Number: 7536167

Patent Number: 7552246

Patent Number: 7558557

Patent Number: 7826818 ,

7873343 IPatent Number:

Patent Number: 5673031

Patent Number: 6714559

Patent Number: 7386002

Patent Number: 7535921

REEL 025894 FRAME 0408

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 78 of 100 PageID #:1009
Patent Number: 7548553

Patent Number: 5546397

Patent Number: 5844893

Patent Number: 6665536

Patent Number: 6697415

Patent Number. 7013138

Patent Number: 7107052

Patent Number. 7710907

Patent Number: 7710935

Patent Number. 7856003

Patent Number. 15295154

Patent Number. 115428636

Patent Number. 115504746

Patent Number: 116046992

Patent Number: 116826165

Patent Number. 117483397

CORRESPONDENCE DATA

Fax Number. (312)236-0379

Correspondence will be sent via US Mail when the fax attempt is unsuccessful.

Phone: 312-236-0733

Email: martin@nshn.com

Correspondent Name: Niro, Haller & Niro

Address Line 1: 181 W. Madison

Address Line 2: Suite 4600

Address Line 4: Chicago, ILLINOIS 60602

IATIORNEY DOCKET NUMBER: IIINNOVATIO IP VENTURES I INAME OF SUBMITIER: II Hannah Martin I

Total Attachments: 3

source=lnnovationIPassignment#page 1.tif

source=1 nnovationlPassignment#page2.tif

source=lnnovationlPassignment#page3.tif

REEL 025894 FRAME 0409

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 79 of 100 PageID #:1010
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

AssiGNMENT .

WHEREAS, Broadcom CorporatiOn, located at 5300 California Avenue, Irvine, CA 92617

,ASSIGNOR") and Innovatio IP Ventures. LLC, aDelaware limited Jiabilitycompany, with a

place ofbusiness at 6 Clawson, Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 r'ASSIGNEE") have entered into an

agreement asSigning all ofASSIGNOR's right, title and interest in and to certain patents listed In

A,wendix A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "rATENTS") from

ASSIGNOR to ASSIGNEE; .

Now, THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe sum ofOne Dollar($1.00) and 'other good and

valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency ofwhich hereby is acknowledged,

ASSIGNOR does hereby sell, assign, transfer and oonvey unto ASSIGNEE its entire right, title

and interest in and to the PATENTS listed in Appendix Ato this Assignment attached hereto.

Such property and rights IlSsigned by ASSIGNOR inolude its rights to (i) maintain, enforce and

sue on the Patents; (ii) collect damages and obtain other ~medies for any past, present and future

infringement ofthe Patents; and (iii) grant Iicensesundtn' the Pat~ts. ASSIGNEB acknowledges

and agrees that the PATENTS remain subject to a certain non-exclusive license to ASSIGNOR

and certain other non-exclusive licenses and covenants granted or required to be8mnted 1,IDder

the PATENTS prior to the date hereof, which shall remain in effect notwithstanding assignment . ofsuch PATENTS. .

ASSIGNOR hereby authorizes the respective patent office or governmental agenoy to

record the Patents ana any reissues or reexaminations thereofin the name ofASSIGNEE, as the

IlSsignee ofthe entire interest therein. .

This Assignment does notsell, assign, transfer or convey any right, title or interest in or

to any patents or patent applications other than those expressly listed in Appendix A to this

Assignment. . . .

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ASSIGNORhas caused this Assignment to be duly executed by

an authorized officer on this 28th day ofFebruary, 20II. . .

::: ~~:~1- = ,

Title: Vi=> / J:1'o\\"E\..Lt:cfUjl.\..- fl,\)~~IlTr S'i/ttJ\)/'l(1).$

REEL 025894 FRAME 0410

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 80 of 100 PageID #:1011
Attachment A

Network supportinlt roamin~ sleepinll: tenninals

5,740,366

5940.771

·~OOiJle.a:$tlli;sW..telifNQJ~ 1~~~~v;iJ.&$il~7£~~i'(J;\f,i~~~~'1.l'4\Z)~if.J~lrit.e,~J;f~k1g¥£{i~!'f~~br~~Pi ;~iN~~'2it.~Utit\~

Communication network baving a plurality ofbrldging nodes which transmit a

beaoon to terminal nodes in DOwer savlnR state that It has messages awaiting delivery

6,374,.311

7.457,646

7,536 167

Communication network baving a plurality of bridging nodes which transmit a

beacon to terminal nodes in power saviDll: state that it has mcssal!es awaitim~ deliverv

Radio frequency local area network

Network supporting roaming, sleepinll terminals

7,552,246

7.558557

Communication network baving a plurality ofbri<;lgirig nodes whicb transmit a

b,eacon to terminal nodes in power saving state iliat it has messaaes awaitin~ delivery

Low-power messaging in a network supporting roaming terminals

7,826.818 Network supporting roaming, sleeping terminals ,

7873,343 Communication network terminal with sleep capability

5,673,031 Redundant radio frequenoy 'network having a roaming tenninal communication

protocol

6,714,559 Redundant radio frequency network having a roaming tenninal communication

protocol

7.386,002 Redundant radio frequency network having a roaming terminal communication p~ocol .

7,535.921 Redundant radio frequency network having a roaming tenninal communication

protocol

7.548,553 Redundant radio frequency network having a roaming tenninal communication

protocol

5,546391

5,844,893

Hillh reliability access point for wireless local area network

System for coupling host computer means with base transceiver units on a local area

network

6665.536 Local area network having multiple channel wireless ~ss

6697.415 Spread spectrum transceiver module utiliiinl! multiple mode transmission

Local area network havin2 multiole channel wireless access

Radio freQuency lOcal &tea network

Local area network baving multjple charmel wireless access

Radio frequency local area network

. Radio mquoncy local area network

Radio freauency local area network

Radio frequenCY local area network

Local area 'network havioJ!: multiple channel wireless access

Local ar.ea network bavinR multiple channel wireless access

Local'area netwoiiC bavlng multiple channel wirtlles's access

5,295.154

5.504,746

5.428,636

7710935

7,710907

7107,052

7.856,003

6.046992

6.826165

1;013.138

7,483397 Radio frequency locill area network

REEL 025894 FRAME 0411

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 81 of 100 PageID #:1012
CONFJDENTIAL

Ap,pendixA

Patents

5,740,366

5,940,771

Communication notwork having a plurality of bridging nodes whloh transmit•

beaoon to termiDal nodes In powersaving state lbat it baS messues awaitina delivOlY

NetwOlk SUPPOrdQl SJoepiDR; tcnnlnals

6,374,311

. 7.457,,646

7536;167

Communlcadoiln~ baving a plUrality of bridging nodos which transmit a

boaoon to klmlinaJ.Dodos In powersaving state Chat it has mOSS8ROll awaitina delivery

Radio ·fi'egUODOY looal lIfOlI notwork

NetWork su .........1..... sloeolna terminalll

7,552,246

7.558 S57

CommuniQ8don notwork having a plurality of bridging nodos which trlInsmlt a

boaoon to terminal nodes In POWOrsavini stlIte that it has DWSSaa08 awaltlna dellvorv

Low-POwor messaging in a Detwork supporting roamina lenninals

7,826,8.8 Network supporting roaIJ!fns, slooping terminals

1.873.343 Conununi~on netwOlt tonuinll wftb slceo oaDabilitv

5,673,031

Radio treauen.cy local area network

Redundant radio fteQuoncy network having a roaming lunninal communication

protocol

6,114,559 R«fundant radio ffoquenoy network having a roaming terminal communication

protocol

7,386,002 Red1l.lldl!nt radio frequenoy network having a roaming terminal communk<atlon

Drotocol

7,535,921 Redundant radio tTequonoy network bllving 8 roaming ~inaJ communication

Drotoool

7,548,553 Redundant radio frequency network having a roaming teJmjnal communioation

protocOl

121121,536·

5546.397

ReAAndant ~dio frequency network baving a roaming tonnlnaJ communication .protocol . ~.

High reliability access Doint for wireless local area network

5,844.893 System for coupling host computor means with baac transceivor units on alooaJ area

network .

6665536

6.69141S

..Local area network bavina multiple oh~el winiless access

Spread soectrum transcoltermodulo utlllzlDlZ multlole modo transmission

LocalllRl8 D~Otk ba'Vinsunultiple channol wireless accces

Local am network hav.ing multiplo ohannol wireless·access

Local area ~etwotk bavlDg muldplo ohalJllol wlrolos8 8QCOS9

Radio '.' ,. l'eauency local area network

LooaJ area nQt'work haVilill multiole channol wireless acooss

Radio reqUCll10Y looai .area not,Work

LOoalIOla network havlQglllultiplo cbiUHlol wireless access

7013 138

7,101.052

7110.935

5295 154

5.428 636.

7856.003

5.504146

6046 992

Radio reQucncY·loCalllJ'Oll network

Radio local area network

6826 165

7483.397 .

Radio freauoncy local 8I'Oll network

Radio frequency 1l:lca1 area network

916171 v8IHN

RECORDED: 03/03/2011 REEL 025894 FRAME 0412

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 82 of 100 PageID #:1013
 

EXHIBIT 18 

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 83 of 100 PageID #:1014
5,546,397

Aug. 13, 1996

[11]

[45]

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I1I1111111

USOO5546397A

Patent Number:

Date of Patent:

United States Patent [19]

Mahany

5,164,942 11/1992 Karnennan et aI 455/277.1

5,181,200 1/1993 Harrison 455/54.2

5,268,933 12/1993 Averbuch 455/101

5,321,542 6/1994 Freitas et aI 359/152

5,390,166 2/1995 Rohani 370/95.3

5,410,740 4/1995 Hagstrom 455/54.1

5,410,752 4/1995 Scho1efie1d 455/54.1

5,465,392 11/1995 Baptist et aI 455/,55.2

Primary Examiner-Benedict V. Safourek

Attorney, Agent, or Firm-Henderson & Sturm

[54] HIGH RELIABILITY ACCESS POINT FOR

WIRELESS LOCAL AREA NETWORK

[75] Inventor: Ronald L. Mahany, Cedar Rapids,

Iowa

[73] Assignee: Norand Corporation, Cedar Rapids,

Iowa

[21] Appl. No.: 238,180

[22] Filed: May 4, 1994 [57] ABSTRACT

Related U.S. Application Data

[63] Continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 197,392, Feb. 16, 1994,

abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No.

170,121, Dec. 20, 1993, abandoned.

[51] Int. C1,6 H04B 7/04

[52] U.S. CI•........................ 370/85.1; 375/347; 455/52.1;

4551101; 4551133; 455/272

[58] Field of Search 455/52.1,52.2,

455/53.1,54.1,56.1, 101, 103, 132, 133,

271,277.1,277.2; 370118, 26, 37, 85.1,

85.3,95.1,95.3; 371/68.2; 375/260, 285,

347; 3591113, 152, 164, 167

[56] References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

5,097,484 3/1992 Akaiwa 455/101

A high reliability access point for RF communications in a

wireless local area network. The high reliability access point

includes a central processing unit (CPU) for handling high

level protocol functions and for interfacing with the infrastructure of the local area network. The high reliability

access point also includes at least two wireless adapters.

Each wireless adapter includes a radio, a media access

control (MAC) processor for handling low level protocol

functions, and at least one antenna. The multiple wireless

adapters allow the access point to perform self monitoring,

reduce the effects of multipath interference, reduce some

occurrences of collisions at the access point and provide

infrastructure backup in the event of an infrastructure failure. The access points also allow for wireless network

infrastructure communication for connection of one or more

remote access points to the infrastructure. A backup power

supply for the access point is also shown.

21 Claims, 5 Drawing Sheets

'/

43

BREAK IN THE LAN

INFRASTRUCTURE

30..,

'\r7 \f7 ---z----z- '\r7 '\r7

r35

RADIO RADIO -' ),r-39 RADIO RADIO -' if_ I- 42-......

MAC MAC MAC MAC

PROCESSOR PROCESSOR PROCESSOR PROCESSOR

1 I

CPU L------ ~37 CPU V 4,

PROCESSOR PROCESSOR

(33 //15

"' -TOTHE HOST

COMPUTER

NElWORK

38

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 84 of 100 PageID #:1015
5,740,366

Apr. 14, 1998

[11]

[45]

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIII

US005740366A

Patent Number:

Date of Patent:

United States Patent [19]

Mahany et al.

[73J Assignee: Norand Corporation. Cedar Rapids,

Iowa

[56J References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

[75J Inventors: Ronald L. Mahany; Robert C. Meier,

both of Cedar Rapids; Ronald E. Luse,

Marion. all of Iowa

[21] Appl. No.: 395,555

[22J Filed: Feb. 28, 1995

Related U.S. Application Data

ABSTRACT

12/1988 Acampora et aI 370/96

9/1989 Perlman 370/60

4/1990 Morley, Jr. et aI 379/88

5/1990 Tapang 3071201

7/1990 Sojka 340/825.08

7/1990 Merrill et aI. 364/900

5/1991 Tsukakoshi et aI 370/16

6/1991 Shimizu 455/54.2

7/1991 Tymes 375/1

10/1991 Vu 370/60

3/1992 Morganstein et aI 379/84

4/1992 Tymes 375/1

7/1992 Borras 370/95.1

9/1992 Perlman et aI. 370/94.3

1111992 Amoroso et aI 379/33

8/1993 Natarajan et aI' 370/95.3

1111993 MeLampy et aI 379/67

1/1994 Messenger 370/85.1

1/1994 Sobti 3701343

2/1994 Asai et aI 340/825.44

3/1994 Vaziri et aI 370/58.2

6/1995 Mahany 3751202

4,789,983

4,864,559

4,916,726

4,926,064

4,940,974

4,942,552

5,018,133

5,027,427

5,029,183

5,056,085

5,099,509

5,103,461

5,128,938

5,150,360

5,163,080

5,241,542

5,260,990

5,276,680

5,280.650

5,283,568

5,291,479

5,425.051

[57J

Microfiche Appendix Included

(10 Microfiche. 602 Pages)

An apparatus and a method for routing data in a radio data

communication system having one or more host computers.

one or more intermediate base stations. and one or more RF

terminals organizes the intermediate oase stations into an

optimal spanning-tree network to control the routing of data

to and from the RF terminals and the host computer efficiently and dynamically. Communication between the host

computer and the RF terminals is achieved by using the

network of intermediate base stations to transmit the data.

32 Claims, 2 Drawing Sheets

Primary Examiner-Thomas C. Lee

Assistant Examiner-Po C. Huang

Attorne)\ Agent. or Finn-Stanford & BennettL.L.P.

12/1973 Boudreau et al. 3401172.5

1/1983 GiaIlanza et aI. 340/825.47

2/1987 George et aI. 370/94

5/1987 Allen et aI 3951200.13

8/1987 Sidhu et aI. .. 370/94

2/1988 McNatt et aI 367n7

5/1988 Hood et aI 379n4

3,781,815

4,369,443

4,644,532

4,663,706

4,689,786

4,725,992

4,747,126

[54] COMMUNICATION NETWORK HAVING A

PLURALITY OF BRIDGING NODES WHICH

TRANSMIT A BEACON TO TERMINAL

NODES IN POWER SAVING STATE THAT IT

HAS MESSAGES AWAITING DELIVERY

[63J Continuation of Ser. No. 255,848, Jun. 8, 1994, Pat No.

5,394,436. which is a continuation ofSer. No. 970,411, Nov.

2, 1992, abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of Ser.

No. 968,990, Oct. 30,1992, abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 769.425, Oct. 1, 1991, abandoned,

and a contination-in-part ofPCTIUS9210861O, Oct. 1, 1992.

[51J lot. Cl.6 G06F 13/00

[52J U.S. CI•....................... 39512o.I2; 395/684; 395n50;

395/838; 395/866; 340/825.47; 455/49.1;

455/53.1; 455/54.2

[58J Field of Search 340/825.47; 379n4,

379/88, 84.33.67; 367n7; 455/54.2

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 85 of 100 PageID #:1016
5,844,893

Dec. 1, 1998

[11]

[45]

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

US005844893A

Patent Number:

Date of Patent:

United States Patent [19]

Gollnick et al.

Appl. No.: 486,083

Assignee: Norand Corporation, Cedar Rapids,

Iowa

Continuation of Ser. No. 277,944, Jun. 29, 1994, which is a

continuation of Ser. No. 57,218, May 4, 1993, abandoned,

which is a continuation of Ser. No. 700,704, May 14, 1991,

abandoned.

SYSTEM FOR COUPLING HOST

COMPUTER MEANSWITH BASE

TRANSCEIVER UNITS ON A LOCAL AREA

NETWORK

ABSTRACT

References Cited

11/1983 Karlstrom 370/332

6/1989 Ablay et al. 455/34.1

7/1990 Sojka 340/825.08

1/1991 Kaufmann et al. 375/200

12/1991 Mahany et al. 455/67.4

8/1992 Simpson et al. 370/330

3/1994 Gilbert et al. 370/346

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

4,414,661

4,837,858

4,940,974

4,984,247

5,070,536

5,142,534

5,297,144

[56]

Improved apparatus for a radio communication system having a multiplicity of mobile transceiver units selectively in

communication with a plurality of base transceiver units

which communicate with one or two host computers for

storage and manipulation of data collected by bar code

scanners or other collection means associated with the

mobile transceiver units. A network controller provides

selective interface means to be employed between the host

computers and the base transceivers whereby low data rate

base transceivers may be utilized with the network controller

while spread spectrum or high data rate networked base

transceivers may be also utilized. The network controller

may allow selection of interface means for three of its ports

from its front panel with use of three input keys. The

network controller is entirely external to the host computer

or computers, and can couple to a variety of commonly

encountered host ports. Most preferable one- or twonetwork controller ports can each be software configured to

match any needed host port, so that the host computer(s)

need not be adapted to a radio network protocol accommodating the multiple base transceiver units.

14 Claims, 13 Drawing Sheets

[57]

Primary Examiner-Wellington Chin

Assistant Examiner-Melissa Kay Carman

Attorney, Agent, or Firm-Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer &

Feld, LLP

Jun. 7, 1995

Related U.S. Application Data

Inventors: Charles D. Gollnick, Cedar Rapids;

Ronald E. Luse, Marion; John G.

Pavek; Marvin L. Sojka, both of

Cedar Rapids; James D. Cnossen,

Marion; Robert G. Geers, Cedar

Rapids; Arvin D. Danielson, Solon;

Mary L. Detweiler, Parnell; Gary N.

Spiess, Lisbon; Guy J. West, Cedar

Rapids; Amos D. Young, Cedar Rapids;

Keith K. Cargin, Jr., Cedar Rapids;

Richard C. Arensdorf, Cedar Rapids;

Ronald L. Mahany, Cedar Rapids, all

of Iowa

Filed:

Int. CI.6 H04Q 7/00; H04Q 7/24

U.S. CI. 370/329; 370/331; 370/338;

370/328; 375/202

Field of Search 370/95.1, 95.2,

370/95.3, 85.7, 84, 94.2, 85.2, 422, 431,

474,414,417,346,345,349,352,331,

329, 338; 375/200, 202, 216; 379/61, 58;

455/17, 34.1, 33.1, 54.1, 54.2, 33.4, 38.1

[73]

[75]

[63]

[51]

[52]

[58]

[54]

[21]

[22]

03

/I'dol " '92K BPS

ETHERNET 1000

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 86 of 100 PageID #:1017
5,940,771

*Aug.17,1999

[11]

[45]

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

US005940771A

Patent Number:

Date of Patent:

United States Patent [19]

Gollnick et al.

[54] NETWORK SUPPORTING ROAMING,

SLEEPING TERMINALS

[56] References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

[75] Inventors: Charles D. Gollnick, Cedar Rapids;

Ronald E. Luse, Marion; John G.

Pavek; Marvin L. Sojka, both of

Cedar Rapids; James D. Cnossen,

Marion; Arvin D. Danielson; Ronald

L. Mahany, both of Cedar Rapids;

Mary L. Detweiler, Parnell; Gary N.

Spiess, Lisbon; Guy J. West, Cedar

Rapids; Amos D. Young, Cedar Rapids;

Robert C. Meier, Cedar Rapids; Keith

K. Cargin, Jr., Cedar Rapids; Richard

C. Arensdorf, Ely; Robert G. Geers,

Cedar Rapids, all of Iowa

[73] Assignee: Norand Corporation, Iowa

4,332,027 5/1982 Malcom et al. .

4,352,955 10/1982 Kai et al. .

4,369,443 1/1983 Giallanza et al. .

4,670,899 6/1987 Brody et al. .

4,689,786 8/1987 Sidhu et al. .

(List continued on next page.)

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

53-10206 1/1978 Japan.

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Backes, "Transparent Bridges for Interconnection of IEEE

802 LANs", IEEE Network, vol. 2, No.1, pp. 5-9, Jan.

1988.

Primary Examiner-Edward F. Urban

Attorney, Agent, or Firm-Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer &

Feld, L.L.P.

[ *] Notice: This patent issued on a continued prosecution application filed under 37 CFR

1.53(d), and is subject to the twenty year

patent term provisions of 35 U.S.c.

154(a)(2). [57] ABSTRACT

[21] Appl. No.: 08/545,108

[22] Filed: Oct. 19, 1995

Related U.S. Application Data

[63] Continuation of application No. 07/947,102, Sep. 14, 1992,

abandoned, and a continuation of application No. 07/907,

927, Jun. 30, 1992, abandoned, which is a continuation-inpart of application No. 07/857,603, Mar. 30, 1992, abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application No.

07/700,704, May 14, 1991, abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 07/699,818, May 13, 1991,

abandoned.

[51] Int. CI.6 H04B 7/26

[52] U.S. CI. 455/517; 455/524; 455/343;

370/311

[58] Field of Search 455/38.1, 38.3,

455/50.1, 54.1, 56.1, 63, 343, 517, 501,

524, 574, 575; 370/95.1, 280, 311, 338

Adata collection network supports roaming terminals which

may enter and exit a sleep mode to conserve power. A

plurality of base stations each periodically transmit pending

message indications to those roaming data collection terminals in range. Instead of requiring the transceiver within

each terminal to always be active, the receiver is activated

in synchrony with the transmissions of pending message

indications from at least one of the base stations. Otherwise,

the terminal may deactivate the transceiver, i.e., place it in

a sleep state. The terminal may also sleep through pluralities

of transmissions of pending message indications, and,

thereafter, awake in synchrony to receive subsequent pending message indications. To minimize noise, the terminal

may operate using a lower frequency system clock when not

collecting data. When collecting data, especially where

processing time proves more critical, the system clock

frequency is increased.

17 Claims, 26 Drawing Sheets

3025 3027

3023 3016~~t I

e3019

!

(»))

3035 flJ 3013 0

3029

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 87 of 100 PageID #:1018
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

US00637431lBl

(12) United States Patent

Mahany et al.

(10) Patent No.:

(45) Date of Patent:

US 6,374,311 Bl

*Apr. 16,2002

(54) COMMUNICATION NETWORK HAVING A

PLURALITY OF BRIDGING NODES WHICH

TRANSMIT A BEACON TO TERMINAL

NODES IN POWER SAVING STATE THAT IT

HAS MESSAGES AWAITING DELIVERY

(75) Inventors: Ronald L. Mahany; Robert C. Meier,

both of Cedar Rapids; Ronald E. Luse,

Marion, all of IA (US)

(52) U.S. CI. 710/18; 710/46; 709/227;

709/304; 713/320; 713/321; 713/323; 713/324;

455/343; 455/524; 455/517; 375/132; 375/202;

375/220; 370/329; 370/351

(58) Field of Search 710/18, 46; 713/320,

713/323, 324; 709/227, 304; 455/343, 524;

340/825.47; 370/311

(56) References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

(73) Assignee: Intermec IP Corp., Woodland Hills,

CA(US) 3,781,815 A

4,164,628 A

12/1973 Boudreau et al. 709/234

8/1979 Ward et al. 375/208

(List continued on next page.)

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

( *) Notice: This patent issued on a continued prosecution application filed under 37 CFR

1.53(d), and is subject to the twenty year

patent term provisions of 35 U.S.c.

154(a)(2).

EP

JP

WO

281334

53-10206

W09202084

9/1988

1/1978

2/1992

Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this

patent is extended or adjusted under 35

U.S.c. 154(b) by 0 days.

This patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer.

(21) Appl. No.: 09/060,287

(22) Filed: Apr. 14, 1998

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Backes, "Transparent Bridges for Interconnection of lEE

802 LANs" IEEE Network, vol. 2, No.1, pp. 5-9, Jan. 1988.

(List continued on next page.)

Primary Examiner-Thomas Lee

Assistant Examiner-Tammara Peyton

(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-Akin, Gump, Strauss,

Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.; Gregory K. Goshorn

Related U.S. Application Data (57) ABSTRACT

(63) Continuation-in-part of application No. 08/545,108, filed on

Oct. 19, 1995, now Pat. No. 5,940,771, which is a continuation of application No. 07/947,102, filed on Sep. 14,1992,

now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 07/907,927, filed on Jun. 30, 1992, now abandoned,

which is a continuation-in-part of application No. PCT/

US92/03982, filed on May 13, 1992, now abandoned, and a

continuation-in-part of application No. 07/857,603, filed on

Mar. 30, 1992, now abandoned, and a continuation-in-part of

application No. 07/802,348, filed on Dec. 4, 1991, now

abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application

No. 07/790,946, filed on Nov. 12, 1991, now abandoned.

(51) Int. CI? G06F 13/372

An apparatus and a method for routing data in a radio data

communication system having one or more host computers,

one or more intermediate base stations, and one or more RF

terminals organizes the intermediate base stations into an

optimal spanning-tree network to control the routing of data

to and from the RF terminals and the host computer efficiently and dynamically. Communication between the host

computer and the RF terminals is achieved by using the

network of intermediate base stations to transmit the data.

31 Claims, 2 Drawing Sheets

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 88 of 100 PageID #:1019
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

US006665536Bl

(12) United States Patent

Mahany

(10) Patent No.:

(45) Date of Patent:

US 6,665,536 BI

Dec. 16,2003

( *) Notice:

Related U.S. Application Data

(54) LOCAL AREA NETWORK HAVING

MULTIPLE CHANNEL WIRELESS ACCESS

(75) Inventor: Ronald L. Mahany, Cedar Rapids, IA

(US)

EP

EP

FR

0194115 9/1986

0262943 4/1988

2389938 1/1979

(List continued on next page.)

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

"PCMCIA Primer" by John Reimer, pp. 66-67, 1995.

PCMCIA (Ie) Cards, vol. 13, No.8.

News Release "Norand Introduces Enhanced Wireless LAN

Capabilities", May 16, 1995, by Norand Corporation, Cedar

Rapids, Iowa, pp. 1-4.

(List continued on next page.)

Primary Examiner---8alvatore Cangialosi

(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-McAndrews, Held &

Malloy, Ltd.

(57) ABSTRACT

55 Claims, 17 Drawing Sheets

A communication network having at least one access point

supports wireless communication among a plurality of wireless roaming devices via a first and a second wireless

channel. The access point comprises a first and a second

transceiver. The first and second transceivers operate on the

first and second wireless channels, respectively. Each of the

plurality of wireless roaming devices are capable of communicating on the first and second wireless channel. In one

embodiment, the first wireless channel is used to exchange

data, while the second channel is used to manage such

exchanges as well as access to the first channel. In an

alternate embodiment, both channels are used to support

communication flow, however the first channel supports a

protocol that is more deterministic than that of the second

channel. Allocation of ones of the plurality of wireless

roaming devices from one channel to the next may occur per

direction from the access point. It may also result from

decisions made by each of the wireless roaming devices

made independent of the access point. For example, a

decision may be made based on the data type being transferred or based on the current channel load. Such factors

may also be used by the access point for allocation determinations. In addition, allocation may be based on the type

of roaming device involved, such as allocating peripherals to

a slower channel.

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

References Cited

3,665,164 A 5/1972 Beveridge 235/460

D230,859 S 3/1974 Kurosu D26/56

3,826,900 A 7/1974 Moellering 250/568

(List continued on next page.)

(73) Assignee: Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA

(US)

(63) Continuation of application No. 08/878,357, filed on Jun.

27, 1997, now Pat. No. 5,960,344, which is a continuationin-part of application No. 08/772,895, filed on Dec. 24,

1996, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of

application No. 08/696,086, filed on Aug. 13, 1996, now

abandoned, which is a continuation of application No.

08/238,180, filed on May 4, 1994, now Pat. No. 5,546,397,

which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 08/197,

392, filed on Feb. 16, 1994, now abandoned, which is a

continuation-in-part of application No. 08/170,121, filed on

Dec. 20, 1993, now abandoned.

(30) Foreign Application Priority Data

Jun. 3, 1996 CWO) PCT/US96/09474

(51) Int. CI? H04Q 7/00

(52) U.S. CI. 455/432; 455/434; 455/435

(58) Field of Search 455/432, 434,

455/436, 338, 500, 444, 524, 456, 422,

466, 507, 515, 454, 554, 552; 375/131,

132, 147, 130; 370/350, 389

Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this

patent is extended or adjusted under 35

U.S.c. 154(b) by 0 days.

(21) Appl. No.: 09/357,429

(22) Filed: JuI. 20, 1999

(56)

908

1328 1330

1326

1304

1300 1306 1302 1308 1320

1324

1322

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 89 of 100 PageID #:1020
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

US006697415Bl

(12) United States Patent

Mahany

(10) Patent No.:

(45) Date of Patent:

US 6,697,415 Bl

Feb. 24,2004

(54) SPREAD SPECTRUM TRANSCEIVER

MODULE UTILIZING MULTIPLE MODE

TRANSMISSION

(75) Inventor: Ronald L. Mahany, Cedar Rapids, IA

(US)

GB

JP

JP

JP

JP

WO

WO

2201125 A

1572962

58-176792

58-211261

2-144681

8700659

8707106

2/1987

8/1980

10/1983

12/1983

6/1990

1/1987

11/1987

(List continued on next page.)

(73) Assignee: Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA

(US)

(56) References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

( *) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this

patent is extended or adjusted under 35

U.S.c. 154(b) by 0 days.

(21) Appl. No.: 08/973,195

(22) PCT Filed: Jun. 3, 1996

(86) PCT No.: PCT/US96/09474

§ 371 (c)(l),

(2), (4) Date: Mar. 6, 2000

(87) PCT Pub. No.: W096/38925

PCT Pub. Date: Dec. 5, 1996

(51) Int. CI? H04B 1/44; H04B 1/69

(52) U.S. CI. 375/130; 375/219; 455/88

(58) Field of Search 375/130, 144,

375/146,219,222,259,377; 455/434,

73,88

ABSTRACT

18 Claims, 36 Drawing Sheets

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

A data transceiver module for digital data communications

in a portable hand-held data terminal has multiple data

spread spectrum modes which include direct sequence and

frequency function modulation algorithms. The transceiver

module has multiple user or program configurable data rates,

modulation, channelization and process gain in order to

maximize the performance of radio data transmissions and

to maximize interference immunity. Various module

housings, which may be PCMCIA type, are able to be mated

with a suitably designed data terminal. Media access control

protocols and interfaces of multiple nominal operational

frequencies are utilized. Wireless access devices in a cell

based network each consider a variety of factors when

choosing one of a plurality of modes of wireless operation

and associated operating parameters. Such selection defines

a communication channel to support wireless data, message

and communication exchanges. In further embodiments, the

wireless access devices also support a second channel, a

busy/control channel, for managing communication on the

main communication channel and to overcome roaming and

hidden terminal problems. Roaming terminal devices are

also configured to support the dual channel design. Such

configuration in both circumstances may involve the use of

a multimode radio that is timeshared between the two

channels or two radios, one dedicated to each channel.

(57)

"PCMCIA Primer" by John Reimer, pp. 66-67, date

unknown.

PCMCIA (Ie) Cards, vol. 13, No.8.

(List continued on next page.)

Primary Examiner-Young T. Tse

(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-McAndrews, Held &

Malloy, Ltd.

9/1986

4/1988

1/1979

5/1972 Beveridge 235/460

11/1973 Kajita D14/100

3/1974 Kurosu D26/56

7/1974 Moellering 250/568

3/1976 Requa 235/472

0194115

0262943

2389938

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

3,665,164 A

0229,234 S

0230,859 S

3,826,900 A

3,947,817 A

EP

EP

FR

1833

1803

1831

1817 1821 1849

1805..-/

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 90 of 100 PageID #:1021
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

US006714559Bl

(12) United States Patent

Meier

(10) Patent No.:

(45) Date of Patent:

US 6,714,559 Bl

Mar. 30, 2004

(54) REDUNDANT RADIO FREQUENCY

NETWORK HAVING A ROAMING

TERMINAL COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL

(75) Inventor: Robert C. Meier, Cuyahoga Falls, OH

(US)

(73) Assignee: Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA

(US)

4,477,809 A * 10/1984 Bose 340/3.41

5,471,469 A * 11/1995 Flammer et al. 370/346

5,673,031 A * 9/1997 Meier 370/346

5,687,175 A * 11/1997 Rochester et al. 370/449

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

William Stallings, Local and Metropolitan Area Networks,

1997,pp378-383.*

( *) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this

patent is extended or adjusted under 35

U.S.c. 154(b) by 173 days.

* cited by examiner

(21) Appl. No.: 09/960,265

(22) Filed: Sep. 21, 2001

Primary Examiner-Brian Zimmerman

(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-McAndrews, Held &

Malloy Ltd.

Disclosed herein is a redundant network and communication

protocol at least including host computers, RF base stations,

and roaming terminals. The network may utilize a polling

communication protocol such that under heavy traffic

conditions, a roaming terminal wishing to initiate communication may be required to determine whether the channel

is clear by listening for an entire interpoll gap time. When a

hidden terminal is communicating, the roaming terminal

may conclude that the communication is taking place upon

receiving a polling frame directed to the hidden terminal

from the normally silent base station. Inherent redundancy

techniques may be used with a spanning tree approach for

determining the most efficient pathways from a source to a

destination and ensuring that the network adapts to spatial

changes or breakdowns within the network.

Related U.S. Application Data

(63) Continuation of application No. 09/849,776, filed on May 4,

2001, now abandoned, which is a continuation of application

No. 09/482,197, filed on Jan. 12, 2000, now abandoned,

which is a continuation of application No. 08/941,496, filed on Sep. 30, 1997, now abandoned, which is a continuation

of application No. 08/270,533, filed on Jul. 5, 1994, now Pat.

No. 5,673,031, which is a continuation-in-part of application

No. 07/802,348, filed on Dec. 4, 1991, now abandoned.

(51) Int. CI? H04Q 1/00

(52) U.S. Cl. 370/449; 340/3.51

(58) Field of Search 370/449, 445,

370/346, 447; 340/3.51

(56) References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

(57) ABSTRACT

4,251,865 A * 2/1981 Moore et al. 370/346 20 Claims, 6 Drawing Sheets

.r151

6

161 1690

{155

(171 6

173 I RfP EOD t 159 {"153 157

1630 6 POLL

167 175~ClEAR

165) 177

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 91 of 100 PageID #:1022
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

US007013138B2

(12) United States Patent

Mahany

(10) Patent No.:

(45) Date of Patent:

US 7,013,138 B2

*Mar.14,2006

(58) Field of Classification Search 375/131,

375/147,132,130; 455/434,432,435,436,

455/338,500,444,524,456,422,466,507,

455/515, 454; 370/350, 389

See application file for complete search history.

(54) LOCAL AREA NETWORK HAVING

MULTIPLE CHANNEL WIRELESS ACCESS

(75) Inventor: Ronald L. Mahany, Cedar Rapids, IA

(US)

(73) Assignee: Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA

(US) (56) References Cited

( *) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this

patent is extended or adjusted under 35

U.S.c. 154(b) by 251 days.

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

5,291,516 A * 3/1994 Dixon et al. 375/131

5,790,587 A * 8/1998 Smith et al. 375/147

6,665,536 B1 * 12/2003 Mahany 455/434

(30) Foreign Application Priority Data

Jun. 3, 1996 (WO) PCT/US96/09474

(51) Int. CI.

H04Q 7/00 (2006.01)

(52) U.S. CI. 455/432; 455/434; 455/435

Related U.S. Application Data

(63) Continuation of application No. 09/357,429, filed on

Jul. 20, 1999, now Pat. No. 6,665,536, which is a

continuation of application No. 08/878,357, filed on

Jun. 27, 1997, now Pat. No. 5,960,344, which is a

continuation-in-part of application No. 08/772,895,

filed on Dec. 24, 1996, now abandoned, which is a

continuation-in-part of application No. 08/696,086,

filed on Aug. 13, 1996, now abandoned, which is a

continuation of application No. 08/238,180, filed on

May 4, 1994, now Pat. No. 5,546,397, which is a

continuation-in-part of application No. 08/197,392,

filed on Feb. 16, 1994, now abandoned, which is a

continuation-in-part of application No. 08/170,121,

filed on Dec. 20, 1993, now abandoned.

US 2004/0042421 Al

Prior Publication Data

ABSTRACT

A communication network having at least one access point

supports wireless communication among a plurality of wireless roaming devices via a first and a second wireless

channel. The access point comprises a first and a second

transceiver. The first and second transceivers operate on the

first and second wireless channels, respectively. Each of the

plurality of wireless roaming devices are capable of communicating on the first and second wireless channel. In one

embodiment, the first wireless channel is used to exchange

data, while the second channel is used to manage such

exchanges as well as access to the first channel. In an

alternate embodiment, both channels are used to support

communication flow, however the first channel supports a

protocol that is more deterministic than that of the second

channel. Allocation of ones of the plurality of wireless

roaming devices from one channel to the next may occur per

direction from the access point. It may also result from

decisions made by each of the wireless roaming devices

made independent of the access point. For example, a

decision may be made based on the data type being transferred or based on the current channel load. Such factors

may also be used by the access point for allocation determinations. In addition, allocation may be based on the type

of roaming device involved, such as allocating peripherals to

a slower channel.

40 Claims, 17 Drawing Sheets

(57)

* cited by examiner

Primary Examiner-Salvatore Cangialosi

(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-McAndrews, Held &

Malloy, Ltd.

Mar. 4, 2004

This patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer.

Filed: Aug. 26, 2003

(21) Appl. No.: 10/648,726

(22)

(65)

908

1111 1109 1111

1109

1110

1112

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 92 of 100 PageID #:1023
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

US007386002B2

(12) United States Patent

Meier

(10) Patent No.:

(45) Date of Patent:

US 7,386,002 B2

*Jun.l0,2008

(54) REDUNDANT RADIO FREQUENCY

NETWORK HAVING A ROAMING

TERMINAL COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL

(75) Inventor: Robert C. Meier, Cedar Rapids, IA

(US)

(73) Assignee: Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA

(US)

( *) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the tenn ofthis

patent is extended or adjusted under 35

U.S.c. 154(b) by 16 days.

This patent is subject to a tennina1 disclaimer.

(51) Int. Cl.

H04Q 1/00 (2006.01)

(52) U.S. Cl. 370/449; 340/3.51

(58) Field of Classification Search 370/338,

370/346,447,449; 340/3.51

See application file for complete search history.

(56) References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

4,063,220 A * 12/1977 Metcalfe et al. 370/462

(Continued)

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

William Stallings, Local and Metropolitan Area Networks, 1997, pp.

378-383.

(Continued)

Primary Examiner-Edwin C. Holloway, III

(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-McAndrews, Held & Malloy,

Ltd.

Disclosed herein is a redundant network and communication

protocol at least including host computers, RF base stations,

and roaming terminals. The network may utilize a polling

communication protocol such that under heavy traffic conditions' a roaming tenninal wishing to initiate communication

may be required to detennine whether the channel is clear by

listening for an entire interpoll gap time. When a hidden

tenninal is communicating, the roaming tenninal may conclude that the communication is taking place upon receiving

a polling frame directed to the hidden terminal from the

normally silent base station. Inherent redundancy techniques

may be used with a spanning tree approach for detennining

the most efficient pathways from a source to a destination and

ensuring that the network adapts to spatial changes or breakdowns within the network.

20 Claims, 6 Drawing Sheets

ABSTRACT

1/1978

(Continued)

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

JP 53-10206

(57)

Appl. No.: 101762,746

Filed: Jan. 22, 2004

Prior Publication Data

US 2004/0169583 Al Sep. 2, 2004

Related U.S. Application Data

Continuation of application No. 091960,265, filed on

Sep. 21, 2001, now Pat. No. 6,714,559, which is a

continuation of application No. 09/849,776, filed on

May 4, 2001, now abandoned, which is a continuation

of application No. 09/482,197, filed on Jan. 12,2000,

now abandoned, which is a continuation ofapplication

No. 08/941,496, filed on Sep. 30, 1997, now abandoned, which is a continuation of application No.

08/270,533, filed on Jul. 5, 1994, now Pat. No. 5,673,

031, said applicationNo. 08/270,553 is a continuationin-part of application No. 07/802,348, filed on Dec. 4,

1991, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part

of application No. 071790,946, filed on Nov. 12, 1991,

now abandoned, said application No. 08/270,553 is a

continuation-in-part of application No. 07/910,865,

filed on Jul. 6, 1992, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 07/883,854, filed

on May 13, 1992, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 07/857,603, filed on

Mar. 30, 1992, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 071700,704, filed on

May 14, 1991, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 07/699,815, filed on

May 13, 1991, now abandoned.

(63)

(21)

(22)

(65)

" / ...... _--"".,

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 93 of 100 PageID #:1024
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

US007457646B2

(12) United States Patent

Mahany et al.

(10) Patent No.:

(45) Date of Patent:

US 7,457,646 B2

*Nov. 25, 2008

(21) Appl. No.: 10/631,071

(54) RADIO FREQUENCY LOCAL AREA

NETWORK

(73) Assignee: Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA

(US)

(75) Inventors: Ronald L. Mahany, Cedar Rapids, IA

(US); Robert C. Meier, Cedar Rapids,

IA (US); Ronald E. Luse, Marion, IA

(US)

No. 07/907,927, filed on Jun. 30, 1992, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application

No. PCTIUS92/03982, filed on May 13, 1992, now

abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of applicationNo. 07/857,603, filed on Mar. 30, 1992,now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application

No. 07/802,348, filed on Dec. 4, 1991, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application

No. 071790,946, filed on Nov. 12, 1991, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application

No. 071769,425, filed on Oct. 1, 1991, now abandoned,

which is a continuation-in-part of application No.

071700,704, filed on May 14, 1991, now abandoned,

which is a continuation-in-part of application No.

07/699,818, filed on May 13, 1991, now abandoned.

(51) Int. Cl.

H04B 1/38 (2006.01)

H04L 12/58 (2006.01)

G08C 17/00 (2006.01)

(52) U.S. Cl. 455/574; 455/412.1; 370/311

(58) Field of Classification Search 455/574,

455/412.1; 370/311

See application file for complete search history. Feb. 5,2004

Prior Publication Data

Jul. 31, 2003

Subject to any disclaimer, the term ofthis

patent is extended or adjusted under 35

U.S.c. l54(b) by 270 days.

This patent is subject to a tenninal disclaimer.

US 2004/0023617 Al

(22) Filed:

(65)

( *) Notice:

References Cited

(63) U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

Related U.S. Application Data

Continuation of application No. 101123,873, filed on

Apr. 16, 2002, now Pat. No. 6,895,450, which is a

continuation of application No. 091060,287, filed on

Apr. 14, 1998, now Pat. No. 6,374,311, which is a

continuation of application No. 08/545,108, filed on

Oct. 19, 1995, now Pat. No. 5,940,771, which is a

continuation of application No. 08/395,555, filed on

Feb. 28, 1995, now Pat. No. 5,740,366, which is a

continuation of application No. 08/255,848, filed on

Jun. 8,1994, now Pat. No. 5,394,436, which is a continuation of application No. 07/970,411, filed on Nov.

12,1992, now abandoned, which is a continuation-inpart of application No. 07/968,990, filed on Oct. 30,

1992, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part

of application No. PCT/US92/0861O, filed on Oct. 1,

1992, now abandoned, which is a continuation of

application No. 07/947,102, filed on Sep. 14, 1992,

now abandoned, which is a continuation ofapplication

(56)

4,449,248 A

4,734,694 A

4,745,408 A

4,794,649 A

4,799,253 A

4,804,954 A

4,903,319 A

4,964,121 A

4,977,611 A

4,989,230 A

4,995,099 A

5,025,486 A

5,027,428 A

5,029,183 A

5,031,231 A

5,055,659 A

5,058,023 A

5,058,203 A

5/1984 Leslie et al.

3/1988 Umetsu et al.

5/1988 Nagata et al.

12/1988 Fujiwara

1/1989 Stern et al.

2/1989 Macnak et al.

2/1990 Kasal et al.

10/1990 Moore

12/1990 Maru

1/1991 Gillig

2/1991 Davis

6/1991 Klughart

6/1991 Ishiguro et al.

7/1991 Tymes

7/1991 Miyazaki

10/1991 Hendrick et al.

10/1991 Kozikaro

10/1991 Inagarni

BRIDGE 22

------L!:F 102 "

L--J """,

RF 100 ········jBRIDGEr40

R~ ......•.••.

IBRIDGEF:' ..-r;;;;;;;;;;;

48...

Ie RF 12r·········I······::::'/~F 112

~OMPUTER

(16

24 BRIDGE

......... I

RF

\1"04)

42 ····!BRIDGEr44

g;SJ ················jBRIDGErS2

RF 108 jBRIDGEtso

R~"""'" RL6 1 i I(~Fl18

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 94 of 100 PageID #:1025
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

US007535921B2

(12) United States Patent

Meier

(10) Patent No.:

(45) Date of Patent:

US 7,535,921 B2

*May 19, 2009

(54) REDUNDANT RADIO FREQUENCY

NETWORK HAVING A ROAMING

TERMINAL COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL

(58) Field of Classification Search 370/338,

370/346,447,449; 340/3.51

See application file for complete search history.

(75) Inventor: Robert C. Meier, Cedar Rapids, IA

(US)

(56) References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

(73) Assignee: Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA

(US)

53-10206 1/1978

(Continued)

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS ( *) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term ofthis

patent is extended or adjusted under 35

U.S.c. l54(b) by 508 days. JP

4,063,220 A 12/1977 Metcalfe et al.

This patent is subject to a tenninal disclaimer.

(Continued)

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

(21) Appl. No.: 111222,915

(51) Int. Cl.

H04Q 1/00 (2006.01)

(52) U.S. Cl. 370/449; 340/3.51

Related U.S. Application Data

(63) Continuation of application No. 101762,746, filed on

Jan. 22, 2004, now Pat. No. 7,386,002, which is a

continuation of application No. 091960,265, filed on

Sep. 21, 2001, now Pat. No. 6,714,559, which is a

continuation of application No. 09/849,776, filed on

May 4, 2001, now abandoned, which is a continuation

of application No. 09/482,197, filed on Jan. 12,2000,

now abandoned, which is a continuation ofapplication

No. 08/941,496, filed on Sep. 30, 1997, now abandoned, which is a continuation of application No.

08/270,533, filed on Jul. 5, 1994, now Pat. No. 5,673,

031, which is a continuation-in-part ofapplication No.

07/802,348, filed on Dec. 4, 1991, now abandoned,

which is a continuation-in-part of application No.

071790,946, filed on Nov. 12, 1991, now abandoned.

US 2006/0007951 Al

(57) ABSTRACT

31 Claims, 6 Drawing Sheets

Disclosed herein is a redundant network and communication

protocol at least including host computers, RF base stations,

and roaming terminals. The network may utilize a polling

communication protocol such that under heavy traffic conditions' a roaming tenninal wishing to initiate communication

may be required to detennine whether the channel is clear by

listening for an entire interpoll gap time. When a hidden

tenninal is communicating, the roaming tenninal may conclude that the communication is taking place upon receiving

a polling frame directed to the hidden terminal from the

normally silent base station. Inherent redundancy techniques

may be used with a spanning tree approach for detennining

the most efficient pathways from a source to a destination and

ensuring that the network adapts to spatial changes or breakdowns within the network.

Expert Report ofZygmunt J. Haas, Ph.D. Regarding the Invalidity of

U.S. Patent 6,714,559, Nov. 27, 2006.

(Continued)

Primary Examiner-Edwin C Holloway, III

(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-McAndrews, Held & Malloy,

Ltd.

Jan. 12,2006

Prior Publication Data

Sep.9,2005

(65)

(22) Filed:

/157

175).,...........'__--,

U CLEAR I

177)

153

1631j_{_P_O_LL---.6'67

165)

/155

169tJ-__f_E-O-D--+-C-'_7_1_6'73

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 95 of 100 PageID #:1026
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

US007536167B2

(12) United States Patent

Gollnick et al.

(10) Patent No.:

(45) Date of Patent:

US 7,536,167 B2

*May 19, 2009

(21) Appl. No.: 10/630,138

(54) NETWORK SUPPORTING ROAMING,

SLEEPING TERMINALS

(73) Assignee: Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA

(US)

Related U.S. Application Data

(63) Continuation of application No. 09/318,668, filed on

May 25, 1999, which is a continuation of application

No. 08/545,108, filed on Oct. 19, 1995, now Pat. No.

5,940,771, which is a continuation of application No.

07/947,102, filed on Sep. 14, 1992, now abandoned,

12/1973 Boudreau et al.

811979 Ward et al.

5/1982 Malcom et al.

11/1983 Karlstrom

5/1984 Leslie et al.

12/1986 Smith

2/1987 George et al.

5/1987 Allen et al.

7/1987 Kawasaki et al.

2/1988 McNatt et al.

3/1988 Umetsu et al.

4/1988 Kawasaki et al.

5/1988 Nagata et al.

5/1988 Hood et al.

5/1988 Gopal et al.

12/1988 Fujiwara

3,781,815 A

4,164,628 A

4,332,027 A

4,414,661 A

4,449,248 A

4,630,314 A

4,644,532 A

4,663,706 A

4,679,244 A

4,725,992 A

4,734,694 A

4,736,461 A

4,745,408 A

4,747,126 A

4,748,658 A

4,794,649 A

and a continuation ofapplicationNo. 07/907,927, filed

on Jun. 30, 1992, now abandoned, said application No.

07/947,102 and a continuation-in-part of application

No. 07/857,603, filed on Mar. 30, 1992, now abandoned, is a continuation-in-part of application No.

071700,704, filed on May 14, 1991, now abandoned,

which is a continuation-in-part of application No.

07/699,818, filed on May 13, 1991, now abandoned,

said application No. 07/907,927 and a continuationin-part of application No. PCTIUS92/03982, filed on

May 13, 1992, and a continuation-in-part of application No. 071769,425, filed on Oct. I, 1991, now abandoned, and a continuation-in-part of application No.

07/802,348, filed on Dec. 4, 1991, now abandoned, is

a continuation-in-part of application No. 071790,946,

filed on Nov. 12, 1991, now abandoned.

(51) Int. Cl.

H04W 52/44 (2006.01)

H04W 52/28 (2006.01)

(52) U.S. Cl. 455/343.4; 455/412.2; 455/517;

455/574

(58) Field of Classification Search 455/343.1-6,

455/517,561,412.2,574

See application file for complete search history.

(56) References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

Feb. 5,2004

Prior Publication Data

Jul. 29, 2003

This patent is subject to a tenninal disclaimer.

Subject to any disclaimer, the term ofthis

patent is extended or adjusted under 35

U.S.c. 154(b) by 279 days.

US 2004/0023651 Al

(22) Filed:

(75) Inventors: Charles D. Gollnick, Cedar Rapids, IA

(US); Ronald E. Luse, Marion, IA (US);

John G. Pavek, Cedar Rapids, IA (US);

Marvin L. Sojka, Cedar Rapids, IA

(US); James D. Cnossen, Marion, IA

(US); Arvin D. Danielson, Cedar

Rapids, IA (US); Ronald L. Mahany,

Cedar Rapids, IA (US); Mary L.

Detweiler, Parnell, IA (US); Gary N.

Spiess, Lisbon, IA (US); Guy J. West,

Cedar Rapids, IA (US); Amos D. Young,

Cedar Rapids, IA (US); Robert C.

Meier, Cedar Rapids, IA (US); Keith K.

Cargin, Jr., Cedar Rapids, IA (US);

Richard C. Arensdorf, Ely, IA (US);

Robert G. Geers, Cedar Rapids, IA

(US)

(65)

( *) Notice:

3025 3027

&

«»))

3035 3013

3029

3023

~liJ)>> 3016 1\

3021

c::J

-

3017~«») 303 I

303

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 96 of 100 PageID #:1027
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

US007548553B2

(12) United States Patent

Meier

(10) Patent No.:

(45) Date of Patent:

US 7,548,553 B2

*Jun.16,2009

(54) REDUNDANT RADIO FREQUENCY

NETWORK HAVING A ROAMING

TERMINAL COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL

(58) Field of Classification Search 370/338,

370/346,447,449; 340/3.51

See application file for complete search history.

(75) Inventor: Robert C. Meier, Cedar Rapids, IA

(US)

(56) References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

(73) Assignee: Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA

(US)

(Continued)

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

53-10206

( *) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term ofthis

patent is extended or adjusted under 35

U.S.c. 154(b) by 508 days. JP

4,063,220 A 12/1977 Metcalfe et al.

1/1978

This patent is subject to a tenninal disclaimer.

(Continued)

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

(21) Appl. No.: 111223,404

(22) Filed:

(65)

Sep.9,2005

Prior Publication Data

Fapojuwo et aI., "Message and Packet Access Delays in CSMA-DC

Local Area Networks", In Proceedings ofthe 8th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies,

INFOCOM'89, "Technology: Emerging or Converging?" pp. 849-

857, vol. 3, Call No. 10.1109/INFOCOM.1989.101535, Apr. 27,

1989.

(51) Int. Cl.

H04Q 1/00 (2006.01)

(52) U.S. Cl. 370/449; 340/3.51

Related U.S. Application Data

(63) Continuation of application No. 101762,746, filed on

Jan. 22, 2004, now Pat. No. 7,386,002, which is a

continuation of application No. 091960,265, filed on

Sep. 21, 2001, now Pat. No. 6,714,559, which is a

continuation of application No. 09/849,776, filed on

May 4, 2001, now abandoned, which is a continuation

of application No. 09/482,197, filed on Jan. 12,2000,

now abandoned, which is a continuation ofapplication

No. 08/941,496, filed on Sep. 30, 1997, now abandoned, which is a continuation of application No.

08/270,533, filed on Jul. 5, 1994, now Pat. No. 5,673,

031, which is a continuation-in-part ofapplication No.

07/802,348, filed on Dec. 4, 1991, now abandoned,

which is a continuation-in-part of application No.

071790,946, filed on Nov. 12, 1991, now abandoned.

44 Claims, 6 Drawing Sheets

(Continued)

Primary Examiner-Edwin C Holloway, III

(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-McAndrews, Held & Malloy,

Ltd.

(57) ABSTRACT

Disclosed herein is a redundant network and communication

protocol at least including host computers, RF base stations,

and roaming terminals. The network may utilize a polling

communication protocol such that under heavy traffic conditions' a roaming tenninal wishing to initiate communication

may be required to detennine whether the channel is clear by

listening for an entire interpoll gap time. When a hidden

tenninal is communicating, the roaming tenninal may conclude that the communication is taking place upon receiving

a polling frame directed to the hidden terminal from the

normally silent base station. Inherent redundancy techniques

may be used with a spanning tree approach for detennining

the most efficient pathways from a source to a destination and

ensuring that the network adapts to spatial changes or breakdowns within the network.

US 2006/0062240 Al Mar. 23, 2006

{'51

6

161 1690

{155 ('71 6

173

I RFP EOD

t 159 153 r-'57

1630 ( 6

167 175

POLL 0 CLEAR)

165) 177

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 97 of 100 PageID #:1028
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

US007710907B2

(12) United States Patent

Mahany

(10) Patent No.:

(45) Date of Patent:

US 7,710,907 B2

*May 4, 2010

ABSTRACT

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

References Cited

5/1972 Beveridge

(Continued)

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

3,665,164 A

(56)

0194115 9/1986

(Continued)

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

PCMCIA Primer, John Reimer, pp. 66-67, 1995.

(Continued)

(57)

A communication network having at least one access point

supports wireless communication among a plurality ofwirelessroaming devices via a first and a second wireless channel.

The access point comprises a first and a second transceiver.

The first and second transceivers operate on the first and

second wireless channels, respectively. Each ofthe plurality

ofwireless roaming devices are capable ofcommunicating on

the first and second wireless channel. In one embodiment, the

first wireless channel is used to exchange data, while the

second channel is used to manage such exchanges as well as

access to the first channel. In an alternate embodiment, both

channels are used to support communication flow, however

the first channel supports a protocol that is more deterministic

than that of the second channel. Allocation of ones of the

plurality ofwireless roaming devices from one channel to the

next may occur per direction from the access point. It may

also result from decisions made by each ofthe wireless roaming devices made independent of the access point. For

example, a decision may bemade based on the data type being

transferred or based on the current channel load. Such factors

may also be used by the access point for allocation detenninations. In addition, allocation may be based on the type of

roaming device involved, such as allocating peripherals to a

slower channel.

50 Claims, 17 Drawing Sheets

EP

Primary Examiner-Sharad Rampuria

(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-McAndrews, Held & Malloy,

Ltd.

(WO) PCTIUS96/09474

(54)

(75)

LOCAL AREA NETWORK HAVING

MULTIPLE CHANNEL WIRELESS ACCESS

Inventor: Ronald L. Mahany, Cedar Rapids, IA

(US)

Assignee: Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA

(US)

Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term ofthis

patent is extended or adjusted under 35

U.S.c. l54(b) by 766 days.

This patent is subject to a tenninal disclaimer.

(21) Appl. No.: 11/496,950

(22) Filed: Aug. 1, 2006

(65) Prior Publication Data

Jun. 3, 1996

(51) Int. Cl.

H04B 7/00 (2006.01)

(52) U.S. Cl. 370/310.2; 370/328; 370/338;

370/401; 455/41.2; 455/432.1

(58) Field of Classification Search 370/310.1,

370/338,401,466; 455/3.01,41.2,432.1,

455/517; 375/240

See application file for complete search history.

US 2006/0270338 Al Nov. 30, 2006

Related U.S. Application Data

(60) Division of application No. 10/648,707, filed on Aug.

26,2003, now Pat. No. 7,107,052, which is a continuation of application No. 09/357,429, filed on Jul. 20,

1999, now Pat. No. 6,665,536, which is a continuation

of application No. 08/878,357, filed on Jun. 27, 1997,

now Pat. No. 5,960,344, which is a continuation-inpart of application No. 081772,895, filed on Dec. 24,

1996, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part

of application No. 08/696,086, filed onAug. 13, 1996,

now abandoned, which is a continuation ofapplication

No. 08/238,180, filed on May 4, 1994, now Pat. No.

5,546,397, which is a continuation-in-part of applicationNo.081197,392,filedonFeb.16,1994,nowabandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of application

No. 081170,121, filed on Dec. 20, 1993, now abandoned.

(30) Foreign Application Priority Data

(73)

( * )

906

912 910

..,- \ '.:.~ _...c..~.::..... : . i i.,~ ~~di:Y dJ\

::~\:=i):d_!)

~916 ~16 /"'

'00

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 98 of 100 PageID #:1029
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

US007873343B2

(12) United States Patent

Gollnick et al.

(10) Patent No.:

(45) Date of Patent:

US 7,873,343 B2

*Jan.18,2011

Notice:

60 Claims, 26 Drawing Sheets

(58) Field of Classification Search None

See application file for complete search history.

(56) References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

(Continued)

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

EP 281334 9/1988

(Continued)

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

ABSTRACT

3,781,815 A 12/1973 Boudreau et al.

(57)

Improved apparatus for a radio communication system having a multiplicity of mobile transceiver units selectively in

communication with a plurality of base transceiver units

which, in tum, communicate with one or more host computers for storage and manipulation ofdata collected by bar code

scauners or other collectionmeans associated with the mobile

transceiver units. A network controller and an adapter which

has a simulcast and sequential mode provide selective interface between host computers and base transceivers. A scheme

for routing data through the communication system is also

disclosed wherein the intennediate base stations are organized into an optimal spanning-tree network to control the

routing of data to and from the RF terminals and the host

computer efficiently and dynamically. Additionally, redundant network and communication protocol is disclosed

wherein the network utilizes a polling communication protocol which, under heavy loaded conditions, requires that a

roaming tenninal wishing to initiate communication must

first determine that the chaunel is truly clear by listing for an

entire interpoll gap time. In a further embodiment, a criterion

used by the roaming tenninals for attaching to a given base

station reduces conflicts in the overlapping RF regions of

adjacent base stations.

Respondent Qualcomm Incorporated's Notice of Prior Art, with

Exhibits A & D attached thereto, Nov. 15,2005.

(Continued)

Primary Examiner-Philip J Sobutka

(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-McAndrews, Held & Malloy,

Ltd.

Subject to any disclaimer, the term ofthis

patent is extended or adjusted under 35

U.S.c. 154(b) by 0 days.

This patent is subject to a tenninal disclaimer.

Appl. No.: 12/468,698

Filed: May 19, 2009

Prior Publication Data

US 200910247241 Al Oct. 1,2009

Related U.S. Application Data

Continuation of application No. 10/630,138, filed on

Jul. 29, 2003, now Pat. No. 7,536,167, which is a

continuation of application No. 09/318,668, filed on

May 25, 1999, now Pat. No. 7,558,557, which is a

continuation of application No. 08/545,108, filed on

Int. Cl. (Continued)

H04W 52/44 (2009.01)

H04W 52/28 (2009.01)

U.S. Cl. 455/343.3; 455/412.2; 455/517;

455/574

COMMUNICATION NETWORK TERMINAL

WITH SLEEP CAPABILITY

Inventors: Charles D. Gollnick, Cedar Rapids, IA

(US); Ronald E. Luse, Marion, IA (US);

John G. Pavek, Cedar Rapids, IA (US);

Marvin L. Sojka, Cedar Rapids, IA

(US); James D. Cnossen, Marion, IA

(US); Arvin D. Danielson, Cedar

Rapids, IA (US); Ronald L. Mahany,

Cedar Rapids, IA (US); Mary L.

Detweiler, Parnell, IA (US); Gary N.

Spiess, Lisbon, IA (US); Guy J. West,

Cedar Rapids, IA (US); Amos D. Young,

Cedar Rapids, IA (US); Robert C.

Meier, Cedar Rapids, IA (US); Keith K.

Cargin, Jr., Cedar Rapids, IA (US);

Richard C. Arensdorf, Ely, IA (US);

Robert G. Geers, Cedar Rapids, IA

(US)

Assignee: Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA

(US)

(51)

(21)

(22)

(65)

(63)

(54)

(75)

(52)

(73)

( * )

3025 3027

l

(»)

3035 I 3013

3029

3023 3016-.iif?I

3021

CJ

- J(»))

3017

303 I

303

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 99 of 100 PageID #:1030
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

US007916747B2

(12) United States Patent

Meier

(10) Patent No.:

(45) Date of Patent:

US 7,916,747 B2

*Mar.29,2011

(21) Appl. No.: 12/121,536

(75) Inventor: Robert C. Meier, Cedar Rapids, IA

(US)

(73) Assignee: Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA

(US)

(54) REDUNDANT RADIO FREQUENCY

NETWORK HAVING A ROAMING

TERMINAL COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL

(56) References Cited

(Continued)

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

JP 53-10206 1/1978

(Continued)

W. Stallings, Local and Metropolitan Area Networks, 1997, pp. 378-

383.

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

4,063,220 A 12/1977 Metcalfe et al.

4,251,865 A 2/1981 Moore et al.

4,332,027 A 5/1982 Malcolm

(Continued)

Subject to any disclaimer, the term ofthis

patent is extended or adjusted under 35

U.S.c. 154(b) by 12 days.

This patent is subject to a tenninal disclaimer.

( *) Notice:

(22) Filed: May 15, 2008

(65) Prior Publication Data

US 2008/0285489 Al Nov. 20, 2008

Primary Examiner - Edwin C Holloway, III

(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm - McAndrews, Held &

Malloy, Ltd.

25 Claims, 6 Drawing Sheets

Disclosed herein is a redundant network and communication

protocol at least including host computers, RF base stations,

and roaming terminals. The network may utilize a polling

communication protocol such that under heavy traffic conditions' a roaming tenninal wishing to initiate communication

may be required to wait for at least a predetermined period

and detennine whether the channel is available for communication. When a hidden terminal is communicating, the

roaming terminal may conclude that the communication is

taking place upon receiving a polling frame directed to the

hidden tenninal from the nonnally silent base station. Inherent redundancy techniques may be used with a spanning tree

approach for detennining the most efficient pathways from a

source to a destination and ensuring that the network adaptsto

spatial changes or breakdowns within the network.

(63)

(51)

(52)

(58)

Related U.S. Application Data

Continuation of application No. 101762,746, filed on

Jan. 22, 2004, now Pat. No. 7,386,002, which is a

continuation of application No. 091960,265, filed on

Sep. 21, 2001, now Pat. No. 6,714,559, which is a

continuation of application No. 09/849,776, filed on

May 4, 2001, now abandoned, which is a continuation

of application No. 09/482,197, filed on Jan. 12,2000,

now abandoned, which is a continuation ofapplication

No. 08/941,496, filed on Sep. 30, 1997, now

abandoned, which is a continuation of application No.

08/270,533, filed on Jul. 5, 1994, now Pat. No.

5,673,031.

Int. Cl.

H04Q 1/00 (2006.01)

U.S. Cl. 370/449; 340/3.51

Field of Classification Search . ... ... ..... ... 370/280,

370/256,338,346,447,449; 340/3.51

See application file for complete search history.

(57) ABSTRACT

__-L25 27

23

21

!i(I'»)

17 39

33

Case: 1:11-cv-09309 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 07/25/11 Page 100 of 100 PageID #:1031