EXHIBIT 17 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-4 Filed 08/12/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 2421
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-4 Filed 08/12/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 2422
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-4 Filed 08/12/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 2423
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-4 Filed 08/12/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 2424
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-4 Filed 08/12/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 2425
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-4 Filed 08/12/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 2426
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-4 Filed 08/12/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 2427
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-4 Filed 08/12/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 2428
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-4 Filed 08/12/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 2429
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-4 Filed 08/12/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:

2430
Attorney's Docket No.: 43273-506001US 

Thus, Nevo coordinates by determining a pseudorandom frequency hopping pattern, 

predicting when interference will occur, and preemptively notifying the non-dominant 

transceiver to stop transmission. 

In contrast, claim 9 recites a combination of features including "signal 

transmission/reception coordination logic that is capable of ascertaining, by monitoring the 

plurality of access points for received signals, that a first access point of the plurality of access 

points is receiving a first signal and that is adapted to restrain at least a second access point of the 

plurality of access points from transmitting a second signal responsive to the ascertaining that the 

first access point is receiving the first signal." Thus, the coordination logic of claim 9 ascertains, 

by monitoring the plurality of access points, that one access point is receiving a signal and in 

response restrains a second access point from transmitting an interfering signal. Rather than a 

Nevo's selecting a dominant transceiver, determining a hopping pattern, predicting when 

interference will occur, and preemptively preventing interference by notifying the dominated 

transceiver to stop transmission, claim 9 is directed to ascertaining by monitoring a plurality of 

access points that any first access point is receiving and restraining at least a second access point 

from transmitting. 

The Office alleges that that Nevo's coordination of transceivers is equivalent to the 

coordination logic of claim 9. But this is a clear error since nowhere does Nevo disclose or 

suggest "ascertaining, by monitoring the plurality of access points for received signals, that a 

first access point of the plurality of access points is receiving a first signal," as recited in claim 9. 

Although Griffith generally describes determining an optimum segment size for a wireless link 

to improve the combined throughput of a wired network followed by a wireless network, Griffith 

fails to cure the above-noted deficiency ofNevo, nor does the Office allege that it does. 

-10-

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-4 Filed 08/12/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:

2431
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-4 Filed 08/12/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:

2432
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-4 Filed 08/12/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:

2433
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-4 Filed 08/12/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:

2434