Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9147 Filed 03/16/23 Page 1 of 192
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9148 Filed 03/16/23 Page 2 of 192
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`In Re Neo Wireless, LLC
`Patent Litigation
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ROBERT AKL, D.Sc., IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9149 Filed 03/16/23 Page 3 of 192
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 2
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ...................... 3
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 9
`
`Indefiniteness ....................................................................................... 10
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 11
`
`V. MATERIALS RELIED UPON ..................................................................... 12
`
`VI. THE ’366 PATENT ....................................................................................... 13
`
`A.
`
`“the ranging signal exhibits a low peak-to-average power ratio
`in the time domain” (Claims 1, 17) ..................................................... 14
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Peak-to-Average Power Ratio (PAPR) .......................... 14
`
`The ’366 Patent Does Not Provide Examples of a
`“Low” PAPR .................................................................. 17
`
`The Two Publications Mr. Alberth Cites Would
`Not Have Informed a POSITA About the Scope of
`the Term “Low Peak-To-Average Power Ratio” in
`the ’366 Patent ................................................................ 18
`
`B.
`
`“a ranging sequence selected from a set of ranging sequences”
`(Claims 1, 17) ...................................................................................... 24
`
`VII. THE ’908 PATENT ....................................................................................... 28
`
`A.
`
`“wherein the portion of the frequency band used for
`transmission of the random access signal does not include
`control channels” (Claim 4) ................................................................ 28
`
`VIII. ADDITIONAL REMARKS .......................................................................... 31
`
`
`
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`
`
`1
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9150 Filed 03/16/23 Page 4 of 192
`
`I, Robert Akl, D.Sc. of Dallas, Texas, declare that:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of 18 and am competent to make this declaration. I
`
`have personal knowledge, or have developed knowledge of these technologies based
`
`upon education, training, or experience, of the matters set forth herein. If called upon
`
`to do so, I would testify competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness to address certain technical
`
`issues presented in the claim construction proceedings of this matter.
`
`3.
`
`I have been informed that there are 6 patents-at-issue in the above
`
`captioned litigation. Those patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,467,366 (“’366 patent”),
`
`10,833,908 (“’908 patent”), 10,447,450 (“’450 patent”), 10,075,941 (“’941 patent”),
`
`10,771,302 (“’302 patent”), and 10,965,512 (“’512 patent”) (collectively, “Patents-
`
`in-Suit”). I have reviewed and analyzed these Patents-in-Suit.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to provide opinions regarding how a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would understand certain terms of the asserted
`
`claims of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`5.
`
`This declaration contains statements of my opinions formed to date and
`
`the bases and reasons for those opinions. I may offer additional opinions based on
`
`further review of materials in this case, including opinions and/or testimony of other
`
`expert witnesses.
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`2
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9151 Filed 03/16/23 Page 5 of 192
`
`6.
`
`For time spent in connection with study and analysis in this matter, I am
`
`compensated in the amount of $850 per hour. My compensation does not depend on
`
`the outcome of this case or any issue related to it. I have no financial interest in this
`
`matter. The opinions contained in this declaration are mine and based upon my
`
`education, knowledge, research and experience, and study of the materials discussed
`
`below.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`7.
`
`I am an expert in the field of wireless telecommunication systems.
`
`I have studied, taught, practiced, and researched this field for over 28 years. I have
`
`summarized in this section my educational background, work experience, and other
`
`relevant qualifications. A true and accurate copy of my curriculum vitae is attached
`
`as Appendix A to this declaration.
`
`8.
`
`I earned two Bachelor of Science degrees in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science summa cum laude with a grade point average of 4.0/4.0 and a
`
`ranking of first in my undergraduate class from Washington University in St. Louis
`
`in 1994. In 1996, I earned my Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from Washington University in St. Louis with a grade point average of 4.0/4.0.
`
`I earned my Doctor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Washington
`
`University in St. Louis in 2000, again with a grade point average of 4.0/4.0, with my
`
`dissertation being on “Cell Design to Maximize Capacity in Cellular Code Division
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`3
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9152 Filed 03/16/23 Page 6 of 192
`
`Multiple Access (CDMA) Networks.”
`
`9. While a graduate student, from 1996 through 2000, I worked at
`
`MinMax Corporation in St. Louis, where I designed software packages that provided
`
`tools to flexibly allocate capacity in a CDMA communications network and
`
`maximize the number of subscribers. I also analyzed and simulated different audio
`
`compression schemes. I also validated the hardware architecture for an
`
`Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) switch capable of channel group switching, as
`
`well as performed logical and timing simulations, and developed the hardware
`
`architecture for the ATM switch. I also worked with Teleware Corporation in Seoul,
`
`South Korea, where I designed and developed algorithms that were commercially
`
`deployed in a software package suite for analyzing the capacity in a CDMA network
`
`implementing the IS-95 standard to maximize the number of subscribers.
`
`10. After obtaining my Doctor of Science degree, I worked as a Senior
`
`Systems Engineer at Comspace Corporation from October of 2000 to December of
`
`2001. At Comspace, I designed and developed advanced data coding and
`
`modulation methods for improving the reliability and increasing the available data
`
`rates for cellular communications. I coded and simulated different encoding
`
`schemes (including Turbo coding, Viterbi decoding, trellis coded modulation, and
`
`Reed-Muller codes) and modulation techniques using amplitude and phase
`
`characteristics and multi-level star constellations. This work further entailed the
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`4
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9153 Filed 03/16/23 Page 7 of 192
`
`optimization of soft decision parameters and interleavers for additive white Gaussian
`
`and Rayleigh faded channels. In addition, I also extended the control and trunking
`
`of Logic Trunked Radio (LTR) to include one-to-one and one-to-many voice and
`
`data messaging.
`
`11.
`
`In January of 2002, I joined the faculty of the University of New
`
`Orleans in Louisiana as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical
`
`Engineering. While in this position, I designed and taught two new courses called
`
`“Computer Systems Design I and II.” I also developed a Computer Engineering
`
`Curriculum with a strong hardware-design emphasis, formed a wireless research
`
`group, and advised graduate and undergraduate students.
`
`12.
`
`In September of 2002, I received an appointment as an Assistant
`
`Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University
`
`of North Texas (UNT), in Denton, Texas. In May of 2008, I became a tenured
`
`Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering. As a
`
`faculty member, I have taught courses and directed research in networking and
`
`telecommunications, including 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, CDMA/WCDMA, GPS, GSM,
`
`UMTS, LTE, ad-hoc networks, antenna design and beamforming, Bluetooth, call
`
`admission control, channel coding, channel estimation, communication interfaces
`
`and standards, compression, computer architecture, MIMO systems, multi-cell
`
`network optimization, network security, packet-networks, telephony, VoIP, Wi-Fi
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`5
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9154 Filed 03/16/23 Page 8 of 192
`
`(802.11), 802.15.4, Zigbee, wireless communication, and wireless sensors. In
`
`January of 2015, I was appointed to Associate Chair of Graduate Studies in the
`
`Department of Computer Science and Engineering.
`
`13.
`
`I am involved in various research centers. I am the director of the
`
`Wireless Sensor Lab (“WiSL”) at UNT. I am also a member of the Center for
`
`Information and Cyber Security (CICS). It is the only program in the U.S. to be
`
`federally certified by the National Security Agency as a Center of Academic
`
`Excellence in Information Assurance Education and Research and Cyber Defense
`
`Research. I was also a member of the NSF Net-Centric & Cloud Software &
`
`Systems: Industry-University Cooperative Research Center (I/UCRC). Several of
`
`my research projects are funded by industry and the National Science Foundation
`
`and published in IEEE conference proceedings and journals.
`
`14.
`
`In addition to advising and mentoring students at UNT, I was asked to
`
`join the faculty of the University of Arkansas in Little Rock as an Adjunct Assistant
`
`Professor from 2004 to 2008 in order to supervise the research of two Ph.D. graduate
`
`students who were doing research in wireless communications. At UNT, I have
`
`advised and supervised more than 250 undergraduate and graduate students, several
`
`of whom received a master’s or doctorate degree under my guidance.
`
`15. Further, since 2005, I have received over a million dollars in funding
`
`from the State of Texas, Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, the National
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`6
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9155 Filed 03/16/23 Page 9 of 192
`
`Science Foundation, and industry to design and conduct robotics, video, and mobile
`
`gaming (e.g., Xbox, PC, mobile device) programming summer camps for middle
`
`and high school students at UNT. By using video and mobile gaming as the
`
`backdrop, participants have learned coding and programming principles and
`
`developed an understanding of the role of physics and mathematics in video game
`
`design.
`
`16.
`
`In addition to my academic work, I have remained active in the
`
`communication industry through my consulting work. In 2002, I consulted for
`
`Input/Output Inc. and designed and implemented algorithms for optimizing the
`
`frequency selection process used by sonar for scanning the bottom of the ocean. In
`
`2004, I worked with Allegiant Integrated Solutions in Ft. Worth, Texas, to design
`
`and develop an integrated set of tools for fast deployment of wireless networks, using
`
`the 802.11 standard. Among other features, these tools optimize the placement of
`
`Access Points and determine their respective channel allocations to minimize
`
`interference and maximize capacity. I also assisted the Collin County Sheriff’s
`
`Office (Texas) in a double homicide investigation, by analyzing cellular record data
`
`to determine user location.
`
`17.
`
`I have authored and co-authored over 100 journal publications,
`
`conference proceedings, technical papers, book chapters, and technical presentations
`
`in a broad array of communications-related technologies, including networking and
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`7
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9156 Filed 03/16/23 Page 10 of 192
`
`wireless communication. I have also developed and taught over 100 courses related
`
`to communications and computer systems, including several courses on signals and
`
`systems, 4G/LTE and 5G/NR, OFDM, VoIP, Wi-Fi (802.11), 802.15.4, Zigbee,
`
`wireless communication, antenna design and beamforming, communications
`
`systems, communication interfaces and standards, channel estimation, location
`
`management, sensor networks, source coding and compression, network security,
`
`computer systems design, game and app design, and computer architecture. These
`
`courses have included introductory courses on communication networks and signals
`
`and systems, as well as more advanced courses on wireless communications. A
`
`complete list of my publications and the courses I have developed and/or taught is
`
`also contained in my curriculum vitae.
`
`18. My professional affiliations include services in various professional
`
`organizations and serving as a reviewer for a number of technical publications,
`
`journals, and conferences. I have also received a number of awards and recognitions,
`
`including the IEEE Professionalism Award (2008), UNT College of Engineering
`
`Outstanding Teacher Award (2008), and Tech Titan of the Future (2010) among
`
`others, which are listed in my curriculum vitae.
`
`19.
`
`I have also served as an expert in certain legal proceedings. A list of
`
`cases in which I have testified at trial, hearing, or by deposition (including those
`
`during the past five years) is provided in my curriculum vitae. Over the years, I have
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`8
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9157 Filed 03/16/23 Page 11 of 192
`
`been retained by both patent owners and petitioners, and plaintiffs and defendants.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`20.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel on the law regarding claim
`
`construction. My understanding based on those instructions is as follows.
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed that, to determine the meaning of the claims,
`
`courts consider the intrinsic evidence, which includes the claims, the specification,
`
`and the prosecution history. I am informed that courts give claim terms their
`
`ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. I also understand that
`
`a patentee may also define his or her own terms or disclaim claim scope.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that the intrinsic record may also resolve
`
`ambiguous claim terms where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words
`
`used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be
`
`ascertained from the words alone. I understand, however, that particular
`
`embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read
`
`into the claims.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that a term’s context in the asserted claims can
`
`also be helpful. It is my understanding that differences among the claim terms can
`
`also assist in understanding a term’s meaning, for example, when a dependent claim
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`9
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9158 Filed 03/16/23 Page 12 of 192
`
`adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that the independent claim
`
`does not include the limitation.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed that extrinsic evidence can also be useful in
`
`determining the meaning of claim terms. I understand, however, that it is less
`
`significant than the intrinsic record. It is my understanding that technical
`
`dictionaries may be useful to show the manner in which one skilled in the art might
`
`use claim terms, but technical dictionaries may provide definitions that are too broad
`
`or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Similarly, I also
`
`understand that expert testimony may be useful in determining the particular
`
`meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but unsupported or conclusory expert
`
`testimony is not helpful.
`
`B.
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that the requirement that claims be definite stems
`
`from statutory law found in Title 35 of the United States Code. I have been informed
`
`that, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), a patent specification “shall conclude with one or
`
`more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter
`
`which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as his invention.” I have been
`
`informed that a claim which fails to meet this standard is invalid as indefinite. I
`
`understand that patent claims are presumed valid, and clear and convincing evidence
`
`is required to establish that a patent is invalid because it is indefinite.
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`10
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9159 Filed 03/16/23 Page 13 of 192
`
`26.
`
`I understand that indefiniteness is to be evaluated from the perspective
`
`of a POSITA at the time of the patent’s filing.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the Supreme Court has held that “a patent is invalid
`
`for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent,
`
`and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled
`
`in the art about the scope of the invention.” I understand that absolute or
`
`mathematical precision in claim language is not required. However, I have been
`
`informed that it is not enough that some meaning can be ascribed to a patent’s claims.
`
`It is my understanding that the claims, when read in light of the intrinsic record, must
`
`provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`28.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this Declaration, I was asked to
`
`consider the patent claims and the prior art through the eyes of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”). The “art” is the field of technology to which a patent is
`
`related. In my Declaration, I use the term POSITA and skilled person to refer to the
`
`same hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art. I considered factors such as the
`
`educational level and years of experience of those working in the pertinent art; the
`
`types of problems encountered in the art; the teachings of the prior art; patents and
`
`publications of other persons or companies; and the sophistication of the technology.
`
`I understand that a POSITA is not a specific real individual, but rather a hypothetical
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`11
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9160 Filed 03/16/23 Page 14 of 192
`
`individual having the qualities reflected by the factors discussed above.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the qualifications of a POSITA for each of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit as recited in Defendants’ invalidity contentions was “a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or an equivalent
`
`field, or an advanced degree in those fields, as well as at least 3-5 years of academic
`
`or industry experience in mobile wireless communications, or comparable industry
`
`experience.” For purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to apply this
`
`definition.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that Plaintiff’s expert, Mr. Alberth, provided his opinion
`
`of the level of a POSITA for the Patents-in-Suit as follows:
`
`[A] person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the
`alleged inventions of the asserted patents would have had an electrical
`engineering degree and at least 2 years of experience related to the
`design or implementation of wireless telecommunications systems or
`transceivers. Advanced education and degrees could compensate for
`less work experience, and equivalent knowledge gained through
`experience could compensate for less education.
`
`
`Dkt. 127-3 (Alberth Decl.) ¶ 18.
`
`
`31.
`
`I was at least a POSITA with respect to each of the Patents-in-Suit at
`
`the time of their alleged priority dates under either set of qualifications. The opinions
`
`expressed below would apply under either set of qualifications.
`
`V. MATERIALS RELIED UPON
`
`32.
`
`In reaching the conclusions described in this declaration, I have relied
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`12
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9161 Filed 03/16/23 Page 15 of 192
`
`on the documents and materials cited herein as well as those identified in this
`
`declaration, including the Patents-in-Suit, the prosecution histories of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit, and references cited herein. These materials comprise patents, related
`
`documents, and printed publications. Each of these materials is a type of document
`
`that experts in my field would have reasonably relied upon when forming their
`
`opinions. In the cited references all emphasis is added unless otherwise noted.
`
`33.
`
`I have also relied on my education, training, research, knowledge, and
`
`personal and professional experience in the relevant technologies and systems that
`
`were already in use prior to, and within the timeframe of the earliest priority date of
`
`the claimed subject matter in the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`VI. THE ’366 PATENT
`
`34. The ’366 patent is titled “Methods and apparatus for random access in
`
`multi-carrier communication systems.” It was filed on August 8, 2011 and claims
`
`priority to a provisional application filed on March 9, 2004.
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`13
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9162 Filed 03/16/23 Page 16 of 192
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9163 Filed 03/16/23 Page 17 of 192
`
`
`
`37.
`
`In Mr. Alberth’s declaration, he stated that the typical PAPR for
`
`OFDMA systems is 12 dB. Dkt. 127-3 (Alberth Decl.) ¶ 25. But, with OFDM
`
`signals, the PAPR can be much higher than the 12 dB PAPR identified by Mr.
`
`Alberth, which I discuss further below. “For example, for [subchannels] N = 256
`
`the PAPR can be as high as 24 dB (10log10(256)).” Ex. A (Ye) at 205.
`
`38. During the mid-2000s, when interest in applying OFDM to wireless
`
`networks increased, the industry started developing approaches to reduce PAPR in
`
`OFDM signals. Id. at 199-200. Some in the industry proposed new amplifier
`
`concepts for increasing the transmitter power efficiency. Id. Others used
`
`modulation techniques to generate transmit signals with reduced PAPR. Id. at 200;
`
`Ex. B (van Nee) at 119, 123.
`
`39. One approach to reduce PAPR was to clip the peaks by setting
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`15
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9164 Filed 03/16/23 Page 18 of 192
`
`maximum values for the transmitted signal. Ex. A (Ye) at 208-215; Ex. B (van Nee)
`
`at 119, 123. However, clipping increases the bit error rate (BER) of the signal. Ex.
`
`A (Ye) at 208; Ex. B (van Nee) at 123. With clipping, the PAPR would change
`
`based on system configurations such as the number of subchannels and the
`
`permissible BER. See Ex. A (Ye) at 208-215; Ex. B (van Nee) at 124-125. Other
`
`approaches reduced PAPR by using modulating techniques to produce waveforms
`
`with diminished peaks. Ex. A (Ye) at 215; Ex. B (van Nee) at 131-152. Some of
`
`these modulation approaches included coding tables, selective mapping (SLM),
`
`and/or partial transmit sequences (PTS). Ex. A (Ye) at 215-241. The PAPR for
`
`modulated signals would depend on system configurations and the type of
`
`modulation technique. See Ex. A (Ye) at 215-241; Ex. B (van Nee) at 131-152.
`
`40. As textbooks about OFDM explain and show with examples, the range
`
`of the PAPR for signals that used clipping or different modulation approaches varied
`
`greatly. See, e.g., Ex. A (Ye) at 216-241 (disclosing PAPR values from 21 dB to
`
`less than 7 dB); Ex. B (van Nee) at 131-152 (also disclosing a wide range of dB
`
`values depending on different PAPR reduction techniques).
`
`41. Although PAPR was a well-known measurement, I am unaware of any
`
`industry standard, publication, or other guidance that would indicate to a POSITA
`
`what the PAPR for the ranging signal in the ’366 patent should be. I am also unaware
`
`of any industry standard for determining whether a PAPR is low generally or in the
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`16
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9165 Filed 03/16/23 Page 19 of 192
`
`context of a ranging signal.
`
`b.
`
`The ’366 Patent Does Not Provide Examples of a
`“Low” PAPR
`
`42.
`
`I have been asked to consider the intrinsic record of the ’366 patent and
`
`determine whether it provides examples or other guidance that would help inform a
`
`POSITA about what qualifies as a low PAPR. I have reviewed the specification and
`
`have not seen anything that would inform a POSITA about the scope of the claim
`
`term.
`
`43. The ’366 patent does not provide any examples for determining
`
`whether a PAPR is low. When those in the field refer to “low” or “high” PAPR,
`
`they are comparing the PAPR of one signal to the PAPR of another signal or a
`
`baseline PAPR. E.g., Ex. A (Ye) at 232 (measuring performance based on whether
`
`the system can “reduce the PAPR below 7 dB”); Ex. B (van Nee) at 123 (comparing
`
`the PAPR of multiple signals), 138 (measuring performance based on whether “PAP
`
`ratio is below some desirable level.”). However, in the ’366 patent, there is nothing
`
`that a POSITA can use for the comparison. The ’366 patent states only that the
`
`signal exhibits a “relatively low” PAPR:
`
`In one embodiment of the implementation, the ranging sequence is
`designed such that its corresponding time-domain signal exhibits
`relatively low peak-to-average power ratio. This improves the power
`efficiency of the mobile station transmission power amplifier.
`
`’366 patent at 4:34-37. This disclosure does not clarify what the ’366 patent
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`17
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9166 Filed 03/16/23 Page 20 of 192
`
`considers low PAPR and adds additional uncertainty by using the phrases “relatively”
`
`low PAPR and “improve[d]” power efficiency.
`
`44. The claims of the ’366 patent also do not specify what qualifies as a
`
`low PAPR. The independent claims recite an OFDMA system that has a “ranging
`
`signal [that] exhibits a low peak-to-average power ratio in the time domain.” Id. at
`
`Claims 1, 17. But, like the specification, the claims also do not provide an example
`
`of a low PAPR that a POSITA could use for comparison. And, as described above,
`
`the fact that the claims recite an OFDMA system does not help a POSITA determine
`
`possible PAPRs because an OFDMA system can exhibit a wide range of PAPRs.
`
`45. The prosecution history for the ’366 patent also does not clarify what a
`
`low PAPR is. During prosecution of the ’366 patent, there was no communication
`
`with the PTO about PAPR.
`
`46. Without guidance on what qualifies as a low PAPR or any point of
`
`comparison, a POSITA would not have understood the scope of the claim term “low
`
`peak-to-average power ratio” in the ’366 patent with reasonable certainty.
`
`c.
`
`The Two Publications Mr. Alberth Cites Would Not
`Have Informed a POSITA About the Scope of the
`Term “Low Peak-To-Average Power Ratio” in the
`’366 Patent
`
`47.
`
`I understand that Mr. Alberth provided a declaration with opinions on
`
`what he considered a low PAPR in the context of the ’366 patent. To support his
`
`opinions, Mr. Alberth relies on two publications: (1) Baxley et al., Power Savings
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`18
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9167 Filed 03/16/23 Page 21 of 192
`
`Analysis of Peak-to-Average Power Ratio Reduction, IEEE Transactions of
`
`Consumer Elecs. (Aug. 2004) and (2) You et al., A Simple Construction of OFDM-
`
`CDMA Signals with Low Peak-To-Average Power Ratio, IEEE Transactions on
`
`Broadcasting (Dec. 2003). Dkt. 127-3 (Alberth Decl.) ¶ 25. Mr. Alberth cites these
`
`publications for his conclusion that “a POSITA would understand that cellular
`
`OFDMA systems could have a typical PAPR of 12dBs.” Id. ¶ 25. He also cites
`
`these publications for his conclusion that “a POSITA would understand that a
`
`relative difference in PAPR of 3dBs for a reduced PAPR to be ‘low’ in the context
`
`of the patented claims.” Id. ¶ 26.
`
`48.
`
`I disagree with Mr. Alberth that a POSITA would have considered these
`
`references when determining what low PAPR means in the context of the ’366 patent.
`
`Both publications relate to different systems than the system in the ’366 patent.
`
`Whereas the ’366 patent refers to ranging sequences designed to reduce the PAPR
`
`for a ranging signal (’366 patent at 4:14-38), the two publications relate to theoretical
`
`systems that use clipping and specific modulation schemes such as selective
`
`mapping (SLC), as described in more detail below. The ’366 patent does not discuss
`
`these signal processing techniques anywhere in the specification. However, even if
`
`a POSITA would have considered these references, these references do not assist a
`
`POSITA in determining the scope of a “low peak-to-average power ratio.” I
`
`therefore disagree that the POSITA would reach the same conclusions as Mr.
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`19
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9168 Filed 03/16/23 Page 22 of 192
`
`Alberth.
`
`49. The Baxley publication describes different schemes that reduce the
`
`PAPR in an OFDM signal. Ex. C (Baxley) at 793. As Baxley explains, “in the time
`
`domain, the OFDM signal has a large peak-to-average power ratio (PAR), which
`
`translates to low power amplifier efficiencies.”1 Id. at 792. To reduce PAPR, Baxley
`
`proposed several different schemes. Id. For example, Baxley’s Table I (below)
`
`shows that a theoretical system can use clipping to reduce the PAPR. Id. at 793. As
`
`the data shows below, the PAPR for this theoretical system depends heavily on the
`
`number of subcarriers (N) and the probability for clipping (p).
`
`Id. The data further shows that more subcarriers result in a higher PAPR. The data
`
`also shows that a higher probability of clipping results in a lower PAPR. Notably,
`
`the table says nothing about a PAPR being “low” or “high,” just that some PAPR
`
`
`
`
`1 Baxley abbreviates the peak-to-average power ratio as PAR instead of PAPR where
`PAR is a shorthand for peak-to-average ratio.
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`20
`
`DR. ROBERT AKL’S
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DECLARATION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131-2, PageID.9169 Filed 03/16/23 Page 23 of 192
`
`values are lower or higher than others.
`
`50. Mr. Alberth does not explain why he chose Baxley’s theoretical system
`
`with clipping as “a baseline” for the ’366 patent. Dkt. 127-3 (Alberth Decl.) ¶ 25.
`
`The ’366 patent does not indicate that the “relatively low peak-to-average power
`
`ratio” is relative to systems that already use clipping to reduce the PAPR. In fact,
`
`the ’366 patent does not refer to clipping or Baxley anywhere in the specification.
`
`51. Even if a POSITA would have considered Baxley, the POSITA would
`
`not have understood that the baseline PAPR would be approximately 12 dB. Baxley
`
`never says that conventional OFDM or OFDMA signals have a PAPR of 12 dB.
`
`Instead, Baxley provides exemplary PAPR calculations for a specific theoretical
`
`system that range from 9.97 dB to 13.5 dB. Ex. C (Baxley) at 793. Mr. Alberth
`
`appears to pick 12 dB from the table of numbers by relyin