Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 133-1, PageID.10054 Filed 03/30/23 Page 1 of 6
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM ALBERTH IN SUPPORT OF NEO
`WIRELESS’S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 133-1, PageID.10055 Filed 03/30/23 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
`
`THE ’366 PATENT .................................................................................................. 1
`
`THE ’941 PATENT .................................................................................................. 4
`
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 133-1, PageID.10056 Filed 03/30/23 Page 3 of 6
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`My name is William P. Alberth, Jr. I previously gave a declaration in this matter on
`
`February 16, 2023, and I incorporate by reference the background, credentials, and other
`
`preliminary matters set forth in that initial declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts and opinions set forth in this declaration, and, if
`
`called upon to do so, I would testify competently thereto.
`
`3.
`
`As before, my analysis of the materials produced in this matter is ongoing and I will
`
`continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration represents only those
`
`opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to amend or supplement my opinions based on
`
`additional documents or evidence I am presented, including without limitation any arguments or
`
`expert declarations advanced by Defendants in this case.
`
`II. THE ’366 PATENT
`
`4.
`
`With respect to the term “the ranging signal exhibits a low peak-to-average power ratio in
`
`the time domain,” I agree with Dr. Akl that “those in the field refer to ‘low’ or ‘high’
`
`PAPR…[by] comparing the PAPR of one signal to the PAPR of another signal or a baseline
`
`PAPR.” Akl Decl. (Dkt. 131-2) at ¶ 43. That is why I testified in my prior declaration that a
`
`POSITA would understand what a “low PAPR” is in the ’366 Patent by comparing the PAPR of
`
`the ranging signal to the baseline PAPR of the OFDMA system being implemented. This is
`
`particularly true in the context of OFDMA systems like those called for by the claims of the ’366
`
`patent since, as Dr. Akl acknowledges, efforts to reduce the PAPR in OFDM systems (like those
`
`I cited in my earlier declaration) were common at the time of the invention. A POSITA reading
`
`the ’366 patent would recognize that a “low PAPR” is the sort achieved by reducing the PAPR
`
`relative to the OFDM baseline in the particular system being implemented. In my opinion, this
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 133-1, PageID.10057 Filed 03/30/23 Page 4 of 6
`
`relative understanding alone provides reasonable certainty for a POSITA of the meaning of the
`
`term, and the exact numerical value of the PAPR of the ranging signal will depend on the
`
`implementation.
`
`5.
`
`In the event the Court wanted a specific numerical value with which to define “low,” I
`
`also provided in my prior declaration an exemplary 12dB baseline PAPR that would generally
`
`capture most conventional OFDMA systems at the time of invention. See Dkt. 127-3 at ¶ 25.
`
`6.
`
`I understand Dr. Akl takes issue with the choice of 12dB as that general baseline, and he
`
`points out that the literature I cited, and other articles he cites, discuss OFDM systems with
`
`baseline PAPRs ranging from, for example, 7dB to 21dB. Akl. Decl. at ¶ 40. But I note that the
`
`12dB baseline I identified falls squarely within that range, and is the baseline used by the Baxley
`
`article in its analysis, as Dr. Akl acknowledges. Id. at ¶ 51.
`
`7.
`
`Dr. Akl also ignores that I offered those articles as supporting examples, but that my
`
`testimony came largely from my own experience, at the time of invention, working with and
`
`implementing OFDMA systems in practice. I do not know if Dr. Akl had any real world
`
`experience working with these networks in the industry, but in my 25 years working as an
`
`engineer in the cellular space (including during the time of invention), my experience was that
`
`12dB was a reliable baseline for real world OFDMA networks.
`
`8.
`
`In any case, the accuracy of my 12dB baseline is largely irrelevant, since I and Dr. Akl
`
`appear to agree that a POSITA would know to compare the PAPR of the ranging signal with the
`
`actual baseline PAPR of a particular system being implemented (even if not exactly 12dB).
`
`9.
`
`Furthermore, I understand Defendants and Dr. Akl also dispute my testimony that a 3dB
`
`reduction (as shown in the articles I cited) would be a sufficient reduction for the resulting signal
`
`to be considered as having a “low PAPR.” For example, Dr. Akl observes that the Baxley article
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 133-1, PageID.10058 Filed 03/30/23 Page 5 of 6
`
`I cited, though showing a 3dB reduction in PAPR, does not explicitly call the resulting PAPR
`
`“low.” Akl Decl. at ¶ 52. But this misses the point.
`
`10.
`
`As with the argument above, the 3dB reduction I identified was in the context of the
`
`exemplary, generic OFDMA system I offered to the extent the Court wanted a definite numerical
`
`analysis. My overall point is that a POSITA would have understood how different techniques can
`
`reduce the PAPR of OFDM signals, and the resulting reduction (relative to the baseline) would
`
`be known as “low,” just as Dr. Akl acknowledges. In Baxley, the reduction described in the
`
`article was 3dB, providing a sufficient exemplary reduction for the generic 12dB baseline.
`
`11.
`
`Outside the context of that specific example, Dr. Akl and Defendants do not appear to
`
`dispute my main point: that a POSITA reading the patent (and its description of improving
`
`power efficiency) would understand the type of appreciable reduction that can be achieved in an
`
`OFDMA system and improve power efficiency. See Dkt. 127-3 at ¶ 24.
`
`12. With respect to the term “a ranging sequence selected from a set of ranging sequences,” I
`
`previously testified that a POSITA would understand the phrase to cover selection by either the
`
`mobile station or a base station, since both concepts were common in the art. I cited the 3GPP
`
`standards 25.214 V5.7.0 (2003-12) in section 6.1 as an example where, in a wireless network, a
`
`variable used in random access (a preamble scrambling code) is provided from the base station
`
`rather than selected by the mobile station.
`
`13.
`
`Dr. Akl appears to disregard this example, and dispute my conclusion, simply because the
`
`cited preamble scrambling code does not map precisely to the random access sequence in the
`
`’366 patent claims. See Akl Decl. at ¶¶ 60–62. But I was certainly not contending that the cited
`
`3G standard maps to the ’366 patent claims. I was using the 3G standard solely as an example of
`
`a base station providing random access criteria to a mobile station, to demonstrate that this
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 133-1, PageID.10059 Filed 03/30/23 Page 6 of 6
`
`4
`
`