Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 134-2, PageID.10063 Filed 03/31/23 Page 1 of 12
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 134-2, PageID.10064 Filed 03/31/23 Page 2 of 12
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NEO WIRELESS LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`Case IPR2023-00426
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF LEONARD J. CIMINI, JR., PH.D.
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`VWGoA EX1003
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 134-2, PageID.10065 Filed 03/31/23 Page 3 of 12
`
`Declaration of Leonard J. Cimini, Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366
`
`VI.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY .......................................................... 3
`II.
`III. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 5
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 9
`V.
`LEGAL UNDERSTANDING .......................................................................11
`A. My Understanding of Claim Construction ..........................................11
`B. My Understanding of Obviousness .....................................................11
`C. My Understanding of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art ......14
`THE ’366 PATENT .......................................................................................15
`A.
`Overview .............................................................................................15
`B.
`Prosecution History .............................................................................18
`C.
`IPR2021-01480 ...................................................................................19
`D.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................................20
`E.
`Claim Construction..............................................................................21
`VII. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY ................................................23
`A. Multiple Access Techniques ...............................................................23
`B.
`Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM) & Orthogonal
`Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) ...............................25
`Guard Bands and Guard Periods .........................................................26
`C.
`Peak-to-Average Power Ratio (PAP, PAR, or PAPR) ........................27
`D.
`Reducing or Eliminating Signal Interference ......................................28
`E.
`VIII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-4, 6-20, 22-24 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS
`OVER JEONG AND SUZUKI .....................................................................30
`A.
`Jeong ....................................................................................................30
`B.
`Suzuki ..................................................................................................35
`C. Motivation to Combine .......................................................................39
`D.
`Independent Claim 1 ...........................................................................41
`1.
`Claim 1’s Preamble ...................................................................42
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 134-2, PageID.10066 Filed 03/31/23 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Leonard J. Cimini, Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366
`
`
`2.
`Limitation 1.1 ............................................................................44
`Limitation 1.2 ............................................................................46
`3.
`Limitation 1.3 ............................................................................47
`4.
`Limitation 1.4 ............................................................................50
`5.
`Limitation 1.5 ............................................................................51
`6.
`Independent Claims 9, 17, and 22 .......................................................54
`E.
`Dependent Claims 2 and 10 ................................................................63
`F.
`G. Dependent Claims 3 and 11 ................................................................65
`H. Dependent Claims 4 and 20 ................................................................66
`I.
`Dependent Claims 6 and 18 ................................................................68
`J.
`Dependent Claims 7 and 19 ................................................................69
`K. Dependent Claim 8 ..............................................................................70
`L.
`Dependent Claims 12-14 .....................................................................71
`M. Dependent Claims 15 and 23 ..............................................................73
`N. Dependent Claims 16 and 24 ..............................................................74
`IX. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 2-3, 5, 10-11, AND 21 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS OVER JEONG, SUZUKI, AND GIBSON. ...............................75
`A. Gibson..................................................................................................75
`B.
`Dependent Claims 2 and 10 ................................................................76
`C.
`Dependent Claims 3 and 11 ................................................................77
`D. Dependent Claims 5 and 21 ................................................................79
`X. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 1, 4, 6-9, 12, 15-20, AND 22-24 WOULD HAVE
`BEEN OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF KOO, 802.16AB,
`CHAYAT, AND SUZUKI. ...........................................................................83
`A. Koo ......................................................................................................83
`B.
`IEEE 802.16ab-01/01r2 (“802.16ab”) .................................................86
`C.
`Chayat ..................................................................................................96
`D.
`Suzuki ..................................................................................................97
`E. Motivation to Combine .......................................................................97
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 134-2, PageID.10067 Filed 03/31/23 Page 5 of 12
`
`Declaration of Leonard J. Cimini, Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366
`
`F.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`Koo with 802.16ab ....................................................................97
`Koo and 802.16ab with Chayat .................................................98
`2.
`Koo, 802.16ab, and Chayat with Suzuki ................................100
`3.
`Independent Claim 1 .........................................................................101
`1.
`Claim 1’s Preamble .................................................................101
`2.
`Limitation 1.1 ..........................................................................104
`3.
`Limitation 1.2 ..........................................................................107
`4.
`Limitation 1.3 ..........................................................................108
`5.
`Limitation 1.4 ..........................................................................111
`6.
`Limitation 1.5 ..........................................................................112
`Independent Claims 9, 17, and 22 .....................................................115
`G.
`H. Dependent Claims 4 and 20 ..............................................................119
`I.
`Dependent Claims 6 and 18 ..............................................................120
`J.
`Dependent Claims 7 and 19 ..............................................................121
`K. Dependent Claim 8 ............................................................................122
`L.
`Dependent Claim 12 ..........................................................................122
`M. Dependent Claims 15 and 23 ............................................................123
`N. Dependent Claims 16 and 24 ............................................................124
`XI. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 2-3, 5, 10-11, 13-14, AND 21 WOULD HAVE
`BEEN OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF KOO, 802.16AB,
`CHAYAT, SUZUKI, AND GIBSON. ........................................................126
`A. Dependent Claims 2 and 10 ..............................................................126
`B.
`Dependent Claims 5 and 21 ..............................................................128
`C.
`Dependent Claims 13 and 14 ............................................................129
`XII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................131
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 134-2, PageID.10068 Filed 03/31/23 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Leonard J. Cimini, Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366
`
`
`
`EX1010, 0314, FIG. 17.1.
`
`
`
`B. Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM) &
`Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access (OFDMA)
`51. OFDM is a modulation technique in which “information is spread
`
`over multiple subcarriers in the frequency domain and is transmitted after
`
`converting the information to the time domain using a Fourier transform.”
`
`EX1013, 1:15-19; see also EX1010, 0076, 0132, 0308-11, 0352. OFDM dates back
`
`at least to the 1960s. See EX1019. I have studied and been considered an authority
`
`on OFDM since at least the 1980s. See EX1018.
`
`
`
`- 25 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 134-2, PageID.10069 Filed 03/31/23 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`52. OFDMA is a multiple-access technique based on OFDM. EX1013,
`
`Declaration of Leonard J. Cimini, Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366
`
`1:15-32. “The main difference between OFDM and OFDMA is that with OFDM a
`
`single transmitter uses a whole range of subcarriers to transmit its information,
`
`while in OFDMA different transmitters are assigned disjoint sets of subcarriers,
`
`and each user sends his information on the subcarriers assigned to him.” EX1013,
`
`1:15-32.
`
`C. Guard Bands and Guard Periods
`Inserting guard bands between frequency bands and guard periods
`53.
`
`between transmissions were well-known techniques used to reduce signal
`
`interference in cellular communication systems by 2004. For example, systems
`
`using FDMA routinely employed “guard bands between frequency bands to reduce
`
`adjacent channel interference, i.e., interference from signals transmitted in adjacent
`
`frequency bands; see also Fig. 17.l(a).” EX1010, 0315. Similarly, systems using
`
`TDMA routinely employed “[g]uard times” or periods between timeslots. EX1010,
`
`0318. Figures 17.1(a) and (b) of Gibson, above, illustrate guard bands in FDMA
`
`and guard times/periods in TDMA, respectively. In fact, I note that each of Jeong,
`
`Suzuki, and Gibson discloses using guard bands. See, e.g., EX1008, 0008 (“the
`
`guard interval between the ranging sub-channels provides 2 subcarriers for a length
`
`of 128 ranging sub-channel and 3 subcarriers for a length of 127”), FIG. 7;
`
`EX1009, 3:16-20; EX1010, 0315.
`
`
`
`- 26 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 134-2, PageID.10070 Filed 03/31/23 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Leonard J. Cimini, Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366
`
`
`Peak-to-Average Power Ratio (PAP, PAR, or PAPR)
`D.
`54. By March 2004, a well-known “disadvantage of employing OFDM
`
`for wireless applications is the potentially large peak-to-average power ratio (PAP)
`
`characteristic of a multicarrier signal with a large number of subchannels.”
`
`EX1022, 1:39-42; see also EX1023, 1:31-40; EX1013, 2:8-9 (“Typically OFDM
`
`systems produce high PAPR waveforms ….”); EX1010, 0073. Several of my
`
`patents address this issue and describe solutions to reduce PAPR in OFDM
`
`systems that had been developed by the late 1990s / early 2000s. EX1022, 1:50-
`
`2:58; EX1023, 1:41-2:9. One such known solution was to use complementary
`
`sequences or codes in conjunction with OFDM modulation. EX1013, 2:8-3:31. For
`
`example, Chayat explains that “[t]here are several recent works searching for
`
`families of waveforms with low PAPR. One set of waveforms is based on Golay’s
`
`complementary sequences, which have the property that their Fourier transform
`
`has a PAPR of at most 2, which is equivalent to 3 dB. Van Nee has shown [1] how
`
`to use sets of complementary sequences in conjunction with OFDM modulation for
`
`conveying information with low PAPR waveforms.” EX1013, 2:26-31 (citing
`
`“R.D.J. van Nee, ‘OFDM codes for peak-to-average power reduction and error
`
`correction’, Global Telecommunications Conference, London, Nov.1996.”).
`
`
`
`- 27 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 134-2, PageID.10071 Filed 03/31/23 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Leonard J. Cimini, Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366
`
`
`E. Reducing or Eliminating Signal Interference
`55. As Gibson explains, “Radio-frequency interference is one of the most
`
`important issues to be addressed in the design, operation, and maintenance of
`
`mobile communication systems.” EX1010, 0415. Two such forms of interference
`
`that were well-known and widely studied by March 2004 were adjacent channel
`
`interference and co-channel interference. EX1010, 0415. As its name suggests,
`
`adjacent channel interference occurs when a signal in one channel (such as a
`
`frequency band or group of subcarriers) interferes with a signal in an adjacent
`
`channel (such an adjacent frequency band or group of subcarriers). By March
`
`2004, various techniques had been developed to mitigate adjacent channel
`
`interference, including the use of guard bands. See EX1010, 0315, 0416.
`
`56. Gibson describes co-channel interference as “the most critical of all
`
`interferences that can be engineered by the designer in cellular planning.” EX1010,
`
`0416. Co-channel interference “arises in mobile radio systems using cellular
`
`architecture because of the frequency reuse philosophy,” EX1010, 0416, that is, the
`
`same frequency band is used in different geographic locations or cells. By March
`
`2004, various techniques had been developed to minimize co-channel interference,
`
`including “frequency reuse patterns, which ensure that the same frequencies are
`
`not used in adjacent cells; efficient power control, which minimizes the transmitted
`
`
`
`- 28 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 134-2, PageID.10072 Filed 03/31/23 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`power; cochannel interference cancellation techniques; and orthogonal [signaling]
`
`Declaration of Leonard J. Cimini, Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366
`
`(time, frequency, or code).” EX1010, 0458.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 29 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 134-2, PageID.10073 Filed 03/31/23 Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Leonard J. Cimini, Jr.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366
`
`
`VIII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-4, 6-20, 22-24 WOULD HAVE BEEN
`OBVIOUS OVER JEONG AND SUZUKI
`In my opinion, the combination of Jeong and Suzuki teaches,
`57.
`
`suggests, or renders obvious each and every element of claims 1-4, 6-20, 22-24 of
`
`the ’366 patent, and a POSA would have been motivated to combine the references
`
`and had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
`
`A.
`58.
`
`Jeong
`Jeong “relates to a method for ranging interval and ranging sub-
`
`channel allocation for initial ranging in a multi-user [OFDMA-]type wireless
`
`communication system in a point-to-multipoint broadband wireless access (BWA)
`
`system.” EX1008, 0003. Jeong discloses an “OFDMA wireless communication
`
`system” in which “data can be transmitted between a base station (‘BS’) and a
`
`subscriber station (‘SS’).” EX1008, 0003. Jeong discloses “a cell” and “performing
`
`a cell plan,” EX1008, 0004, 0007, which would have informed a POSA that Jeong
`
`discloses a cellular system. Gibson explains, for example, that “[i]n cellular
`
`communication systems, the service area is divided into cells, each covered by a
`
`single base station.” EX1010, 0459. Such systems were well-known and widely
`
`deployed by March 2004. See, e.g., EX1010, 0256, TABLE 15.1.
`
`59. Like the ’366 patent, Jeong explains that “[r]anging in the OFDMA
`
`wireless communication system … periodically adjusts an accurate time offset
`
`
`
`- 30 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 134-2, PageID.10074 Filed 03/31/23 Page 12 of 12
`
`