` 
` 
` 
` 
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`InterDigital Technology Corporation
`
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 7,941,151
`Filed: February 23, 2007
`Issued: May 10, 2011
`
`Title: Method and System for Providing Channel Assignment Information
`Used to Support Uplink and Downlink Channels
`
`__________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`THE PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,941,151
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00275
`
`
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00001
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`III. 
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`Education and Work Experience ..................................................................... 2 
`A.  Qualifications ........................................................................................ 2 
`B. 
`Compensation ........................................................................................ 5 
`C.  Materials Relied Upon .......................................................................... 6 
`Statement of Legal Principles .......................................................................... 6 
`A. 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 7 
`B. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 7 
`C. 
`Anticipation ........................................................................................... 8 
`D.  Obviousness ........................................................................................... 9 
`1.  Motivations to Combine ........................................................... 11 
`2. 
`Secondary Considerations ......................................................... 13 
`Requirements Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................. 14 
`E. 
`Date of Invention ................................................................................. 15 
`F. 
`Burden of Proof for Invalidity in Inter Partes Review ....................... 16 
`G. 
`IV.  Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 16 
`V. 
`Technology Background ................................................................................ 16 
`A.  Wireless Communications ................................................................... 17 
`B. 
`Channel Access Schemes .................................................................... 19 
`1. 
`FDMA ....................................................................................... 20 
`2. 
`TDMA ....................................................................................... 21 
`3. 
`CDMA ....................................................................................... 22 
`3GPP .................................................................................................... 23 
`C. 
`D.  Development of HSPA ........................................................................ 26 
`1. 
`HSDPA ...................................................................................... 26 
`2. 
`Enhanced Uplink ....................................................................... 34 
`3. 
`Siemens 004 .............................................................................. 37 
`VI.  Purported Invention of the 151 Patent ........................................................... 42 
`VII.  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 47 
`A. 
`“same physical downlink control channel” ......................................... 47 
`B. 
`“channel assignment information” ...................................................... 48 
`C. 
`“shared channel” .................................................................................. 49 
`D. 
`“based on WTRU identity (ID)-masked cyclic redundancy check
`(CRC) parity bits” ............................................................................... 50 
`VIII.  Identification of Prior Art and Summary of Opinions .................................. 51 
`IX.  Anticipation of the Challenged Claims ......................................................... 53 
`A. 
`Siemens 004 anticipates the challenged claims. ................................. 53 
`
`
`
`i
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00002
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1. 
`Siemens 004 is prior art to the challenged claims. ................... 57 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 1. .. 58 
`2. 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 2. .. 84 
`3. 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 3. .. 87 
`4. 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 4. .. 89 
`5. 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 5. .. 90 
`6. 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 6. .. 92 
`7. 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 8. .. 94 
`8. 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 9. .. 96 
`9. 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 16. 97 
`10. 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 17. 99 
`11. 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 18. 99 
`12. 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 19. 99 
`13. 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 20.100 
`14. 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 21.100 
`15. 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 23.101 
`16. 
`Siemens 004 discloses each and every limitation of claim 24.101 
`17. 
`X.  Obviousness of the Challenged Claims ....................................................... 102 
`A. 
`The combination of Siemens 004 with the admitted prior art, 3GPP TS
`25.212, InterDigital 810, Motorola 683, and/or Siemens 010 renders
`the challenged claims obvious. .......................................................... 102 
`1. 
`The combination of Siemens 004 and the known prior art
`renders the challenged claims obvious. .................................. 102 
`The combination of Siemens 004 and 3GPP TS 25.212 renders
`the challenged claims obvious. ............................................... 106 
`The combination of Siemens 004 and InterDigital 810 renders
`the challenged claims obvious. ............................................... 119 
`The combination of Siemens 004 and Motorola 683 renders
`claims 8 and 23 obvious. ......................................................... 126 
`The combination of Siemens 004 and Siemens 010 renders
`claims 8 and 23 obvious. ......................................................... 135 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00003
`
`

`

`
`I.
`Introduction
`1. My name is Vijay Madisetti. I am a Professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology (“Georgia Tech”) in Atlanta,
`
`GA.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Petitioners ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`(“ZTE”) to investigate and opine on certain issues relating to U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,941,151 (“the 151 patent”).
`
`3.
`
`I refer to certain exhibit numbers in this declaration. I understand these
`
`exhibit numbers are the same as the exhibit numbers used in the petition for
`
`inter partes review of the 151 patent.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that InterDigital Technology Corporation (“InterDigital”) owns
`
`the 151 patent.
`
`5.
`
`To support my opinions, I provide an overview of the technology related to
`
`the 151 patent, including an overview of that technology as it would have
`
`been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed
`
`priority date of the 151 patent.
`
`6.
`
`This declaration is based on information currently available to me. I
`
`understand that the 151 patent is the subject of proceedings in the
`
`International Trade Commission and the United States District Court for the
`
`District of Delaware. I also understand that the parties have produced
`
`
`
`1
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00004
`
`

`

`
`
`documents in those proceedings, including the deposition transcripts of the
`
`named inventors and an invention disclosure form, with the designation that
`
`those documents contain confidential business information and are subject to
`
`the protective orders in those proceedings. Therefore, I understand that
`
`those documents are not currently available to me in connection with this
`
`proceeding. To the extent that additional information becomes available to
`
`me, including information from those proceedings, I reserve the right to
`
`continue my investigation and study, which includes reviewing documents
`
`and information that may be produced, as well as testimony from
`
`depositions that may yet be taken.
`
`II. Education and Work Experience
`A. Qualifications
`
`7. My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, which is attached to
`
`this report at Attachment A.
`
`8.
`
`As noted above, I am a Professor in Electrical and Computer Engineering at
`
`Georgia Tech. I have worked extensively in the field of digital
`
`communications. I have studied telecommunications and systems
`
`engineering since 1981. I also have over 20 years of industry experience in
`
`telecommunications, including wireless communications and signal
`
`processing. During this period, I have designed, implemented, and tested
`
`
`
`2
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00005
`
`

`

`
`
`various products that involve technologies related to the subject matter of the
`
`151 patent.
`
`9.
`
`In 1984, I received a Bachelor of Technology in Electronics and Electrical
`
`Communications Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT).
`
`In 1989, I received my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Sciences (EECS) from the University of California, Berkeley. That year, I
`
`received the Demetri Angelakos Outstanding Graduate Student Award from
`
`the University of California, Berkeley and the IEEE/ACM Ira M. Kay
`
`Memorial Paper Prize.
`
`10.
`
`In 1989, I also joined the faculty of Georgia Tech. I began working at
`
`Georgia Tech as an assistant professor, became an associate professor in
`
`1995, and have held my current position since 1998. As a member of the
`
`faculty at Georgia Tech, I have been active in, among other technologies,
`
`wireless networks and cellular communications.
`
`11.
`
`I have been active in research in the area of wireless and mobile
`
`communications. Among my peer-reviewed publications in this area are the
`
`following: (i) Turkboylari, M. and Madisetti, V.K., “Effect of Handoff
`
`Delay on System Performance of TDMA Cellular Systems,” 4th
`
`International Workshop, Mobile & Wireless Communication Network, pp.
`
`411-415, 2002; (ii) Jatunov, L. and Madisetti, V.K., “Computationally-
`
`
`
`3
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00006
`
`

`

`
`
`Efficient SNR Estimation for Bandlimited Wideband CDMA Systems,”
`
`IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, Issue 12, pp. 3480-3491,
`
`December 2006, and (iii) N. Radia, Y. Zhang, M. Tatipamula, V. Madisetti,
`
`“Next Generation Applications on Cellular Networks: Trends, Challenges,
`
`and Solutions,” Proceedings on IEEE, vol. 100, Issue 4, pp. 841-854, April
`
`2012. I have significant experience analyzing, designing, and testing
`
`systems based on 3GPP Technical Specifications, including specifications
`
`describing WCDMA and HSDPA technologies.
`
`12.
`
`I also have significant experience in designing and implementing systems
`
`using various source code languages, including C, assembly code, VHDL,
`
`and Verilog. In 2000, I published a book entitled “VHDL: Electronics
`
`Systems Design Methodologies,” and in 1997, I was awarded the VHDL
`
`International Best PhD Dissertation Advisor Award for my contributions in
`
`the area of rapid prototyping.
`
`13. Since 1995, I have authored, co-authored, or edited several books in the
`
`areas of wireless communications, signal processing, chip design, and
`
`software engineering, including VLSI Digital Signal Processors (1995),
`
`Quick-Turnaround ASIC Design in VHDL (1996), The Digital Signal
`
`Processing Handbook (1997 & 2010) and Cloud Computing: A Hands-On
`
`Approach (2013).
`
`
`
`4
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00007
`
`

`

`
`14.
`
`I have implemented several mobile products, including codecs, echo
`
`cancellers, equalizers, and multimedia compression applications and
`
`modules for a leading commercial mobile phone manufacturer. I have also
`
`designed tools for porting mobile applications from one platform to another
`
`for a leading mobile phone manufacturer. I have also developed hardware
`
`and software designs for a leading set-top box manufacturer.
`
`15.
`
`I have been elected a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (“IEEE”) in recognition of my contributions to embedded
`
`computing systems. The IEEE is a worldwide professional body consisting
`
`of more than 300,000 electrical and electronics engineers. Fellow is the
`
`highest grade of membership of the IEEE, with only one-tenth of one
`
`percent of the IEEE membership being elected to the Fellow grade each
`
`year.
`
`16.
`
`In 2006, I was awarded the Frederick Emmons Terman Medal from the
`
`American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) and HP Corporation for
`
`my contributions to electrical engineering while under the age of 45.
`
`B. Compensation
`
`17.
`
`I am being compensated $500 per hour for services I provide in this case.
`
`This compensation is not contingent upon my performance, the outcome of
`
`
`
`5
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00008
`
`

`

`
`
`this inter partes review or any other proceeding, or any issue related to this
`
`inter partes review.
`
`C. Materials Relied Upon
`
`18.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied on (i) the 151 patent; (ii) applications
`
`and patents related to the 151 patent; (iv) the prosecution histories of the 151
`
`patent and of applications and patents related to the 151 patent; (v) the
`
`exhibits to the petition for inter partes review of the 151 patent, and (vi) my
`
`own experience and expertise of the knowledge of the person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art in the timeframe of the claimed priority date of the
`
`151 patent, i.e., November 18, 2003. For convenience, where I refer to the
`
`knowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had, I am
`
`referring to that knowledge in the timeframe of the claimed priority date of
`
`the 151 patent, i.e., November 18, 2003, unless I state otherwise.
`
`III. Statement of Legal Principles
`19.
`I am a technical expert, and I do not offer any legal opinion. However, from
`
`my discussions with counsel, I understand the framework applied for
`
`determining invalidity and related matters. I applied this framework in
`
`developing my technical opinions expressed in this declaration. I discuss
`
`this framework below.
`
`
`
`6
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00009
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person
`
`skilled in the art, not a judge, a layperson, a person skilled in the remote arts,
`
`or a genius in the art at hand. This person of ordinary skill is an individual
`
`who is presumed to be one who thinks along the lines of conventional
`
`wisdom in the art and is not one who undertakes to innovate, whether by
`
`extraordinary insight or systematic research. This person of ordinary skill is
`
`also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.
`
`21. Relevant factors in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include
`
`the educational level of the inventor and those who work in the field. Other
`
`considerations include various prior art approaches employed in the art,
`
`types of problems encountered in the art, the rapidity with which innovations
`
`are made, and the sophistication of the technology involved. Not all
`
`considerations may be present in every case, and the education level of
`
`inventors is not itself conclusive.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the first step in determining whether or not a patent claim
`
`is valid is to properly construe the claims. I have applied the proposed
`
`constructions set forth in Part VII, infra at pp. 47-51 in my analysis in this
`
`declaration. I reserve my right to amend or alter my analysis and opinions,
`
`
`
`7
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00010
`
`

`

`
`
`for example, should InterDigital propose any claim construction in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`C. Anticipation
`
`23.
`
`I understand that a patent is invalid on the basis of anticipation (under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102) if a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or
`
`inherently, each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Under the
`
`principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance
`
`with or includes the claimed limitations, then it anticipates. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art need not recognize the inherent characteristic or
`
`functioning of the prior art. In addition, a new scientific explanation for the
`
`functioning of the prior art does not render the old composition patentable.
`
`Such a reference, if it contains each and every limitation of a claim, would
`
`anticipate the claim.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if the alleged
`
`invention of the claim was patented or described in a publication anywhere,
`
`or if the alleged invention of the claim was in public use, on sale, or offered
`
`for sale in this country, more than one year prior to the filing date of the
`
`patent application.
`
`25.
`
`I also understand that a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) if the
`
`alleged invention of the claim was described in a U.S. patent or U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`8
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00011
`
`

`

`
`
`Application Publication resulting from an application by another that was
`
`filed in the U.S. before the date of the alleged invention for the claim.
`
`D. Obviousness
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the
`
`subject matter pertains. Obviousness, as I understand it, is based on the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the
`
`claim, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and, to the extent that they exist
`
`and have an appropriate nexus to the claimed invention (as opposed to prior
`
`art features), secondary indicia of obviousness.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that whether there are relevant differences between the prior art
`
`and the claimed invention is to be analyzed from the view of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`28.
`
`In analyzing the relevance of the differences between the claimed invention
`
`and the prior art, I understand that I must consider the impact, if any, of such
`
`differences on the obviousness or non-obviousness of the invention as a
`
`whole, not merely some portion of it. The person of ordinary skill faced
`
`
`
`9
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00012
`
`

`

`
`
`with a problem is able to apply his or her experience and ability to solve the
`
`problem and also look to any available prior art to help solve the problem.
`
`29. An invention is obvious if a person of ordinary skill in the art, facing the
`
`wide range of needs created by development in the field, would have seen an
`
`obvious benefit to the solutions tried by the applicant. When there is a
`
`design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, it would be obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill to try the known options. If a technique has been used to
`
`improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
`
`that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique
`
`would have been obvious.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a precise teaching in the prior art directed to the subject
`
`matter of the claimed invention is not needed. I understand that one may
`
`take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have employed in reviewing the prior art at the time of
`
`the invention. For example, if the claimed invention combined elements
`
`known in the prior art and the combination yielded results that were
`
`predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention, then this evidence would make it more likely that the claim was
`
`obvious. On the other hand, if the combination of known elements yielded
`
`
`
`10
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00013
`
`

`

`
`
`unexpected or unpredictable results, or if the prior art teaches away from
`
`combining the known elements, then this evidence would make it more
`
`likely that the claim that successfully combined those elements was not
`
`obvious.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that hindsight must not be used when comparing the prior art to
`
`the invention for obviousness.
`
`1. Motivations to Combine
`
`32.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention may be obvious if some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation that would have led a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to combine the invalidating references exists. I also understand that
`
`this suggestion or motivation may come from such sources as explicit
`
`statements in the prior art, or from the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. Alternatively, any need or problem known in the field at the time and
`
`addressed by the patent may provide a reason for combining elements of the
`
`prior art. I also understand that when there is a design need or market
`
`pressure, and there are a finite number of predictable solutions, a person of
`
`ordinary skill may be motivated to apply her skill and common sense in
`
`trying to combine the known options in order to solve the problem.
`
`33. Obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating that it would have been
`
`obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to create the
`
`
`
`11
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00014
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`patented invention. Obviousness may be shown by showing that it would
`
`have been obvious to combine the teachings of more than one item of prior
`
`art. In determining whether a piece of prior art could have been combined
`
`with other prior art or with other information within the knowledge of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, the following are examples of approaches and
`
`rationales that may be considered:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`Applying a technique or approach that would have been “obvious to
`
`try” (choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success);
`
`•
`
`Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`12
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00015
`
`

`

`
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`•
`
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`2.
`
`Secondary Considerations
`
`34.
`
`I understand that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the
`
`final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee
`
`argues an invention would not have been obvious in view of these
`
`considerations, which include: (a) commercial success of a product due to
`
`the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a long-felt, but unsatisfied need for
`
`the invention; (c) failure of others to find the solution provided by the
`
`claimed invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention by others; (e)
`
`unexpected results achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the invention by
`
`others skilled in the art; (g) lack of independent simultaneous invention
`
`within a comparatively short space of time; (h) teaching away from the
`
`invention in the prior art.
`
`
`
`13
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00016
`
`

`

`
`35. Secondary considerations evidence is only relevant if the offering party
`
`establishes a connection, or nexus, between the evidence and the claimed
`
`invention. The nexus cannot be to prior art features. The establishment of a
`
`nexus is a question of fact.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that certain “secondary considerations,” such as independent
`
`invention by others within a comparatively short space of time, indicates
`
`obviousness.
`
`E. Requirements Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`37.
`
`I understand that 35 U.S.C. § 112 imposes certain requirements on the form
`
`of a patent’s disclosure and claims. In particular, I understand that § 112 ¶ 1
`
`requires a patent specification to meet both the “written description” and
`
`“enablement” requirements, and that § 112 ¶ 2 imposes a “definiteness”
`
`requirement.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that ZTE is not permitted to assert that the 151 patent is invalid
`
`for failure to comply with the requirements of § 112, including the written
`
`description, enablement, and definiteness requirements. Therefore, I
`
`understand that I have not been asked to opine on whether the 151 patent is
`
`invalid under § 112 ¶ 1 in this declaration.
`
`
`
`14
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00017
`
`

`

`
`
`F. Date of Invention
`
`39.
`
`I understand that absent clear and convincing evidence of invention date
`
`prior to the filing date of a patent, the invention date of the patent is
`
`presumed to be its filing date. A prior invention requires a complete
`
`conception of the invention and a reduction to practice of that invention.
`
`The patentee has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing
`
`evidence a date of conception earlier than the filing date of the patent.
`
`40. Conception is the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and
`
`permanent idea of the complete and operative invention. Conception must
`
`be proved by corroborating evidence that shows the inventor disclosed to
`
`others his or her complete thought expressed in such clear terms as to enable
`
`a person of skill in the art to make the claimed invention. The inventor must
`
`also show possession of every feature recited in the claims, and that every
`
`limitation was known to the inventor at the time of the alleged conception.
`
`Furthermore, the patentee must show that he or she has exercised reasonable
`
`diligence in later reducing the invention to practice, either actual or
`
`constructive. The filing of a patent application can serve as a constructive
`
`reduction to practice.
`
`
`
`15
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00018
`
`

`

`
`
`G. Burden of Proof for Invalidity in Inter Partes Review
`
`41.
`
`I understand that a party challenging the validity of an issued United States
`
`patent in an inter partes review bears the burden of proving invalidity by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence.
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`42. For the 151 patent, I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science,
`
`mathematics or a related field, and at least some years of working experience
`
`in the area of wireless communications including issues related to coding,
`
`with the exact amount of working experience dependent on the person’s
`
`degrees. For example, in my opinion, an individual holding a bachelor’s
`
`degree would need approximately four years of experience, while an
`
`individual with a Ph.D. would need only approximately one year of
`
`experience.
`
`V. Technology Background
`43. Before the 151 patent’s earliest possible priority date, the Third Generation
`
`Partnership Project (“3GPP”) developed a new technology for increasing the
`
`throughput on transmissions from a base station to a handset in a wireless
`
`communication network. This new technology was called High Speed
`
`
`
`16
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00019
`
`

`

`
`
`Downlink Packet Access (“HSDPA”). To implement HSDPA, a new
`
`control channel and data channel were introduced.
`
`44. After HSDPA, 3GPP began working on a solution for increasing the
`
`throughput on communications from a handset to a base station. 3GPP
`
`decided to introduce a new data channel to support this new uplink
`
`technology, but debated how to transmit the control information for that
`
`channel to the handsets.
`
`45. The named inventors of the 151 Patent claimed to solve this problem by
`
`transmitting control information for this new uplink channel using the
`
`existing control channel that had been introduced for HSDPA.
`
`A. Wireless Communications
`
`46. A wireless communications network is a network that allows devices to
`
`communicate over the air. Typically, in a wireless communication network,
`
`there are base stations, as well as mobile devices, such as cellular phones,
`
`tablets, commonly called user equipment (“UE”). The UEs communicate
`
`with base stations in order to communicate with other UEs, as shown below.
`
`
`
`17
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00020
`
`

`

`
`Figure 1
`
`
`47. Communication from a base station to a UE is called downlink
`
`communication. Communication from a UE to a base station is called
`
`
`
`uplink communication.
`
`48. Generally, a channel is a defined medium for conveying information. There
`
`are different types of channels, including physical channels, transport
`
`channels, and logical channels.
`
`49. A channel can be dedicated or shared. Generally, a dedicated channel is
`
`assigned to one UE. By contrast, a shared channel can convey information
`
`to or from multiple UEs. In other words, a shared channel allows multiple
`
`
`
`18
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00021
`
`

`

`
`
`UEs to receive data or transmit data on the same channel. The following
`
`illustration shows the use of shared channels.
`
`Figure 2
`
`
`50. As shown above, UE1 and UE2 receive data on the same downlink channel,
`
`
`
`which is shown in purple. Because multiple UEs share the same channel,
`
`the base station needs a way to inform a UE that the data it is transmitting on
`
`the shared channel is intended for that UE. For that reason, the base station
`
`must also send control data.
`
`B. Channel Access Schemes
`
`51. Most modern wireless systems allow multiple users to share the same
`
`physical resources of the wireless system. An important issue is how to
`
`
`
`19
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Ex. 1002-00022
`
`

`

`
`
`divide the wireless system’s physical resource to permit the maximum
`
`number of UEs to use the wireless system at a given time. These physical
`
`resources include frequency, time, and codes.
`
`52. To more efficiently divide physical resources, modern wireless systems use
`
`channel access schemes. A channel access scheme dictates how physical
`
`resources define a physical channel. In other words, a physical resource or a
`
`combination of physical resources that defines a channel will depend on the
`
`channel access scheme.
`
`53. The three most widely used channel access schemes are Frequency Division
`
`Multiple Access (FDMA), Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA), and
`
`Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA).
`
`1.
`
`FDMA
`
`54.
`
`In FDMA, a channel is defined by frequency. Specifically, in FDMA, the
`
`available frequency range, or bandwidth, is divided into multiple frequency
`
`bands. Each frequency band is assigned to a communication channel.
`
`Typically, each UE is assigned one or more of the frequency bands to use as
`
`a communication channel. The following illustration shows an FDMA
`