`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.;
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC; and
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC;
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`___________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CHRISTOPHER R. JONES
`
`
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 2
`
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................ 5
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF MY STUDY ........................................................................ 8
`
`V. DEFINITION OF PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......... 10
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’580 PATENT .......................................................... 12
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 13
`
`VIII. THE PRIOR ART OF THE INSTITUTED GROUNDS ............................. 22
`
`IX. THE BOER ’428 PATENT DOES NOT USE A MODULATION OF
`A DIFFERENT TYPE FOR THE SECOND MODULATION ................... 25
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`I have been retained by Pepper Hamilton LLP as Counsel for Patent
`
`Owner, Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP (“Patent Owner”), to provide
`
`opinions on certain issues concerning Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00518 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580 (“the ’580 Patent,” Ex. 1201).
`
`2.
`
`I am aware that the Petition (Paper 4)1 filed in the above-identified
`
`proceeding requested review of various claims of the ’580 Patent and that the
`
`Board instituted this proceeding on a subset of the challenged claims. Specifically,
`
`I understand that the Petitioner challenged Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 13, 19-22, 49, 52-
`
`54, 57-59, 61, 62, 66, 70, and 76-79 of the ’580 Patent, and that the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board (“the Board”) has instituted trial for Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 13, 20-
`
`22, 54, 57, 58, 61, 62, 66, 70 and 76-79 (“the instituted claims”). I am also aware
`
`that Petitioner submitted with the Petition a declaration of David Goodman, Ph.D.
`
`(“the Goodman Report,” Ex. 1220). I have been asked to analyze the ’580 Patent,
`
`the Petition and the art cited therein, the Goodman Report, and the Institution
`
`
`1 Unless indicated to the contrary, references to the Petition within this declaration
`
`are to the amended Petition filed on April 3, 2014 (Paper 4), rather than the
`
`original Petition filed on March 20, 2014 (Paper 1).
`
`-1-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`Decision dated September 23, 2014 (“the Institution Decision,” Paper 16) as they
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`relate to certain issues concerning the instituted claims.
`
`3. My observations and opinions, as set forth below, are based upon my
`
`training, education, and experience, as well as my review of the above-referenced
`
`documents. I make these statements based upon facts and matters within my own
`
`knowledge or on information provided to me by others. All such facts and matters
`
`are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
`
`4.
`
` I am being compensated at my standard consulting rate of $350 per
`
`hour. My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of this case.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`I received my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of
`
`California, Los Angeles (“UCLA”) in 2003, and my Master of Science (MS)
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering from UCLA in 1996. I graduated magna cum
`
`laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from UCLA in
`
`1995, and was awarded a prize for most outstanding graduating senior in the
`
`electrical engineering department.
`
`6.
`
`From 2004 to 2009, I worked for Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in
`
`Pasadena, CA as a senior member of the technical staff. In that capacity, I served
`
`as the Principal Investigator for the Mars Technology Program on “Coding
`
`Systems for High Data Rate Mars Links.” I am an author of the Consultative
`
`-2-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) international standard for Low
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`Density Parity Check Codes for deep space telecommunications links. After
`
`leaving JPL in 2009, I occasionally contracted with JPL on the Mars MAVEN
`
`project and have produced a forward error correction codec to be used in flight on
`
`the mission, which launched in November 2013. In addition, I am the co-founder
`
`of Chilicon Power, LLC, a power electronics company that designs and
`
`manufactures grid-interactive inverters for photovoltaic modules. The devices
`
`Chilicon Power manufactures employ a unique modulation. I designed this
`
`modulation for Chilicon’s devices in order to mitigate the jamming and erasure
`
`conditions present in power line communication channels. Prior to founding
`
`Chilicon Power, I was the Chief Technical Officer of Mojix, Inc. in Santa Monica,
`
`California between 2009 and 2010, and the Vice President of Advanced
`
`Technology for Mojix between 2006 and 2009. Using signal processing techniques
`
`from patents that I co-invented, Mojix develops receivers able to received passive
`
`RFID tag communications across a distance of more than 1000 feet. I was an early
`
`employee of Broadcom Corp. and share inventor credentials on DOCSIS Cable
`
`Modem, Direct Broadcast Satellite technologies, and advanced forward error
`
`correction technologies.
`
`7.
`
`I have authored and co-authored numerous peer-reviewed journal
`
`articles, as well as conference papers, on topics concerning field programmable
`
`-3-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`gate array applications, parallel concatenated coding, low density parity check
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`coding, coding applications to the NASA deep space network, and coding
`
`applications for Mars in-situ communication. I am the inventor or co-inventor of
`
`35 U.S. patents relating to cable modem, direct broadcast satellite, forward error
`
`correction, radio frequency identification, waveform and modulation, and grid
`
`interactive power inverter technologies, and have three other patent applications
`
`pending. I have particular expertise in the area of modulation and coding and hold
`
`numerous patents on the topic of mutual information optimized pulse-amplitude
`
`modulation (PAM), quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM), and phase shift
`
`keyed (PSK) constellations for use with capacity approaching codes. PAMs,
`
`QAMs, and PSKs can be understood as a ‘next generation’ of traditional
`
`modulations in that they close the majority of the remaining efficiency gap to the
`
`ultimate Shannon capacity in applications such as cable modem, direct broadcast
`
`satellite, and terrestrial cellular communication.
`
`8.
`
`I have founded a registered S-corporation in California named
`
`Constellation Designs, Inc. that holds 3 granted US patents, has one pending US
`
`application and multiple foreign filings related to capacity-optimized phase and
`
`amplitude modulations.
`
`9.
`
`A complete list of my publications, patents, and pending applications
`
`is included in my curriculum vitae, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`-4-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`10. By virtue of the above experience, I have gained a detailed
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`understanding of the technology that is at issue in this proceeding. My experience
`
`with communications systems, and waveforms and modulation techniques used
`
`therein, is directly relevant to the subject matter of the ’580 Patent. I am also
`
`particularly familiar with the ’580 Patent as a result of an expert report that I
`
`provided on behalf of the Patent Owner in the related district court litigation
`
`involving the ’580 Patent, captioned Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung
`
`Telecommunications America, LLC, Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC,
`
`Blackberry, Corp., and Blackberry, Ltd., United States District Court, Eastern
`
`District of Texas, Case No. 2:13-CV-213-JRG-RSP.
`
`11.
`
`I believe I am qualified to provide opinions about how one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in December 1997 would have interpreted and understood the ’580
`
`Patent and the art relied upon by the Petitioner.
`
`III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`12.
`I understand from Counsel that in an inter partes review proceeding,
`
`claim terms of an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. I also understand
`
`that under that standard, there is a heavy presumption that a claim term carries its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`-5-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`art at the time of the invention. A claim term will not receive its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning, however, if the patentee sets forth a special definition for the term that is
`
`clearly stated in the patent specification or file history.
`
`13.
`
`It is my understanding that an invention is unpatentable if the
`
`differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter
`
`of the invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. I further understand that
`
`obviousness is determined by evaluating: (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the claim, (3) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. To establish
`
`obviousness based on a combination of the elements disclosed in the prior art, it is
`
`my understanding that a petitioner must identify a specific combination that
`
`teaches all limitations of the claimed invention and establish that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it
`
`obvious to make that combination.
`
`14. To guard against hindsight and an unwarranted finding of
`
`obviousness, I understand that an important component of any obviousness inquiry
`
`is whether the petitioner has identified any teaching, suggestion, or motivation that
`
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed
`
`combination and have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. I
`
`-6-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`understand that this test should not be rigidly applied, but can be an important tool
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`to avoid the use of hindsight in the determination of obviousness.
`
`15.
`
`I further understand that the teaching, suggestion, or motivation may
`
`be found explicitly or implicitly: (1) in the prior art; (2) in the knowledge of those
`
`of ordinary skill in the art that certain references, or disclosures in those references,
`
`are of special interest or importance in the field; or (3) from the nature of the
`
`problem to be solved. Additionally, I understand that the legal determination of
`
`the motivation to combine references allows recourse to logic, judgment, and
`
`common sense. In order to resist the temptation to read into prior art the teachings
`
`of the invention in issue, however, it should be apparent that the “common sense”
`
`should not be conflated with what appears obvious in hindsight.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that if the teachings of a prior art reference would lead a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art to make a modification that would render another
`
`prior art device inoperable, then such a modification would generally not be
`
`obvious. I also understand that if a proposed modification would render the prior
`
`art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is
`
`no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I understand that a reference may
`
`be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, upon
`
`-7-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by
`
`the patentee. In general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of
`
`development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive
`
`of the result sought by the patentee. I understand that a reference teaches away, for
`
`example, if (1) the combination would produce a seemingly inoperative device, or
`
`(2) the references leave the impression that the product would not have the
`
`property sought by the patentee. I also understand that a reference does not teach
`
`away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention, but
`
`does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the
`
`invention claimed. Finally, I understand that dependent claims contain all of the
`
`limitations of the claims from which they depend.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF MY STUDY
`18.
`I have been asked to render an opinion as to the meaning of certain
`
`claim terms to a person of ordinary skill in the art and as to whether the instituted
`
`claims are invalid in view of the Petitioner’s proposed combination of the alleged
`
`-8-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`Admitted Prior Art (“APA”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,706,428 of Boer et al. (“Boer,”
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`Ex. 1204).2
`
`19.
`
`In forming the opinions contained herein, I have read the ’580 Patent
`
`and have considered its disclosure from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in December 1997, including those portions of the ’580 Patent that
`
`are relied upon by the Petitioner as representing APA. I have also read Boer and
`
`considered its disclosure from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in December 1997. I have also read and considered inter alia the Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of the ’580 Patent, the Goodman Report, the Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper No. 14), and the Institution Decision. I am also
`
`familiar with a large number of other prior art references in the field of the
`
`
`2 The scope of my opinions expressed in this Declaration address claim
`
`construction of various terms, as well as whether the combination of the APA and
`
`Boer, as proposed by the Petitioner, meets the recitations of the instituted claims as
`
`the claims should be construed from the perspective of a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art. I understand that the Patent Owner also relies on the opinions in the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Phillip Koopman as they relate to whether one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have been motivated to combine the APA and Boer as proposed by
`
`the Petitioner.
`
`-9-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`invention, including but not limited to the other references provided by the
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`Petitioner in this proceeding. By way of example, I have read an article published
`
`in Embedded Systems Programming Magazine, entitled “Communication
`
`Protocols for Embedded Systems” and authored by Bhargav Upender and Phillip
`
`Koopman, which was submitted by the Petitioner in the instant proceeding as
`
`Exhibit 1218.
`
`20.
`
`In my opinion, even if a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have been motivated to combine APA and Boer, as proposed by the Petitioner, one
`
`would have failed to arrive at the inventions recited in the claims of the ’580
`
`Patent, as discussed in detail below.
`
`V. DEFINITION OF PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`21.
`I understand that analysis regarding claim construction and the
`
`teachings of the asserted prior art should be performed from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art as of December 5, 1997, which is the filing date
`
`of the earliest application to which the ’580 Patent claims priority.
`
`22.
`
`It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time
`
`would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering that included
`
`coursework in communications systems and networking, and two years of work
`
`experience in electronic communications. In determining this hypothetical
`
`“ordinary” level of skill, I considered the sophistication of the technology and the
`
`-10-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`type of problems generally encountered in the field (and typical solutions to those
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`problems), as well as the education level of active workers in the field.
`
`23. Based on my education, qualifications, and experience, I believe that I
`
`am qualified to provide opinions about how one of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`December 1997 would have understood the prior art and the ’580 Patent. My
`
`opinions set forth in this declaration are consistent with these understandings.
`
`24. For example, in 1997 I was working at Broadcom Corporation on
`
`fundamental cable modem technologies (of which I am listed as a co-inventor).
`
`These technologies utilized a variety of modulations including, binary phase shift
`
`keying (BPSK), quadrature (or quaternary) phase shift keying (QPSK), and QAM.
`
`Cable modems also operate in a master/slave configuration. I had a master’s
`
`degree at the time and I had obtained my bachelor’s degree 2 years earlier. My
`
`master’s thesis was focused on compression technologies, specifically a lossless
`
`compression technique called “arithmetic coding.” My doctoral work was centered
`
`on forward error correction for communication systems and enabled me to
`
`contribute fundamentally to the development of cable modem technologies as
`
`evidenced by my co-inventor credentials on many foundational cable modem
`
`patents.
`
`25.
`
`I disagree with the Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. The Petition and the Goodman Report allege that the hypothetical
`
`-11-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Master’s Degree in Electrical
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`Engineering that included coursework in communications systems and networking,
`
`and at least five years of experience designing network communication systems.”
`
`(Paper 4 at 9; Ex. 1220 at ¶56.) However, neither the Petition nor the Goodman
`
`Report provides any basis for its allegation as to the level of ordinary skill.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed definition does not appear to be supported by any evidence,
`
`and in fact, fails to provide any rationale as to how a minimum level of “at least
`
`five years of experience” indicates what is “ordinary.” In my opinion, the
`
`Petitioner’s definition not only includes those that are over-qualified by failing to
`
`cap the level of work experience (e.g., a person with a Master’s and more than 15
`
`years of experience would be “ordinary” under Petitioner’s definition), but it also
`
`overstates the typical characteristic of the ordinary-skilled artisan.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’580 PATENT
`26. As indicated above, I understand that the Board has instituted trial for
`
`Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, 13, 20-22, 54, 57, 58, 61, 62, 66, 70 and 76-79 (“the instituted
`
`claims”), of which Claims 1, 54, and 58 are independent.
`
`27. Gordon Bremer is listed as the sole inventor of the ’580 Patent, which
`
`as noted above claims priority to a provisional application filed on December 5,
`
`1997. The Abstract indicates that the ’580 Patent is generally directed to systems
`
`in which a master device may communicate using different types of modulation
`
`-12-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`methods with other network devices according to a master/slave relationship in
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`which communication from a slave to a master occurs in response to a
`
`communication from the master to a slave. (Ex. 1301, Abstract).
`
`28.
`
`I believe that a key feature highlighted by the Patentee is the use of
`
`the word “types” in many of the claims that are the subject of these proceedings.
`
`Specifically, each of independent claims 1 and 58 (and their dependent claims)
`
`utilizes the specifier “types” in reference to modulation methods in order to narrow
`
`the claims from the broader term “different.” A “different type” means not just
`
`changing the number of bits per symbol for a given modulation method (e.g.,
`
`changing from 1 bit per symbol of binary (B) PSK to 2 bits per symbol of
`
`quadrature (Q) PSK), but that modulation methods of a different family are used,
`
`for example, from one duration of the transmission to the next (e.g., frequency shift
`
`keying (FSK), followed by PSK). As discussed in the sections below, use of the
`
`word “type” was an important addition to the claim language in narrowing the
`
`claims.
`
`VII.
`29.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`I provide my opinions below as to the meaning of the terms first and
`
`second “modulation methods” and “types” of modulation methods, as used in
`
`independent claims 1 and 54 in accordance with my understanding of the broadest
`
`-13-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`reasonable construction standard applicable to these proceedings (see above at
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`para. 12).
`
`A.
`
`First and Second “Modulation Methods”
`
`30.
`
`I believe that the proper construction of the term “first modulation
`
`method” is “a first method for varying one or more characteristics of a carrier in
`
`accordance with information to be communicated,” and the proper construction for
`
`the term “second modulation method” is “a second method for varying one or more
`
`characteristics of a carrier in accordance with information to be communicated.”
`
`31. Based upon my relevant experience, “modulation method” is a term
`
`that is generally recognized in the electronic communications arts to mean a
`
`technique for varying one or more characteristics of a carrier wave in a
`
`predetermined manner to convey information. This definition is supported by the
`
`following publications, which describe “modulation” consistent with this common
`
`understanding at the time of the invention of the ’580 Patent:
`
`• The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms,
`
`6th Ed. (1996) defines “modulation” as “[t]he process by which some
`
`characteristic of a carrier is varied in accordance with a modulating
`
`wave.” See Ex. 1206 (p. 662);
`
`• The Modern Dictionary of Electronics (6th ed., 1997) defines
`
`“modulation” as “[t]he controlled variation of frequency, phase and/or
`
`-14-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`amplitude of a carrier wave of any frequency in order to transmit a
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`message” and “[t]he process, or results of the process, whereby some
`
`characteristic of one signal is varied in accordance with another
`
`signal. The modulated signal is called the carrier and may be
`
`modulated in three fundamental ways: by varying the amplitude
`
`(amplitude modulation) by varying the frequency (frequency
`
`modulation) or by varying the phase (phase modulation).”) See Ex.
`
`2215 at 663;
`
`• The Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (3rd ed., 1997) – “The
`
`process of changing or regulating the characteristics of a carrier wave
`
`vibrating at a certain amplitude (height) and frequency (timing) so that
`
`the variations represent meaningful information.” See Ex. 2216, p.
`
`313; and
`
`• D.K. Sharma, et al., Analog & Digital Modulation Techniques: An
`
`Overview 551 (2010) indicates that “[m]odulation is the process of
`
`varying some parameter of a periodic waveform in order to use that
`
`signal to convey a message.” See Ex. 2217, p. 551 and Table 1.
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`
`
`32. The ’580 Patent uses the term “modulation” consistent with this well-
`
`known meaning as a method for varying characteristics of a carrier wave. For
`
`example, at column 2, lines 1-8, the ’580 Patent provides various examples of
`
`carrier wave modulation techniques:
`
`For example, some applications (e.g., internet access) require high
`performance modulation, such as quadrature amplitude modulation
`(QAM), carrier [sic] amplitude and phase modulation (CAP)3, or
`discrete multitone (DMT) modulation, while other applications (e.g.,
`power monitoring and control) require only modest data rates and
`therefore a low performance modulation method.
`
`
`3 The reference to Carrier Amplitude Modulation appears to be a typographical
`
`error in the ’580 Patent. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`CAP is an acronym for Carrierless Amplitude and Phase modulation, as discussed
`
`otherwise herein.
`
`-16-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`33. QAM is Quadrature Amplitude Modulation and consists of discretely
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`varying the amplitude of two orthogonal phases of a carrier wave.
`
`34. CAP is Carrierless Amplitude and Phase modulation. This
`
`modulation is similar to QAM, but does not explicitly use quadrature phases in the
`
`modulator to build the constellation. CAP is a variant of QAM in that CAP can be
`
`thought of as combining two “carrierless” pulse-amplitude modulated signals to
`
`create a QAM signal in which the phase of the carrier is reset at the beginning of
`
`each symbol.
`
`35. DMT is Discrete Multitone Modulation and uses a plurality of
`
`orthogonal carrier waves to transmit information. Each of these orthogonal carrier
`
`waves may be modulated with PSK or QAM in order to convey information.
`
`36. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that
`
`the modulation methods described above are carrier wave modulation techniques.
`
`Indeed, all of the modulations in the ’580 Patent are similar in that they share the
`
`common attribute that information is related through alteration of a carrier wave.
`
`This is important because it allows all tribs to demodulate the first portion of the
`
`modulated carrier (because it is a carrier wave modulation) and then optionally
`
`demodulate the second portion of modulation depending on whether or not the
`
`modulation is changed to a different, more spectrally efficient modulation that the
`
`trib may or may not be capable of demodulating.
`
`-17-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`Indeed, in light of the definition of “modulation” provided in The
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`37.
`
`IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (which is cited
`
`above and also relied upon in the Petition at page 11 and the Goodman Report at
`
`¶62), it is my opinion that there appears to be no significant difference between my
`
`proposed construction and the Petitioner’s, with the lone caveat being that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that modulation does not randomly or
`
`indiscriminately vary the characteristics of a carrier wave.
`
`B.
`
`“Types” of Modulation Methods
`
`38. Whereas some claims of the ’580 Patent such as independent claim 54
`
`recite that the modulations methods are different, instituted independent claims 1
`
`and 58 both require that the first and second are of a different “type.” As noted
`
`above, I am aware that during prosecution, claims were amended to recite “at least
`
`two types of modulation methods, . . . wherein the second modulation method is of
`
`a different type than the first modulation method . . . .” (Ex. 1209 at 07/23)
`
`(underlining original indicating amendments to the claim language). Concurrent
`
`with this amendment to the claims, the applicant indicated that “the language of
`
`independent claim 1 has been clarified to refer to two types of modulation
`
`methods, i.e., different families of modulation techniques, such as the FSK
`
`family of modulation methods and the QAM family of modulation methods.” (Ex.
`
`1209 at 20 (bold and underlining added, italics original). In light of the applicant’s
`
`-18-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`express definition for “types” presented during prosecution, it is my understanding
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`that this claim term is therefore to be construed according to the special definition
`
`provided by the applicant (i.e., “different families of modulation techniques”).
`
`39. As indicated by the definition of “modulation” provided by the
`
`Modern Dictionary of Electronics (6th ed., 1997)4, a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art would understand that a carrier wave is fully characterized by its frequency,
`
`phase, and amplitude (e.g., for a sine wave, A(t) = Asin(2πf t + ϕ), were A denotes
`
`amplitude, f denotes frequency, and ϕ denotes phase of the wave).
`
`40. As such, the fundamental characteristic(s) of the carrier waveform that
`
`are varied in order to convey information with the carrier wave is limited to one or
`
`more of the wave’s frequency, phase, and amplitude.
`
`41. Accordingly, carrier wave modulations can be classified into distinct
`
`types or families based on changes to the fundamental characteristics of the
`
`waveform – amplitude, frequency, and phase of the carrier wave.
`
`
`4 “The process, or results of the process, whereby some characteristic of one
`
`signal is varied in accordance with another signal. The modulated signal is called
`
`the carrier and may be modulated in three fundamental ways: by varying the
`
`amplitude (amplitude modulation) by varying the frequency (frequency
`
`modulation) or by varying the phase (phase modulation).”) Ex. 2215 at 663;
`
`-19-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`I note that Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Goodman, has focused only on the
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`42.
`
`difference between modulations and not on the concept of modulation type as it is
`
`used in the ’580 patent. The modifier “type” is a narrowing constraint added in the
`
`’580 Patent claims.
`
`43.
`
`In my opinion, it also would not have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in December 1997 to mix types of modulations because the implementation
`
`resources within a radio transceiver would have generally been greater to support
`
`the different modulation types. Rather, I believe that ordinary-skilled artisans at
`
`the time of the ’580 Patent would have avoided multiple types of modulation
`
`within the same transceiver because it would have oftentimes increased the cost of
`
`implementation and would have been viewed as having little benefit as compared
`
`to targeting a specific modulation type for an end-channel requirement.
`
`44. That multiple modulation “types” are a key distinction in the
`
`invention described in the ’580 Patent is further supported by the provisional
`
`application (Ex. 2201) to which the ’580 Patent claims priority. The provisional
`
`application indicates that the Patentee’s teachings “can not be properly met by a
`
`single modulation. A high performance modulation, such as QAM, CAP or DMT,
`
`that is initially optimized for high performance and will continue to be improved,
`
`will demand state-of-the art implementation devices that are relatively costly. This
`
`is true even if such a high performance modulation is “degraded” to operate at its
`
`-20-
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2214
`
`
`
`lowest data rate and with its poorest acceptable performance. A low performance
`
`IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`
`modulation, such as FSK, PAM or DSB, may implemented in much, much less
`
`expensive devices.” (Ex. 2201 at 4.)
`
`45. The provisional application also provides a specific example of what
`
`it would mean to “degrade” a high performance modulation to operate at its lowest
`
`data rate. “Without embedded modulations, all tribs must possess substantially all
`
`the transceiver features and cost of a full performance Pinnacle. That is, with the
`
`usual 64 kbaud (640 kbps), IP/PPP/PMAP/P-CAP protocol Pinnacle, all tribs must
`
`be capable of transmitting and receiving 64 kbaud. Only minor cost reductions can
`
`be achieved by restricting a lower cost trib to fewer bits per symbol… saving some
`
`cost in the AFE and the DSP. An example cost reduction may be from $50 to $40.
`
`With embedded modulation, Type B tribs can be, say, 16 kbps FSK modems
`
`without need for any protocol such as above. It is estim
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
