UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET
`LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01195
`Patent No. 7,787,431
`______________
`
`DECLARATION OF KENNETH ZEGER, PH.D.
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.  
`
`II.  
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1  
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .................. 1  
`
`III.   COMPENSATION ......................................................................................... 4  
`
`IV.   LEGAL STANDARDS APPLIED ................................................................. 5  
`
`A.   Obviousness ......................................................................................... 5  
`
`B.  
`
`Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art ............................................ 7  
`
`V.  
`
`‘431 PATENT ................................................................................................ 9  
`
`A.  
`
`B.  
`
`Background .......................................................................................... 9  
`
`Detailed Description ........................................................................... 11  
`
`VI.   CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 15  
`
`A.  
`
`Petitioner’s Disputed Claim Terms .................................................... 16  
`
`1.  
`
`2.  
`
`3.  
`
`4.  
`
`Bandwidth ................................................................................ 16  
`
`Peak-to-Average Ratio ............................................................. 17  
`
`Core-Band ................................................................................ 17  
`
`Primary Preamble ..................................................................... 18  
`
`B.  
`
`Patent Owner’s Disputed Claim Terms .............................................. 18  
`
`1.  
`
`2.  
`
`3.  
`
`“Radio Control And Operation Signaling” .............................. 18  
`
`“Substantially Not Wider” ....................................................... 20  
`
`“Primary Preamble Sufficient For Basic Radio
`Operation” ................................................................................ 22  
`
`VII.   THE CITED PRIOR ART ............................................................................ 23  
`
`A.  
`
`Li Patent ............................................................................................. 23  
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`B.  
`
`C.  
`
`D.  
`
`Yamaura Patent .................................................................................. 27  
`
`Zhuang Patent ..................................................................................... 29  
`
`Beta .................................................................................................... 32  
`
`E.   Mody .................................................................................................. 33  
`
`F.  
`
`G.  
`
`Nobilet ................................................................................................ 34  
`
`Popovic ............................................................................................... 35  
`
`VIII.   GROUND #1: CLAIMS 1 AND 2 OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF LI,
`YAMAURA, ZHUANG, AND BETA ........................................................ 35  
`
`A.  
`
`The Cited Prior Art Combination Fails To Disclose Several
`Elements Of Independent Claim 1 ..................................................... 35  
`
`1.  
`
`2.  
`
`3.  
`
`4.  
`
`The Prior Art Fails To Disclose A Core-Band
`“Substantially Centered At An Operating Center
`Frequency Of The Different Communication Schemes” ......... 37  
`
`The Prior Art Fails To Disclose The Claimed Core-Band
`“Utilized By The Base Station As A Broadcast Channel
`Carrying Radio Control And Operation Signaling” ................. 38  
`
`The Prior Art Fails To Disclose A Core-Band That Is
`“Substantially Not Wider Than A Smallest Possible
`Operating Channel Bandwidth Of The System” ...................... 39  
`
`The Prior Art Does Not Disclose A “Primary Preamble
`Sufficient For Basic Radio Operation” .................................... 41  
`
`B.  
`
`A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Not Be
`Motivated To Combine Li, Yamaura, Zhuang, And Beta .................. 43  
`
`IX.   GROUND #2: CLAMS 1 AND 2 NOT OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF LI,
`YAMAURA, MODY, NOBILET, POPOVIC, AND BETA ....................... 55  
`
`A.  
`
`The Cited Prior Art Fails To Disclose Several Elements Of
`Independent Claim 1 .......................................................................... 55  
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Not Be
`Motivated To Combine Li, Yamaura, Mody, Nobilet, Popovic,
`And Beta ............................................................................................. 56  
`
`B.  
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`I, Kenneth Zeger, do hereby declare:
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“Patent Owner”
`
`or “IV”) as an expert witness with respect to my opinions concerning Ericsson’s
`
`Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,787,431 (“the ‘431 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`In preparing my declaration, I have relied upon my education,
`
`knowledge and experience. I have also considered the materials and items
`
`described in this declaration.
`
`II.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1984.
`
`4.
`
`I received a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1984.
`
`5.
`
`I received a Master of Arts degree in Mathematics from the University
`
`of California, Santa Barbara, CA in 1989.
`
`6.
`
`I received a Ph.D. degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering
`
`from the University of California, Santa Barbara, CA in 1990.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`7.
`
`I am currently a Full Professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). I have held this
`
`position since 1998, having been promoted from Associated Professor after two
`
`years at UCSD. I have been an active member of the UCSD Center for Wireless
`
`Communications for 18 years. I teach courses full-time at UCSD in the fields of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering, and specifically in subfields including
`
`communications and information theory at the undergraduate and graduate levels.
`
`Prior to my employment at UCSD, I taught and conducted research as a faculty
`
`member at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign for four years, and at the
`
`University of Hawaii for two years.
`
`8. My twenty-plus years of industry experience includes consulting work
`
`for the United States Department of Defense as well as for private companies such
`
`as Xerox, Nokia, MITRE, ADP, and Hewlett-Packard. The topics upon which I
`
`provide consulting expertise include data communications for wireless networks,
`
`digital communications, information theory, computer software, and mathematical
`
`analyses.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`I have authored approximately 70 peer-reviewed journal articles, the
`
`majority of which are on the topic of communications, information theory, or
`
`signal processing. I have also authored over 100 papers at various conferences and
`
`symposia over the past twenty-plus years, such as the: IEEE International
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`Conference on Communications; IEEE Radio and Wireless Symposium; Wireless
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`Communications and Networking Conference; IEEE Global Telecommunications
`
`Conference; International Symposium on Network Coding; IEEE International
`
`Symposium on
`
`Information Theory; UCSD Conference on Wireless
`
`Communications; International Symposium on Information Theory and Its
`
`Applications; Conference on Advances in Communications and Control Systems;
`
`IEEE Communication Theory Workshop; Conference on Information Sciences and
`
`Systems; Allerton Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing;
`
`Information Theory and Its Applications Workshop; Asilomar Conference on
`
`Signals, Systems, and Computers. I also am co-inventor on a US patent disclosing
`
`a memory saving technique for image compression.
`
`10.
`
`I was elected a Fellow of the IEEE in 2000, an honor bestowed upon
`
`only a small percentage of IEEE members. I was awarded the National Science
`
`Foundation Presidential Young Investigator Award in 1991, which included
`
`$500,000 in research funding. I received this award one year after receiving my
`
`Ph.D.
`
`11.
`
`I have served as an Associate Editor for the IEEE Transactions on
`
`Information Theory and have been an elected member of the IEEE Information
`
`Theory Board of Governors for three, three-year terms. I organized and have been
`
`on the technical advisory committees of numerous workshops and symposia in the
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`areas of communications and information theory. I regularly review submitted
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`journal manuscripts, government funding requests, conference proposals, student
`
`theses, and textbook proposals. I also have given many lectures at conferences,
`
`universities, and companies on topics in communications and information theory.
`
`12.
`
`I have extensive experience in electronics hardware and computer
`
`software, from academic studies, work experience, and supervising students. I
`
`personally program computers on an almost daily basis and have fluency in many
`
`different computer languages.
`
`13. My curriculum vitae, attached to this declaration as Exhibit 2002, lists
`
`my publication record in archival journals, international conferences, and
`
`workshops.
`
`III. COMPENSATION
`
`14.
`
`I am being retained through Zunda LLC, which is being compensated
`
`for my time at a rate of $690 per hour. In addition, Zunda LLC is being reimbursed
`
`for my reasonable expenses incurred in connection with my work on this case. My
`
`compensation is not dependent on the opinions I offer or on the outcome of this
`
`inter partes review proceeding or any other proceeding.
`
`15.
`
`I am not an employee of Intellectual Ventures II, LLC, or any of its
`
`affiliates, parents, or subsidiaries.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS APPLIED
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`16.
`
`I am not an expert in patent law, and I am not purporting to provide
`
`any opinions regarding the correct legal standards to apply in these proceedings. I
`
`have been asked, however, to provide my opinions in the context of legal standards
`
`that have been provided to me by Patent Owner’s attorneys.
`
`A. Obviousness
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that a patent can be declared invalid if the
`
`subject matter of a claim as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the
`
`invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that obviousness
`
`allows for the combination of prior art references if there exist sufficient reasons
`
`why one of ordinary skill in the art would have made the combination. I have been
`
`informed that there are four basic inquiries that must be considered for obviousness:
`
`1. What is the scope and content of the prior art?
`
`2. What are the differences, if any, between the prior art and each claim
`
`of the patent?
`
`3. What is the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`of the patent was made?
`
`4. Does the prior art enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make
`
`and use the claimed invention?
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`18.
`
`I further understand that a claimed invention composed of several
`
`elements is not obvious merely because each of the elements may have been
`
`independently known in the prior art. That is because I understand that it is
`
`impermissible to use the claimed invention, or disclosure of the subject patent, as
`
`an instruction manual or template to piece together the teachings of the prior art so
`
`that the claimed invention is rendered obvious. In other words, I understand that
`
`one cannot use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among isolated
`
`disclosures in the prior art to invalidate the claimed invention. As such, I
`
`understand that even if the collective prior art discloses all the claim limitations, it
`
`is important to consider whether there is any evidence, other than hindsight,
`
`indicating why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the references in
`
`such a way as to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that even if there would have been in the abstract an
`
`apparent reason for combining prior art references, there must also have been a
`
`reasonable expectation of success. I understand that features from prior art
`
`references need not be physically combinable (i.e., a combination may be obvious
`
`if one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to make any necessary
`
`modifications to combine features from prior art references), but that there must be
`
`a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a combination is more likely to be nonobvious when
`
`the prior art “teaches away” from the proposed combination. I understand that a
`
`prior art reference may be said to teach away when (1) a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would be discouraged by the teachings of one prior art reference from
`
`combining a feature or teaching from another prior art reference; (2) a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is led in a direction divergent from the claimed invention
`
`that is alleged to be obvious; or (3) the proposed combination would render the
`
`result inoperable.
`
`21.
`
`I further understand that in relation to analyzing a patent for
`
`obviousness, one must consider certain objective evidence, such as commercial
`
`success, copying, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others to solve the
`
`problem, unexpected results, and whether the invention was made independently
`
`by others at the same time of the invention. I understand that such evidence can
`
`outweigh other evidence that might otherwise tend to prove obviousness.
`
`B.
`
`Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`22.
`
`I understand that an analysis of the claims of a patent in view of prior
`
`art has to be provided from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of invention of the ’431 patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`23.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I was asked to
`
`consider the patent claims through the eyes of “a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art.” I was told by Patent Owner’s counsel to consider factors such as the
`
`educational level and years of experience of those working in the pertinent art; the
`
`types of problems encountered in the art; the teachings of the prior art; patents and
`
`publications of other persons or companies; and the sophistication of the
`
`technology. I understand that the person of ordinary skill in the art is not a specific
`
`real individual, but rather a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected
`
`by the factors discussed above.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Haas, has taken the position
`
`that “one of ordinary skill in the art would include someone who has a B.S. degree
`
`in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent
`
`training, as well as three to five years of experience in the field of digital
`
`communication systems, such as wireless cellular communications systems and
`
`networks.” Exhibit 1012 at ¶4. I agree with this portion of his definition.
`
`25. Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capability of
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the art. I have trained, supervised, directed, and
`
`worked alongside many such persons over the course of my career.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`26. Later in his Declaration, Dr. Haas goes on to state that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art “would be familiar with various well-known communication
`
`methodologies, protocols, and techniques (“techniques”), such as OFDM” and that
`
`such person “would know how to apply these different techniques to different
`
`communication systems and networks. Each technique is associated with known
`
`advantages and disadvantages, such as speed, power consumption, and cost, and a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would know how to choose between the different
`
`methodologies, protocols, and techniques to balance the various goals of the
`
`communication systems and networks under consideration.” Id. at ¶33. I disagree
`
`with these additional statements. Dr. Haas appears to be limiting a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the ‘431 patent to a designer or inventor. My
`
`understanding is that a person of ordinary skill in the art should be able to practice
`
`the invention based on the disclosure, but need not necessarily be able to
`
`independently design or invent the claimed invention.
`
`V.
`
`‘431 PATENT
`
`27. The ‘431 patent is entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Multi-Carrier
`
`Communications with Variable Channel Bandwidth.”
`
`A. Background
`
`28. The ‘431 patent recognizes that “[w]hile it is ideal for a broadband
`
`wireless communication device to be able to roam from one part of the world to
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`another, wireless communication spectra are heavily regulated and controlled by
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`individual countries or regional authorities. It also seems inevitable that each
`
`country or region will have its own different spectral band for broadband wireless
`
`communications. Furthermore, even within a country or region, a wireless operator
`
`may own and operate on a broadband spectrum that is different in frequency and
`
`bandwidth from other operators. The existing and future bandwidth variety
`
`presents a unique challenge in designing a broadband wireless communication
`
`system and demands flexibility and adaptability.” Exhibit 1001 at 1:29–42.
`
`29. The
`
`‘431
`
`patent
`
`further
`
`recognizes
`
`that
`
`“[m]ulti-carrier
`
`communication systems are designed with a certain degree of flexibility. In a
`
`multi-carrier communication system such as multi-carrier code division multiple
`
`access (MC-CDMA) and orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA),
`
`information is multiplexed on subcarriers that are mutually orthogonal in the
`
`frequency domain. Design flexibility is a result of the ability to manipulate
`
`parameters such as the number of subcarriers and the sampling frequency.” Exhibit
`
`1001 at 1:43–50.
`
`30.
`
`“[T]he change in the time-domain structure brings about a series of
`
`system problems. A varying sampling rate alters the symbol length, frame structure,
`
`guard time, prefix, and other time-domain properties, which adversely affects the
`
`system behavior and performance. For example, the MAC layer and even the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`layers above have to keep track of all the time-domain parameters in order to
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`perform other network functions such as handoff, and thereby the complexity of
`
`the system will exponentially increase. In addition, the change in symbol length
`
`causes control and signaling problems and the change in the frame structure may
`
`cause unacceptable in some applications such as voice over IP. A practical and
`
`feasible solution for multi-carrier communication with variable channel bandwidth
`
`is desirable.” Exhibit 1001 at 1:56–2:2.
`
`B. Detailed Description
`
`31. The ‘431 patent describes methods and apparatus for multi-carrier
`
`communications with variable channel bandwidth, where the time frame structure
`
`and the OFDM symbol structure are invariant and the frequency domain signal
`
`structure is flexible. Exhibit 1001 at Abstract.
`
`32. For example, in a variable bandwidth OFDMA system (VB-OFDMA)
`
`in accordance with certain embodiments of the invention, “a variable bandwidth
`
`system is provided, while the time-domain signal structure (such as the OFDM
`
`symbol length and frame duration) is fixed regardless of the bandwidths. This is
`
`achieved by keeping the ratio constant between the sampling frequency and the
`
`length of FFT/IFFT. Equivalently, the spacing between adjacent subcarriers is
`
`fixed.” Exhibit 1001 at 4:16–25.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`33.
`
`“In some embodiments, the variable channel bandwidth is realized by
`
`adjusting the number of usable subcarriers. In the frequency domain, the entire
`
`channel is aggregated by subchannels. … However, the number of subchannels can
`
`be adjusted to scale the channel in accordance with the given bandwidth. In such
`
`realization, a specific number of subchannels, and hence the number of usable
`
`subcarriers, constitute a channel of certain bandwidth.” Exhibit 1001 at 4:25–36.
`
`34.
`
`“For example, FIG. 6 illustrates the signal structure in the frequency
`
`domain for a communication system with parameters specified in Table 1 below.
`
`The numbers of usable subcarriers are determined based on the assumption that the
`
`effective bandwidth Beff is 90% of the channel bandwidth Bch. The variable channel
`
`bandwidth is realized by adjusting the number of usable subcarriers, whose spacing
`
`set constant. The width of a core-band is less than the smallest channel bandwidth
`
`in which the system is to operate.” Exhibit 1001 at 4:37–45.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`
`“To facilitate the user terminals to operate in a variable bandwidth
`
`35.
`
`(VB) environment, specific signaling and control methods are required. Radio
`
`control and operation signaling is realized through the use of a core-band (CB). A
`
`core-band, substantially centered at the operating center frequency, is defined as a
`
`frequency segment that is not greater than the smallest operating channel
`
`bandwidth among all the possible spectral bands that the receiver is designed to
`
`operate with. For example, for a system that is intended to work at 5-, 6-, 8-, and
`
`10-MHz, the width of the CB can be 4MHz, as shown in Fig. 6. The rest of the
`
`bandwidth is called sideband.” Exhibit 1001 at 4:64–5:7.
`
`36.
`
`“In one embodiment, relevant or essential radio control signals such
`
`as preambles, ranging signals, bandwidth request, and/or bandwidth allocation are
`
`transmitted within the CB. In addition to essential control channels, a set of data
`
`channels and their related dedicated control channels are placed within the CB to
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`maintain basic radio operation. Such a basic operation, for example, constitutes the
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`primary state of operation. When entering into the network a mobile station starts
`
`with the primary state and transits to the normal full-bandwidth operation to
`
`include the sidebands for additional data and radio control channels.” Id. at 5:8–18.
`
`37.
`
`“In another embodiment, a preamble called an essential, or primary
`
`preamble (EP), is designed to only occupy the CB, as depicted in Fig. 8. The EP
`
`alone is sufficient for the basic radio operation. The EP can be either a direct
`
`sequence in the time domain with its frequency response confined within the CB,
`
`or an OFDM symbol corresponding to a particular pattern in the frequency domain
`
`within the CB. In either case, an EP sequence may possess some or all of the
`
`following properties:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Its autocorrelation exhibits a relatively large ratio between the
`correlation peak and sidelobe levels.
`
`Its cross-correlation coefficient with another EP sequence is
`significantly small with respect to the power of the EP
`sequences.
`
`Its peak-to-average ratio is relatively small.
`
`The number of EP sequences that exhibit the above three
`properties is relatively large.”
`
`Id. at 5:19–36.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`38.
`
`I understand that in order to provide an analysis of the claims of a
`
`patent in view of prior art, the claims have to be construed. I further understand
`
`that the claims for the purposes of this inter partes review are construed using the
`
`broadest reasonable construction. Claim terms generally are given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire disclosure of the
`
`patent.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s Disputed Claim Terms
`
`1.
`
`Bandwidth
`
`39.
`
`I understand that the Petition and the Haas Declaration propose to
`
`construe the claim term “bandwidth” to mean “a frequency range that a
`
`component, circuit, or system passes or uses.” Petition at 16–17; Exhibit 1012 at
`
`¶28. I understand that the Board did not find it necessary, for purposes of the
`
`Institution decision, to construe explicitly “bandwidth.” Decision at 7.
`
`40.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`the claim term “bandwidth” to mean “a width of a frequency band.”
`
`41. This construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“bandwidth.” Exhibit 2003, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. at
`
`89 (2001) (defining “bandwidth” generally to mean “a range within a band of
`
`wavelengths, frequencies, or energies”).
`
`42. This construction is also consistent with the use of the term
`
`“bandwidth”
`
`throughout
`
`the
`
`‘431 patent. For example,
`
`throughout
`
`the
`
`specification, “bandwidth” is described in terms of frequency, consistent with the
`
`plain meaning of “bandwidth.” E.g., Exhibit 1001 at Tables 1, 2, and 3 describing
`
`bandwidth using “MHz”.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`2.
`
`Peak-to-Average Ratio
`
`43.
`
`I understand that the Petition and the Haas Declaration propose to
`
`construe the claim term “peak-to-average ratio” to mean “peak-to-average power
`
`ratio.” Petition at 18–19; Exhibit 1012 at ¶32. I agree with this construction, and I
`
`understand that the Board also agrees with this construction.
`
`3.
`
`Core-Band
`
`44.
`
`I understand that the Petition and the Haas Declaration propose to
`
`construe the claim term “core-band” to mean “a frequency segment that is not
`
`greater than the smallest operating channel bandwidth among all the possible
`
`spectral bands that a receiver is designed to operate with.” Petition at 17; Exhibit
`
`1012 at ¶29.
`
`45.
`
`I further understand that the Board has preliminarily construed “core-
`
`band” to mean “a frequency segment that is not greater than the smallest operating
`
`channel bandwidth among all the possible spectral bands with which the receiver is
`
`designed to operate.” Institution Decision at 8.
`
`46. The ‘431 patent defines “core-band” as follows:
`
`A core-band, substantially centered at the operating center frequency,
`
`is defined as a frequency segment that is not greater than the smallest
`
`operating channel bandwidth among all the possible spectral bands
`
`that the receiver is designed to operate with.
`17
`
`
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`Exhibit 1001 at 4:67–5:4.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`47.
`
`In view of the definition set forth in the specification, I agree with the
`
`Board’s preliminary construction of “core-band.” I understand that the language
`
`“substantially centered at the operating center frequency” is expressly recited in
`
`many of the independent claims of the ‘431 patent.
`
`4.
`
`Primary Preamble
`
`48.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would construe
`
`“primary preamble” to mean “a signal transmitted by the base station near the
`
`beginning of each frame and occupying only the core-band.”
`
`49. This construction is consistent with the plain meaning of “preamble”
`
`alone to denote a signal near the beginning of a transmission, such as a frame or
`
`slot.
`
`50. This construction is also consistent with the ‘431 patent, which states
`
`that “a preamble, called an essential, or primary preamble (EP), is designed to only
`
`occupy the CB, as depicted in FIG. 8.” Exhibit 1001 at 5:19–21.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Disputed Claim Terms
`
`1.
`
`“Radio Control And Operation Signaling”
`
`51. Claim 1 of the ‘431 patent recites a core-band “utilized by the base
`
`station as a broadcast channel carrying radio control and operation signaling.”
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`52. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand “radio control
`
`and operation signaling” to mean “radio control signals and radio operation
`
`signals.”
`
`53. This is consistent with the disclosure of the ‘431 patent. For example,
`
`in describing radio operation via the core-band, the ‘431 patent specification notes
`
`that “specific signaling and control methods are required” to facilitate the user
`
`terminals to operate in a variable bandwidth (VB) environment. Exhibit 1001 at
`
`4:64-66. “Radio control and operation signaling is realized through the use of a
`
`core-band.” Id. at 4:66–67. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`that radio control signaling is separate from radio operation signaling.
`
`54. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in the
`
`context of wireless communications, radio control signals include signals used to
`
`set up
`
`radio operations such as preambles with address
`
`information,
`
`synchronization information, ranging signals, and bandwidth request and allocation
`
`information. This is consistent with the disclosure of the ‘431 patent, which
`
`describes an embodiment where “relevant or essential radio control signals such as
`
`preambles, ranging signals, bandwidth request, and/or bandwidth allocation are
`
`transmitted within the CB.” Id. at 5:8–10.
`
`55. Once radio operations are set up, radio control signals may no longer
`
`be essential. Rather, operation signals, such as on data channels, are transmitted to
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`permit the actual communication of data between the base station and the terminal
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`station. In addition, dedicated control channels for data channels may provide
`
`information specific to particular cell phone towers such as to allow calls already
`
`in process to continue as the user moves around and to control power levels.
`
`56. This understanding is consistent with the ‘431 patent, which states
`
`that, “[i]n addition to the essential control channels, a set of data channels and
`
`their related dedicated control channels are placed within the CB to maintain basic
`
`radio operations.” Exhibit 1001 at 5:10–13 (emphasis added.) A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would understand that data channels and their related dedicated
`
`control channels are examples of operation signaling.
`
`2.
`
` “Substantially Not Wider”
`
`57. Claim 1 recites that the claimed core-band “is substantially not wider
`
`than a smallest possible operating channel bandwidth of the system.”
`
`58.
`
`In the context of the ‘431 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand “substantially not wider” to require a core-band that is
`
`“significantly not wider,” e.g., “significantly narrower.” A core-band that is
`
`substantially not wider than the smallest possible operating channel bandwidth is,
`
`in particular, significantly narrower than the smallest possible operating channel
`
`bandwidth.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`Zeger Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S Patent No. 7,787,431
`
`59. This is consistent with the ‘431 patent, which explains that “[t]he
`
`width of a core-band is less than the smallest cha