`
`Attorney Docket No.: 01048-21IP891
`
` Hays et al.
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.: 5,659,891
`Issue Date:
`Aug. 19, 1997
`Appl. Serial No.: 08/480,718
`Filing Date:
`Jun. 7, 1995
`Title:
`MULTICARRIER TECHNIQUES IN BANDLIMITED
`
`CHANNELS
`CORRECTED1 DECLARATION OF DR. BEHNAAM AAZHANG
`1. My name is Dr. Behnaam Aazhang, of Houston, Texas. I understand
`
`that I am submitting a declaration offering technical opinions in connection with the
`
`above-referenced Inter Partes Review proceeding pending in the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office for U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891 (“the ’891 patent”), and
`
`prior art references relating to its subject matter. My current curriculum vitae is
`
`attached and some highlights follow.
`
`
`1 The only changes to this declaration as compared to my previously submitted
`
`Declaration are (i) the change in title, (ii) this footnote (iii) a sentence added to
`
`paragraph 20, and (iv) paragraphs K15 to K51 below, added so as to physically
`
`reproduce paragraphs 15 to 51 from the Declaration of Dr. Kakaes, which I
`
`previously had incorporated by reference in my earlier declaration, so that
`
`someone wishing to cite those paragraphs representing my testimony can review
`
`this Corrected Declaration without also having to review Dr. Kakaes’ declaration.
`
`1
`
`
`
`TMO1015
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`I have over thirty (30) years of experience in electrical and computer
`
`engineering in wireless communications with a focus on the interplay of
`
`communication systems and networks, including network coding, user cooperation,
`
`spectrum sharing, and opportunistic access. I attended the University of Illinois at
`
`Urbana-Champaign from 1979 to 1986, where I earned a Bachelor of Science, a
`
`Master of Science, and a Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering.
`
`3.
`
`In 1985 I joined the faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering at
`
`Rice University as an Assistant Professor. In 2001, I became the J. S. Abercrombie
`
`Professor, at Rice University. At Rice, I have been teaching undergraduate courses
`
`in communication theory and systems, and developed a hands-on education
`
`laboratory for digital communications. I also teach graduate courses in the area of
`
`communication engineering, including wireless communications, random
`
`processes, detection and estimation theory, information and coding theory, spread
`
`spectrum communication systems, and topics in multiple access communications.
`
`In addition, I have received several NSF and NASA research grants, as well as
`
`being awarded numerous contracts with Texas Instruments, IBM, the State of
`
`Texas, National Instruments, the United States Air Force, and Nokia.
`
`4.
`
`In 1997, I founded the Center on Multimedia Communications at Rice
`
`University, in Houston, Texas. From 1997 until 2005, I served as its Director
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`where I supervised core faculty, graduate students, staff members, and managed a
`
`budget of more than $4 million in annual research expenditures.
`
`5.
`
`From 2004 to 2014, I served as the Chair of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at Rice University where I supervised faculty, staff members, and
`
`graduate students, and managed a budget of more than $4.5 million annual for
`
`operating costs and $12 million annual external research funding.
`
`6.
`
`From 2006 to 2013, I served as an Academy of Finland Distinguished
`
`Visiting Professor (FiDiPro) at the University of Oulu, in the Center for Wireless
`
`Communication in Oulu, Finland, where I taught short courses on Cooperative
`
`Communications and on Understanding Wireless Networks.
`
`7.
`
`In 2014, I became the Director of the Center for Neuro-Engineering, a
`
`multi-university research cluster within the Gulf Coast Consortium, which fosters
`
`collaboration among researchers and clinicians from Rice University, Baylor
`
`College of Medicine, The University of Texas Health Sciences, and The University
`
`of Houston. The Center for Neuro-Engineering is focused on an emerging field
`
`intersecting neuroscience and engineering.
`
`8.
`
`Over the course of my career, I have authored and co-authored some
`
`three hundred (300) publications on various aspects of fixed and mobile
`
`communications, as noted in my curriculum vitae. My papers have been cited by
`
`other publications over 19,000 times and in 2003 I was recognized as a Thomson-
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ISI Highly Cited Researcher. In 2004, I received the IEEE Communication
`
`Society Stephen O. Rice Best Paper Award. I am a member of the Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and actively involved in the
`
`Communications Society and the Information Theory Society of IEEE. I have
`
`served as the secretary and the treasurer of IEEE Information Theory Society. I am
`
`also a Fellow of IEEE and a fellow of American Association for the Advancement
`
`of Science (AASS). I was a commission member of the Mayor’s Commission on
`
`Cellular Towers from 1998 to 2004. I also served as a panelist for The National
`
`Science Foundation.
`
`9.
`
`I have served as an editor for the IEEE and other publications. In
`
`2007, I served as the editor of the KICS Journal of Communication and Network’s
`
`Special Issue on Cooperative Communications. I also served as editor for the
`
`IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communication’s Special Issue on Cooperation
`
`and Relay in December 2006, and the IEEE Transactions on Communications from
`
`1993 to 1998. I have organized technical sessions in technical conferences, which
`
`included serving as the Publications Chair of the IEEE International Symposium
`
`on Information Theory, held in San Antonio, Texas in January 1993; the General
`
`Chair for the IEEE International Theory Symposium on Information Theory, held
`
`in Austin, Texas in June 2010; the IEEE Communication Theory Workshop, held
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in Dorado, Puerto Rico in May 2006, as well as the Third Annual Texas System
`
`Day Symposium, held in Texas in November 1989.
`
`10. From 1996 to 2009, I was granted 13 patents as inventor or co-
`
`inventor.
`
`11. From 1998 to the present, I have served as a consultant on a variety of
`
`cases all over the United States, including several patent infringement cases.
`
`These cases involved Samsung, MOSAID, Wi-LAN, Marvell, Qualcomm, LG
`
`Inc., the City of Houston, Lockheed-Martin, WorldCom, Rockwell International,
`
`Research and Development Laboratory, IBM Federal System Company, and
`
`Startek International Corp. In addition, I have served as a consultant on
`
`international litigation, including cases involving Nokia, in Finland, and ETRI, in
`
`Korea.
`
`12.
`
`I have no financial interest in either party or in the outcome of this
`
`proceeding. I am being compensated for my work as an expert on an hourly basis.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of these proceedings or the
`
`content of my opinions.
`
`I.
`
`Scope of Assignment
`
`13.
`
`I have been asked to provide my findings as to whether certain subject
`
`matter of the ’891 patent is disclosed in certain references, including: (1) Dr. Rade
`
`Petrovic et al., Permutation Modulation for Advanced Radio Paging, IEEE
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceedings of Southeastcon ‘93 (7 Apr. 1993) (“Petrovic”); (2) WIPO Publication
`
`No. 1989/008355 to Raith, et al. “Raith”); (3) C. Alakija and S. P. Stapleton, A
`
`Mobile Base Station Phased Array Antenna, 1992 IEEE International Conference
`
`on Selected Topics in Wireless Communications at 118 (Jun. 1992) (“Alakija”);
`
`and (4) Leonard J. Cimini, Analysis and Simulation of a Digital Mobile Channel
`
`Using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing, 33 IEEE Transactions on
`
`Communications 665 (Jul. 1985) (“Cimini”), from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the ’891 patent.
`
`14.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the content of the ’891 patent.
`
`Among the background materials I have reviewed, I considered the materials
`
`referenced in this declaration, including the references listed above. I also
`
`reviewed the Declaration of Dr. Apostolos Kakaes (“Dr. Kakaes’ Declaration”)
`
`that I understand was submitted with another inter partes review action for the ’891
`
`patent filed by Apple, and which I understand T-Mobile is submitting as an exhibit
`
`to its petition along with my declaration. I have also reviewed portions of the
`
`prosecution history of the ’891 patent and the claim construction orders from
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No.
`
`2:13-cv-258-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) and Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`
`LLC v. Clearwire Corp., Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-308-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15. Counsel has informed me that I must review the ’891 patent and
`
`relevant prior art materials through the lens of one of ordinary skill in the art on
`
`June 7, 1995, the priority date of the ’891 patent. I believe that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have had attained at least a B.S. degree in electrical
`
`engineering, computer engineering, or some equivalent, and at least two years of
`
`experience in the design and configuration of cellular systems, wireless paging
`
`systems, or other two-way wireless communications systems and be familiar with
`
`the operation and functionality of multicarrier transmissions. I base this definition
`
`both on my technical expertise and on my personal experience as a teacher,
`
`advisor, and colleague of others who were within the art on the relevant date. I
`
`also reviewed the definition of one ordinary skill in the art by Dr. Kakaes in Dr.
`
`Kakaes’ Declaration. The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`according to my own definition is not materially different from the knowledge of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art under Dr. Kakaes’ definition.
`
`16. Counsel has advised me that, during inter partes review, claims of a
`
`non-expired patent (like the ’891 patent) must be given the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation. Counsel has advised me that this means the claims should be
`
`interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow, but that such interpretation
`
`should not be inconsistent with the patent’s specification and with usage of the
`
`terms by one of ordinary skill in the art. Counsel has also informed me that this
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`may yield interpretations that are broader than, or different from, the
`
`interpretations applied during co-pending District Court proceedings.
`
`17. My findings, as explained below, are based on my study, experience,
`
`and background in the fields discussed above, informed by my education in applied
`
`mathematics and electrical engineering, and my experience in the design and
`
`analysis of fixed and mobile communications systems.
`
`II. Findings
`18. Having studied the above-referenced materials, I find that certain
`
`subject matter of the ’891 patent is disclosed in certain references, from the
`
`perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art of the ’891 patent.
`
`19. As part of my analysis, I conducted a detailed review of Dr. Kakaes’
`
`Declaration. Dr. Kakaes’ Declaration cites four of the same references that I
`
`reviewed myself.
`
`20.
`
`I note that Dr. Kakaes’ Declaration performs essentially the same
`
`analysis and comes to the same conclusions that I come to myself. Therefore
`
`rather than preparing paragraphs of my own declaration that would contain
`
`essentially the same analysis as in Dr. Kakaes’ Declaration, I hereby adopt certain
`
`portions of the Dr. Kakaes’ Declaration as if they were my own, and incorporate
`
`them by reference into my declaration; specifically, ¶¶ 15-51 of Dr. Kakaes’
`
`Declaration, which include a brief overview of the ’891 patent and an analysis of
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`certain subject matter in the four references. For the ease of reference for anyone
`
`who wishes to cite paragraphs that I had incorporated by reference from Dr.
`
`Kakaes’ declaration into my earlier declaration, I am providing this Corrected
`
`Declaration that physically includes the paragraphs from Dr. Kakaes’s that I adopt
`
`as my own. I am including a prefix ‘K’ in the paragraph numbering of those
`
`paragraphs for ease of reference and consistent numbering with Dr. Kakaes’s
`
`Declaration. But for avoidance of doubt, because I agree with Dr. Kakaes as to
`
`these paragraphs, I consider these paragraphs to be my own, for all purposes, and
`
`will be prepared to testify to the material in these paragraphs if asked.
`
`K15. The ‘891 patent is generally directed to a “multicarrier techniques in
`
`bandlimited channels.” Ex. 1001, Title. The ‘891 patent includes 5 claims, of
`
`which claims 1, 3, and 5 are independent.
`
`K16. The ‘891 patent describes “a method for operating more than one
`
`carrier in a single mask-defined, bandlimited channel assigned to mobile
`
`paging use.” Ex. 1001, 1:6-8. Features of the claims are readily discernible
`
`from FIGS. 3A and 3B, which the ‘891 patent describes as follows:
`
`Referring to FIG. 3A. two submasks defining two subchannels. 30a
`and 30b, are asymmetrically located within a single mask-defined,
`bandlimited channel 31, resulting in some subchannel overlap. FIG. 3B
`depicts two carriers, 32a and 32b, operating respectively over two
`asymmetrically-located subchannels, resulting in some carrier overlap. In
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`accordance with this asymmetry, the frequency difference between the center
`frequency of each carrier and the nearest band edge of the mask is greater
`than half the frequency difference between the center frequencies of the two
`carriers.
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:25-35. An annotated version of FIG. 3B is provided below to illustrate
`
`one implementation of the claim language.
`
`K17. The ‘891 patent acknowledges the prior existence of “traditional
`
`multicarrier design[s]” in which “carriers are symmetrically located within the
`
`channel such that they are evenly spaced relative to each other and to the band
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`edges of the primary mask defining the primary channel.” Ex. 1001, 2:1-12. Thus,
`
`the alleged invention of the ‘891 patent is the spacing of the carriers within the
`
`channel. See Ex. 1001, 2:15-17, 2:26-36. As will be described in the following
`
`sections, however, the claimed positioning of carriers within a channel was well
`
`known in the art well before June 7, 1995.
`
`II. Petrovic and Combinations Based on Petrovic
`
`A. Petrovic
`
`K18. Petrovic describes the authors’ “efforts to increase both bit rate and
`
`spectral efficiency in simulcast paging networks.” Ex. 1008, p. 1, Introduction. To
`
`accomplish this goal, Petrovic outlines a “multicarrier permutation modulation
`
`technique” that “can be used in simulcast networks with high power transmitters.”
`
`Ex. 1008, p. 1, abstract. This type of modulation is often classified as Multicarrier
`
`Modulation (MCM). Ex. 1008, p. 1, Proposed Modulation Technique. The MCM
`
`technique described by Petrovic involves encoding data across eight subcarrier
`
`frequencies within a band-limited channel. See Ex. 1008, p. 1, Proposed
`
`Modulation Technique. “The signal spectrum at transmitter output is presented in
`
`Fig. 1, and 2.” Ex. 1008, p. 2, Experiments.
`
`K19. The proposed multicarrier permutation modulation technique
`
`includes “moving the current emission mask boundaries away from the center
`
`frequency by +/- 12.5 kHz. This would give a 35 kHz pass band in the middle of
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the channel and 7.5 kHz guard bands on each side for the skirts of the spectrum.”
`
`Ex. 1008, p. 1, Proposed Modulation Technique. To illustrate the mask
`
`boundaries of the band-limited channel, Petrovic guides the reader to “[s]ee
`
`dashed lines in Figs. 1 and 2,” which “represent[] the proposed emission mask.”
`
`Ex. 1008, p. 1, Proposed Modulation Technique; p. 2, Experiments. The
`
`following Annotation 1 of FIG. 1 highlights the guard bands with relation to the
`
`mask boundaries.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`K20. These 7.5 kHz guard bands are each only a portion of the frequency
`
`difference between the center frequency of the outer most of the carriers and the
`
`band edge of the mask defining the channel. Thus, the frequency difference
`
`between the center frequency of the outer most of the carriers and the band edge of
`
`the mask defining the channel is greater than 7.5 kHz.
`
`K21. Petrovic further describes that, “[i]n order to fully utilize the allocated
`
`spectrum, and provide fast fall-off of the spectrum in the guard band we propose
`
`eight subcarriers spaced 5 kHz apart, so that there is exactly 35 kHz spacing
`
`between end subcarriers.” See Ex. 1008, p. 1. The following Annotation 2 of FIG.
`
`1 highlights the spacing between the center frequency of the subcarriers described
`
`by Petrovic.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`K22. Taking these teachings together, Petrovic describes a guard band of
`
`7.5 kHz (as shown in Annotation 1) and a spacing between the center frequency of
`
`adjacent carriers of 5 kHz (as shown in Annotation 2). In other words, the
`
`frequency difference between the center frequency of the outer most of the carriers
`
`and the band edge of the mask defining said channel (which is greater than 7.5
`
`kHz) is more than half the frequency difference between the center frequencies of
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`each adjacent carrier (which is 5 kHz), as required by claim 1. Thus, Petrovic
`
`describes the feature that led to the allowance of the ‘891 patent.
`
`K23. In Petrovic’s modulation scheme, adjacent subcarriers partially
`
`overlap each other. The following Annotation 3 of FIG. 1 shows the hypothetical
`
`position of the eight subcarriers within the bandlimited channel, with
`
`carriers/subchannels 1, 2, 4 and 8 being 'ON' and carrier/subchannels 3, 5, 6, and 7
`
`being ‘OFF’.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`K24. Where the value of the transmitted signal between carrier/subchannel 1
`
`and carrier/subchannel 2 (highlighted in blue below) does not return to practical
`
`zero (highlighted as a red broken line that extends the lowest point of the mask), the
`
`carrier/subchannel 1 overlaps adjacent carrier/subchannel 2. This is illustrated in
`
`the following Annotation 4 of an excerpt of FIG. 1, which is shown side-by-side
`
`with a similarly annotated FIG. 5A of the ‘891 patent to illustrate the similar type of
`
`overlap.
`
`
`
`K25. Petrovic describes using a transmitter with four subtransmitters to
`
`transmit the eight subcarriers. Ex. 1008, p. 2, Experiments. In particular, “[e]ach
`
`transmitter has four subtransmitters capable of 4-FSK over a subset of the 8
`
`frequencies. Outputs of the subtransmitters are combined and sent to a common
`
`antenna.” Id. Thus, each of the eight subcarriers are transmitted from the same
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`location (i.e., the common antenna). It would have been understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill that a plurality of Petrovic’s mobile receiving units independently
`
`receive one of the plurality of transmitted subcarriers. For example, Petrovic
`
`describes that “[a] receiver . . . consists of an RF section which down converts the
`
`signal to a frequency band below 100 kHz, an A/D converter, a DSP processor
`
`which performs signal detection through DFT analysis, and a PC to control the
`
`operation and present results. See Ex. 1008, p. 2, Experiments.
`
`K26. Petrovic describes that “[e]ach transmitter has four subtransmitters
`
`capable of 4-FSK over a subset of the 8 frequencies. Outputs of the subtransmitters
`
`are combined and sent to a common antenna.” Ex. 1008, p. 2, Experiments. A
`
`block diagram of the four “subtransmitters” described by Petrovic would be
`
`structured in a similar manner to the systems shown in either of Figures 1 and 2 of
`
`the ‘891 patent, except with four data sources and modulators instead of two.
`
`Indeed, as in Figures 1 and 2 of the ‘891 patent, Petrovic describes that “[o]utputs
`
`of the subtransmitters are combined and sent to a common antenna [i.e.,
`
`transmission source].” Ex. 1008, p. 2, Experiments.
`
`B. Combination of Petrovic, Raith, and Alakija
`
`K27. I have been asked to consider a scenario in which the “co-locating”
`
`limitation of claim 5 requires co-locating a plurality of structurally separate
`
`transmitters. In such a scenario, Petrovic discloses a plurality of transmitters, but
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`does not explicitly disclose co-location. Rather, under such a construction
`
`Petrovic discloses two transmitters located seven miles apart. See Ex. 1008, p. 2,
`
`Experiments. However, based on Petrovic in view of Raith and Alakija it would
`
`be obvious to co-locate the plurality of transmitters disclosed in Petrovic such that
`
`the plurality of carriers can be emanated from the same transmission source.
`
`K28. In particular, Petrovic describes an experiment in which “[t]wo
`
`transmitters [each including four subtransmitters capable of 4-FSK over a subset
`
`of the 8 described frequencies] were installed seven miles apart and synchronized
`
`to provide a simulcast overlap area with approximately 35 dBpV/r signal
`
`strength.” Ex. 1008, p. 2, Experiments. Thus, Petrovic describes a plurality of
`
`transmitters, but describes them as being located seven miles apart. However, the
`
`number and location of transmitters in the paging system described by Petrovic
`
`would simply be a matter of design choice that would have been obvious to one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`K29. For example, Figure 1 of Raith describes “the division of an area into
`
`cells and the assignation of base station transmitters to the cells in a mobile
`
`telephone system.” Ex. 1010, 6:1-3. For adjacent cells, Raith describes that it is
`
`common to co-locate groups of three base transmitters to service contiguous
`
`cells. See Ex. 1010, 6:11-13. Thus, as highlighted in the following annotation of
`
`Figure 1, “the base station transmitter BS1 for the cell C1 is co-located with the
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`base station transmitter BS3 for the cell C3 and the base station transmitter BS5
`
`for the cell C5.” Ex. 1010, 6:13-15 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`K30. The systems of Petrovic and Raith are similar. Raith describes a
`
`cellular digital mobile radio system with plural base station transmitters and a
`
`method of transmitting information in such a system. Ex. 1010, title.
`
`Specifically, Raith describes:
`
`[A]t least two base station transmitters (Bma, Bmb, Bna, Bnb) at a given
`transmitting distance from each other are assigned to each of certain cells
`(Cm, Cn) within a restricted geographical area. The base station transmitters
`which are assigned to the same cell transmit digitally modulated radio signals
`within the same frequency range at least partially simultaneously to the
`mobile stations of the cell. The radio signals from different base station
`transmitters associated with the same cell are digitally modulated with the
`same message information to the mobile stations in the cell.
`Ex 1010, Abstract. In other words, each individual cell described by Raith is
`
`similar to the experiment described by Petrovic, with two transmitters located a
`
`certain distance apart to simultaneously transmit the same message information
`
`to a mobile station. Raith simply describes a more complex network of cells and
`
`associated transmitters, which are used for two-way telephone communication,
`
`as opposed to one-way pager communication.
`
`K31. Considering Petrovic and Raith in combination, one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have been motivated to expand the experimental paging system
`
`configuration described in Petrovic to include multiples adjacent paging
`
`cells/regions similar in structure illustrated in Figure 1 of Raith. In this modified
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`configuration, multiple transmitters configured and operated as described by
`
`Petrovic would be co-located to service contiguous cells, as described by Raith.
`
`The following annotation of a portion of FIG. 1 of Raith illustrates the
`
`proposed combination.
`
`
`
`K32. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand
`
`the experiment described by Petrovic in order to provide messaging services to a
`
`larger geographic area and a larger number of mobile devices (e.g., pagers).
`
`K33. Though Petrovic in view of Raith describes the co-location of a
`
`plurality of transmitters, it does not explicitly describe emanating a plurality of
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`carriers from the same transmission source. However, it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the plurality of co-located
`
`transmitters taught by Petrovic in view of Raith to a single antenna structure, such
`
`as the one described by Alakija, such that the plurality of carriers output by the
`
`co-located transmitters could be emanated from the same transmission source.
`
`K34. In particular, Alakija describes a “mobile communications base station
`
`antenna, which utilizes a cylindrical array design.” Ex. 1011, Abstract. “Using a
`
`switching matrix, different subsets of antenna elements, in the array, can be
`
`excited, thus producing a narrow steerable beam.” Id. In one configuration of the
`
`cylindrical antenna, Alakija describes that, “[b]y combining a number of feed
`
`networks into a single antenna system, an antenna with multiple independently
`
`steerable beams is achieved.” Ex. 1011, pp. 1-2 (emphasis added). One of
`
`ordinary skill would have understood that each of the three co-located transmitters
`
`described by Petrovic in view of Raith could provide the “number of feed
`
`networks” contemplated by Alakija as inputs to the cylindrical antenna. The
`
`following annotated version of FIG. 6 of Alakija illustrates this configuration:
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`K35. Moreover, Alakija describes that the characteristics of the cylindrical
`
`antenna can be altered to cater to variable sector sizes. See Ex. 1011, p. 2.
`
`Examples of these different patterns that can be obtained by varying phase
`
`distribution of the cylindrical antenna are shown in FIG. 9. See Ex. 1011, pp. 2-3.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that one of the illustrated
`
`patterns would readily service the mobile cell structure described by Raith. In the
`
`following diagram, three of the independently steerable beams taught by FIG. 9 of
`
`Alakija (i.e., the red pattern that is shown in FIG. 9 and the two blue patterns that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood could be independently
`
`steered as part of the configuration shown in FIG. 6) have been overlayed on FIG. 1
`
`of Raith to illustrate this point.
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`K36. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a
`
`single cylindrical antenna structure to emit the output signals of the three co-located
`
`transmitters de- scribed by Petrovic in view of Raith instead of three separate
`
`antennas, because a single antenna structure “[c]an be used to realize advantages
`
`such as . . . hardware savings, low manufacturing costs, [and] low installation
`
`costs,” as recognized by Alakija. Ex. 1011, p. 3.
`
`III. Cimini and Combinations Based on Cimini
`
`A. Cimini
`
`K37. Cimini describes “a digital mobile channel using orthogonal frequency
`
`division multiplexing.” Ex. 1009, p. 1, Title. In particular, Cimini describes that,
`
`“[i]n a conventional serial data system, the symbols are transmitted sequentially,
`
`with the frequency spectrum of each data symbol allowed to occupy the entire
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`available bandwidth.” Ex. 1009, p. 1, § 1. Cimini goes on to describe the various
`
`limitations of these serial systems. See Ex. 1009, p. 1, § 1. For example, “[d]ue to
`
`the bursty nature of the Rayleigh channel, several adjacent symbols may be
`
`completely destroyed during a fade.” See id.
`
`
`K38. Cimini goes on to teach that “[a] parallel or multiplexed data system
`
`offers possibilities for alleviating many of the problems encountered with serial
`
`systems.” Ex. 1009, p. 1, § 1. In a parallel data system, the total signal frequency
`
`band is divided into N frequency subchannels. See Ex. 1009, p. 1, § 1. “Each
`
`subchannel is modulated with a separate symbol and, then, the N subchannels are
`
`frequency multiplexed.” Ex. 1009, p. 1, § 1. To efficiently use the bandwidth in a
`
`parallel system, Cimini teaches that “the spectra of the individual subchannels are
`
`permitted to overlap, with specific orthogonality constraints imposed to facilitate
`
`separation of the subchannels at the receiver.” Ex. 1009, p. 1, § 1. Cimini
`
`specifies that the spectra in which the described parallel systems operate are
`
`“strictly band-limited.” See Ex. 1009, p. 3, § 2(A). Such multiplexed signals may
`
`be transmitted from a transmitter system, such as the one shown in FIG. 1(a). See
`
`Ex. 1009, p. 2, § II(A).
`
`K39. Recognizing that the transmission channel often distorts the signal,
`
`Cimini proposes adding pilot signals to the transmitted signal that can be used to
`
`correct fading. See Ex. 1009, pp. 3-4, § II(C). “Pilot-based correction provides an
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`amplitude and phase reference which can be used to counteract the unwanted
`
`effects of multipath propagation.” Ex. 1009, p. 4, § II(C). In order to reduce
`
`distortion of these pilots due to co-channel interference, Cimini describes
`
`implementing “a separation between the pilot tone and its neighboring information
`
`components.” Ex. 1009, p. 8, § III(B). Accordingly, as shown in FIG. 10, Cimini
`
`describes inserting the pilot signals into specific positions within the output
`
`multiplexed signal, in between sets of data subcarriers. See Ex. 1009, p. 8, §
`
`III(B). Specifically, Cimini discloses “a 200Hz spacing between the pilot
`
`frequency and the nearest data subcarrier.” See Ex. 1009, p. 8, § III(B).
`
`K40. To transmit the resulting orthogonal frequency division multiplexed
`
`data signal, Cimini proposes using a 7.5 kHz channel. See Ex. 1009, p. 8, § III(B).
`
`Because Cimini describes this channel as a 7.5 kHz “data window” (Ex. 1009, p.
`
`8, § III(B)) and specifies that the spectra is “strictly band-limited” (Ex. 1009, p. 8,
`
`§ II(A)), one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the channel
`
`described by Cimini to be mask-defined and bandlimited. The OFDM signal that is
`
`transmitted within this 7.5 kHz mask-defined, bandlimited channel is illustrated in
`
`the following annotated version of FIG. 10.
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`K41. Within this OFDM signal, Cimini describes “[s]acrificing two bands of
`
`1000 Hz each for pilot protection and 250 HZ at either end for adjacent channel
`
`interference protection” (i.e., two 250 Hz guard bands). Based on these parameters,
`
`Cimini describes that this “leaves space for 86 data channels” within the remaining
`
`5 kHz of the 7.5 kHz mask-defined, bandlimited channel and each of the carriers
`
`within these data channels are spaced 58.59 Hz apart. See Ex. 1009, p. 9, § III(C).
`
`In other words, Cimini describes a transmitted OFDM signal in which the
`
`frequency difference between the center frequency of the outer most of the carriers
`
`and the band edge of the mask defining the channel (i.e., at least 250 Hz) is more
`
`than half the frequency difference between the center frequencies of each adjacent
`
`carrier (i.e., 58.59 Hz).
`
`K42. Similar to FIGS. 1 and 2 of the ‘891 patent, FIG. 1(a) of Cimini
`
`illustrates a multicarrier transmitter system with a plurality of modulators, each
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`modulating a different portion of data to be transmitted. See Ex. 1009, p. 2, §
`
`II(A). In other words, Cimini discloses emanating multiple carriers from the same
`
`transmission source (e.g., an antenna).
`
`B. Combination of Cimini, Raith, and Alakija
`
`K43. As described above, I have been asked to consider a scenario in which
`
`the “co-locating” limitation of claim 5 requires co-locating a plurality of
`
`structurally separate transmitters. In such a scenario, Cimini does not explicitly
`
`disclose the co-location of a plurality of transmitters. However, based on Cimini in
`
`view of Raith and Alakija, it would be obvious to co-locate the plurality of
`
`transmitters disclosed in Cimini such that the plurality of carriers can be emanated
`
`from the same transmission source.
`
`K44. Cimini describes a “cellular mobile radio system based on
`
`orthogonally frequency division multiplexing many low-rate subchannels into one
`
`higher rate channel was analyzed and simulated.” Ex. 1009, p. 10, § IV. Similarly,
`
`Figure 1 of Raith describes “the division of an area into cells and the assignation
`
`of base station transmitters to the cells in a mobile telephone system in accordance
`
`with the invention.” Ex. 1010, 6:1-3. For adjacent cells, Raith describes that it is
`
`common to co-locate base transm