Patent Nos. 8,532,231 ad 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SPH AMERICA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,532,231
`Patent No. 8,565,346
`
`
`
`Title: Apparatus for Transmitting and Receiving Data to Provide High-Speed Data
`Communication and Method Thereof
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`____________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. TIM A. WILLIAMS, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000001
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`
`
`I.  
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 3  
`
`A.  
`
`B.  
`
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................. 3  
`
`Compensation ....................................................................................... 5  
`
`C.   Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon ...................................... 5  
`
`II.  
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES .................................................................................... 6  
`
`A.  
`
`B.  
`
`Claim Interpretation .............................................................................. 6  
`
`Prior Art ................................................................................................ 7  
`
`C.   Anticipation ........................................................................................... 8  
`
`D.   Obviousness .......................................................................................... 8  
`
`III.   THE ’231 AND ’346 PATENTS .................................................................. 14  
`
`A.  
`
`B.  
`
`Technology Background ..................................................................... 14  
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 23  
`
`C.   Disclosure of the ’231 and ’346 Patents ............................................. 24  
`
`D.  
`
`Construction of the Claims ................................................................. 26  
`
`IV.   DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART ........................................................ 33  
`
`V.  
`
`PRIOR ART APPLIED TO THE CLAIMS ................................................. 40  
`
`A.  
`
`B.  
`
`C.  
`
`D.  
`
`Claims 16 and 47 of the ’231 patent and Claims 23 and 30 of the ’346
`patent ................................................................................................... 40  
`
`Claims 49 and 54 of the ’231 patent and Claims 25, 32, and 37 of the
`’346 patent .......................................................................................... 49  
`
`Claims 35, 48, and 55 of the ’231 patent and Claims 24, 31, and 38 of
`the ’346 patent ..................................................................................... 52  
`
`Claims 50 and 56 of the ’231 patent ................................................... 54  
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`1
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000002
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`E.  
`Claims 20, 40, 51, and 57 of the ’231 patent and claims 1, 27, 34, and
`40 of the ’346 patent ........................................................................... 55  
`
`F.  
`
`Claims 28, 29, 41, and 42 of the ’346 patent ...................................... 62  
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`2
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000003
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`1. My name is Tim Williams. I have been asked by the Petitioner in the
`
`above-captioned petitions for inter partes review to provide my expert opinions
`
`regarding the validity of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,532,231 (“the
`
`’231 patent”) (Ex. 1001) and U.S. Patent No. 8,565,346 (“the ’346 patent”) (Ex.
`
`1016). The asserted claims are claims 16, 20, 35, 40, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56,
`
`and 57 of the ’231 patent and claims 1, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37,
`
`38, 40, 41, and 42 of the ’346 patent.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
` I currently hold the opinions set forth in this declaration.
`
`In summary, it is my opinion that the references cited below render
`
`obvious the asserted claims of the ’231 patent and the ’346 patent. My detailed
`
`opinions on the claims are set forth below.
`
`A.
`
`4.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`I earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering from Michigan
`
`Technological University in 1976. I obtained my Master’s Degree and Ph.D. in
`
`Electrical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin in 1982 and 1985,
`
`respectively. I obtained a Masters of Business Administration from the University
`
`of Texas at Austin in 1991.
`
`5. My professional industry experience includes approximately 15 years
`
`at Motorola Inc., where I was a Senior Engineer and Senior Member of the
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`3
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000004
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`Technical Staff working on the development of communications systems
`
`technologies including the cellular architectures that included Global Systems
`
`Mobile (GSM) voice codecs and channel modem, as well as Code Division
`
`Multiplexing (CDMA) voice codecs and channel modems, to name a few.
`
`6.
`
`I was the co-founder, CTO, Vice President of Engineering and
`
`Business Strategy CEO of Wireless Access, which developed PCS equipment for
`
`two-way paging services. Wireless Access was sold to Glenarye Electronics. I
`
`served as the CTO and Advisory Board Member of Picazo Communications. I was
`
`also an Interim CEO and Advisory Board Member of Atheros Communications,
`
`which was acquired by Qualcomm Inc. in 2011. I was the founder and CEO of
`
`JetQue Inc., which developed messaging solutions for mobile environments. I was
`
`the founder and CEO of SiBEAM Inc., which developed high speed networking
`
`ICs. SiBEAM was sold to Silicon Image in 2011. I have held numerous other
`
`technical and leadership positions in industry that are detailed in my curriculum
`
`vitae.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`my CV.
`
`I am a registered Patent Agent (USPTO Reg. No. 50,790)
`
`I am an inventor and co-inventor on 26 issued patents that are listed in
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`4
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000005
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`9.
`I have served as an expert witness in over 75 patent litigation cases
`
`including cases in the Federal District Courts and the International Trade
`
`Commission.
`
`10. My complete curriculum vitae is included as Attachment A to this
`
`declaration.
`
`B.
`
`11.
`
`Compensation
`
`I am being compensated for my time at the rate of $700 per hour. This
`
`compensation is not contingent upon my performance, the outcome of this matter,
`
`or any issues involved in or related to this matter.
`
`C. Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon
`
`12.
`
`In forming the opinions set forth in this declaration, I have reviewed
`
`the ’231 and ’346 patents, their prosecution histories, and the prior art references
`
`described below. Additionally, I have considered my own experience and expertise
`
`of the knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the relevant art in the timeframe
`
`of the claimed priority date of the ’231 and ’346 patents. In doing so, I have
`
`reviewed information generally available to, and relied upon by, a person of
`
`ordinary skill at the time of the invention.
`
`13.
`
`I anticipate using some of the above-referenced documents and
`
`information, or other information and material that may be made available during
`
`the course of this proceeding (such as by deposition testimony), as well as
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`5
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000006
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`representative charts, graphs, schematics, and diagrams, animations, and models
`
`that will be based on those documents, information, and material, to support and to
`
`explain my testimony regarding the invalidity of the ’231 and ’346 patents.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`14. While I am a registered Patent Agent, I am not a Patent Attorney and I
`
`do not opine in this paper on any particular methodology for interpreting patent
`
`claims. My opinions are limited to what I believe a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have understood the meaning of certain claim terms to be based on the
`
`patent documents. I use the principles below, however, as a guide in formulating
`
`my opinions.
`
`15.
`
`I am informed and understand that it is a basic principle of patent law
`
`that assessing the validity of a patent claim involves a two-step analysis. In the first
`
`step, the claim language must be properly construed to determine its scope and
`
`meaning. In the second step, the claim as properly construed must be compared to
`
`the alleged prior art to determine whether the claim is valid.
`
`16.
`
`I am informed and understand that the words of a patent claim have
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning for a person skilled in the art at the time of the
`
`invention. This meaning must be ascertained from a reading of the patent
`
`documents, paying special attention to the language of the claims, the written
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`6
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000007
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`specifications, and the prosecution history. I understand that an inventor may
`
`attribute special meanings to some terms by defining those terms or by otherwise
`
`incorporating such meanings in these documents.
`
`17. My methodology for determining the meaning of claim phrases was
`
`first to study the patents carefully. In particular, I studied the claims themselves,
`
`followed by a study of the background, detailed specification, figures, and other
`
`patent content. Next, I reviewed the file histories, looking for any clarifications or
`
`limitations that might be attached to claim terms. In some circumstances, I looked
`
`at other documents, such as references applied by the patent office.
`
`B.
`
`18.
`
`Prior Art
`
`It is my understanding that only information which satisfies one of the
`
`categories of prior art set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 102 may be used in any invalidity
`
`analysis under §§ 102 or 103. Therefore, if information is not properly classified as
`
`prior art under one of the subsections of § 102 of the Patent Code, then it may not
`
`be considered in an anticipation or obviousness determination. It is also my
`
`understanding that, for inter partes review, applicable prior art is limited to patents
`
`and printed publications.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a statement by an applicant in the specification or
`
`made during prosecution identifying the work of another as “prior art,” and not co-
`
`owned or under an obligation of assignment to a common owner, is an admission
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`7
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000008
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations,
`
`regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art
`
`under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`C. Anticipation
`
`20.
`
`I am also informed and understand that to anticipate a patent claim
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single asserted prior art reference must disclose each and
`
`every element of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently, to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that a disclosure of an asserted prior art
`
`reference can be “inherent” if the missing element is necessarily present or is the
`
`inevitable outcome of the process and/or thing that is explicitly described in the
`
`asserted prior art reference.
`
`D. Obviousness
`
`21.
`
`I am also informed and understand that a patent claim is invalid under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the
`
`invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter
`
`pertains. Obviousness, as I understand, is based on the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claim, the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, and secondary indications of non-obviousness to the extent they
`
`exist.
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`8
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000009
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`22.
`I understand that whether there are any relevant differences between
`
`the prior art and the claimed invention is to be analyzed from the view of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. A person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all of the relevant
`
`art at the time of the invention. The person of ordinary skill is not an automaton,
`
`and may be able to fit together the teachings of multiple patents employing
`
`ordinary creativity and the common sense that familiar items may have obvious
`
`uses in another context or beyond their primary purposes.
`
`23.
`
`In analyzing the relevance of the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art, I understand that I must consider the impact, if any, of
`
`such differences on the obviousness or non-obviousness of the invention as a
`
`whole, not merely some portion of it. The person of ordinary skill faced with a
`
`problem is able to apply his or her experience and ability to solve the problem and
`
`also look to any available prior art to help solve the problem.
`
`24. An invention is obvious if a designer of ordinary skill in the art, facing
`
`the wide range of needs created by developments in the field, would have seen an
`
`obvious benefit to the solutions tried by the applicant. When there is a design need
`
`or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to try the
`
`known options. If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`9
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000010
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in
`
`the same way, using the technique would have been obvious.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that I do not need to look for precise teaching in the prior
`
`art directed to the subject matter of the claimed invention. I understand that I may
`
`take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have employed in reviewing the prior art at the time of the invention.
`
`For example, if the claimed invention combined elements known in the prior art
`
`and the combination yielded results that were predictable to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention, then this evidence would make it more
`
`likely that the claim was obvious. On the other hand, if the combination of known
`
`elements yielded unexpected or unpredictable results, or if the prior art teaches
`
`away from combining the known elements, then this evidence would make it more
`
`likely that the claim that successfully combined those elements was not obvious.
`
`26.
`
`In determining whether a claimed invention is invalid for obviousness,
`
`one should consider the scope and content of the prior art, the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art, the differences between the claimed invention and the prior
`
`art, and whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art in light of those differences. I understand that
`
`hindsight must not be used when comparing the prior art to the invention for
`
`obviousness.
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`10
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000011
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`1.
`
`Motivation to Combine
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention may be obvious if some
`
`teaching, suggestion or motivation exists that would have led a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to combine the invalidating references. I also understand that this
`
`suggestion or motivation may come from sources such as explicit statements in the
`
`prior art, or from the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Alternatively, any need or problem known in the field at the time and addressed by
`
`the patent may provide a reason for combining elements of the prior art. I also
`
`understand that when there is a design need or market pressure, and there are a
`
`finite number of predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill may be motivated
`
`to apply both his skill and common sense in trying to combine the known options
`
`in order to solve the problem.
`
`28. Obviousness may also be shown by demonstrating that it would have
`
`been obvious to modify what is taught in a single piece of prior art to create the
`
`patented invention. Obviousness may be shown by showing that it would have
`
`been obvious to combine the teachings of more than one item of prior art. In
`
`determining whether a piece of prior art could have been combined with other prior
`
`art or with other information within the knowledge of a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art, the following are examples of approaches and rationales that may
`
`be considered:
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`11
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000012
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`• Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`• Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• Applying a technique or approach that would have been “obvious to try”
`
`(choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success);
`
`• Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use
`
`in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or
`
`other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have
`
`led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`
`prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`12
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000013
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`Secondary Considerations
`2.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that certain objective factors, sometimes known as
`
`“secondary considerations,” may also be taken into account in determining whether
`
`a claimed invention would have been obvious. In most instances, these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness are raised by the patentee. In that context, the
`
`patentee argues an invention would not have been obvious in view of these
`
`considerations, which include: (a) commercial success of a product due to the
`
`merits of the claimed invention; (b) a long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the
`
`invention; (c) failure of others to find the solution provided by the claimed
`
`invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention by others; (e) unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; (g)
`
`lack of independent simultaneous invention within a comparatively short space of
`
`time; (h) teaching away from the invention in the prior art. I also understand that
`
`these objective indications are only relevant to obviousness if there is a connection,
`
`or nexus, between them and the invention covered by the patent claims.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that certain “secondary considerations,” such as
`
`independent invention by others within a comparatively short space of time,
`
`indicate obviousness.
`
`31.
`
`I also understand that secondary considerations of non-obviousness
`
`are inadequate to overcome a strong showing on the primary considerations of
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`13
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000014
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`obviousness. For example, where the inventions represented no more than the
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, the
`
`secondary considerations are inadequate to establish non-obviousness.
`
`III. THE ’231 AND ’346 PATENTS
`
`A.
`
`Technology Background
`
`32. A wireless local area network (WLAN) is a wireless computer
`
`network that permits wireless communication between two or more devices located
`
`within a limited geographical area such as a home or office. Generally, WLANs
`
`are based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11
`
`standards, marketed as the brand name WiFi™.
`
`33.
`
`In 1999, IEEE published the 802.11a standard that extended the
`
`original 802.11 standard to an orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing
`
`(OFDM) based air interface for WLANs and increased data rates to a maximum of
`
`54 Mbits/s.
`
`34. Part of the 802.11a standard included defining a PLCP Protocol Data
`
`Unit (PPDU) frame format. Figure 107 of the 802.11a standard illustrates a
`
`diagram of the PPDU frame format and is provided below.
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`14
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000015
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`
`
`
`35. The PPDU frame format includes a physical layer convergence
`
`protocol (PLCP) preamble, PLCP header, PLCP service data unit (PSDU), tail bits,
`
`and pad bits. (See Ex. 1010, 17.3)
`
`36. Figure 110 of the 802.11a standard illustrates the PLCP preamble and
`
`SIGNAL field and is reproduced below.
`
`37. The PLCP preamble is used for synchronization between a transmitter
`
`and a receiver. The PLCP preamble includes 10 short symbols followed by two
`
`
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`15
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000016
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`long training symbols. Preceding the two long symbols is a 1.6 microsecond guard
`
`interval, GI2 in Figure 110.
`
`38. The 10 short symbols are denoted as t1 … t10 in Figure 110. Each
`
`symbol is transmitted in 0.8 microseconds. Accordingly, the 10 short symbols
`
`require 8.0 microseconds to be transmitted. The signal that represents the 10 short
`
`symbols is generated according to the following equation:
`
`.
`
`39. A long training symbol consists of 53 subcarriers (including a zero
`
`value at dc), which are modulated by elements of the sequence L, given by
`
`40. A long training symbol is generated according to the equation:
`
`.
`
`.
`
`41. A long training symbol requires 3.2 microseconds to transmit.
`
`42. Two long training symbols, denoted as T1 and T2 in Figure 110, are
`
`transmitted so that the receiver can make a more accurate channel estimation.
`
`43. Accordingly, the guard interval G12 and the two long training
`
`symbols T1 and T2 require 8.0 microseconds to transmit.
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`16
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000017
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`44. After the PLCP Preamble is the PLCP Header that contains the
`
`SIGNAL field. Figure 111 of the 802.11a standard provides the bit mapping of the
`
`24-bit SIGNAL field.
`
`
`
`45. The rate bits, R1-R4, provide an indication about the modulation and
`
`the coding rate used in the rest of the packet. (Ex. 1010, 17.3.4)
`
`46. The fifth bit is a reserved bit, R. In the 802.11a standard, this bit is
`
`not used and “shall be reserved for future use.” (Ex. 1010, 17.3.4)
`
`47. The remaining fields of the SIGNAL field are the length field that
`
`indicates the number of octets in the PSDU; a parity bit P; and the signal tail that
`
`includes six bits - all set to zero.
`
`48.
`
`802.11a is considered a single-input single-output (SISO) system,
`
`meaning that the transmitter has one antenna and the receiver has one antenna such
`
`that a single data stream is transmitted from the single transmitter antenna to the
`
`single receiver antenna.
`
`
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`17
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000018
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`49.
`In 2002, IEEE formed a high throughput study group (HTSG) that
`
`was tasked with increasing data rates of the physical layer (PHY) in WLANs
`
`beyond those of 802.11a and g. The culmination of HTSG’s group was to produce
`
`the 802.11n standard.
`
`50. One goal of the new system being developed by HTSG was to ensure
`
`that signals sent under the new protocol were backwards compatible with existing
`
`802.11a and 802.11g receivers. In this context, backwards compatible means that
`
`an 802.11a or g receiver can receive any new data frame format and continue to
`
`operate successfully, although the 802.11a or g receiver will not be able to decode
`
`the new data frame format.
`
`51. HTSG held its inaugural meetings from September 11, 2002 to
`
`September 12, 2002 in Monterey, California. At those meetings, Micro Linear
`
`submitted a presentation defining the scope of HTSG’s project: “[t]o define
`
`standardized modifications to the 802.11 MAC and PHY layers that achieve a
`
`minimum increase (xx) in throughput as measured at the MAC data SAP.” (Ex.
`
`1004, p. 3) In addition, the purpose of HTSG’s project was also defined: “[t]o
`
`improve the 802.11 wireless LAN user experience by providing significantly
`
`higher throughput for current applications and to enable new applications and
`
`market segments.” (Ex. 1004, p. 4)
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`18
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000019
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`52. At these HTSG inaugural meetings, Motorola submitted a
`
`presentation entitled “HTSG Requirements – Scope and Purpose.” (Ex. 1017, pp.
`
`1-8) The authors recognized in the “Background” section that the market
`
`demanded continual significant increase in WLAN speed and performance over
`
`802.11a/g WLANs. (Ex. 1017, p. 2):
`
`
`
`53.
`
`In that Motorola presentation, the authors specified that WLAN speed
`
`and performance needed to be significantly improved while optimizing cost, power
`
`operation, peak throughput capacity, and performance and permitting backwards
`
`compatibility with 802.11a systems. (Ex. 1017, p. 3):
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`19
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000020
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`
`54. The Motorola presentation listed HTSG Technical Avenues and
`
`included “Space-time coding techniques – e.g. 2 x 2 MIMO.”(Ex. 1017, p. 7):
`
`
`
`
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`20
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000021
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`55. A multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) system uses multiple
`
`antennas at the transmitter and multiple antennas at the receiver. For example, a 2
`
`x 2 MIMO system includes a transmitter with 2 antennas and a receiver with 2
`
`antennas. In September 2002, MIMO systems were known to permit higher
`
`throughput as compared to SISO systems such as those described in 802.11a.
`
`56. Employees of the Electronics Telecommunications Research Institute
`
`(“ETRI”), the original assignee of the ’231 and ’346 patents, including the lead
`
`inventor of the ’231 and ’346 patents – Hee-Jung Yu – were in attendance at
`
`HTSG’s inaugural meetings in Monterey, California in September 2002. (Ex.
`
`1005, p. 6)
`
`57.
`
`In September 2002, there were several known space-time coding
`
`techniques. One technique was known as space-time trellis coding (STTC). In
`
`STTC, a transmitter sends multiple, redundant copies of a data signal, known as a
`
`“stream,” encoded with trellis codes distributed over time and over two or more
`
`antennas (“space”). STTC was first described in March 1998. (Ex. 1018)
`
`58. Another space-time coding technique well known in September 2002
`
`was space-time block coding (STBC). STBC was first described by S.M.
`
`Alamouti in October 1998 (Ex. 1003). A STBC system transmits multiple copies
`
`of the same stream over multiple transmitter antennas. The copies are received at
`
`the receiver and combined to generate an optimal signal.
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`21
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000022
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`59. STBC was, and is, considered an improved technique over STTC as
`
`block codes were easier to implement than trellis codes. While the phrase “space-
`
`time block coding” was not used in Alamouti’s October 1998 paper, Alamouti’s
`
`technique was later coined “space-time block coding” and Alamouti is considered
`
`the “father” of STBC.
`
`60. Spatial multiplexing was also a well-known coding technique in
`
`September 2002 for MIMO systems. Spatial multiplexing requires a MIMO
`
`antenna configuration such that a high-rate signal is split into multiple lower-rate
`
`streams and each stream is transmitted from a different antenna in the same
`
`frequency channel. One example of a well-known MIMO system utilizing spatial
`
`multiplexing was BLAST (Bell Laboratories Layered Space-Time). BLAST was
`
`described in a IEEE publication dated October, 1996. (Ex. 1019)
`
`61. Turning back to HTSG, after the inaugural meetings in September
`
`2002, the HTSG members set out to prepare a standard in line with the scope and
`
`purpose described above.
`
`62.
`
`In November 2002, Philips submitted to IEEE experimental results of
`
`a working MIMO system. (Ex. 1020, pp. 1-23)
`
`63.
`
`In July 2003, ETRI and KAIST submitted a presentation to IEEE
`
`showing MIMO transmission with spatial multiplexing, MIMO transmission with
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`22
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000023
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`space-time block coding (STBC), and a combination of both. The three ETRI
`
`authors are named inventors on the ’231 and ’346 patents. (Ex. 1006, pp. 1-14)
`
`64.
`
`In September 2003, Agere submitted a presentation to IEEE entitled
`
`“Backwards compatibility – How to make a MIMO-OFDM system backwards
`
`compatible and coexistence with 11a/g at the link level.” The presentation shows a
`
`frame configuration having a short preamble (ST), a legacy 802.11a long preamble
`
`(LT1 and LT2) with a 1.6 microsecond guard interval (GI), a signal symbol
`
`(Signal), a new second signal symbol (Sign2) encoded with the number of transmit
`
`antennas and with additional MIMO information, and additional long preambles
`
`(LT1 and LT2) for each additional transmitter antenna in the MIMO system, each
`
`additional long preamble having a 1.6 microsecond guard interval (GI). (Ex. 1007,
`
`pp. 1-26, e.g., 6 and 11) This presentation described that the reserved bit R in the
`
`signal symbol (Signal) is used to indicate a MIMO transmission. (Ex. 1007, p. 8)
`
`65.
`
`In November 2003, Realtek submitted to IEEE a presentation showing
`
`a MIMO transmitter, a MIMO receiver, and experimental results for Alamouti
`
`Space/Time (aka, space-time block coding) with MRC (maximum ratio combining
`
`at the receiver) and spatial multiplexing (SMX). (Ex. 1021, pp. 1-39)
`
`B.
`
`66.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I understand that factors such as the education level of those working
`
`in the field, the sophistication of the technology, the types of problems encountered
`
`4847-0334-1600.4
`
`23
`
`HUAWEI EXHIBIT 1002
`HUAWEI VS. SPH
`
`000024
`
`

`
`Patent Nos. 8,532,231 and 8,565,346
`Dr. Williams’ Declaration
`in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the speed at which
`
`innovations are made may help establish the level of skill in the art.
`
`67.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of
`
`the alleged invention(s) claimed in the ’231 and ’346 patents, would have a
`
`Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering or Communication Theory and three to
`
`five years of related experience in the telecommunications industry. Alternatively,
`
`such a person would have a PhD in Electrical Engineering or Communication
`
`Theory.
`
`C. Disclosure of the ’2