UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET
`LM ERICSSON (“Ericsson”),
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC (“IV”),
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`Title: METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR MULTI-CARRIER
`COMMUNICATIONS WITH VARIABLE CHANNEL BANDWIDTH
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ZYGMUNT J. HAAS, PH.D.
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`I, Zygmunt Haas, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Ericsson Inc. and
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Ericsson”) in the matter of the Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,787,431 (“the ’431 patent”) to Xiaodong Li, et al.
`
`2.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`(1) The ’431 Patent, ERIC-1001;
`
`(2) U.S. Application Publication No. 2002/0055356 (“Dulin”), ERIC-
`
`ERIC-1012
`Ericsson v. IV
`Page 1 of 120
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET
`LM ERICSSON (“Ericsson”),
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC (“IV”),
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`Title: METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR MULTI-CARRIER
`COMMUNICATIONS WITH VARIABLE CHANNEL BANDWIDTH
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ZYGMUNT J. HAAS, PH.D.
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`I, Zygmunt Haas, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Ericsson Inc. and
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Ericsson”) in the matter of the Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,787,431 (“the ’431 patent”) to Xiaodong Li, et al.
`
`2.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`(1) The ’431 Patent, ERIC-1001;
`
`(2) U.S. Application Publication No. 2002/0055356 (“Dulin”), ERIC-
`
`ERIC-1012
`Ericsson v. IV
`Page 1 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`1002;
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`(3) U.S. Patent No. 7,782,750 (“Yamaura”), ERIC-1003;
`
`(4) U.S. Patent No. 7,426,175 (“Zhuang”), ERIC-1004;
`
`(5)
`
`I. Hwang et al., IEEE C802.16d-04/19, “A New Frame Structure for
`
`Scalable OFDMA Systems,” pp. 0-12, March 11, 2004, (“Hwang”) ERIC-1005;
`
`(6) R. van Nee and R. Prasad, OFDM for Wireless Multimedia
`
`Communications, Artech House, pp. 119-154, 2000, ERIC-1006;
`
`(7) Curriculum Vitae of Expert, ERIC-1007;
`
`(8) A. Kerr, IEEE C802.16d-04/36r2, “Additional Preamble Definitions
`
`for 802.16d OFDM-256,” March 11, 2004, (“Kerr”) ERIC-1009;
`
`(9) U.S. Patent No. 5,097,499 (“Cosentino”), ERIC-1013;
`
`(10) U.S. Patent No. 6,904,283 (“Li”), ERIC-1014;
`
`(11) K. Pahlavan and P. Krishnamurthy, Principles of Wireless Networks,
`
`A Unified Approach, pp. 319-347 and 553-555, Prentice Hall (2002), (“Pahlavan”)
`
`ERIC-1015;
`
`(12) P. Joo, et al., IEEE C802.16d-04/25, “The uplink subchannelization
`
`preamble with lower PAPR,” pp. 0-3, March 11, 2004 (“Joo”), ERIC-1016; and
`
`(13) J. Liebetreu, et al., IEEE C802.16-04/51r1, “AAS enhancements for
`
`1x Scalable PHY,” pp. 1-16, March 15, 2004 (“Liebetreu”), ERIC-1017.
`
`3.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`
`
`–2–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 2 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`(1) The documents listed above, and
`
`(2) My knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area as
`
`described below.
`
`4.
`
`I am familiar with the technology at issue. I am also aware of the
`
`state of the art at the time the application resulting in the ’431 patent was filed.
`
`The earliest priority date is May 1, 2004. Based on the technologies disclosed in
`
`the ’431 patent, I believe 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 technical experience in the field of digital communication systems,
`
`such as wireless cellular communication systems and networks. Unless
`
`otherwise stated, when I provide my understanding and analysis below, it is
`
`consistent with the level of one of ordinary skill in these technologies at and
`
`around the priority date of the ’431 patent.
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`I am a Professor and Distinguished Chair in Computer Science at the
`
`University of Texas at Dallas. I am also Professor Emeritus at the School of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering at Cornell University. In addition, I provide
`
`technical consulting services in intellectual property matters, during which I have
`
`written expert reports and provided deposition and trial testimony involving
`
`
`
`–3–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 3 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`wireless communication technologies.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`6. My academic credentials include a Bachelor of Science Degree
`
`in Electrical Engineering, summa cum laude, from Technion (IIT), Israel, in
`
`1979 and a Master of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering, summa cum
`
`laude, from Tel-Aviv University, Israel, in 1985. I subsequently authored
`
`the thesis titled “Packet Switching in Fiber-Optic Networks” as part of
`
`earning my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University in
`
`1988.
`
`7. My professional background and technical qualifications are stated
`
`above and are also reflected in my Curriculum Vitae, which is attached as ERIC-
`
`1007. I am being compensated at a rate of $375.00 per hour, with reimbursement
`
`for actual expenses, for my work related to this Petition for Inter Partes Review.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the substance of my
`
`statements in this Declaration.
`
`8.
`
`I have worked or consulted for about 35 years in the field of Electrical
`
`Engineering. My primary focus has been on communication and networking
`
`systems, with an emphasis on wireless communication networks. I have authored
`
`and co-authored numerous technical papers and book chapters related to wireless
`
`communication networks. I hold eighteen patents in the fields of high-speed
`
`networking, wireless networks, and optical switching.
`
`
`
`–4–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 4 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`9. My employment history following my graduation from Stanford
`
`University began at the Network Research Department of AT&T Bell
`
`Laboratories in 1988. At AT&T Bell Laboratories, I pursued research on
`
`wireless communications, mobility management, fast protocols, optical
`
`networks, and optical switching. During my tenure at AT&T, I also worked
`
`for the AT&T Wireless Center of Excellence, where I investigated various
`
`aspects of wireless and mobile networks.
`
`10.
`
`In 1995, I joined the faculty of the School of Electrical &
`
`Computer Engineering at Cornell University as a Professor. At Cornell, I
`
`headed the Wireless Networks Lab, which is an internationally recognized
`
`research group with extensive contributions in
`
`the area of wireless
`
`communication systems and networks. In 2013, I retired from Cornell with
`
`the title of Emeritus professor and joined the Computer Science Department
`
`at the University of Texas at Dallas with the title of Professor and
`
`Distinguished Chair in Computer Science. At Cornell and at the University
`
`of Texas, I have taught dozens of courses related to computer networking
`
`and wireless communications. I have also served on various committees for
`
`the benefit of the scientific community.
`
`11.
`
`I am a member of a number of professional societies, including the
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and the Association for
`
`
`
`–5–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 5 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`Computing Machinery (ACM). In 2007, I was elevated to an IEEE Fellow. I have
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`
`
`been responsible for organizing several workshops, and delivering numerous
`
`tutorials at major IEEE and ACM conferences. I have served as editor of several
`
`publications
`
`including
`
`the IEEE Transactions on Networking,
`
`the IEEE
`
`Transactions on Wireless Communications, the IEEE Communications Magazine,
`
`the Springer “Wireless Networks” journal, the Elsevier “Ad Hoc Networks”
`
`journal, the “Journal of High Speed Networks,” and the Wiley “Wireless
`
`Communications and Mobile Computing” journal. I have also been a guest editor
`
`of IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications issues on “Gigabit
`
`Networks,” “Mobile Computing Networks,” and “Ad-Hoc Networks.” Finally, I
`
`have served as the Chair of the IEEE Technical Committee on Personal
`
`Communications (TCPC).
`
`12.
`
`I have
`
`received multiple awards
`
`in
`
`the
`
`field of wireless
`
`communications and networks. In 2012, I received the IEEE ComSoc WTC
`
`Recognition Award, which recognizes individuals for outstanding technical
`
`contributions in the field for their service to the scientific and engineering
`
`communities.” Also in 2012, I received the “Best Paper Award for co-authoring
`
`“Collaborating with Correlation for Energy Efficient WSN” directed at Wireless
`
`Sensor Networking. I previously received the “Best Paper Award” for co-
`
`authoring “Optimal Resource Allocation for UWB Wireless Ad Hoc Networks”
`
`
`
`–6–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 6 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`directed at personal indoor and mobile radio communications. Finally, in 2003, I
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`
`
`received the “Highly Commended Paper Award” for co-authoring “Performance
`
`Evaluation of the Modified IEEE 802.11 MAC for Multi-Channel Multi-Hop Ad
`
`Hoc Network,” directed at advanced information networking and applications.
`
`13. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as ERIC-1007.
`
`Additional information regarding my education, technical experience and
`
`publications, including a list of the US patents of which I am an inventor/co-
`
`inventor, is included therein.
`
`II. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`14.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`claims of the ’431 patent are anticipated or would have been obvious to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the patent, in
`
`light of the prior art.
`
`Anticipation
`
`15.
`
`It is my understanding that, to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102, a reference must teach every element of the claim.
`
`Obviousness
`
`16.
`
`It is my understanding that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`
`
`–7–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 7 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`
`
`matter pertains. I also understand that the obviousness analysis takes into account
`
`factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and the claimed
`
`subject matter.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`of claimed subject matter. I understand some of these rationales include the
`
`following: 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 a similar device (method,
`
`or product) in the same way; applying a known technique to a known device
`
`(method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; choosing
`
`from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success; and 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.
`
`III. FINDINGS
`
`18. The findings below are based on my understandings of the art related
`
`to the ’431 patent, as well as what I think one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`
`
`–8–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 8 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`understand, at the time period at and prior to May 1, 2004.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`Background of the ’431 Patent
`
`19. The ’431 patent relates to multi-carrier communication systems, such
`
`as systems that employ orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM). See
`
`ERIC-1001, 1:43-47 and 2:36-38. “A basic structure of a multi-carrier signal in
`
`the frequency domain is made up of subcarriers and, illustrated in FIG. 3, which
`
`shows three types of subcarriers as follows:
`
`1. Data subcarriers, which carry information data;
`
`2. Pilot subcarriers, whose phases and amplitudes are predetermined and
`
`made known to all receivers, and which are used for assisting system functions
`
`such as estimation of system parameters; and
`
`3. Silent subcarriers, which have no energy and are used as guard bands and
`
`DC carriers.”
`
`ERIC-1001, 3:23-34. Fig. 3 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`–9–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 9 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`
`
`20. Fig. 3 is admitted to be prior art. Note that in Fig. 3, the subcarriers
`
`are grouped as various subchannels, so utilizing groups of subcarriers (as
`
`subchannels), wherein each group includes a plurality of subcarriers, is admitted
`
`prior art. The ’431 patent describes a rationale for the subcarrier groupings to be
`
`that “[t]he data subcarriers can be arranged into groups called subchannels to
`
`support scalability and multiple-access.” Id., 3:33-34.
`
`21. The ’431 patent further relates to “a variable bandwidth system.”
`
`ERIC-1001, 4:18. “In some embodiments, the variable channel bandwidth is
`
`realized by adjusting the number of usable subcarriers.” Id., 4:25-26. In one
`
`embodiment, “[t]he variable channel bandwidth is realized by adjusting the number
`
`of usable subcarriers, whose spacing is set constant.” Id., 4:41-42. According to
`
`
`
`–10–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 10 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`the equations in Fig. 2, which is admitted prior art, bandwidth is proportional to the
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`
`
`number of subcarriers. See id., Fig. 2 (number of usable subcarriers is shown
`
`proportional to effective bandwidth Beff).
`
`22. According to the ’431 patent, “[t]o facilitate the user terminals to
`
`operate in a variable bandwidth (VB) environment, specific signaling and control
`
`methods are required. Radio control and operation signaling is realized through
`
`the use of a core-band (CB).” Id., 4:64-67. The core band is used to transmit
`
`control signals: “[i]n 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 the essential control
`
`channels, a set of data channels and their related dedicated control channels are
`
`placed within the CB to maintain basic radio operation.” Id., 5:8-13.
`
`23. Furthermore, “[i]n 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. Its autocorrelation exhibits a relatively large ratio between the correlation
`
`
`
`–11–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 11 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`peak and sidelobe levels.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`2. Its cross-correlation coefficient with another EP sequence is significantly
`
`small with respect to the power of the EP sequences.
`
`3. Its peak-to-average ratio is relatively small.
`
`4. The number of EP sequences that exhibit the above three properties is
`
`relatively large1.”
`
`Id., 5:19-35 (emphasis added). A portion of Fig. 8 of the ’431 patent is reproduced
`
`below (color annotation added):
`
`Note that the primary preamble occupies the core-band.
`
`24.
`
`Independent claim 8 of the ’431 patent is exemplary and recites:
`
`
`
`8. A cellular base station comprising:
`
` 1
`
`
` While the specification states that the EP (or primary preamble) may possess
`“some or all” of the enumerated properties, as discussed further below the claims
`require the primary preamble to possess all of these properties.
`
`
`
`–12–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 12 of 120
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`[Part 1 – core-band]
`circuitry configured to transmit a broadcast channel in an
`orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) core-
`band, wherein the core-band is substantially centered at an
`operating center frequency and the core-band includes a first
`plurality of subcarrier groups, wherein each subcarrier group
`includes a plurality of subcarriers,
`
`
`[Part 2 –primary preamble]
`
`
`wherein the core-band is utilized to communicate a
`primary preamble sufficient to enable radio operations,
`the primary preamble being a direct sequence in the time
`domain with a frequency content confined within the core-band
`or being an OFDM symbol corresponding to a particular
`frequency pattern within the core-band,
`wherein properties of the primary preamble comprise:
`an autocorrelation having a large correlation peak
`with respect to sidelobes;
`a cross-correlation with other primary preambles
`having a small cross-correlation coefficient with respect to
`power of other primary preambles; and
`a small peak-to-average ratio; and
`wherein a large number of primary preamble sequences
`exhibit the properties; and
`
`
`[Part 3 – variable communication bandwidth]
`circuitry configured to transmit control and data channels
`using a variable band including a second plurality of subcarrier
`groups, wherein the variable band includes at least the core-
`band.
`
`
`
`25. As shown above, claim 8 can conceptually be divided into three parts:
`
`(1) part 1 relates to aspects of a core-band; (2) part 2 relates to mathematical
`
`properties of a primary preamble, which uses the core-band; and (3) part 3 relates
`
`to variable communication bandwidth in a multi-carrier system.
`
`
`
`–13–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 13 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`26. The features of claim 8, as well as the other claims at issue, were well-
`
`known in the art prior to the priority date of the ’431 Patent. In particular,
`
`references disclosing the described communication systems and networks that
`
`support use of variable bandwidths, a core-band, and preambles that use a core-
`
`band were available to those of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date of
`
`the ’431 patent.
`
`Meaning of Certain Terms of the ’431 Patent
`
`27.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’431 patent,
`
`the terms of the claims must be defined. It is my understanding that the claims are to be
`
`given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. It is my
`
`further understanding that claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed
`
`meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, unless the inventor,
`
`as a lexicographer, has set forth a special meaning for a term. The discussion of the
`
`claim terms below is my opinion regarding each of the referenced terms, as defined in
`
`accordance with the broadest reasonable construction standard, and based on the
`
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`28. The ’431 patent uses the term “core-band” in the claims and the detailed
`
`description. The ’431 patent sets forth a special meaning for 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
`
`
`
`–14–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 14 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`among all the possible spectral bands that the receiver is designed to operate with.”
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`
`
`ERIC-1001, 4:67-5:4 (emphasis added). I have been informed by Ericsson counsel that
`
`the Patent Owner argued in the previous ’431 IPR (in IPR2014-01195, Paper 10, pp.
`
`12-13) that the construction of the term “core-band” should include “substantially
`
`centered at the operating center frequency.” I have been informed by Ericsson counsel
`
`that the Board in its Decision to Institute in the previous ’431 IPR (in IPR2014-01195,
`
`Paper 11, p. 8) stated that:
`
`Therefore, including ‘wherein the core-band is substantially
`centered at an operating center frequency’ in the construction of core-band
`would render the language recited in claims 1, 8, and 18 superfluous.
`Moreover, the specification includes the disputed language before the
`phase ‘is defined as,’ implying a presumption that the disputed language is
`not part of the patentee’s definition.
`I agree with the Board’s assessment and maintain that under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in view of the ’431 patent specification one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that “core-band” means 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.
`
`29. The ’431 patent uses the term “primary preamble” in the claims and
`
`the detailed description. The term “primary preamble” is not known as a term of
`
`art in the field. I have been informed by Ericsson counsel that in the Decision to
`
`Institute in the previous ’431 IPR (in IPR2014-01195, Paper 11, p. 9), the Board
`
`
`
`–15–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 15 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`construed “primary preamble” to mean “a direct sequence in the time domain with its
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`
`
`frequency response confined within the CB or an OFDM symbol corresponding to a
`
`particular pattern in the frequency domain within the CB, at or near the beginning of
`
`the transmission, which alone is sufficient for basic radio operation.”
`
`30.
`
`Furthermore, the challenged claims 8 and 18 explicitly provide a
`
`number of features of the core-band, including that “the core-band is utilized to
`
`communicate a primary preamble sufficient to enable radio operations;” the primary
`
`preamble is “a direct sequence in the time domain with a frequency content confined
`
`within the core-band or being an OFDM symbol corresponding to a particular frequency
`
`pattern within the core-band; ” and the primary preamble has a number of specific
`
`correlation and peak-to-average ratio properties. The features of a “primary
`
`preamble” listed in the Board’s construction are already provided in challenged
`
`claims 8 and 18 and are features demonstrated in the prior art in the claim charts at
`
`the end of this declaration. Thus, either the Board’s construction or the construction
`
`proposed by the Petitioner in the previous ’431 IPR are sufficient. Below is
`
`discussion from my declaration for the previous ’431 IPR regarding construction of
`
`“primary preamble.”
`
`31.
`
`The ’431 patent uses the term “primary preamble” in the claims and
`
`the detailed description. The term “primary preamble” is not known as a term of art
`
`in the field. Rather, the ’431 patent uses the term in a special way. The term
`
`
`
`–16–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 16 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`“preamble” by itself, on the other hand, denotes a signal near the beginning of a
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`
`
`transmission, such as a frame or slot. For example, “[t]he downlink transmission in
`
`each frame begins with a downlink preamble, which can be the first or more of the
`
`OFDM symbols in the first downlink (DL) slot,” and “[s]imilarly, uplink
`
`transmission can begin with an uplink preamble, which can be the first or more of
`
`the OFDM symbols in the first uplink (UL) slot.” ERIC-1001, 3:51-53 and 56-58.
`
`Yamaura and Zhuang, as examples, use the term “preamble” in the same manner as
`
`the ’431 patent. See, e.g., infra, ¶¶ 43 and 53. Fig. 4 of the ’431 patent is admitted
`
`prior art and “shows a basic structure of a multi-carrier signal in the time domain,
`
`generally made up of time frames, time slots, and OFDM symbols.” Id., 2:13-15.
`
`
`
`–17–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 17 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`
`
`For example, a preamble would be transmitted at the beginning of an illustrated frame or
`
`time slot in Fig. 4 of the ’431 patent. Thus, the term “preamble” refers to a signal
`
`near the beginning of a transmission, such as the beginning of a frame or time slot.
`
`32.
`
`The term “primary preamble” describes “a preamble … designed to
`
`only occupy the CB [core band].” Id., 5:19-20. This feature of the core-band also
`
`appears in various independent claims. For example, claim 1 states: “the primary
`
`preamble is a direct sequence in the time domain with a frequency content confined
`
`within the core-band, or is an orthogonal frequency-divisional multiplexing
`
`
`
`–18–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 18 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`(OFDM) symbol corresponding to a particular frequency pattern within the core-
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`
`
`band” (emphasis added). Fig. 8 of the ’431 patent, reproduced below, illustrates an
`
`essential (also referred to as “primary”) preamble in a core-band:
`
`
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the ’431 patent specification
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “primary preamble” means a
`
`signal transmitted near the beginning of a transmission, such as a frame or a time
`
`slot, and occupying only the core band.
`
`33.
`
`I have been informed by Ericsson counsel that the Patent Owner
`
`previously argued (in IPR2014-01195, Paper 10, pp. 14-16) that “primary
`
`preamble” should be construed as “a signal containing bandwidth information
`
`transmitted by the base station near the beginning of each frame and occupying
`
`only the core band” (emphasis added). I have been informed, however, that the
`
`Patent Owner conceded in the Patent Owner Response (IPR2014-01195, Paper 22,
`
`p. 14) that the construction of “primary preamble” does not include bandwidth
`
`information.
`
`
`
`–19–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 19 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed by Ericsson counsel that the Decision to
`
`Institute in the previous ’431 IPR (in IPR2014-01195, Paper 11, p. 9) states:
`
`Although we agree with Patent Owner that the ’541 [sic] patent
`describes the primary preamble alone as being sufficient for basic
`radio operation, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the primary
`preamble, therefore, must include bandwidth information. In fact, the
`portion of the ’431 patent that Patent Owner quotes states that the
`bandwidth information is provided “using a broadcast channel or a
`preamble.” Ex. 1001, 6:26–32 (emphasis added). Moreover, the 431
`patent explains that “[i]n one embodiment, relevant or essential radio
`control signals such as preambles, . . . bandwidth request, and/or
`bandwidth allocation are transmitted within the CB.” Id. at 5:8–10.
`Thus, although the ’431 patent describes both the preambles and
`bandwidth information being transmitted in the core-band, it implies
`that the bandwidth could be separate from the primary preamble.
`
`35.
`
`I agree with the Board’s assessment in the quoted material in the previous
`
`paragraph that the primary preamble is not required to carry bandwidth information.
`
`36. Finally, I have been informed by Ericsson counsel that the Patent
`
`Owner Response (in IPR2014-01195, Paper #22, p. 14) in the previous ’431 IPR
`
`took the position that “primary preamble” means a signal transmitted near the
`
`beginning of each frame, and occupying only the core band, thereby capitulating
`
`on its earlier attempt at incorporating “bandwidth information” into the
`
`construction. Thus, the most recent Patent Owner construction differs from
`
`
`
`–20–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 20 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`Petition’s proposed construction in that a signal in each frame, rather than a signal
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`
`
`in one transmission, such as a frame or time slot, is required in the construction.
`
`The differences do not seem to be material for the purposes of this declaration, but
`
`it is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation is that a “primary preamble”
`
`need be defined with reference to only one transmission (e.g., frame).
`
`37. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the ’431
`
`patent specification one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “primary
`
`preamble” means either
`
`a signal transmitted near the beginning of a transmission, such as a
`frame or a time slot, and occupying only the core band
`
`or
`
`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, at or near the beginning of the
`transmission, which alone is sufficient for basic radio operation.
`The claim charts at the end of this document show that both constructions are
`
`demonstrated by the cited prior art (because the features in the Board’s construction are
`
`present explicitly in challenged claims 8 and 18).
`
`38. The ’431 patent uses the term “peak-to-average ratio” in the claims and
`
`the detailed description. The term “peak-to-average ratio,” without further clarification,
`
`does not identify the metric or signal characteristic used to form the ratio. This term,
`
`however, is understood as referring to a metric that is of general concern in OFDM
`
`
`
`–21–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 21 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`systems – that is, the peak-to-average power ratio. A large ratio of peak power to
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`
`
`average power has disadvantages, such as “an increased complexity of digital-to-analog
`
`converters and a reduced efficiency of the RF [radio frequency] power amplifier.” See
`
`ERIC-1006, p. 3. Thus, reduction of the peak-to-average power ratio has been studied
`
`extensively for OFDM systems. See id., pp. 4-38. The term for the metric is shortened
`
`in the ’431 patent from the more typical peak-to-average power ratio (see, e.g., id., p. 3;
`
`see also ERIC-1002, ¶47) to “peak-to-average ratio.”
`
`39.
`
`I have been informed by Ericsson counsel that the Patent Owner did not
`
`dispute the construction of “peak-to-average ratio” as “peak-to-average power ratio” in
`
`the previous ’431 IPR, which provides further support for my construction below.
`
`40. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the ’431 patent
`
`specification and the ordinary and accustomed meaning, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that “peak-to-average ratio” means peak-to-average power ratio.
`
`Summary of the State of the Prior Art
`
`41. As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a B.S.
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or
`
`equivalent training, as well as three to five years of technical experience in the
`
`field of digital communication systems, such as wireless cellular communication
`
`systems and networks. Such a person would be familiar with various well-
`
`known
`
`communication methodologies,
`
`protocols,
`
`and
`
`techniques
`
`
`
`–22–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 22 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`(“techniques”), such as OFDM. Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`
`
`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.
`
`42.
`
`I have reviewed the reference referred to as Dulin (ERIC-1002).
`
`Dulin relates to scheduling data transmissions in frequency blocks and time slots in
`
`a base station. See, e.g., ERIC-1002, ¶¶ [0048] and [0049]. For example, Dulin
`
`states:
`
`[…] the invention is embodied in an apparatus and a method for
`scheduling wireless transmission of data blocks between multiple base
`transceiver stations and multiple receiver (subscriber) units. […] The
`scheduling generally includes assigning frequency blocks and time
`slots to each of the receiver units for receiving or transmitting data
`blocks.
`
`Id. at ¶ [0048]. In Dulin, the base transceiver stations and subscriber units are part
`
`of cellular wireless communication systems. See id. at ¶¶ [0025] and [0101].
`
`
`
`–23–
`
`
`
`ERIC-1012
`Page 23 of 120
`
`
`
`Haas Decl.
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,787,431
`
`
`
`43.
`
`Fig. 3 of Dulin, which is partially reproduced above, illustrates the
`
`disclosed cellular wireless communication system. Each of the BTSs includes a
`
`corresponding antenna – denoted as 382, 384, and 386. Each of the BTSs
`
`individually is considered a base station in so
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
