throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`In re Patent of: Hays et al.
`U.S. Patent No.: 5,659,891
`Issue Date:
`August 19, 1997
`Appl. Serial No.: 08/480,718
`Filing Date:
`June 7, 1995
`Title:
`
`Multicarrier Techniques in Bandlimited Channels
`IPR:
`
`IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JAY P. KESAN
`
`1.
`
` My name is Dr. Jay P. Kesan. I understand that I am submitting a
`
`declaration for Mobile Telecommunications Technologies LLC (MTel”),
`
`offering technical opinions in connection with the above-referenced Inter
`
`Partes Review (IPR) 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 as Appendix A.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`I also provide selected background information here relevant to
`
`myself, my experience, and this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`I am a Professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
`
`where I am appointed in the College of Law, the Department of Electrical
`
`and Computer Engineering, the Coordinated Science Laboratory, and the
`
`Information Trust Institute. I have a Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer
`
`
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 1, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin and a J.D., summa
`
`cum laude from Georgetown University. I have also worked as a
`
`research scientist at the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, and I am a
`
`named inventor on several United States patents. I have also served as a
`
`technical expert and legal expert in patent infringement lawsuits. I have
`
`been appointed to serve as a Special Master in patent disputes.
`
`Additionally, I have been appointed as a Thomas Edison Scholar at the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
`
`4.
`
` My opinions in this report are based on my experience and expertise
`
`in the field relevant to the ’891 patent. To prepare this Report, I have
`
`reviewed and considered materials shown in Appendix B and referred to
`
`herein, principally including the ’891 patent and its file history, the
`
`Petrovic reference, and the extrinsic evidence cited.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`I anticipate using some of the above-referenced documents and
`
`information, or other information and material that may be produced
`
`during the course of this proceeding (such as by deposition testimony), as
`
`well as 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 before
`
`the Board regarding the validity of the ’891 patent.
`
`2
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 2, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`6.
`
` This report is based on information currently available to me. To the
`
`extent that additional information becomes available (whether from
`
`documents that may be produced, from testimony that may be given or in
`
`depositions yet to be taken, or from any other source), I reserve the right
`
`to continue the investigation and study. I may thus expand or modify my
`
`opinions as that investigation and study continues. I may also
`
`supplement my opinions in response to such additional information that
`
`becomes available to me, any matters raised by and/or opinions provided
`
`by MTel’s experts, or in light of any relevant orders from the Board.
`
`7.
`
` Throughout this report, I cite to certain documents or testimony that
`
`support my opinions, including appendices C-K. These citations are not
`
`intended to be and are not exhaustive examples. Citation to documents
`
`or testimony is not intended to signify and does not signify that my
`
`expert opinions are limited by or based solely on the cited sources.
`
`8.
`
`
`
`I am an attorney, registered to practice before the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office, and a legal expert in United States Patent Law.
`
`9.
`
` A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`(PHOSITA) of the ’891 Patent would possess a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering or its equivalent and about four years working in
`
`the field of wireless telecommunications networks and would possess
`
`3
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 3, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`knowledge regarding frequency, amplitude, and masks as used in
`
`telecommunications, or equivalent education and work experience.
`
`10.
`
`I have considered Dr. Kakaes opinion regarding the level of skill of a
`
`PHOSITA (Ex. 1003 at ¶ 10), and my opinions expressed herein would
`
`not change, even under his definition.
`
`11. The ’891 Patent is directed to the field of telecommunications and to
`
`systems and methods for operating paging carriers.
`
`12. A brief background on carriers is helpful in understanding how
`
`the ’891 Patent is operating carriers.
`
`13. Most simply, in telecommunications an unmodulated carrier is, in
`
`general, a sinusoidal waveform. Drawing 1 below illustrates a carrier
`
`with a frequency of 1 Hz and an amplitude Ac.
`
`14. Drawing 1 depicts an ideal carrier in the time domain. However, in
`
`telecommunications, it is frequently useful to view carriers in the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 4, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`frequency domain. In the frequency domain, the ideal carrier of Drawing
`
`1 has just a single frequency of 1 Hz. Drawing 2 below illustrates the
`
`carrier of Drawing 1 as shown in the frequency domain.
`
`15.
`
`In Drawing 2, the carrier is shown as an impulse with a single
`
`frequency. This is because the sinusoidal waveform of Drawing 1 is
`
`
`
`ideal.
`
`16. In the real word, it is not possible to transmit an ideal sinusoidal
`
`waveform even for an unmodulated carrier. Additional unwanted
`
`frequencies are generated. As a result, even in the frequency domain, a
`
`carrier has more than one frequency.
`
`17.
`
`In Drawing 2, the y-axis is not specified. In telecommunications, the
`
`frequencies of a carrier are often plotted in relation to their peaks
`
`intensities or their power levels. These types of plots can be referred to
`
`5
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 5, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`as emission spectra. Drawing 3 below illustrates an emission spectrum
`
`for a real world carrier.
`
`
`
`18.
`
`In Drawing 3, the carrier’s attenuated power levels are plotted versus
`
`frequency. Drawing 3 shows that a real unmodulated carrier in an
`
`emission spectrum has a shape that is dependent on frequency.
`
`19. Radio frequency carriers are regulated in the United States by the
`
`FCC. The FCC specifies frequency channels or ranges for carriers and
`
`specifies a specific use for each channel. The FCC also specifies the
`
`maximum power levels at a given frequency for the carriers in each
`
`channel.
`
`20.
`
`In col. 1, ln. 12-14, the ’891 Patent describes that, at that time, the
`
`number of channels allocated by the FCC for mobile page use was
`
`limited. However, at that time, the demand for those channels was
`
`increasing rapidly. Ex. 1001 at 1:11-18. As a result, the ’891 Patent is
`
`6
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 6, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`directed to the problem of the limited channels allocated for mobile
`
`paging at the time of the ’891 Patent.
`
`21. The ’891 Patent discusses two known solutions to this problem. The
`
`first solution is to increase the number of messages transmitted in a
`
`channel in a given period of time. Id. at 1:25-27. This can be stated most
`
`simply as increasing the message rate of the channel. The second
`
`solution is to increase the number of messages sent at the same time by
`
`placing multiple carriers in the same channel. Id. at 1:37-46. This can be
`
`stated most simply as increasing the message capacity of the channel.
`
`22. The ’891 Patent describes that a known method of increasing the
`
`message capacity of a channel is to use more than one carrier in the
`
`channel. Id.
`
`23. The ’891 Patent explains, however, that placing more than one carrier
`
`in the same channel has traditionally required “stringent protection levels
`
`between subchannels” of the multiple carriers. Id. at 2:1-6. The stringent
`
`protection levels described by the ’891 Patent are the additional
`
`limitations the FCC places on each type of channel. Id. at 1:57-67.
`
`These additional limitations are referred to as an emission mask for the
`
`channel.
`
`7
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 7, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`24.
`
`47 C.F.R. §22.99 of the current FCC regulations defines an emission
`
`mask as “[t]he design limits imposed, as a condition or certification, on
`
`the mean power of emissions as a function of frequency both within the
`
`authorized bandwidth and in the adjacent spectrum.”
`
`25. The ’891 Patent describes that FCC emission masks are directed to the
`
`near-far interference problem that occurs between carriers. Ex. 1001 at
`
`4:12-13.
`
`26. The near-far interference problem can be illustrated by considering
`
`two adjacent carriers that are very close in frequency. Drawing 4 below
`
`illustrates two adjacent carriers that are very close in frequency.
`
`
`
`27.
`
`In Drawing 4, Carrier 1 has a center frequency of 1 Hz and Carrier 2
`
`has a center frequency of 1.4 Hz. Near-far interference occurs when a
`
`receiver is much closer (near) to the transmission source of, for example,
`
`Carrier 1 and much farther (far) from the transmission source of Carrier 2.
`
`8
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 8, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`Drawing 5 below illustrates the near-far interference experienced by a
`
`receiver that receives Carrier 1 and Carrier 2.
`
`
`
`28.
`
`In Drawing 5, the Receiver receives Carrier 1 from Transmitter 1,
`
`which is close. The Receiver receives Carrier 2 from Transmitter 2,
`
`which is far. Due to the inverse square law of electromagnetic power
`
`transmission, the Receiver receives much more power from Transmitter 1
`
`than from Transmitter 2. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-
`
`far_problem as of June 13, 2016. As a result, at the Receiver, Carrier 2
`
`cannot be distinguished from a portion of Carrier 1.
`
`29. The ’891 Patent explains that the near-far problem of Drawing 5, for
`
`example, can be eliminated by placing emission mask limitations on the
`
`two carriers. Drawing 6 below illustrates how placing emission mask
`
`9
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 9, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`limitations on the two carriers eliminates the near-far problem for the two
`
`carriers of Drawing 4.
`
`
`
`30.
`
`In Drawing 6, Mask 1 requires that Carrier 1 is narrowed so that
`
`additional frequencies are not generated at a level that will interfere with
`
`Carrier 2. Similarly, Carrier 2 is narrowed so that additional frequencies
`
`are not generated at a level that will interfere with Carrier 1. Drawing 7
`
`below illustrates how these masks can eliminate the near-far interference
`
`problem.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 10, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`31.
`
`In Drawing 7, the Receiver again receives Carrier 1 from Transmitter
`
`1, which is close. And, the Receiver receives Carrier 2 from Transmitter
`
`2, which is far. Carrier 1 and Carrier 2 are also still received at the
`
`Receiver at different power levels due to the inverse square law.
`
`However, Carrier 1 no longer interferes with Carrier 2, because Carrier 1
`
`was required to attenuate its signal more at the frequencies that would
`
`interfere with Carrier 2.
`
`32. Although the “stringent protection levels” afforded by the subchannel
`
`masks of Drawing 6 eliminate the near-far problem as shown in Drawing
`
`7, the ’891 Patent teaches away from this solution by listing its
`
`drawbacks. Ex. 1001 at 2:1-12. The chief drawback listed is a
`
`symmetric condition required by this approach. This symmetric
`
`condition is that “[t]he carriers are symmetrically located within the
`
`channel such that they are evenly spaced relative to each other and to the
`
`band edges of the primary mask defining the primary channel.” Id. at
`
`2:6-9. Drawing 8 below illustrates the symmetric condition.
`
`11
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 11, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`
`
`33.
`
`In Drawing 8, distance Dc defines the center point between Carrier 1
`
`and Carrier 2, or more precisely, half the distance between the center
`
`frequencies of adjacent carriers. Distance Dm is the spacing between
`
`Carrier 1 and the band edge of the Primary Mask of the primary channel.
`
`The symmetric condition of the ’891 Patent, therefore, occurs when Dc =
`
`Dm.
`
`34. The ’891 Patent teaches away from the symmetric condition by
`
`describing that it “often necessitates the need for sophisticated receiver
`
`and transmitter schemes.” Ex. 1001 at 2:11-12.
`
`35.
`
`Instead of using subchannels that require the symmetric condition,
`
`the ’891 Patent describes and claims transmitting multiple carriers from
`
`the same location that are in the same channel in order to increase the
`
`message capacity of the channel. Id. at 3:44-46.
`
`12
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 12, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`36. The co-location of the transmission by the invention of the ’891
`
`Patent is shown in Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`37. Figure 1 of the ’891 Patent shows that two carriers are transmitted
`
`from the same location by one antenna. From Figure 1 and the stated
`
`purpose of the ’891 Patent, a PHOSITA would also conclude that the two
`
`carriers are transmitted at the same time. For example, as described
`
`above, the purpose of the ’891 is to increase the message capacity of the
`
`channel. If the two carriers of Figure 1 are not transmitting at the same
`
`time, there is no improvement in message capacity of the channel. As a
`
`result, there is no need for multiple carriers.
`
`38. The ’891 Patent describes that co-location does not give rise to the
`
`near-far problem. Ex. 1001 at 4:12-15. Since all carriers are transmitted
`
`from the same location, at any receiver, all carriers are attenuated the
`
`same amount. In other words, there are no longer near and far distances.
`
`13
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 13, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`39. Because there is no near-far problem with co-location, carriers can be
`
`spaced closer together than when subchannels are used. Id. This means
`
`that the symmetric condition is no longer optimal. Id. at 4:15-17.
`
`40. The ’891 Patent defines a new—more narrow—condition for co-
`
`located carriers. This condition provides that “the frequency spacings
`
`between adjacent carriers, while symmetric to each other, can be smaller
`
`than the frequency spacings between the band edges of the mask and the
`
`nearest respective carrier.” Id. at 4:17-20. In other words, the distance
`
`between adjacent carriers can be smaller than the distance between an
`
`outer carrier and the band edge. The ’891 Patent refers to this condition
`
`as an asymmetry. Id. at 4:24-34. Drawing 9 below illustrates this
`
`asymmetric condition.
`
`41.
`
`In Drawing 9, distance Dc is half of the frequency spacing between
`
`Carrier 1 and the next adjacent carrier, which is now Carrier 3. Distance
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 14, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`Dm is the spacing between Carrier 1 and the nearest band edge of the
`
`Primary Mask of the channel. The asymmetric condition of the ’891
`
`Patent, requires that Dm > Dc.
`
`42.
`
`In comparison with the symmetric condition (Drawing 8), the
`
`asymmetric condition of Drawing 9 allows closer spacing of adjacent
`
`carriers. Ex. 1001 at 4:14-15. This closer spacing allows Carrier 3 to be
`
`added between Carrier 1 and Carrier 2. The additional Carrier 3 means
`
`additional data is sent in the same channel at the same time. Thus, the
`
`addition of Carrier 3 increases the message capacity of the channel,
`
`which is the purpose of the ’891 Patent.
`
`43.
`
`In addition, the asymmetric condition allows carriers to overlap
`
`without concern of the near-far problem. Id. at 4:24-30. In Drawing 9,
`
`Carrier 1 and Carrier 3 overlap, and Carrier 3 and Carrier 2 overlap.
`
`44.
`
`Independent claims 1, 3, and 5 of the ‘891 Patent all recite (1)
`
`transmitting multiple carriers from the same location, and (2) and
`
`transmitting the multiple carriers according to the asymmetric condition.
`
`As described above, these two limitations are solutions to the problem of
`
`increasing the message capacity of the channel. As a result, the language
`
`of these claims should be considered in relation to solving the problem of
`
`increasing the message capacity of the channel.
`
`15
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 15, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`45.
`
`In regard to the limitation of (1) transmitting multiple carriers from
`
`the same location, a PHOSITA would understand this limitation to mean
`
`transmitting multiple carriers from the same location at the same time.
`
`As described in above paragraph 36 and in reference to Figure 1 of
`
`the ’891 Patent, if the two carriers of Figure 1 are not transmitting at the
`
`same time, there is no improvement in message capacity of the channel.
`
`As a result, there is no need for co-location.
`
`46.
`
`In regard to the limitation of (2) transmitting the multiple carriers
`
`according to the asymmetric condition, a PHOSITA would understand
`
`this limitation to mean transmitting the multiple carriers so that the
`
`asymmetric condition is met. The asymmetric condition of claim 1, for
`
`example, is that “the frequency difference between the center frequency
`
`of the outer most of said carriers and the band edge of the mask defining
`
`said channel is more than half the frequency difference between the
`
`center frequencies of each adjacent carrier.” This is more simply
`
`described in Drawing 9 as Dm > (½)Dbetween adjacent carrier center frequencies, which
`
`is equivalent to Dm > Dc, where Dc is half the frequency difference
`
`between the center frequencies of adjacent carriers.
`
`47. The specification of the ’891 Patent provides sufficient guidance for a
`
`PHOSITA to identify the band edge of the mask defining said channel
`
`16
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 16, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`referred to in the independent claims. The simplified mask of Drawing 9
`
`has only one band edge, so there is no problem determining the band
`
`edge in Drawing 9. Actual FCC emission masks, however, are more
`
`complex and rely on mathematical formulas to specifically identify the
`
`constraints imposed by the mask, and thereby, the band edge of the mask
`
`defining a given channel.
`
`48. The word “band” of “band edge” refers to a frequency band or range.
`
`A PHOSITA would, therefore, understand that the term “band edge of a
`
`mask” means all points along the edge of the mask that limits the
`
`frequency band.
`
`49.
`
`In 47 C.F.R. §90.210 of the current FCC regulations, for example, the
`
`FCC lists the emission masks for a number of different channels. The
`
`table from 47 C.F.R. §90.210 is shown below.
`
`50. Appendix C is an application note from Silicon Labs that includes
`
`figures of some current FCC emission masks. Appendix C is an
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 17, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`exemplary technical pamphlet that I have relied on to corroborate my
`
`personal knowledge that FCC emission masks have multiple points
`
`which together form the band edge. Figures 1-3 of Appendix C are
`
`shown below.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 18, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`51. Figures 1-3 of Appendix C demonstrate that FCC emission masks can
`
`
`
`have multiple band edges. Figures 1-3 are recent FCC emission masks
`
`and are for a different frequency range than the frequency range
`
`described in the ’891 Patent. The prosecution history of the ’891 Patent,
`
`however, provides that FCC emission masks at the time of the ’891
`
`Patent had multiple band edges even for the frequency range described in
`
`the ’891 Patent. On June 7, 1995, the applicants filed an information
`
`disclosure statement (IDS) with an exemplary mask from the FCC Part
`
`22 regulations at the time. Ex. 1012 at 79-84. In the IDS they provided,
`
`the mask was drawn according to the interpretation of the FCC Part 22
`
`regulations at the time. Id. at 84. This mask is shown below.
`
`19
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 19, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`
`
`Id.
`
`52.
`
`In determining the band edge of the asymmetric condition of the ’891
`
`Patent, a PHOSITA would first look to the purpose of the band edge in
`
`the asymmetric condition in the context of the ’891 Patent.
`
`53.
`
`In the asymmetric condition, the band edge is used to determine a
`
`frequency distance between the outer most carriers and the mask. In
`
`Drawing 9, this distance is Dm, for example. The purpose of the
`
`frequency distance, Dm, is implicitly defined in the ’891 Patent.
`
`54. Again, a PHOSITA would first look to the purpose of the frequency
`
`distance, Dm, in the context of the ’891 Patent.
`
`55. A PHOSITA would conclude from the specification of the ’891 Patent
`
`that the purpose of the frequency distance, Dm, is to prevent the outer
`
`most carriers from exceeding the mask limits when they are modulated.
`
`20
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 20, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`In other words, the purpose of the frequency distance, Dm, is to prevent
`
`the outer most carriers from exceeding the band edge.
`
`56. This conclusion is made by first determining the type of modulation
`
`used in the ’891 Patent. Figures 5A, 6A, and 7A all depict modulated
`
`carriers of the ’891 Patent. All three figures include a maximum
`
`frequency deviation. A frequency deviation is known by a PHOSITA to
`
`be a parameter of frequency shift keying (FSK) modulation.
`
`57. Appendix D is an exemplary tutorial on digital modulation techniques
`
`provided by Electronic Design magazine. Appendix D is an exemplary
`
`technical periodical that I have relied on to corroborate my personal
`
`knowledge of modulation techniques. Appendix D describes three basic
`
`ways to modulate a sinusoidal carrier to transmit digital data. Appendix
`
`D at 1. These three ways are using amplitude shift keying (ASK), on-off
`
`keying (OOK), or frequency shift keying (FSK). These three modulation
`
`methods are graphically depicted in Figure 1 of Appendix D, which is
`
`shown below.
`
`21
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 21, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`
`
`58. Appendix D describes that FSK modulation shifts the carrier between
`
`two different frequencies, fm and fs. fm is the mark or binary 1 frequency,
`
`and fs is the space or binary 0 frequency. The frequency deviation, ∆f, of
`
`FSK is calculated as ∆f = fs - fm.
`
`59. Because FSK modulation is the only digital modulation method to
`
`include a frequency deviation, Appendix D confirms that it is a
`
`modulation technique used in the ‘891 Patent.
`
`60. After determining that a modulation technique used in the ‘891 Patent
`
`is FSK, a PHOSITA would consider how FSK is related to the frequency
`
`distance, Dm, of the asymmetric condition.
`
`22
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 22, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`61. A PHOSITA would realize that the frequency deviation, ∆f, of FSK
`
`modulation causes a carrier to get wider or spread out in terms of
`
`frequency. Appendix E is another tutorial on modulation provided by
`
`www.complextoreal.com as of June 12, 2016. Appendix E is an
`
`exemplary technical pamphlet that I have relied on to corroborate my
`
`personal knowledge of the frequency shift keying (FSK) modulation
`
`technique. Appendix E includes a detailed description of FSK
`
`modulation. Figure 9 of Appendix E is shown below.
`
`
`
`62. Figure 9 of Appendix E is a spectrum showing a carrier with a center
`
`frequency of 4 that has been modulated with FSK. Figure 9 shows that
`
`the carrier now has a frequency deviation, ∆f, of 2 on either side of the
`
`center frequency of 4. In other words, the shape of the carrier is now
`
`spread out between frequencies 2 and 6. As a result, Figure 9 of
`
`Appendix E confirms that the frequency deviation, ∆f, of FSK
`
`23
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 23, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`modulation causes a carrier to get wider or spread out in terms of
`
`frequency.
`
`63. Because FSK modulation causes a modulated carrier to get wider and
`
`the frequency distance, Dm, of the asymmetric condition specifies a
`
`buffer distance between the band edge of a mask and the carrier, a
`
`PHOSITA would conclude that the purpose of the frequency distance, Dm,
`
`is to prevent the outer most carriers from exceeding the mask limits when
`
`they are spread out in frequency due to modulation.
`
`64.
`
`Indeed, the ’891 Patent confirms this by describing in reference to the
`
`modulated carriers of Figure 5A that “the carriers remained within the
`
`FCC mask while providing an acceptable error-rate versus signal strength
`
`performance.” Ex. 1001 at 4:61-63. In other words, the ’891 Patent
`
`explicitly points out that the carriers remained within the mask limits
`
`after applying the asymmetric condition and after modulation.
`
`65. As described above, the purpose of the frequency distance, Dm, is to
`
`determine what band edge to use in the calculation of the asymmetric
`
`condition. Since the purpose of the frequency distance, Dm, is to ensure
`
`that the modulated carrier does not exceed a mask limit, a PHOSITA
`
`would conclude that the band edge of the asymmetric condition is the
`
`24
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 24, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`edge of the mask that is likely to be nearest in frequency to the outer
`
`most carrier when that carrier is modulated.
`
`66. Another way of describing the band edge, for FSK modulation, is the
`
`first limit of the mask to be exceeded as the frequency deviation of the
`
`carrier is increased.
`
`67. A PHOSITA would understand that the band edge nearest in
`
`frequency to the outer most carrier would be chosen for the asymmetric
`
`condition in order to minimize the frequency distance, Dm, of Drawing 9.
`
`In order to satisfy the spacing requirements of the claims, minimizing Dm.
`
`necessarily minimizes the frequency distance between carriers, Dc,
`
`according to the asymmetric condition (Dm > DC). This allows more
`
`carriers to be placed in the channel, which increases the message capacity
`
`of the channel, which is the stated goal of the ’891 Patent.
`
`68. Alternatively, using any other point on the mask in the measurement
`
`of Dm, results in a larger value of Dm, which in turn allows larger spacing
`
`between adjacent carriers. This would be contrary to the ’891 Patent,
`
`which teaches that “carrier spacing far closer than would ordinarily be
`
`allowed” is desirable. Ex. 1001 at 4:14-15.
`
`69. The point on the mask identified by Dr. Kakaes as the band edge of
`
`the mask is further in frequency from the outer most carrier. Ex. 1003 at
`
`25
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 25, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`¶¶ 19-20. When the farthest frequency limit of the mask is used as the
`
`band edge for the asymmetric condition, the frequency distance, Dm, is
`
`maximized, allowing the frequency distance between carriers, Dc, to be
`
`larger. This would not allow more carriers to be placed in the channel
`
`and would not increase the message capacity of the channel. This is
`
`contrary to the teachings of the ’891 Patent.
`
`70. As shown above in the figures of FCC emission masks of above
`
`paragraph 50, the power attenuation requirements of masks are generally
`
`smallest near the center frequency of the outermost carrier, and increase
`
`as the distance from the center frequency of the outermost carrier
`
`increases. As a result, the band edges at higher power levels are nearest
`
`to the center frequency of the outer most carriers. In other words, masks
`
`generally take the shape shown in Figure 4 of the ’891 Patent. Ex. 1001
`
`at Figure 4.
`
`71. Two masks described in the ‘891 Patent and its prosecution history
`
`can be used to confirm that the band edge of the asymmetric condition is
`
`the edge of the mask that is nearest to the outer most carrier when that
`
`carrier is modulated. This is confirmed by hypothetically applying the
`
`two masks to the examples of the ’891 Patent application. Note that there
`
`is no explicit indication in the ’891 Patent that the examples of Figures
`
`26
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 26, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`5A, 6A, or 7A were intended to work with the two masks described
`
`below and shown in Drawing 10 and Drawing 11.
`
`72. The first mask applied is the mask of Figure 4 of the ’891 Patent,
`
`which is reproduced below. Suppose, for example, the vertical mask
`
`edges at -10 kHz and 10 kHz of the mask of Figure 4 of the ’891 Patent
`
`are selected as the band edges of the asymmetric condition.
`
`
`
`73. Figure 5A of the ’891 Patent shows that the applicants of the ’891
`
`Patent selected edges at -10 kHz and 10 kHz as the band edges of the
`
`asymmetric condition. Figure 5A is reproduced below.
`
`27
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 27, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`
`
`74. A PHOSITA would understand that Figure 5A of the ’891 Patent was
`
`meant to show that placing two carriers in a channel according to the
`
`asymmetric condition produced good results. In Figure 5A, the two
`
`carriers are centered at -4.590 kHz and 4.590 kHz. Half the frequency
`
`distance between the center frequencies of adjacent carriers, Dc, is,
`
`therefore, 4.590 kHz. If the band edges are at -10 kHz and 10 kHz, then
`
`the frequency distance between an outer carrier and a band edge, Dm, is
`
`5.410 kHz. As a result, Dm > Dc and the asymmetric condition is met.
`
`75. A PHOSITA would understand that using the mask of Figure 4 of
`
`the ’891 Patent, for the example, in Figure 5A of the ‘891 Patent would
`
`not produce the desired result if the carriers are operating at full power,
`
`even though the mask of Figure 4 includes edges at -10 kHz and 10 kHz.
`
`28
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 28, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`This is because the edges at -10 kHz and 10 kHz are not the nearest edges.
`
`Drawing 10 below shows the mask of Figure 4 drawn on Figure 5A.
`
`76. Drawing 10 shows that not choosing the nearest edges creates a
`
`
`
`problem, because centering two carriers at -4.590 kHz and 4.590 kHz
`
`based on the vertical mask edges of the mask in Figure 4 at -10 kHz and
`
`10 kHz puts the modulated carriers outside of the mask limits. The two
`
`carriers exceed the diagonal mask edges. This would be a problem,
`
`because the ’891 Patent, in reference to Figure 5A, explicitly states that
`
`“carriers remained within the FCC mask limits.” Ex. 1001 at 4:61-62.
`
`They would not remain within the mask limits of Figure 4 of the ’891
`
`Patent.
`
`29
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 29, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`77. A PHOSITA would also understand that using the mask of Figure 4 of
`
`the ’891 Patent, for the example, in Figure 5A of the ’891 Patent could
`
`produce the desired result if the carriers are not operating at full power.
`
`For example, if the power levels of the carriers are attenuated enough, the
`
`diagonal band edges of Figure 4 are no longer the nearest band edges,
`
`because the carriers are below them. Instead, the vertical edges at -10
`
`kHz and 10 kHz are now the nearest edges. Drawing 10b below shows
`
`the mask of Figure 4 drawn relative to the carriers of Figure 5A when the
`
`carriers are attenuated below the level of the diagonal band edges of
`
`Figure 4.
`
`78. Drawing 10b shows that if the FCC mask of Figure 4 is superimposed
`
`on Figure 5A and the power levels of the carriers are kept below the
`
`
`
`30
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 30, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`diagonal lines of the FCC mask as shown in Fig 3B, the nearest band
`
`edges of the mask are the vertical lines of the mask.
`
`79.
`
`Indeed, there is evidence in the ’891 Patent that the carriers are
`
`restricted to lower power levels. Figures 3A and 3B of the ’891 Patent,
`
`reproduced below, show that power levels of the subchannels 30a and
`
`30b are limited to levels below where the diagonal lines of mask 31 come
`
`into play. In other words, carriers 32a and 32b of Figures 3B can never
`
`reach the diagonal lines of mask 31 when modulated, because their power
`
`levels are limited by the horizontal lines of subchannels 30a and 30b. If
`
`carriers 32a and 32b are not limited to these lower power levels, points
`
`on the diagonals of mask 31 would be the nearest band edge.
`
`31
`
`
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2011, Aruba v. MTel., Page 31, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket