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 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 2001, 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 Asserted Patents. 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 2001, 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. 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 (POSA)
`
`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 knowledge
`
`
`
`3
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 3, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`regarding frequency, amplitude, and masks as used in
`
`telecommunications, or equivalent education and work experience.
`
`10. The ‘891 Patent is directed to the field of telecommunications and to
`
`systems and methods for operating paging carriers.
`
`11. A brief background on carriers is helpful in understanding how the ‘891
`
`Patent is operating carriers.
`
`12. Most simply, in telecommunications an unmodulated carrier is, in general,
`
`sinusoidal waveform. Drawing 1 below illustrates a carrier with a
`
`frequency of 1 Hz and an amplitude Ac.
`
`Amplitude
`
`Ac
`
`0
`
`1
`
`Time (s)
`Drawing 1
`
`
`
`13. Drawing 1 depicts an ideal carrier in the time domain. However, in
`
`telecommunications, it is frequently useful to view carriers in the
`
`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.
`
`
`
`4
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 4, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`0
`
`1
`Frequency (Hz)
`Drawing 2
`
`
`
`14. 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.
`
`15. 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.
`
`16. 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
`
`as an emission spectra. Drawing 3 below illustrates an emission
`
`spectrum for a real world carrier.
`
`
`
`5
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 5, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`0
`
`1
`Frequency (Hz)
`Drawing 3
`
`
`
`0
`
`‐50
`
`Power (dB)
`From Max. 
`Attenuation
`
`17. 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.
`
`18. 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 for the carriers in each channel.
`
`19. 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. 1001 at 1:11-18. As a result, the ‘891 Patent is
`
`directed to the problem of the limited channels allocated for mobile
`
`paging at the time of the ‘891 Patent.
`
`
`
`6
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 6, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`20. 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 send 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.
`
`21. 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.
`
`22. The ‘891 Patent explains, however, that placing more than one carrier in
`
`the same channels 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 channel. Id. at 1:57-67. These
`
`additional limitations are referred to as an emission mask for the channel.
`
`23. 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.”
`
`
`
`7
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 7, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`24. 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.
`
`25. 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.
`
`Carrier 1
`
`Carrier 2
`
`0
`
`‐50
`
`Power (dB)
`From Max. 
`Attenuation
`
`0
`
`1.4
`1
`Frequency (Hz)
`Drawing 4
`
`
`
`26. 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, for example, Carrier 1 and much farther
`
`(far) from Carrier 2. Drawing 5 below illustrates the near-far interference
`
`experienced by a receiver that receives Carrier 1 and Carrier 2.
`
`
`
`8
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 8, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`Carrier 1
`
`Carrier 2
`
`Far
`
`Near
`Receiver
`Transmitter 1
`Drawing 5
`
`Transmitter 2
`
`
`
`27. 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.
`
`28. The ‘891 Patent explains that 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
`
`limitations on the two carriers eliminates the near-far problem for the two
`
`carriers of Drawing 4.
`
`
`
`9
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 9, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`Carrier 1
`
`Carrier 2
`
`Mask 1
`
`Mask 2
`
`0
`
`‐50
`
`Power (dB)
`From Max. 
`Attenuation
`
`0
`
`1.4
`1
`Frequency (Hz)
`Drawing 6
`
`
`
`29. 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.
`
`Carrier 1
`
`Carrier 2
`
`Far
`
`Near
`Receiver
`Transmitter 1
`Drawing 7
`
`Transmitter 2
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 10, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`30. 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.
`
`31. 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 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 11, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`Symmetric Condition Dm = Dc
`Carrier 1
`Carrier 2
`Primary
`Mask
`Dc
`
`Dm
`
`0
`
`‐50
`
`Power (dB)
`From Max. 
`Attenuation
`
`0
`
`1.4
`1
`Frequency (Hz)
`Drawing 8
`
`
`32. In Drawing 8, distance Dc is the spacing between Carrier 1 and Carrier 2.
`
`Distance Dm is the spacing between Carrier 1 and the band edge of the
`
`Primary Mask of the channel. The symmetric condition of the ‘891
`
`Patent, therefore, occurs when Dc = Dm.
`
`33. 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.
`
`34. 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.
`
`35. 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.
`12
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 12, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`
`
`36. 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 POSA 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.
`
`37. 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 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 13, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`38. 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 does not apply. Id. at 4:15-17.
`
`39. The ‘891 Patent defines a new 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 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.
`
`Asymmetric Condition Dm > Dc
`Carrier 3
`Carrier 2
`Carrier 1
`0
`Primary
`Mask
`Dc
`
`Power (dB)
`From Max. 
`Attenuation
`
`‐50
`
`Dm
`
`0
`
`1.4
`1
`Frequency (Hz)
`Drawing 9
`
`
`40. In Drawing 9, distance Dc is the spacing between Carrier 1 and the next
`
`adjacent carrier, which is now Carrier 3. Distance Dm is the spacing
`
`
`
`14
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 14, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`between Carrier 1 and the band edge of the Primary Mask of the channel.
`
`The asymmetric condition of the ‘891 Patent, requires that Dm > Dc.
`
`41. In comparison with the symmetric condition (Drawing 8), the asymmetric
`
`condition of Drawing 9 allows closer spacing of 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 an additional
`
`message 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.
`
`42. In addition, the asymmetric condition allows carriers to overlap. Id. at
`
`4:24-30. In Drawing 9, Carrier 1 and Carrier 3 overlap, and Carrier 3 and
`
`Carrier 2 overlap.
`
`43. 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 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 15, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`44. In regard to the limitation of (1) transmitting multiple carriers from the
`
`same location, a POSA 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.
`
`45. Further, the ‘891 Patent is not directed to increasing the message rate of a
`
`channel, where multiple carriers may transmit parts of the same message
`
`at different times. Ex. 1001 at 1:25-27. The ‘891 Patent specifically
`
`teaches away from increasing the message rate of a channel. The ‘891
`
`Patent provides that “[s]ystems employing techniques to increase
`
`transmission rates, however, are prone to higher error rates. In addition,
`
`high data rates tend to generate greater transmission interference.” Id. at
`
`1:32-35.
`
`46. In addition, the ‘891 Patent provides an example that shows it is directed
`
`to transmitting different messages on different carriers at the same time.
`
`The ‘891 Patent describes that “the modulation technique of the present
`
`invention may also be suited for use in areas where the incidence of
`
`unacceptable interference is high, such as international border regions. In
`
`
`
`16
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 16, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`that type of environment. Transmissions from the respective bordering
`
`countries can be assigned to one of the carriers operating within the
`
`channel to reduce the risk of interference.” Id. at 5:32-38. First of all,
`
`interference between carriers can only occur if they are transmitting at the
`
`same time. Secondly, the example shows that a message from another
`
`country is assigned to one of the carriers, so the carriers must have
`
`different messages.
`
`47. In regard to the limitation of (2) transmitting the multiple carriers
`
`according to the asymmetric condition, a POSA would understand this
`
`limitation to mean transmitting the multiple carriers so that each carrier
`
`meets the asymmetric condition of the claim. 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 > Dc.
`
`48. One problem with the ‘891 Patent is that it does not explicitly define the
`
`band edge that should be used in the calculation of the asymmetric
`
`condition. The simplified mask of Drawing 9 has only one band edge, so
`
`there is no problem determining the band edge in Drawing 9.
`
`
`
`17
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 17, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`Unfortunately, however, actual FCC emission masks are more complex
`
`and have multiple band edges.
`
`49. The word “band” of “band edge” refers to a frequency band or range. A
`
`POSA would, therefore, understand that the term “band edge of a mask”
`
`means an edge of a mask that limits the frequency band.
`
`50. 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.
`
`51. Exhibit 2002 is an application from Silicon Labs that includes figures of
`
`some current FCC emission masks. Figures 1-3 of Exhibit 2002 are
`
`
`
`shown below.
`
`
`
`18
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 18, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`52. Figures 1-3 of Exhibit 2002 demonstrate that FCC emission masks can
`
`have multiple band edges.
`
`
`
`19
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 19, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`53. In determining the band edge of the asymmetric condition of the ‘891
`
`Patent, a POSA would first look to the purpose of the band edge in the
`
`asymmetric condition.
`
`54. 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. However, the purpose of the
`
`frequency distance, Dm, is also not explicitly defined in the ‘891 Patent.
`
`55. Again, a POSA would first look to the purpose of the frequency distance,
`
`Dm, to determine how it is defined.
`
`56. A POSA 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. In
`
`other words, the purpose of the frequency distance, Dm, is to prevent the
`
`outer most carriers from exceeding the band edge.
`
`57. 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 POSA to be a parameter
`
`of frequency shift keying (FSK) modulation.
`
`
`
`20
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 20, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`58. Exhibit 2003 is an exemplary tutorial on digital modulation techniques
`
`provided by Electronic Design magazine. Exhibit 2003 describes that
`
`there are three basic ways to modulate a sinusoidal carrier to transmit
`
`digital data. Ex. 2003 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
`
`Exhibit 2003, which is shown below.
`
`Figure 1 of Exhibit 2003
`
`
`
`59. Exhibit 2003 describes that FSK modulation shifts the carrier between
`
`two different frequencies, fm and fs. fm is the mark or binary 1 frequency,
`
`
`
`21
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 21, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`and fs is the space or binary 0 frequency. The frequency deviation, ∆f, of
`
`FSK is calculated as ∆f = fs - fm.
`
`60. Because FSK modulation is the only digital modulation method to
`
`include a frequency deviation, Exhibit 2003 confirms that it is the
`
`modulation technique used in the ‘891 Patent.
`
`61. After determining that the modulation technique used in the ‘891 Patent
`
`is FSK, a POSA would consider how FSK is related to the frequency
`
`distance, Dm, of the asymmetric condition.
`
`62. A POSA would realize that the frequency deviation, ∆f, of FSK
`
`modulation causes a carrier to get wider or spread out in terms of
`
`frequency. Exhibit 2004 is another tutorial on modulation provided by
`
`www.complextoreal.com as of June 12, 2016. Exhibit 2004 includes a
`
`detailed description of FSK modulation. Figure 9 of Exhibit 2004 is
`
`shown below.
`
`Figure 9 of Exhibit 2004
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 22, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`63. Figure 9 of Exhibit 2004 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 Exhibit
`
`2004 confirms that the frequency deviation, ∆f, of FSK modulation
`
`causes a carrier to get wider or spread out in terms of frequency.
`
`64. Because FSK modulation causes a 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 POSA 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.
`
`65. 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 remain within the mask limits after
`
`applying the asymmetric condition and even after modulation.
`
`
`
`23
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 23, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`66. 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 POSA would
`
`conclude that the band edge of the asymmetric condition is the edge of
`
`the mask that is likely to be closest in frequency to the outer most carrier
`
`when that carrier is modulated.
`
`67. 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.
`
`68. A POSA would understand that the band edge closest 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. 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.
`
`69. Alternatively, if 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
`
`
`
`24
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 24, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`larger. This would not allow more carriers to be placed in the channel
`
`and would not increase the message capacity of the channel.
`
`70. As shown above in the figures of FCC emission masks of above
`
`paragraph 51, the frequency limitations of masks generally become
`
`increasing less restrictive as the power level decreases. As a result, the
`
`band edges at higher power levels are likely to be closer to the outer most
`
`carriers.
`
`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 closest 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 indication in the ‘891 Patent that the examples of Figures 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.
`
`
`
`25
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 25, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`
`
`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.
`
`74. A POSA would understand that Figure 5A of the ‘891 Patent was meant
`
`to show that placing two carriers in a channel according to the
`
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 26, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`asymmetric condition produced good results. In Figure 5A, the two
`
`carriers are centered at -4.590 kHz and 4.590 kHz. The frequency
`
`distance between 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 POSA 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, even though the mask of Figure 4 includes
`
`edges at -10 kHz and 10 kHz. This is because the edges at -10 kHz and
`
`10 kHz are not the closest edges. Drawing 10 below shows the mask of
`
`Figure 4 drawn on Figure 5A.
`
`Drawing 10
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 27, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`76. Drawing 10 shows that not choosing the closest 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.
`
`77. The application of the mask in Figure 4 to Figure 5A as shown in
`
`Drawing 10, however, confirms that the band edge that should be chosen
`
`for the asymmetric condition is the edge of the mask that is closest in
`
`frequency to the outer most carrier when that carrier is modulated. In
`
`Drawing 10, for example, the band edges that should have been chosen
`
`are just where the diagonal band edges begin near the 0 power level
`
`attenuation. These are the only band edges that would ensure that
`
`carriers remain in the mask after modulation.
`
`78. The second mask applied to Figure 5A is a replacement mask the
`
`applicants of the ‘891 Patent provided in the prosecution history. On
`
`June 7, 1995 the applicants filed an information disclosure statement
`
`(IDS) with a replacement mask for Figure 4 and the FCC Part 22
`
`
`
`28
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 28, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`regulations at the time. Ex. 1012 at 79-84. In the IDS, they provided the
`
`replacement mask was drawn according to the correct interpretation of
`
`the FCC Part 22 regulations at the time. Id. at 84. This mask is shown
`
`below.
`
`79. The IDS also provided an excerpt of the FCC Part 22 regulations at the
`
`time. Id. at 82-83. The relevant passages are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`29
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 29, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`
`
`80. The application of this second mask further confirms the meaning of the
`
`band edge. The second mask of the graph of the IDS applied to Figure
`
`5A of the ‘891 Patent is shown below in Drawing 11.
`
`
`
`Drawing 11
`
`30
`
`
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2001, Aruba v. MTel., Page 30, IPR2016-00768
`
`

`
`81. Drawing 11 shows that even if the diagonal edges of the mask at -10 kHz
`
`and 10 kHz (now with power levels of -25 dB and 25 dB) are chosen,
`
`which are well inside the actual mask, the modulated carriers still do not
`
`remain in the mask. This further confirms that band edge has to be
`
`chosen where the limit of the mask is most likely to be first exceeded by
`
`the frequency spread of the carrier due to modulation.
`
`82. In Drawing 11, for example, the band edges that should be chosen are
`
`again just where the diagonal band edges begin near the 0 power level
`
`attenuation. These are the only band edges that would ensure that
`
`carriers remain in the mask after modulation. Any other band edges
`
`chosen would allow the modulated carriers to exceed the mask limits.
`
`83. In summary, a POSA would understand that the purpose of ‘891 Patent is
`
`to increase the message capacity of a channel.
`
`84. 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.
`
`85. In regard to the limitation of (1) transmitting multiple carriers from the
`
`same loca

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