McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ADAPTIX, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`Patent 8,934,445
`
`TITLE: MULTI-CARRIER COMMUNICATIONS WITH ADAPTIVE
`CLUSTER CONFIGURATION AND SWITCHING
`
`_________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF BRUCE MCNAIR
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`I, Bruce McNair, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Alcatel-Lucent USA,
`
`Inc. (“ALU”) in the matter of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,934,445 (“the ’445 patent”) to Li et al.
`
`2.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`(1) The ’445 Patent, Ex. 1001;
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ADAPTIX, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`Patent 8,934,445
`
`TITLE: MULTI-CARRIER COMMUNICATIONS WITH ADAPTIVE
`CLUSTER CONFIGURATION AND SWITCHING
`
`_________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF BRUCE MCNAIR
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`I, Bruce McNair, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Alcatel-Lucent USA,
`
`Inc. (“ALU”) in the matter of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,934,445 (“the ’445 patent”) to Li et al.
`
`2.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`(1) The ’445 Patent, Ex. 1001;
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`(2) Declaration of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D., Ex. 1008;
`
`(3) U.S. Patent No. 6,018,528 to Rich Gitlin (“Gitlin”), Ex. 1010;
`
`(4) Van Nee, et al. “OFDM for Wireless Multimedia Communications”
`
`(1999) (“Van Nee”), Ex. 1011;
`
`(5) U.S. Patent No. 6,473,467 to Mark Wallace (“Wallace”), Ex. 1013;
`
`(6) Lajos Hanzo et al., “Single- and Multi-carrier Quadrature Amplitude
`
`Modulation: Principles and Applications for Personal
`
`Communications, WLANs and Broadcasting” (1999) (“Hanzo”) , Ex.
`
`1014;
`
`(7) Theodore Rappaport, “Wireless Communications: Principles &
`
`Practice” (1995) (“Rappaport”), Ex. 1016;
`
`(8) U.S. Patent No. 6,985,433 to Laroia (“Laroia”), Ex. 1018;
`
`(9) U.S. Patent No. 6,006,075 to Smith et al. (“Smith”), Ex. 1019;
`
`(10) U.S. Patent No. 6,657,949 to Jones et al. (“Jones”), Ex. 1020;
`
`(11) U.S. Patent No. 6,067,290 to Paulraj et al. (“Paulraj”), Ex. 1021; and
`
`(12) Yiyan Wu et al., Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing: A
`
`Multi-Carrier Modulation Scheme, IEEE Transactions on Consumer
`
`Electronics, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Aug. 1995), Ex. 1022;
`
`(13) Prosecution history of 8,934,445 Patent, Ex. 1023; and
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 2 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`(14) Wong et al., “Multiuser OFDM with Adaptive Subcarrier, Bit, and
`
`Power Allocation,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
`
`Communications, pp. 1747-1758, October 1999, Ex. 1024.
`
`(15) Hermann Rohling and Rainer Grunheid, “Performance Comparison of
`
`Different Multiple Access Schemes for the Downlink of an OFDM
`
`Communication System,” IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference,
`
`1997 IEEE 47th Vol. 3, pp. 1365-1369, May 7, 1997, Ex. 1025.
`
`3.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`(1) The documents listed above, and
`
`(2) My knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area as
`
`described below.
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications
`
`4.
`
`I am a Distinguished Service Professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, NJ. I have studied
`
`and practiced in the fields of electrical engineering, computer engineering, and
`
`computer science for over 40 years, and have been a professor of electrical and
`
`computer engineering since 2002.
`
`5.
`
`I received my Masters of Engineering (M.E.) degree in the field of
`
`Electrical Engineering from Stevens Institute of Technology in 1974 and my
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 3 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) degree in Electrical Engineering in 1971 from
`
`Stevens as well.
`
`6.
`
`I am the Founder and Chief Technology Officer of Novidesic
`
`Communications, LLC, a technology consulting company. Prior to starting
`
`Novidesic and joining the faculty at Stevens in 2002, I spent 24 years at AT&T
`
`Bell Laboratories. My most recent work there included research into next
`
`generation (4G and beyond) wireless data communications systems, including
`
`high-speed, high mobility wide area networks as well as range and speed
`
`extensions to 802.11(a & b) wireless LANs and dynamic channel assignment in
`
`cellular systems. My research required the examination of physical layer wireless
`
`protocols and channel measurement techniques. Before that, my activities
`
`included development of encryption hardware, secure voice architecture studies,
`
`high-speed voice-band modems, and public data network protocols.
`
`7.
`
`Before joining Bell Labs, I spent seven years developing military
`
`communications systems for the US Army Electronics Command and ITT Defense
`
`Communications Division. My responsibilities included cryptographic and ECCM
`
`techniques for portable radio systems, TEMPEST technology, and state-of-the-art
`
`speech compression techniques.
`
`8.
`
`Since becoming a faculty member in 2002 (and even before) I have
`
`published over 20 technical publications in scientific journals or conferences in the
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 4 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`fields of digital communications and security. I have 25 U.S. patents in related
`
`fields, as well as 19 associated international patents. As part of my research as a
`
`professor and previously at Bell Labs, I have developed and implemented many
`
`different wireless communications devices with physical layer protocols similar to
`
`the concepts of the ‘445 patent and which I explain in more detail below. My
`
`teaching at Stevens Institute of Technology has included a graduate course in
`
`Physical Design of Wireless Communications Systems and an undergraduate
`
`course in Electronic Circuits, which include coverage of wireless systems. My
`
`Bell Labs research included study of Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing,
`
`a technology directly addressed in the ‘445 patent.
`
`9.
`
`I am a Life Senior Member of the IEEE and belong to the
`
`Communications and Signal Processing Societies. I have served as the Secretary
`
`of the IEEE Communications Society Communications Security Committee.
`
`10.
`
`I have also been an amateur radio operator since 1963 and have held
`
`the Extra Class amateur radio license, the highest level of amateur radio license,
`
`since 1970. My research and experimentation as an amateur radio operator are
`
`directly related to the relevant technology of the patent. Through student research
`
`projects at Stevens, I have sought to apply OFDM to transmission of data via
`
`amateur radio.
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 5 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`11.
`
`I make this declaration based on personal knowledge and I am
`
`competent to testify about the matters set forth herein.
`
`12. My professional background and technical qualifications are stated
`
`above and are also reflected in my Curriculum Vitae, which is attached as Ex.
`
`1007.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $650.00 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.
`
`13.
`
`I have worked and/or consulted for more than 40 years in the field of
`
`Electrical Engineering. My primary focus has been on wireless communications
`
`and network security. I have authored and co-authored numerous technical (journal
`
`and conference) papers related to wireless communication networks. I am an
`
`inventor or co-inventor on 25 U.S. and 19 international issued patents in the fields
`
`of communications security and wireless networks, with about 8 other patents still
`
`pending.
`
`14. My employment history following my graduation from Stevens
`
`Institute of Technology began at the U.S. Army Electronics Command at Fort
`
`Monmouth in 1971 where I worked on digital wireless communications for
`
`military tactical radios. I also worked at ITT Defense Communications Division
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 6 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`before joining AT&T Bell Laboratories in 1978. While at ITT, I was involved in
`
`digital system and speech signal processing for secure communications systems.
`
`At AT&T Bell Laboratories, I developed next generation networks, encryption
`
`hardware and speech processing systems. Beginning in 1994, I joined the Wireless
`
`System Research Department where I pursued research on OFDM and other
`
`advanced wireless communications techniques. I note that I worked directly for
`
`Dr. Richard Gitlin, one of inventors of prior art reference Ex. 1010 in the early
`
`1980s and again starting in 1994. My work in the Wireless Systems Research
`
`Department included the design and implementation of an OFDM communications
`
`system described in several of my publications from late 1999 and early 2000.
`
`15. Before joining Stevens in 2002, I was extensively involved in
`
`teaching short courses in the areas of data communications networks, including an
`
`in-house program at AT&T Bell Labs. At Stevens, I have developed and taught a
`
`number of undergraduate and graduate courses listed in my curriculum vitae.
`
`Courses most relevant to the subject patent include a graduate course, EE585,
`
`Physical Design of Wireless Systems, and undergraduate courses, EE359,
`
`Electronic Circuits and EE/CpE-423/424, Design 7 and 8 for Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineers. In these courses, I introduce students to the signal
`
`processing and design considerations of OFDM and other multicarrier systems. I
`
`have also advised students as they attempt to design these types of systems.
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 7 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`16. As I have listed in my curriculum vitae, I have presented my research
`
`in the area of OFDM system design at various IEEE technical conferences and
`
`IEEE journals. I have also presented invited talks in this area in numerous
`
`technical meetings.
`
`17. My work in the field of electrical engineering has been recognized by
`
`the NJ Inventors Hall of Fame (Inventor of the Year – 2012), Stevens Institute of
`
`Technology (Henry Morton Distinguished Teaching Professor – 2013-2014 and
`
`Schaefer School of Engineering Undergraduate Teaching Award – 2008), and
`
`Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs (Bell Labs Prize Finalist – 2014).
`
`18. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Ex. 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
`
`19.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`challenged claims of the ’445 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. I am not an attorney and provide no opinion on law.
`
`The following legal standard has been provided to me by the Petitioner’s counsel.
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 8 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`20.
`
`It is my understanding that, to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102, a single prior art reference must disclose each and every element of the
`
`claim at issue, either expressly or inherently. It is my understanding that a
`
`limitation is inherently disclosed by a prior art reference if the reference must
`
`necessarily function in accordance with, or include, the limitation in the context of
`
`the patented technology.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`21.
`
`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
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`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.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`of a claimed subject matter. I understand that some of these rationales include the
`
`following: combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 9 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`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. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`23.
`
`I am familiar with the technology claimed in the ’445 Patent. I am
`
`also aware of the state of the art at the time that the ’445 Patent was filed. The
`
`earliest priority date of the ’445 Patent is December 15, 2000. Based on the
`
`technologies disclosed
`
`in
`
`the
`
`’445 patent and my experience
`
`in
`
`the
`
`communications field, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a B.S. degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or equivalent training, with at least
`
`three to four years of experience in wireless communication technology, or a
`
`Master’s degree in electrical engineering or an equivalent degree, with at least two
`
`years of experience in wireless communication technology. Such a person would
`
`be familiar with various well-known communication methodologies, multiple
`
`access protocols, and transmission techniques. For example, that person would be
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 10 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`familiar with basic messaging protocols for passing control information between a
`
`base station and a subscriber unit. As another example, one of ordinary skill would
`
`have understood basic principles of FDM/OFDM, FDMA/OFDMA, and adaptive
`
`coding and modulation.
`
`24. That person would also be familiar with the concepts of multipath
`
`propagation and fading, frequency selective fading, and frequency diversity. Also,
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to apply these different techniques
`
`to different communication systems and networks employing wireless
`
`communications. Each technique is associated with known advantages and
`
`disadvantages, such as speed, complexity, and cost, and a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would know how to choose from among the different techniques to
`
`balance the various goals of the communication systems and networks under
`
`consideration. My opinions with respect to the ‘445 Patent and the prior art
`
`referenced here are based on what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`perceived at the time of invention of the ‘445 Patent. 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
`
`’445 patent. In addition, I had at least the training, experience and background of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of ‘445
`
`patent. I have also supervised engineers with the requisite experience before,
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 11 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`during, and after the time period when the ‘445 patent was developed. Further, I
`
`have encountered numerous students with this level of experience in my teaching
`
`career.
`
`IV. Technical Background and State of the Art
`
`25. To facilitate the discussion pertaining to my specific findings and
`
`opinions with respect to the ‘445 Patent, I provide the following brief technological
`
`background explaining some basic telecommunications concepts as were known at
`
`the time of the alleged invention of the ‘445 Patent, including basic cellular
`
`concepts, FDM/OFDM, FDMA/OFDMA, coding and modulation, and adaptive
`
`channel allocation, and with which one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`intimately familiar.
`
`A. Cellular Telecommunications
`
`26. Cellular telecommunications systems rely on a base station and
`
`remote station being able to “speak the same language” in order to communicate
`
`over a wireless transmission medium. In other words, the receiver must understand
`
`how to interpret the received data that is being transmitted by the transmitter. This
`
`means the remote station needs to be able to synchronize to the transmissions of
`
`the base station, must know which wireless channels to transmit on or receive
`
`from, and must know how the data is being encoded onto the radio waves by the
`
`base station, and vice versa. Depending on the technology, this type of information
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 12 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`would have been typically either known in advance by the mobile station or
`
`communicated to the mobile station via control messaging or other signaling.
`
`27.
`
`In typical telecommunications systems, frequency bandwidth is a
`
`limited resource. Frequency resources are typically allocated based on an access
`
`protocol. Well-known communication technologies at the time of filing of the ‘445
`
`Patent included FDM, OFDM, FDMA, and OFDMA. In addition, the concepts of
`
`modulation and coding, frequency diversity, and adaptive channel allocation were
`
`fundamental wireless communication concepts at the time of the ‘445 Patent. Each
`
`of these concepts are explained briefly below.
`
`B.
`
`FDM/OFDM
`
`28. The basic concept of Frequency Division Multiplexing was a well-
`
`known method of dividing the overall system bandwidth into frequency channels
`
`(“subcarriers”). See Ex. 1018, at 1:19-22 (“In Frequency Division Multiplexing
`
`(FDM) communication systems, the available spectral bandwidth W is divided into
`
`a number of spaced sub-carriers, f1, . . . , fN, which are used to transmit
`
`information.”). The frequency channels in an ordinary FDM system consist of non-
`
`overlapping frequency bands with small, unused bandwidths between adjacent
`
`frequency bands called “guard bands.” By using guard bands, the receiver can
`
`receive the transmission of information without significant interference from the
`
`adjacent channels.
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 13 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`29. One type of FDM is Orthogonal FDM (“OFDM”). Id. at 1:30-32
`
`(“Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) is one particular example
`
`of FDM.”). As in ordinary FDM, in OFDM there is a finite number of carrier
`
`frequencies that are available for use during communications. OFDM provided
`
`substantial improvements in spectral efficiency over ordinary FDM systems by
`
`eliminating the guard band, which allowed the subcarrier frequencies to be packed
`
`closer together, resulting in more efficient utilization of the radio spectrum.
`
`30. Similar to ordinary FDM, OFDM’s operational principle is that a
`
`bandwidth is divided into multiple subcarrier frequencies that are used to transmit
`
`information. See id. at 1:65-2:1 (“In the OFDM system [. . .], the analog signal to
`
`be amplified [i.e., the OFDM signal] is the sum of many sinusoid waveforms, e.g.,
`
`sub-carrier signal.”).
`
`31.
`
`In an OFDM system, each subcarrier in an OFDM system is arranged
`
`to be mathematically orthogonal with each other, such that the spectral shape of the
`
`individual subcarriers are zero at the other subcarrier frequencies and interference
`
`does not occur between subcarriers. See Ex. 1011, at 33-39; Figure 2.3. This
`
`mathematical property allows the subcarriers to overlap, as illustrated in the
`
`following Figure reproduced from Van Nee:
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 14 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011, at 35; see also id. at 33-39 for a more technical description of the
`
`orthogonality of OFDM subcarriers.
`
`32. As mentioned above, in OFDM systems, the subcarriers are permitted
`
`to “overlap” with one another in the frequency domain, so long as the
`
`orthogonality of the subcarriers is maintained. The overlap provides for a more
`
`efficient use of the frequency spectrum, i.e., it allows a larger amount of
`
`information to be transmitted in a given bandwidth. See, e.g., Ex. 1011, at 20-22.
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 15 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`
`
`33. Consequently, the OFDM transmission technique provides greater
`
`spectral efficiency as compared to the ordinary FDM technique (a comparison of
`
`the two techniques is set forth above in the reproduction of Figure 1.10 from Van
`
`Nee). OFDM has numerous advantages that would have been well known to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1020, at 1:66-2:2 (“Orthogonal frequency
`
`division multiplexing (OFDM) systems offer significant advantages in many real
`
`world communication systems, particularly in environments where multipath
`
`effects impair performance.”). These advantages include, for example, making
`
`efficient use of bandwidth, reducing interference caused by multipath propagation
`
`effects, and reducing intersymbol interference. Additional advantages that would
`
`have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art are set forth in my detailed
`
`analysis below.
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 16 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`C.
`
`FDMA/OFDMA
`
`34. Many techniques are known in the art that enable multiple users to
`
`efficiently share a transmission medium using schemes for assignment of those
`
`resources to different accessing subscribers (for example, TDMA, FDMA, CDMA,
`
`or OFDMA). Allocating different users traffic channels over different frequency
`
`subcarriers is known as Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA).
`
`35. One type of FDMA that was well known in the art is Orthogonal
`
`Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA). OFDMA uses the basic format of
`
`OFDM to form the subcarriers, which may then be shared among multiple
`
`subscribers simultaneously. As noted in the Background of the ’445 patent,
`
`OFDMA is a method for multiple access using the basic method of orthogonal
`
`frequency division multiplexing (OFDM). Ex. 1001, at 1:51-53.
`
`36.
`
`It was well known that OFDMA could be combined with various
`
`other multiple access techniques to provide an improved wireless system. For
`
`example, U.S. Patent No. 6,067,290 (“Paulraj”) specifically discloses that it was
`
`obvious to those skilled in the art to combine OFDMA with numerous other
`
`multiple access methods. See Ex. 1021, at Figs. 9-12 (illustrating TDMA, FDMA,
`
`CDMA, and SDMA embodiments); id. at 32:38-47 (noting that “[a]lthough FIGS.
`
`9-12 show four distinct multiple access methods, it will be obvious to those skilled
`
`in the art that each of these may be combined with one or more of the others
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 17 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`without departing from the scope of this invention, as well as with such multiple
`
`access methods as: orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA),
`
`wavelength division multiple access (WDMA), wavelet division multiple access,
`
`or any other orthogonal division multiple access/quasi-orthogonal division multiple
`
`access (ODMA) techniques.”).
`
`37. Aside from the use of OFDM to create orthogonal frequencies, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that OFDMA is basically
`
`equivalent to ordinary FDMA from a multiple access perspective. This conclusion
`
`is supported by Van Nee, which explains that OFDMA “is equal to ordinary
`
`frequency division multiple access (FDMA); however, OFDMA avoids the
`
`relatively large guard bands that are necessary in FDMA to separate different
`
`users.” Ex. 1011, at 213. As explained above, the elimination of guard bands is
`
`provided through the use of OFDM to produce mathematically orthogonal
`
`subcarriers.
`
`D.
`
`Frequency Diversity
`
`38. One of ordinary skill would have also been familiar with the concept
`
`of diversity in general, and frequency diversity in particular. As explained by
`
`Rappaport, diversity “exploits the random nature of radio propagation by finding
`
`independent (or at least highly uncorrelated signal paths) for communication.” Ex.
`
`1016, at 325. “The diversity concept can be explained simply. If one radio path
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 18 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`undergoes a deep fade, another independent path may have a strong signal.” Id.
`
`With reference to a frequency spectrum divided into multiple frequency channels,
`
`the concept that different channels have differing channel responses is known as
`
`frequency selective fading. Id. at 169-170 (explaining that “[f]requency selective
`
`fading channels are also known as wideband channels since the bandwidth of the
`
`signal s(t) is wider than the bandwidth of the channel impulse response”). One of
`
`ordinary skill would have recognized that diversity “is a powerful communication
`
`receiver technique that provides wireless link improvement at relatively low cost.”
`
`Id.
`
`39. Rappaport confirms that a coherence bandwidth is “a statistical
`
`measure of the range of frequencies over which the channel can be considered
`
`‘flat’ (i.e., a channel which passes all spectral components with approximately
`
`equal gain and linear phase).” Id. at 163. With respect to frequency diversity in
`
`particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “rationale
`
`behind this technique is that frequencies separated by more than the coherence
`
`bandwidth of the channel will not experience the same fades. Theoretically, if the
`
`channels are uncorrelated, the probability of simultaneous fading will be the
`
`product of the individual fading probabilities.” Id. at 335; see also Ex. 1019, 3:50-
`
`54 (“[W]hen successive carriers upon which successive bursts of a communication
`
`signal are transmitted are of similar fading characteristics, little frequency diversity
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 19 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`is created. The coherence bandwidth is a frequency range which exhibits similar
`
`fading characteristics. . . . Appropriate selection of the carriers upon which to
`
`transmit successive bursts of
`
`the communication signal would
`
`therefore
`
`advantageously better overcome the deleterious effects of multi-path fading.”).
`
`Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that
`
`obtaining frequency diversity was one advantageous way to combat frequency
`
`selective fading.
`
`E. Coding and Modulation
`
`40. Another concept that would have been well known to skilled artisans
`
`at the time of invention is the concept of coding and modulation. I will provide a
`
`brief explanation of these concepts below.
`
`41. Modulation: To understand this concept, it is first important to note
`
`that information in a wireless medium is transmitted using radio waves, which
`
`have a particular frequency, amplitude, and phase. Information can be conveyed on
`
`radio waves by changing the waveform of the transmitted radio wave in such a
`
`way that the changes in the radio wave can be interpreted as information by the
`
`receiver of that radio wave based on detecting the waveform. For example, a
`
`receiver can be configured to know that a radio wave having a particular
`
`frequency, phase, and amplitude should be interpreted to have a certain meaning.
`
`As a simple example, a wave having a positive phase might be interpreted as the
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 20 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`binary value ‘1’, while that same wave having a different phase might be
`
`interpreted as the binary value of ‘0.’ The act of producing a waveform to have
`
`properties that can be interpreted by the receiver as data is called “modulation.”
`
`42. The number of distinct waveforms that a receiver can detect
`
`determines how much digital information can be conveyed. For example, a
`
`receiver may be configured to detect up to 4 different possible waveforms in a
`
`particular radio transmission. Because there are four possibilities, each of those
`
`waveforms can be associated with a particular number between 1 and 4, or may
`
`represent a sequence of bits, e.g., 00, 01, 10, or 11. This effectively allows 2 bits of
`
`information to be transmitted at once (i.e., as one transmitted symbol). In fact, this
`
`is a well-known modulation called “QPSK.” More advanced receivers can
`
`differentiate between even more possible waveforms, resulting in “higher order
`
`modulation” than QPSK. The possible waveforms in a given modulation format
`
`are typically described as “constellations.” The following figure from Van Nee
`
`illustrates various modulation formats as constellations, including QPSK, 16-
`
`QAM, and 64 QAM:
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-21-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 21 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011, at 61.
`
`43.
`
`In the case of basic QPSK modulation, there are four different
`
`signaling alternatives that allows for the transmission of up to 2 bits of information
`
`during each transmission interval (i.e., transmitted symbol). By increasing the
`
`signaling alternatives to 16 (known as 16QAM modulation), the transmission may
`
`now contain 4 bits of information during each transmitted symbol. The signaling
`
`alternatives may
`
`increase
`
`to 64 different signaling alternatives (64QAM
`
`modulation) that allows for a transmission of 6 bits of information during each
`
`transmitted symbol. Note, however, that even though the higher-order modulation
`
`schemes provides the possibility of higher bandwidth utilization through higher
`
`data rates, the higher-order modulation schemes provide less robustness against
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-22-
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1006
`
`Page 22 of 122
`
`
`
`McNair Decl.
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 8,934,445
`
`noise and interference. This is because, in the presence of noise and/or
`
`interference, there is a larger probability of the receiver making an error in
`
`detection when the higher order modulation schemes are employed. Modulation is
`
`described in more detail by Van Nee (Ex. 1011), at 60-62.
`
`44. Coding: At a high level, coding is a way to add redundancy to a
`
`transmitted sequence of bits in order to account for the inherent losses and errors in
`
`transmitted information that are likely to occur due to the nature of a wireless
`
`propagation environment. This is explained, for example, by a chapter on Coding
`
`and Modulation in the Van Nee textbook. See Ex. 1011, at 53 (describing that “in a
`
`multipath fading channel, all subcarriers will arrive at the receiver with different
`
`amplitudes. In fact some subcarriers may be completely lost because of deep
`
`fades.”). As noted by Van Nee, the nature of the interference is frequency
`
`dependent. See id. As mentioned above, this concept was commonly known as
`
`frequency-selective fading. The underlying cause is that in a multi-path
`
`propagation environment, the environment will affects signals of differing
`
`frequencies differently.
`
`45. Coding introduces redundancy to a data stream, so that the receiver
`
`can detect and/or correct errors in the received data. Such redundancy is used to
`
`overcome the effects of noise, interference, and fading. See id. (“To avoid this
`
`domination by the weakest subcarriers, forward-error correction coding is
`
`04029-00004/7935871.1
`
`
`-23-
`
`
`
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
