I, Joseph C. McAlexander III, P.E., declare as follows:
`
`1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, and, if called upon to do so, I could and
`would testify competently to them.
`
`2. I have been asked to supplement my November 25, 2016 declaration (the “Original Declaration”)
`regarding the Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,282,396 (the “’396 patent”) in
`IPR2016-01639, and in particular, to evaluate (1) whether the ’892 patent and the 1998 paper disclose a
`transmitter, receiver or headphone that includes a DPSK implementation, (2) whether the ’892 patent and
`the 1998 paper disclose a transmitter, receiver or headphone that includes a direct conversion module, and
`(3) whether the ’892 patent and the 1998 paper disclose a direct conversion module configured to capture
`uniquely coded packets. As I explain in detail below, I conclude that the ’892 patent and the 1998 paper
`do not disclose these items in these arrangements.
`
`3. I have also been asked to consider (1) whether a direct conversion module or DPSK is necessary
`for making or operating the invention in the ’892 patent, and (2) whether a direct conversion module or
`DPSK is necessary to implement or operate a system in accordance with the Bluetooth specifications
`described in the 1998 paper. As I confirm below, neither DPSK nor a direct conversion module is
`necessary in either of those two cases.
`
`4. In preparing this supplemental declaration, I further reviewed and considered the following
`references:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,282,396 to Woolfork (the “’396 patent”);
` U.S. Patent No. 6,563,892 to Haartsen et al. (the “’892 patent”); and
` Haartsen, J., “Bluetooth—The Universal Radio Interface for Ad Hoc, Wireless Connectivity,”
`Ericsson Review, Telecommunications Technology Journal No. 3, 1998, pp. 110–117 (“the 1998
`paper”).
`
`5. I am being compensated at my customary hourly rate for my time spent on this opinion. I have
`no personal interest in the outcome of this or any related proceeding.
`
`6. My qualifications are stated in my Original Declaration.
`
`1
`
`
`
` 
`
`One-E-Way Ex. 2007
`Sony Corporation v. One-E-Way, Inc.
`IPR2016-1639
`
`

`

`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`7. Consistent with my Original Declaration, I have assumed that a person has ordinary skill in the
`art if the person has a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering or a related field and around
`two years of experience in the design or implementation of wireless communications systems, or the
`equivalent, or six years of experience in the design or implementation of wireless communications
`systems, or the equivalent. I am very familiar with the level of knowledge meeting this standard. My
`own experience and education exceeds those levels, and did so throughout the time of the applications.
`Additional details are shown in my Curriculum Vitae attached to my Original Declaration.
`
`Claim term constructions, U.S. Patent No. 9,282,396
`
`8. I have applied the following claim constructions in this analysis:
`
`Claim Term
`“reduced intersymbol interference coding”
`(cl. 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, 16)
`“configured for independent code division multiple
`access (CDMA) communication operation”
`(cl. 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, 16)
`“unique user code” / “unique user code bit
`sequence”
`(cl. 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, 16)
`“direct conversion module”
`(cl. 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, 16)
`
`Petitioner’s Requested Construction
`“coding that reduces intersymbol interference”
`
`“configured for code division multiple access
`(CDMA) communication operation performed
`independent of any central control”
`
`“fixed code (bit sequence) specifically associated
`with one user of a device(s)”
`
`“a module for converting radio frequency to
`baseband or very near baseband in a single
`frequency conversion without an intermediate
`frequency”
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`The ’892 Patent’s Reference to DPSK
`
`9. I have further reviewed the ’892 patent. In particular, I have considered the following paragraphs
`beginning at column 4, line 65 and running through column 5, line 54, which I have lettered below for
`convenient reference:
`
`(a) Despite these types of variations and disturbances experienced by the signal, the
`threshold for the bit value determination has conventionally remained fixed
`(assuming no a priori knowledge about the interference present, which would allow
`an adaptation of the threshold). As a result, bit errors are introduced since the fixed
`threshold does not remain located at the optimal position midway between the signal
`values. However, since the amplitude of the binary signal is fixed (e.g., as in binary
`FM signals, wherein the modulation index represents the amplitude of the final
`detection signal at the output of the FM detector and is fixed), the separation Δ
`between the signal symbols remains fixed regardless of the disturbance superimposed
`on the signal.
`
`(b) Therefore, a better detection technique for binary signals disturbed by slowly varying
`signals is to abandon the threshold technique, and instead use the difference Δ
`between the two possible symbols. To be able to use this technique, the signal
`separation between the two symbols must be fixed. Therefore, this difference
`technique can only be used in systems where this separation is constant and is not
`affected by propagation effects. Such difference techniques include, for example,
`binary phase or frequency modulation schemes (e.g. continuous phase frequency shift
`keying, CPFSK) which are widely used in wireless communication because of the
`property that the signal variation is hardly affected by propagation effects.
`
`(c) A known technique that uses the difference between two adjacent symbols is
`differential keying. In differential keying, a one is represented by a change between
`two adjacent symbols, whereas a zero is represented by no change between adjacent
`symbols (or the other way around). Differential keying is primarily found in phase
`modulation schemes (DPSK) but can be used in other modulation schemes as well.
`For example, frequency modulation could also be implemented in this manner, e.g., a
`DFSK scheme (Differential Frequency Shift Keying) wherein for a binary one, two
`adjacent symbols use fo+Δf and fo−Δf, whereas for a binary zero, the symbols use
`both fo+Δf or both fo−Δf. The original signal d(k) at time instant k is retrieved in the
`detector by sampling the input signal at the symbol rate and comparing two adjacent
`samples. This can be achieved by subtracting the previous symbol x(k−1) from the
`current symbol x(k):
`
`d(k)=x(k)−x(k−1)
`
`
`
`(1)
`
`(d) It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that this type of differential
`modulation scheme removes all DC offset. In addition, some low-frequency signals
`can be removed as long as the difference in the disturbance level between adjacent
`samples is less than Δ/2. DFSK modulation is, however, not used much in practice
`since its signal-to-noise (SNR) performance is degraded compared to FSK. This
`degradation occurs because, for the determination of a single bit, the noise of two
`samples is taken into account in the differential process. Therefore, the performance
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`

`in white Gaussian noise of DFSK modulation is more than 3 dB worse than that of
`FSK modulation.
`
`10. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), reading the above paragraphs, would
`understand that, in these patents, the ’892 patent discusses bit detection techniques.
`
`11. A POSITA would understand that, in paragraph (a), the ’892 patent discusses the conventional
`use of a fixed threshold for bit detection and points out that, in a binary signal having a fixed amplitude,
`the separation delta between symbols remains fixed regardless of disturbances.
`
`12. A POSITA would understand that in paragraph (b), the ’892 patent makes the point that, when
`binary signals are experiencing disturbance by slowly varying signals, then it would be better for
`detection to use the difference delta between two symbols, rather than to use the threshold technique. A
`POSITA would further understand paragraph (b) to explain that the use of the difference technique is only
`applicable to systems where signal separation is constant and not affected by propagation effects. A
`POSITA would understand that paragraph (b) then provides well known examples of difference
`techniques, namely binary phase or frequency modulation schemes, and also CPFSK (continuous phase
`frequency shift keying). Paragraph (b) informs a POSITA that, in these schemes, signal variation is
`hardly affected by propagation effects.
`
`13. A POSITA would understand that, in paragraph (c), the ’892 patent introduces differential keying
`as a technique that uses the difference between two adjacent symbols. A POSITA would understand that
`paragraph (c) explains, in differential keying, a zero could be represented by no change between adjacent
`symbols, and a one could be represented by a change between adjacent symbols (or the other way
`around). After this explanation of the basic nature of differential keying, paragraph (c) then points out a
`known example by stating, “Differential keying is primarily found in phase modulation schemes (DPSK)
`but can be used in other modulation schemes as well.” A POSITA would understand that the mention of
`DPSK in that sentence is to identify an example of a phase modulation scheme that implements
`differential keying. A POSITA would understand that the remainder of paragraph (c) is devoted to
`discussing how differential keying can be implemented with frequency modulation, including providing
`difference equations for such implementation with frequency modulation. A POSITA would understand
`that paragraph (c) provides the basic equations for a differential frequency shift keying (DFSK)
`technique.
`
`
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`

`14. A POSITA would understand that, in paragraph (d), the ’892 patent explains some properties of
`differential modulation and compares the use of DFSK to FSK (frequency shift keying).
`
`15. Considering the remainder of the ’892 patent, a POSITA would understand that the ’892 patent
`describes the invention of the ’892 patent with periodic comparison to conventional DFSK. (See ’892
`patent 5:55-62; 6:8-34; 7:20-28).
`
`16. Considering again the mention of DPSK in paragraph (c) above (’892 patent 5:29-31), and
`considering the context in which DPSK was mentioned, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that the mention of DPSK was made solely to identify an example of a phase modulation
`scheme that implements differential keying. No other reference to DPSK appears in the ’892 patent. A
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the ’892 patent does not disclose DPSK as being
`used by the invention of the ’892 patent, does not disclose DPSK as being used by any embodiment of the
`’892 patent, and does not disclose any transmitter, receiver or other product or component as being
`configured to use DPSK or to have a DPSK implementation.
`
`17. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that use of the invention of the ’892
`patent does not require DPSK. In fact, the first paragraph of the ’892 patent states that “The techniques
`described herein are particularly well-suited for the detection of binary FM or binary FSK modulated
`signals . . ..” (See ‘’892 patent 1: 13-15). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, to
`the extent any modulation scheme is suited for use with the invention of the ’892 patent, it would be a
`frequency-based modulation scheme, and not a phase-based modulation scheme like DPSK.
`
`18. A person of ordinary skill in the art, having reviewed the entire ’892 patent, would understand
`that the ’892 patent does not suggest or recommend the use of DPSK, but rather emphasizes that the
`invention of the ’892 patent be used with frequency-based modulation, in particularly DFSK.
`
`The ’892 Patent and the 1998 Paper do not Disclose Any Transmitter, Headphone or Receiver as
`Including DPSK
`
`19. Claims 3, 7, 12 of the ’396 patent each recite a digital audio spread spectrum transmitter that is
`specifically required to include a “differential phase shift keying (DPSK) implementation.” Claim 9
`similarly recites a digital audio spread spectrum transmitter that is specifically required to include a
`“differential phase shift keying (DPSK) modulator.” The ’892 patent fails to disclose any transmitter as
`comprising a differential phase shift keying implementation or as comprising a differential phase shift
`keying modulator.
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`

`20. As discussed above, the ’892 patent mentions DPSK only once and only as an example of a phase
`modulation where differential keying is found. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand,
`from that one mention of DPSK, that the ’892 patent discloses a spread spectrum transmitter that
`comprises a differential phase shift keying implementation or modulator.
`
`21. Claims 4, 5, 8, 13, 15 and 17 of the ’396 patent each recite a digital audio headphone or receiver
`that is specifically required to include a “differential phase shift keying (DPSK) implementation.” The
`’892 patent fails to disclose any headphone or receiver as comprising a differential phase shift keying
`implementation.
`
`22. Again, as discussed above, the ’892 patent mentions DPSK only once and only as an example of
`a phase modulation where differential keying is found. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not
`understand, from that one mention of DPSK, that the ’892 patent discloses a headphone or a receiver that
`comprises a differential phase shift keying implementation or modulator.
`
`23. Considering the ’892 patent together with the 1998 paper, the combination fails to disclose any
`transmitter or headphone or receiver as comprising a differential phase shift keying implementation or
`modulator. The 1998 paper discloses a Bluetooth standard based on frequency shift keying (See 1998
`paper p. 113, Table 1 “G-FSK”), and does not disclose DPSK or any other modulation besides FSK. The
`’892 patent specifically states that its techniques are particularly well-suited for FSK modulated signals.
`(’892 patent 1:13-15.) Moreover, the invention in the ’892 patent is described repeatedly in the context of
`DFSK modulation and not DPSK or any other modulation. (See ’892 patent 5:55-62; 6:8-34; 7:20-28.)
`Both the 1998 paper and the ’892 patent are expressly directed to frequency modulation, and neither
`discloses any implementation of DPSK. Therefore, the ’892 patent and the 1998 paper together do not
`disclose to a person of ordinary skill in the art any transmitter, headphone or receiver as comprising a
`differential phase shift keying (DPSK) implementation or modulator, as required by Claims 3-5, 7-13, 15
`and 17 of the ’396 patent.
`
`24. Both the invention of the ’892 patent (See 1:13-15, well-suited for FSK modulation) and the
`specifications in the 1998 paper (See p. 113, Table 1 “G-FSK”) are expressly described to be used with
`frequency modulation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that DPSK is not necessary
`to make or operate either the invention in the ’892 patent or a system implementing the 1998 Bluetooth
`specification, as described in the 1998 paper.
`
`
`
` 
`
`6
`
`

`

`The ’892 Patent’s Reference to a Homodyne Receiver
`
`25. The ’892 patent mentions a “homodyne receiver,” but only as an exemplary source of one type of
`signal disturbance that can be suppressed by the invention in the ’892 patent. More specifically, the ’892
`patent describes DC offset as one type of slowly varying signal disturbance that can be suppressed by the
`invention. (See abstract.) The ’892 patent explains that it would be desirable to suppress slowly varying
`disturbances, such as DC offset. (See ’892 patent 3:1-3.) The ’892 patent describes the invention as
`removing slowly varying disturbances. (See ’892 patent 3:6-10.) The ’892 patent explains that such
`disturbances can have several origins and then lists several examples, including “homodyne receivers.”
`In Figures 3(a)-(d), the ’892 patent shows “examples of signals disturbed by DC offset or other slowly
`varying signals.” (See ’892 patent 4:40-42.) In discussing DC offset disturbances, the ’892 patent
`mentions that “additional DC step response can be experienced, for example, in homodyne receivers . . ..”
`(See ’892 patent 4:54-58; 3:47-48.) The ’892 patent does not mention a homodyne receiver or direct
`conversion receiver anywhere else or in any other context.
`
`The ’892 Patent and the 1998 Paper do not Disclose Any Transmitter, Headphone or Receiver as
`Including a Direct Conversion Module
`
`26. All of the claims in the ’396 patent require either a transmitter or a headphone or receiver
`specifically configured to include a direct conversion module. The 1998 paper and the ’892 patent,
`considered together, fail to disclose to a person of ordinary skill in the art any transmitter, headphone or
`receiver configured to include a direct conversion module. This includes the assumption that a homodyne
`receiver is a direct conversion module, as required by the ’396 patent claims under the claim construction
`mentioned above in paragraph 8.
`
`27. A POSITA reviewing the 1998 paper would understand that the 1998 does not disclose a direct
`conversion module.
`
`28. As I explained above, a POSITA reviewing the ’892 patent would understand that the ’892 patent
`mentions a homodyne receiver only as one example of a source of DC offset, and that DC offset itself is
`only one type of slowly varying disturbance that can be suppressed by the invention of the ‘892 patent. A
`POSITA would understand that the ’892 patent does not disclose a homodyne receiver as an actual part of
`the disclosed invention. A POSITA would understand that the ’892 patent never discloses any transmitter
`or headphone or receiver as being configured to include a homodyne receiver. A POSITA would
`understand that the ’892 patent never recommends any use of a homodyne receiver.
`
` 
`
`7
`
`

`

`29. Considering the ’892 patent and the 1998 paper together, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand that they do not disclose any transmitter or headphone or receiver as being configured
`to include a homodyne receiver.
`
`30. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a direct conversion module (or
`homodyne receiver), required by all of the independent claims of the ‘396 patent, is not necessary to make
`or operate either the invention in the ’892 patent or a system implementing the 1998 Bluetooth
`specification described in the 1998 paper.
`
`The ’892 Patent and the 1998 Paper do not Disclose Any Direct Conversion Module as being
`Configured to Capture Packets Corresponding to a Unique User Code
`
`31. All of the independent claims in the ’396 patent require a direct conversion module that is
`specifically configured to capture packets corresponding to a unique user code bit sequence. The 1998
`paper and the ’892 patent, considered together, fail to disclose to a person of ordinary skill in the art a
`direct conversion module that is configured to capture packets corresponding to a unique user code bit
`sequence. This includes assuming that a homodyne receiver is a direct conversion module, as required by
`the ’396 patent claims under the claim construction mentioned above in paragraph 8.
`
`32. The 1998 paper discloses packets formatted to include an access code that is unique on a channel.
`(See 1998 paper, p. 113.) As explained above, however, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that the 1998 paper does not disclose any direct conversion module, much less one configured
`to capture such packets.
`
`33. Considering the ’892 patent, and as I have explained above, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand that the ’892 patent mentions a homodyne receiver only as one example of a source of
`DC offset. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that the ’892 patent does not
`disclose a homodyne receiver as part of the invention or as included in any system, embodiment or
`component, or as part of any implementation of Bluetooth. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that the ’892 patent discloses nothing about any packet format or any packet-capturing
`function. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that nothing in the ’892 patent links a
`homodyne receiver to the packet-capturing function disclosed in the 1998 paper.
`
`34. In view of the above points, the 1998 paper and the ’892 patent, considered together, do not
`disclose to a person of ordinary skill in the art a direct conversion module that is configured to capture
`packets corresponding to a unique user code bit sequence.
`
` 
`
`8
`
`

`

`35. Again, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a direct conversion module (or
`homodyne receiver) is not necessary to make or operate either the invention of the ’892 patent or a system
`implementing the Bluetooth specifications described in the 1998 paper require.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that this declaration
`is true, complete, and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`___________________________
`
`Joseph C. McAlexander III, P.E.
`
`Date: June 1, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26038439 
`060117 
`
` 
`
`9
`
`