UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`BLACKBERRY CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-______
`Patent No. 8,199,792
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PAUL MIN, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 1
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`BLACKBERRY CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-______
`Patent No. 8,199,792
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PAUL MIN, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 1
`
`
`
`I, Paul Min, Ph.D. declares as follows:
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I am over the age of eighteen (18) and otherwise competent to make this
`
`Declaration.
`
`A. Engagement
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of BlackBerry Corp. (“BlackBerry”) to provide
`
`my opinion on the scope and content of “prior art,” predating the application for
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,199,792 (“the ‘792 patent”), and regarding the subject matter
`
`recited in the claims of the ‘792 patent. I understand that this Declaration relates to
`
`a petition for the above-captioned inter partes review (IPR) of the ‘792 patent.
`
`3.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ‘792 patent, which was filed on
`
`October 24, 2011, and issued on June 12, 2012, and its prosecution history.
`
`4.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with: (1) U.S. Patent No. 8,036,197 to
`
`Pajukoski et al. (“Pajukoski”); and (2) R1-70394, 3GPP TSG RAN WG! Meeting
`
`#47bis, Sorrento, Italy, January 15 – 19, 2007 (“R1-70394”).
`
`5.
`
`I am familiar with the technology at issue as of June 15, 2007, the earliest
`
`filing date to which the ‘792 patent claims priority.
`
`
`
`2
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 2
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical review, analysis, insights, and
`
`opinions regarding the above-noted references that form the basis for the grounds
`
`of rejection set forth in the Petition of Inter Partes Review of the ‘792 patent.
`
`B.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`7.
`
`I received a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering in 1982, an M.S. degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering in 1984, and a Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering in
`
`1987 from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. I received several academic
`
`honors, including my B.S. degree with honors, a best graduate student award and a
`
`best teaching assistant award during my M.S. study, and a best paper award from a
`
`major international conference for reporting results from my Ph.D. thesis.
`
`8. After receiving my Ph.D., I worked at Bellcore in New Jersey from August
`
`1987 until August 1990. At Bellcore, I was responsible for evolving the public
`
`switched telephone network (POTS) into a multi-services voice and data network
`
`that incorporated packet switches, optical technologies, and wireless technologies.
`
`9.
`
`In September 1990, I joined the faculty at Washington University in St. Louis.
`
`In July 1996, I was promoted to an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering
`
`with tenure. I am currently a Senior Professor at Washington University of the
`
`Electrical and Systems Engineering. I have also served as the Chair of the
`
`Graduate Curriculum (2000-2002) and the Chair of the Undergraduate Curriculum
`
`(2011-2014) for the Electrical and Systems Engineering department.
`
`
`
`3
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 3
`
`
`
`10. At Washington University, I have conducted research in communication,
`
`computing, and related electronic hardware and software. My research group has
`
`pioneered a new paradigm for designing electronic circuits that can alleviate the
`
`speed and performance mismatch against optical technology. I have received
`
`several grants from the U.S. Federal Agencies, including the National Science
`
`Foundation and the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, and numerous
`
`contracts from companies and organizations around the world. Specifically related
`
`to the technology matters in this litigation, I have researched a variety of wireless
`
`communication technologies, including LTE, LTE-A, CDMA, WCDMA, OFDM,
`
`FDD, SC-FDMA, and TDD. I have an extensive background and experience in
`
`each of these technologies.
`
`11. As a faculty member at Washington University, I have taught a number of
`
`courses in electronics, communication, and computing at both the undergraduate
`
`and graduate levels. For example, I have taught communication theory
`
`(Washington University ESE 471), transmission and multiplexing (Washington
`
`University ESE 571), and signaling and control of communication networks
`
`(Washington University ESE 572).
`
`12. I have supervised a number of undergraduate and graduate students, 12 of
`
`whom received a doctoral degree under my guidance. Many of doctoral theses that
`
`I have supervised relate specifically to wireless cellular technology. In particular,
`
`
`
`4
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 4
`
`
`
`my students and I have published a number of peer-reviewed articles on resource
`
`allocation, scheduling, modulation, mobility management, and multiplexing.
`
`Several of these articles received accolades in the field. For example, in 2011, we
`
`received a best paper award in 3G WCDMA-related mobility and resource
`
`management at the prestigious Mobility 2011 international conference.
`
`13. In addition to my responsibilities as a university faculty member, I have
`
`founded two companies. In May 1997, I founded MinMax Technologies, Inc., a
`
`fabless semiconductor company that developed switch fabric integrated circuit
`
`chips for the Internet. In March 1999, I founded Erlang Technology, Inc., a fabless
`
`semiconductor company that focused on the design and development of integrated
`
`circuit chips and software for the Internet. One of Erlang’s products received a
`
`best product of the year award in 2004 from a major trade journal for the
`
`electronics industry.
`
`14. While at Erlang and MinMax, I prototyped several different versions of Radio
`
`Network Controller (RNC), Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN), and Gateway
`
`GPRS Support Node (GGSN). As these devices are highly specialized routers
`
`and/or switches, I have incorporated in the prototypes various components I have
`
`designed (e.g., switch fabrics, network processors, and packet classifiers) as well
`
`as the customized protocol stacks required to perform functions required to these
`
`devices.
`
`
`
`5
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 5
`
`
`
`15. Outside my own start-up companies, I have also served in various technology
`
`and business advisor roles for other companies and organizations around the world.
`
`I was the main technical author for one of two winning proposals to the Korean
`
`government for CDMA wireless service licenses (1996). I was responsible for
`
`designing a commercial scale IS-95 CDMA cellular network, which I understand
`
`to be one of the earliest such networks deployed in the world. I worked with
`
`numerous engineers and scientists around the world to implement this commercial-
`
`scale cellular network before IS-95 CDMA was widely accepted. This provided
`
`me with extensive insight into various components of CDMA technology, which
`
`by and large are used in WCDMA network. I have also been involved in a
`
`semiconductor company that specializes in semiconductor memories such as flash
`
`EEPROMs as a board member and as a technical advisor (2007-2011).
`
`16. I am a member of and have been actively involved in a number of professional
`
`organizations. For example, I have served as the Chair of the Saint Louis Section
`
`of the IEEE with more than 3,000 members (2014), and a member of the Eta
`
`Kappa Nu Honor Society for electrical engineers. I have also been an Ambassador
`
`of the McDonnell International Scholars Academy (2007-2013).
`
`17. In my nearly 30 years of experience with telecommunications technology, I
`
`have acquired significant knowledge about telecommunications systems industry
`
`
`
`6
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 6
`
`
`
`standards, standard setting organizations such as 3GPP, and the rules and document
`
`policies that those organizations have in place to develop industry standards.
`
`18. I am a named inventor on nine U.S. patents, many of which are directly related
`
`to resource allocation, packet processing, and network designing. I have
`
`extensively published technical papers in international conferences and journals,
`
`technical memoranda and reports, and given a number of seminars and invited
`
`talks. Many of these papers are specifically within the context of the 3GPP
`
`standard. I have organized several international conferences and served as an
`
`international journal editor.
`
`19. My qualifications and publications are set forth more fully in my curriculum
`
`vitae attached as Appendix A.
`
`
`
`C. Basis of My Opinion and Materials Considered
`
`20. I have reviewed the ‘792 patent and its file history. I have reviewed the prior
`
`art and other documents and materials cited herein. My opinions are also based in
`
`part upon my education, training, research, knowledge, and experience. For ease
`
`of reference, the full list of information that I have considered is included in
`
`Appendix B.
`
`D. Legal Standards for Patentability
`
`21. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been informed about certain
`
`aspects of patent law that are relevant to my analysis and opinions, as set forth in
`7
`
`
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 7
`
`
`
`this section of my declaration. I understand that “claim construction” is the
`
`process of determining a patent claim’s meaning. I also have been informed and
`
`understand that the proper construction of a claim term is the meaning that a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have given to that term. I understand
`
`that claims in inter partes review proceedings are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, which is what I have done
`
`when performing my analysis in this declaration.
`
`22. I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as anticipated if a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art would have understood a single prior art reference
`
`to teach every limitation of the claim. The disclosure in a reference does not have
`
`to be in the same words as the claim, but all of the requirements of the claim must
`
`be described in enough detail, or necessarily implied by or inherent in the
`
`reference, to enable a person having ordinary skill in the art looking at the
`
`reference to make and use at least one embodiment of the claimed invention.
`
`23. I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as obvious if the subject matter
`
`of the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art as of the time of the invention at issue. I understand that the following
`
`factors must be evaluated to determine whether the claimed subject matter is
`
`obvious: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the difference or
`
`differences, if any, between the scope of the claim of the patent under
`
`
`
`8
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 8
`
`
`
`consideration and the scope of the prior art; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`24. I understand that prior art references can be combined to reject a claim under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 when there was an apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, at the time of the invention, to combine the references, which includes, but is
`
`not limited to: (A) identifying a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine
`
`prior art references; (B) combining prior art methods according to known methods
`
`to yield predictable results; (C) substituting one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (D) using a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`in the same way; (E) applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; (F) trying a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable potential solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; or (G)
`
`identifying that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it
`
`for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or
`
`other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`25. Moreover, I have been informed and I understand that so-called objective
`
`indicia of non-obviousness (also known as “secondary considerations”) like the
`
`following are also to be considered when assessing obviousness: (1) commercial
`
`success; (2) long-felt but unresolved needs; (3) copying of the invention by others
`
`
`
`9
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 9
`
`
`
`in the field; (4) initial expressions of disbelief by experts in the field; (5) failure of
`
`others to solve the problem that the inventor solved; and (6) unexpected results. I
`
`also understand that evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness must be
`
`commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. I am not aware of any
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness for the ’919 patent.
`
`II. DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT FIELD AND THE RELEVANT
`TIMEFRAME
`26. I have carefully reviewed the ‘792 patent.
`
`27. I understand that the ‘792 patent claimed priority to U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 13/280,190, which was filed on October 24, 2011, as a continuation of U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 13/165,538, filed on June 21, 2011, which was a
`
`continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/593,904, filed as
`
`PCT/JP2008/001526 on June 13, 2008. The ’792 patent also claims priority to
`
`Japanese patent applications: 2007-159580 (filed on June 15, 2007); and 2007-
`
`161966 (filed on June 19, 2007).
`
`28. It is my understanding that the earliest possible effective filing date of the ‘792
`
`patent is the June 15, 2007, filing date of Japanese patent application 2007-159580.
`
`For simplification of analysis, I have simply accepted that these priority
`
`applications support all of the claimed features, but have not confirmed that this is
`
`the case.
`
`
`
`10
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 10
`
`
`
`29. I have been informed that the relevant timeframe is on or before June 15, 2007.
`
`30. Based on my review of this material, I believe that the relevant field for the
`
`purposes of the ‘792 patent is, in general, wireless communications and, more
`
`specifically, methods and apparatuses for spreading signals used in wireless
`
`communications with orthogonal sequences.
`
`III. THE PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE RELEVANT FIELD
`IN THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME
`31. I have been informed that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field” is a
`
`hypothetical person to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign a routine
`
`task with reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully carried out. I
`
`have been informed that the level of skill in the art is evidenced by prior art
`
`references. The prior art discussed herein demonstrates that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the field, at the time the ‘792 patent was effectively filed, would have been
`
`someone with an undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer
`
`Science, or Computer Engineering, or a related field, and around two years of
`
`experience in the design, development, and/or testing of cellular networks or
`
`equivalent combination of education and experience.
`
`32. Based on my experience, I have an understanding of the capabilities of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant field. I have supervised and directed many
`
`
`
`11
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 11
`
`
`
`such persons over the course of my career. Further, I had those capabilities myself
`
`at the time the patent was effectively filed.
`
`IV. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE ART AS OF 2006
`1. THE 3RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (3GPP)
`ORGANIZATION
`33. 3GPP is a standards-setting organization. (See www.3gpp.org. Last visited on
`
`January 20, 2017.) As cellular telecommunications technology developed in the
`
`late eighties and nineties, network operators began to realize that standardization
`
`was necessary to ensure subscriber mobility: cell phone subscribers wanted to be
`
`able connect to their home mobile networks and roam on a third-party networks.
`
`Thus, 3GPP began in 1998 as a joint partnership between several
`
`telecommunications companies to develop and standardize various aspects of
`
`mobile network operator systems. (See http://www.3gpp.org/about-3gpp/about-
`
`3gpp. Last visited on January 20, 2017.)
`
`34. 3GPP is a group enterprise, and in my experience changes occur gradually.
`
`Within the larger 3GPP umbrella are four primary plenary groups (TSGs) (e.g.,
`
`Systems and Architecture (SA)), under which are several working groups (e.g.,
`
`Systems and Architecture Working Group 2 (SA-2 or S2)). The meetings for each
`
`plenary and working group are numbered sequentially (e.g., TSG SA, Meeting #14
`
`(SP-14); SA-2, Meeting #22 (S2-22)). In my experience, the working groups met
`
`
`
`12
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 12
`
`
`
`roughly every month and bore the brunt of the work for drafting and editing
`
`specific standards and change requests. The standards and change requests then
`
`had to be approved by the plenary group, which met roughly every three months.
`
`(See http://www.3gpp.org/about-3gpp/about-3gpp. Last visited on January 20,
`
`2017.)
`
`35. Major changes to the 3GPP standards are measured in releases, and certain
`
`groups of releases are informally referred to as a generation as illustrated in the
`
`table below. (See http://www.3gpp.org/about-3gpp/about-3gpp. Last visited on
`
`January 20, 2017.)
`
`Generation
`“2G”
`“3G”
`
`“4G” or “LTE”
`
`. . .
`
`
`Release
`Release 98
`Release 99
`Release 4
`Release 5
`Release 6
`Release 7
`Release 8
`Release 9
`. . .
`
`End Date1
`2/12/1999
`12/17/1999
`6/21/2001
`9/12/2002
`9/28/2005
`3/13/2008
`3/12/2009
`3/25/2010
`. . .
`
`A.
`
`3GPP Documentation
`
`36. Standardization in 3GPP is an ongoing, collaborative effort. It involves
`
`hundreds of engineers from companies that are interested in developing the
`
`1All of these end dates are available on the 3GPP website at www.3gpp.org/specifications/67-releases.
`13
`
`
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 13
`
`
`
`technology. Each 3GPP working group holds monthly meetings across the world.
`
`The members of the working group submit written contributions (called
`
`“temporary documents” or “Tdocs”) and discussion documents.
`
`37. I am very familiar with the 3GPP organization’s practices based on my
`
`experience and involvement in the organization. Since my involvement in
`
`deploying one of the earliest CDMA-based cellular networks in Korea in mid
`
`1990s, I have followed closely all of the major 3GPP releases. I have done
`
`extensive research in the 3GPP technology and published numerous peer reviewed
`
`papers on these topics. Although I have not been a member of the 3GPP
`
`organization - as few, if any, professors like myself would be, I have interacted
`
`closely with many members of the 3GPP (including my former students). I have
`
`frequently advised these 3GPP members on various issues related to the 3GPP
`
`standards. I have also consulted (and continuously do so) a number of 3GPP
`
`technology companies such as Korea Telecom, Ericsson, LG Electronics, Hansol
`
`Telecom, NTT DoCoMo, etc. Moreover, through my own startup companies, I
`
`have developed and implemented a number of products and solutions that have
`
`been used in the 3GPP networks.
`
`38. It is the 3GPP organization’s practice to ensure that the “Discussion and
`
`Decision” and “Tdocs” documents for conferences are made available to the
`
`interested public prior to the conference’s commencement. The 3GPP organization
`
`
`
`14
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 14
`
`
`
`would publicly disseminate the documents by emailing the documents to all
`
`persons that are registered as members of the particular group. People in the
`
`scientific community rely on the accuracy and public release of the documents on
`
`the 3GPP website for their research and engineering activities. Additionally, the
`
`3GPP organization would publicly disseminate the documents by posting the
`
`documents on their publically accessible website (http://www.3gpp.org/). Thus,
`
`R1-70394 would have been made publically available by January 10, 2007.
`
`39. This date of public availability is consistent with the upload information that I
`
`observed on the 3GPP FTP site: R1-070394 was uploaded onto the publically
`
`accessible 3GPP FTP site on January 10, 2007. (Ex. 1009).
`
`40. Based on my knowledge and experience with the 3GPP organization’s
`
`practices for publically disseminating conference documents, the R1-70394
`
`document cited in the petition (Ex. 1005) would have been made available to the
`
`extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art,
`
`exercising reasonable diligence, could locate it by at least the date of the
`
`conference listed on the front of the respective document.
`
`41. I also went onto the 3GPP website and verified that the R1-70394 document
`
`cited in the petition (Ex. 1005) is a true and accurate copy of the document.
`
`42. In my experience, the general practice was that Tdocs and discussion
`
`documents were circulated to group members prior to each meeting. Then at the
`
`
`
`15
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 15
`
`
`
`meeting itself, the members publicly discuss the Tdocs and discussion documents.
`
`Members also voted on some of the Tdocs: if approved, then a Tdoc was
`
`incorporated into the standard. (See www.3gpp.org/specifications-
`
`groups/delegates-corner. Last visited on January 20, 2017.) Sometimes Tdocs
`
`were drafted, edited, or combined during the meeting. Then after the meeting, the
`
`new and edited Tdocs and discussion documents might be further circulated for
`
`email approval—that is, they were distributed and voted upon via email.
`
`B. Generations of 3GPP Wireless Network
`
`43. Early releases of the 3GPP standards created a network that could only offer
`
`voice calls to land-line phones or other cell phones. This network, commonly
`
`called the Second Generation (2G) network, can be dived into two main areas:
`
`radio access, which enabled a phone to connect to the network, and the core
`
`network, which provided the desired connection. The 2G network relied on a
`
`circuit-switched core network.
`
`
`
`16
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 16
`
`
`
`
`
`44. Over time, however, cell phone subscribers craved more from their devices,
`
`and wanted access to services like e-mail and internet. These services required the
`
`ability transfer data to and from subscribers in small chunks called packets. Such a
`
`packet-switched core network existed in the context of the 2G network in late
`
`1990s, which is called the general packet radio service (GPRS), and in early 2000s,
`
`the 3GPP standards body significantly extended the packet switching capability in
`
`the Third Generation (3G) network, which is commonly referred to as the
`
`Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) network.
`
`45. As shown in the figure below, the 3G network employed two distinct core
`
`networks: circuit-switched core network for carrying telephone calls and packet-
`
`switched core network for carrying data.
`
`
`
`17
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`46. A packet-switched network enables the transfer of data packets from one point
`
`to another. In packet-switched, the physical medium is shared with the various
`
`packets belonging to different streams/flows. Individual packets must be identified
`
`in terms of their source and destination addresses. Without that information, it is
`
`impossible for the packets to reach their proper destination.
`
`47. As the use of data becomes increasingly dominant in mid 2000s, the 3GPP
`
`standards body focused on data-carrying capability in the Fourth Generation (4G)
`
`network, which is commonly referred to as the Long Term Evolution (LTE)
`
`network.
`
`48. As shown in the figure below, the 4G network has one core network, i.e.,
`
`packet-switched core network for carrying data. In the 4G network voice is
`
`viewed as one type of data.
`
`
`
`18
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 18
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Communication Channels in 4G
`
`49. In the 4G network, there are a number of physical channels. The uplink
`
`channels, which carry communication from a UE to a base station, comprise
`
`Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH), Physical Uplink Control Channel
`
`(PUCCH), and Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH). (Ex. 1008, § 5.1.1.)
`
`In this declaration, of particular interest is PUCCH. “The physical uplink control
`
`channel, PUCCH, carries uplink control information.” (Ex. 1008, § 5.4.) At any
`
`given time, a number of UEs may vie to send critical control information to the
`
`same base station at the same time. As such, the 3GPP standards specify certain
`
`multiplexing mechanism to carry uplink control information from multiple UEs on
`
`the same PUCCH.
`
`50. One such way to multiplex uplink control information from multiple UEs on
`
`the same PUCCH is by modulating (or “spreading”) the uplink control information
`
`
`
`19
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 19
`
`
`
`from UE by a Zadoff-Chu sequence, which is distinct from the Zadoff-Chu
`
`sequences used by the uplink control information sent by other UEs.
`
`51. In July 1972, David C. Chu published an article titled “Polyphase Codes with
`
`Good Periodic Correlation Properties” in the July 1972 issue of IEEE Transactions
`
`on Information Theory. (Ex. 1007.) The Chu article discloses and introduces the
`
`sequence that is now known as the Zadoff-Chu sequence. Chu teaches that
`
`sequence in the form of the following equations:
`
`
`
`
` (Ex. 1007, pp. 1-2.)
`
`(4)
`
`(7)
`
`52. Equation (4) applies if the sequence length is an even number, while equation
`
`(7) applies if the sequence length is an odd number. (Id.) Chu also discloses that
`
`this sequence, ak, may be subjected to “[t]rivial variations such as cyclic shifts” and
`
`that “certain linear phase shifts of the form
`
`, where q is any integer,
`
`when introduced into the code also will not affect the correlation.” (Id., p. 2.)
`
`53. Zadoff-Chu sequences are “[p]olyphase codes with a periodic autocorrelation
`
`function is zero everywhere except at a single maximum per period.” (Id., p. 1.)
`
`In addition Chu teaches that “[t]rivial variation such as cyclic shifts, addition of a
`
`constant to αk, or conjugating the entire code obviously will not affect the
`
`
`
`20
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 20
`
`
`
`autocorrelation function analogously to the aperiodic case.” (Id., p. 2.) As such, a
`
`Zadoff-Chu sequence and any of its cyclic shift have zero cross-correlation.
`
`54. As the uplink control information from different UEs are modulated by distinct
`
`Zadoff-Chu sequences, the base station receiving this collection of uplink control
`
`information from different UEs can isolate the uplink control information from the
`
`specific UE by cross-correlating with the specific Zadoff-Chu sequence used by
`
`that UE.
`
`55. Another way to multiplex uplink control information from different UEs is
`
`modulate modulating (or “spreading”) the uplink control information from UE by
`
`an Orthogonal Variable Spreading Factor (OVSF) code, which is distinct from the
`
`OVSF codes used by the uplink control information sent by other UEs.
`
`56. The following is a figure from 3GPP TS 25.213 v.8.0.0.
`
`(Ex. 1006, § 4.3.1.1.)
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 21
`
`
`
`57. “The channelisation codes of figure 1 are Orthogonal Variable Spreading
`
`Factor (OVSF) codes that preserve the orthogonality between a user’s different
`
`physical channels.” (Id., § 4.3.1.1.) According to this excerpt from 3GPP TS
`
`25.213 v.8.0.0, four OVSF codes shown at the Spreading Factor (SF) level 4, i.e.,
`
`(1, 1, 1, 1), (1, 1, -1, -1), (1, -1, 1, -1), and (1, -1, -1, 1) are mutually orthogonal.
`
`Thus, when the uplink control information from different UEs are modulated by
`
`distinct OVSF codes, the uplink control information from each UE can be isolated
`
`by cross-correlating with the specific OVSF code used by that UE.
`
`58. TS 25.213 v.8.0.0 also discloses Hadamard code (which is also known as
`
`Walsh code or Hadamard-Walsh code). “The signature Ps(n) is from the set of 16
`
`Hadamard codes of length 16. These are listed in table 3.” (Id., § 4.3.3.3.) The
`
`following is table 3, which shows the set of 16 Hadamard codes of length 16. (Id.)
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 22
`
`
`
`59. TS 25.213 v.8.0.0 states that “[t]he Hadamard sequences are obtained as the
`
`rows in a matrix H8 constructed recursively by:
`
`
`
`k
`
`≥
`
`1
`
`
`
`,
`
`
`=
`)1(
`H
`H
`−
`k
`1
`−
`H
`H
`(Id., § 5.2.3.1.)
`
`
`
`
`
`=
`
`H
`
`k
`
`0
`
`H
`−
`1
`
`k
`
`k
`
`−
`1
`
`k
`
`−
`1
`
`60. This means that the upper 4 x 4 of table 3 shown above correspond to the set
`
`of 4 Hadamard codes (or Walsh codes, or Hadamard-Walsh codes) of length 4,
`
`which is illustrated in the figure below.
`
`The set of 4 Hadamard codes of
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 23
`
`
`
`61. The downlink channels, which carry communication from a base station to a
`
`UE, comprise Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH), Physical Broadcast
`
`Channel (PBCH), Physical Multicast Channel (PMCH), Physical Control Format
`
`Indicator Channel (PCFICH), Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH), and
`
`Physical Hybrid ARQ Indicator Channel (PHICH). (Ex. 1008, § 6.1.1.) In this
`
`declaration, of particular interest is PDCCH. “The physical downlink control
`
`channel carries scheduling assignments and other control information.” (Id., §
`
`5.4.) At any given time, a base station may need to send scheduling assignments
`
`and other control information to a number of UEs. As such, the 3GPP standards
`
`specify certain multiplexing mechanism to carry uplink control information from
`
`multiple UEs on the same PUCCH.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘792 PATENT
`62. The ’792 patent is generally directed to the well-known practice of using
`
`cyclic shifts and orthogonal sequences to minimize the degradation of a response
`
`signal (e.g., an ACK/NACK) from a mobile station (e.g., a cellular telephone) in a
`
`mobile communication system to a base station. (Ex. 1001, Abstract). As
`
`described in the ’792 patent, in mobile communication, mobile stations transmit
`
`response signals representing error detection results of downlink data to the base
`
`station with an ACK (ACKnowledgement) or NACK (Negative
`
`ACKnowledgement) using uplink control channels such as a PUCCH (Physical
`
`
`
`24
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 24
`
`
`
`Uplink Control CHannel) in the Long Term Evolution (LTE) cellular networks.
`
`(Id., 1:11-25.)
`
`63. The ’792 admits that studies had been done to perform code-multiplexing by
`
`spreading a plurality of response signals from a plurality of mobile stations using
`
`ZC (Zadoff-Chu) sequences, which are a type of constant amplitude zero
`
`autocorrelation (CAZAC) sequence, and Walsh sequences, which are orthogonal
`
`sequences and a type of Hadamard code. (Id., 1:47-50.). In the prior art study, the
`
`ACK or NACK is subject to first spreading to one symbol by a ZC sequence (with
`
`a sequence length of 12) in the frequency domain and subject to second spreading
`
`using a Walsh sequence (with a sequence length of 4). (Id., 1:52-63.)
`
`64. In addition, response signals of other mobile stations are spread using ZC
`
`sequences and Walsh sequences with different cyclic shift values or different Walsh
`
`sequences. Where the sequence length of ZC sequences is 12, it is possible to use
`
`twelve ZC sequences with cyclic shift values "0" to "11", generated by cyclically
`
`shifting the same ZC sequence using the cyclic shift values "0" to "11". (Id., 1:64
`
`– 2:5.) For Walsh sequences with a sequence length of 4, it is possible to use four
`
`different Walsh sequences, which makes it possible in an ideal communication
`
`environment to code-multiplex maximum forty-eight (12x4) response signals from
`
`mobile stations. (Id., 2:5-10.)
`
`
`
`25
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1003, pg. 25
`
`
`
`65. However, due to transmission timing difference in mobile stations, multipath
`
`delayed waves and frequency offsets, the response signals from the mobile stations
`
`do not always arrive at a base station at the same time. (Id., 2:19-23.) These issues
`
`can cause degradation in the separation performance of a response signal spread by
`
`adjacent cyclic shift values (e.g., “0” and “1”). (Id., 2:33-39.) According to the
`
`’792 patent, to account for this degradation, it was known to spread a plurality of
`
`response signals using ZC sequences having a sufficient cyclic shift value
`
`difference (i.e. cyclic shift interval) such as 4 between the ZC sequences to avoid
`
`inter-code interference between the ZC sequences. (Id., 2:40-49.) Similarly, if a
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
