UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FÖRDERUNG DER
`ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG E.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`___________________
`
`DECLARATION OF WAYNE E. STARK, PH.D.
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 1
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FRAUNHOFER-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FÖRDERUNG DER
`ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG E.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`___________________
`
`DECLARATION OF WAYNE E. STARK, PH.D.
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 1
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`I, Wayne E. Stark, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this Declaration
`
`and, if called upon to do so, could and would attest to these facts under oath.
`
`SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT
`2.
`I have been retained as a consultant on behalf of Fraunhofer-
`
`Gesellschaft Zur Förderung Der Angewandten Forschung E.V. (“Fraunhofer”
`
`or “Patent Owner”) to explain the technologies involved in U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,314,289 (“the ’289 patent”), the technologies described in the cited prior art
`
`references, the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention, and other pertinent facts and opinions regarding IPR2018-00690.
`
`My qualifications are summarized below and are addressed more fully in my
`
`CV attached as APPENDIX A.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual hourly rate of $600 per hour.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of this proceeding or on the
`
`content of my opinions, including any opinions provided herein. I do not have
`
`a financial interest in this matter.
`
`4.
`
`The opinions I have formed as explained in this declaration are
`
`informed by and based on my consideration of the ‘289 patent and its
`
`examination file history, the documents cited by Sirius XM Radio Inc. (“SXM”
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 2
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`or “Petitioner”) in its petition, the Board's institution decision, the references
`
`cited in SXM’s petition and Dr. Lyon's declaration [Ex. 1002], the references
`
`cited herein, as well as my own knowledge and experience based on my work
`
`and research in the relevant field of technology, as discussed below.
`
`5.
`
`For my analysis, I am instructed to assume a priority date of
`
`December 3, 1998, the same date applied by Petitioner’s expert Dr. Lyon. See
`
`Ex. 1001 [‘289 patent]; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 60, 62. I am familiar with the state of
`
`the art in digital communications, error correcting codes, and satellite
`
`technologies on and before December 3, 1998.
`
`6.
`
`As my CV indicates, I had more than the qualifications of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art as of December 3, 1998. But I provide my
`
`analyses and opinions from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art as of December 3, 1998, unless stated otherwise. I am familiar with the
`
`knowledge and experience of a person of ordinary skill in the art because of my
`
`background and years of experience working with people of such a skill level
`
`and through my research, teaching and consulting.
`
`BACKGROUND
`7.
`I am currently Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
`
`10497705
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 3
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`8.
`
`Prior academic positions I have held include Associate Professor
`
`of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and Assistant Professor of
`
`Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, both at the University of
`
`Michigan, Ann Arbor, where I have held faculty positions since 1982.
`
`9.
`
`I have been a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (“IEEE”) since 1997 and have been the recipient of various honors,
`
`awards, and grants related to my research on communication technologies, as
`
`detailed in my CV at Appendix A.
`
`10.
`
`I obtained my Ph.D. (1982), M.S. (1979), and B.S. (1978, with
`
`highest honors) in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois.
`
`11.
`
`In addition to my employment experience, my CV details my
`
`service activities, consulting work, patents and publications, and other relevant
`
`professional activities.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE ’289 PATENT
`12.
`The ’289 Patent has a priority date of December 3, 1998 and is
`
`entitled, “Apparatus and Method for Transmitting Information and Apparatus
`
`and Method for Receiving Information.” By way of example, the systems
`
`disclosed in the ’289 patent can be a satellite system that provides information
`
`to a moving vehicle such as a car (e.g., satellite radio). As described in the
`
`’289 patent satellite systems are primarily effective in rural areas because
`
`10497705
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 4
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`urban areas may contain buildings such as skyscrapers that at least partially
`
`block the signal thus decreasing the received signal power relative to the power
`
`corresponding to a line of sight propagation. Ex. 1001 [’289 Patent] at 1:13-
`
`26. Figure 7 of the ‘289 patent shows “a transmitter receiver system
`
`implementing time and space diversity, in which the output of the transmitter
`
`encoder is duplicated and a channel selection is performed in the receiver.” Id
`
`at 7:8-11.
`
`13.
`
`The system includes two transmitters, 66a and 66b, that can be
`
`two satellites transmitting information on two different, spatially separate
`
`channels. Id. at 2:23-36. The satellites receive information from the same
`
`source 62. Id. at 2:28-39. The satellites are located at different positions so
`
`that, if a car is in an urban area, the possibility of the vehicle receiving
`
`information from at least one satellite is increased. Id. at 2:37-44. The system
`
`10497705
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 5
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`may also include a delay stage for the second channel that delays in time the
`
`information transmitted over this channel. Id. at 2:31-32.
`
`14.
`
`In Figure 7, a duplicator 67 is used for duplicating the output of
`
`the source and providing a copy to each of two transmitters so that the same
`
`information is transmitted over both channels to ensure redundancy. Id. at
`
`2:28-30. The receiver includes a decision device 79 that decides which signal
`
`to use from channel 1 or channel 2. The decision is based on the channel with
`
`the better signal-to-noise ratio. Id. at 2:63-7:5. In Figure 7, when the decision
`
`device switches to one channel, the other channel is discarded and the power
`
`associated with transmitting over that channel is wasted. Id. at 4:21-33.
`
`15.
`
`The ’289 patent discloses apparatuses and methods that provide
`
`better receiver signal quality and reduced transmission power. Id. at 4:36-40.
`
`Power is reduced by partitioning the transmission output into subsets and then
`
`separately transmitting each subset over each channel. Id. at 4:41-61. The
`
`system includes an encoding/decoding scheme that allows the original
`
`information to be recaptured even if reception from one of the channels is
`
`totally faded. Id. at 7:36-45.
`
`16. An exemplary embodiment is shown in Fig. 3 of the ’289 Patent,
`
`which is reproduced below.
`
`10497705
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 6
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`17.
`
`The system includes a convolutional encoder that encodes at a rate
`
`of 1/3. This means that for every single input bit there are 3 output bits from
`
`the encoder. This is shown in the following portion of Fig. 4, reproduced
`
`below, wherein three input bits 401, 402 and 403 are encoded into 3 sets 411,
`
`412 and 413, respectively, of output bits with each set including three output
`
`bits. Id. at 9:5-11.
`
`10497705
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 7
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`18.
`
`The middle bit, shown as X, is punctured (i.e., removed) and the
`
`remaining eight bits are partitioned into two output bit streams, as shown
`
`below. Id. at 9:11-26.
`
`19.
`
`The bits labeled E (early) are transmitted over the first channel
`
`and the bits labeled L (late) are transmitted over the second spatially separated
`
`channel. The original bits 401, 402, 403 can be recaptured with either the E
`
`bits or the L bits. Thus, if one channel is totally faded the original bits can be
`
`recovered from the other channel individually. The ’289 patent provides a
`
`specific exemplary set of convolutional polynomials that operate effectively
`
`with the disclosed puncturing scheme. Id. at 11:60-12:6. The ’289 patent’s
`
`systems and methods thus reduce the amount of bits, and corresponding
`
`transmission power, required for each channel of the transmission system,
`
`while allowing for recovery of the original input bits even if one channel is
`
`lost.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`20.
`In my opinion, in light of the ‘289 patent and related art, the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention of
`
`10497705
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 8
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`the ‘289 patent would have a bachelor’s of science degree in Electrical
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`Engineering or equivalent and three or more years of industry experience or
`
`equivalent in education and/or research in wireless communications systems
`
`(such as satellite communication systems).
`
`21.
`
`In my opinion, the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner is
`
`too narrowly focused, at least because “operating” a satellite or “installation”
`
`of a satellite are not required to understand the disclosure or claims of the ‘289
`
`patent or the relevant cited art.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`22.
`I have been asked to consider the preambles of claims 10, 13, 27
`
`and 31 as limiting, and to apply the following constructions to the means-plus-
`
`function claim elements of the patent. This is consistent with my
`
`understanding of the relevant legal standards set forth in the following section
`
`below, as well as my opinion about the understanding of a POSITA at the time
`
`of the invention.
`
`23.
`
`“delay means for delaying the second portion of output bits
`
`transmitted via the second channel” (Claims 1 and 5)
`
`Function: Delaying the second portion of output bits transmitted via
`
`the second channel.
`
`Structure: A delay stage.
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 9
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`Support: See, e.g., Ex. 1001 [’289 patent] at 2:45-62, 8:1-11, 8:25-45,
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`8:65-9:4, 9:13-17, 9:59-61, 12:66-13:4, Figs. 1-3, 5 and 7.
`
`24.
`
`“delay means for delaying the portion of bits received via one
`
`channel to compensate for a delay imposed on the portion of bits received via
`
`the other channel” (Claim 11)
`
`Function: Delaying the portion of bits received via one channel to
`
`compensate for a delay imposed on the portion of bits received via the other
`
`channel.
`
`Structure: A delay stage.
`
`Support: See, e.g., Ex. 1001 [’289 patent] at 2:45-62, 8:1-11, 8:25-45,
`
`8:65-9:4, 9:13-17, 9:59-61, 12:66-13:4, Figs. 1-3, 5 and 7.
`
`25.
`
`“means for transmitting the output bits of the first portion via a
`
`first channel and the output bits of the second portion via a second channel”
`
`(Claim 2)
`
`Function: Transmitting the output bits of the first portion via a first
`
`channel and the output bits of the second portion via a second channel.
`
`Structure: Two transmitters.
`
`Support: See, e.g., Ex. 1001 [’289 patent] at 7:60-67, 8:12-14, 8:39-45,
`
`Figs. 2 and 7.
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 10
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`“receiving means for receiving the first portion of bits via a first
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`26.
`
`channel and the second portion of bits via a second channel” (Claims 10 and
`
`13)
`
`Function: Receiving the first portion of bits via a first channel and the
`
`second portion of bits via a second channel.
`
`Structure: A receiver.
`
`Support: See, e.g., Ex. 1001 [’289 patent] at 2:23-62, 4:62-5:15, 5:59-
`
`67, 7:41-45, 8:15-0-20, Figs. 1, 2, 5 and 7.
`
`27.
`
`“depuncturing means for compensating for a puncturing operation
`
`in a transmitter” (Claim 13)
`
`Function: Compensating for a puncturing operation in a transmitter is
`
`provided and attributing to a bit to be depunctured equal probabilities for the
`
`high and low states.
`
`Structure: A depuncturing unit.
`
`Support: See, e.g., Ex. 1001 [’289 patent] at 9:63-10:8, 12:27-43, Fig.
`
`5.
`
` RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`28. My opinions are informed by my understanding of the relevant
`
`law. I understand that the patentability analysis is conducted on a claim-by-
`
`claim basis.
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 11
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`I have been informed that, for inter partes review proceedings
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`29.
`
`with petitions filed before November 13, 2018 (such as the current
`
`proceeding), the claim terms of an unexpired patent are to be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation, and claim terms of an expired patent are to
`
`be construed in accordance with the Phillips standard, under which claim terms
`
`are given their customary and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSITA at
`
`the time of the invention in view of the specification and examination history.
`
`I have also been informed that extrinsic forms of evidence beyond the patent
`
`specification and examination history (e.g., dictionaries, treatises, expert
`
`testimony, etc.) may be considered when necessary to clarify the meaning of
`
`terms that are otherwise ambiguous in the absence of such evidence. I
`
`understand that the ‘289 patent has expired. I believe that my opinions, as set
`
`forth below, are true and accurate under both the Phillips standard and the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard of claim construction.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a single piece of prior art “anticipates” a claim if
`
`each and every element of the claim is disclosed in that prior art. I further
`
`understand that, where a claim element is not explicitly disclosed in a prior art
`
`reference, the reference may nonetheless anticipate a claim if the missing claim
`
`element is necessarily present in the apparatus or a natural result of the method
`
`disclosed—i.e., if the missing element is “inherent.”
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 12
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`I understand that the prior art may render a patent claim “obvious”
`
`31.
`
`if the differences between the subject matter claimed and the prior art are such
`
`that the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time the invention was made. Relevant considerations include
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art; the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; and objective indicia
`
`of non-obviousness to the extent they exist. I understand that two or more
`
`pieces of prior art that each disclose fewer than all elements of a patent claim
`
`may nevertheless be combined to render a patent claim obvious if the
`
`combination of the prior art collectively discloses all elements of the claim and
`
`a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time would have had objective
`
`reasons to combine the prior art with some reasonable expectation of success in
`
`doing so. I also understand that a person having ordinary skill in the art is not
`
`an automaton, but is a person having ordinary creativity. I further understand
`
`that one or more pieces of prior art that disclose fewer than all of the elements
`
`of a patent claim may render a patent claim obvious if including the missing
`
`element would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(e.g., the missing element represents only an insubstantial difference over the
`
`prior art or a reconfiguration of a known system). I understand that
`
`modifications or combinations of prior art may not be obvious if they are
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 13
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`taught away from by the prior art; if they would render the prior art unsuitable
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`for its stated purpose; if they would render an inoperable combination; if they
`
`would change the basic principles of operation of the prior art; and/or if a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have no expectation of success in
`
`making those changes.
`
`32.
`
`I also understand that the USPTO has identified exemplary
`
`rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness, and I have considered
`
`those rationales in my analysis. The rationales include:
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
`• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`• Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods or
`
`products) in the same way;
`
`• Applying a known technique to a known device (methods or
`
`products) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the effort was
`
`“obvious to try”;
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 14
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`• Known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt variations
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`on the work 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 a person having ordinary skill in the art;
`
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`would have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify
`
`the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings
`
`to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that a combination or modification of the prior art
`
`would not be obvious if a POSITA at the time of the invention would have no
`
`reasonable expectation of success in making that combination or modification.
`
`I also understand that, where the prior art gives no direction as to which of
`
`many possible choices is likely to be successful, an inventive solution among
`
`those many possible choices is not obvious to try.
`
`34.
`
`I also understand that the objective indicia of non-obviousness
`
`(also called secondary considerations) may be considered as part of the overall
`
`obviousness analysis. These may include factors such as failure or skepticism
`
`of others, long-felt need, commercial success, copying, praise by others,
`
`unexpected results, and other factors.
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 15
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
` THE PETITION’S PROPOSED GROUNDS DO NOT RENDER
`OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`A. Description of the Prior Art
`1.
`Chen (Ex. 1004)
`35. U.S. Patent No. 6,347,122 to Chen (“Chen”) relates to employing
`
`improved punctured convolution codes for use in digital audio broadcasting
`
`systems. Ex. 1004 [Chen], at 2:25-27 (“The invention provides optimal
`
`punctured convolutional codes for use in digital audio broadcasting as well as
`
`other types of communication Systems.”). Chen describes in Figure 1,
`
`reproduced below, a prior art In Band On Channel (IBOC) system that shows a
`
`portion of a frequency spectrum. The horizontal axis represents frequency (f)
`
`while the vertical axis represents the signal power. The “carrier frequency” in
`
`a communication system is typically denoted by fc.
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 16
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`In the system of Figure 1, FM carrier signal 10 serves as a “host”
`
`36.
`
`for transmitting digital audio information, where the “same digital audio
`
`information is transmitted on both a lower sideband 12 and an upper sideband
`
`14 of the analog host 14, using a multicarrier OFDM technique.” Id. at 1:23-
`
`25. In this system, the frequency furthest away from the carrier frequency (A
`
`in the above figure) are more susceptible to interference from adjacent carriers
`
`while the frequency closest to the carrier (C in the above figure) are more
`
`susceptible to interference from the analog host although that interference can
`
`be mitigated by pre-cancellation techniques Id. at 1:25-38.
`
`37. Chen seeks to improve the system of Figure 1 by providing lower
`
`and upper sidebands of an analog carrier that contain “digital audio
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 17
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`information” encoded in accordance with Chen’s convolutional coding
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`technique, as depicted below. Id. at 2:25-50.
`
`38. Chen deliberately employs this frequency diversity approach,
`
`
`
`encoding data in two sets of frequency ranges (upper and lower sidebands), in
`
`order to take advantage of “existing analog frequency modulation (FM) radio
`
`bands” while avoiding “interference in the crowded analog FM band.” Id. at
`
`1:17-29.
`
`39. There is no disclosure or teaching in Chen for the desire or need to
`
`reduce power in Chen’s system. This is to be contrasted with the ’289 patent
`
`which discloses that “under cost aspects, reducing transmitter power is
`
`essential.” ’289 patent, at 4:19-21. This is true at least because Chen is
`
`directed towards a terrestrial system that complements the existing FM radio
`
`transmissions where power is obtained from a power company through the
`
`power line grid.
`
`40. Figure 2 shows a block diagram of Chen’s communication system.
`
`Id., 3:51-53.
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 18
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`41. Chen’s transmitter 22 includes a “convolutional encoder 26 which
`
`utilizes CPPC codes . . . to encode the bit stream into a sequence of symbols.”
`
`Id. at 3:55-58. Chen explains that the sequence of symbols from encoder 26
`
`“are interleaved in an interleaver 27, and then applied to a modulator 28.” Id.
`
`at 3:61-63. Chen’s modulator 28 modulates “the interleaved symbols onto one
`
`or more sub-carriers, and then frequency modulating the sub-carriers onto a
`
`radio frequency (RF) carrier. The modulated carrier is transmitted via transmit
`
`antenna 29 to the receiver 24.” Id. at 3:63-4:2.
`
`42. Chen’s system does not disclose a partitioner as recited in the
`
`claims of the ’289 patent. In particular, the ’289 patent discloses a partitioner
`
`130 (Figs. 1-3) “that, in accordance with the preferred embodiments of the
`
`present invention, comprises a parallel-to-serial converter and a demultiplexer
`
`to demultiplex the serial bitstream produced by the parallel-to-serial converter
`
`into two bitstreams.” Ex. 1001 [‘289 patent] at 8:60-65. The two bitstreams
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 19
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`output by the partitioner of the ’289 patent are output onto two different
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`channels that are spatially different from each other. Id. at 7:54-59. There is
`
`no such disclosure of a partitioner in Chen because Chen’s system does not
`
`disclose producing multiple bitstreams for output via separate channels that are
`
`spatially different from each other. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 [Chen] at 3:56-67.
`
`2.
`Campanella (Ex. 1005)
`43. U.S. Patent No. 6,944,139 to Campanella (“Campanella”) is based
`
`on a PCT application filed on July 10, 1998. Ex. 1005 at 1. I am told by
`
`counsel that Campanella is considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) only
`
`as of September 26, 2000, which is date listed next to Ҥ 371 (c)(1), (2) and
`
`(4)” on the face of the patent. Id. This date is almost two years after the filing
`
`date (December 3, 1998) of the ‘289 patent. For purposes of this declaration,
`
`however, counsel has asked me to assume that Campanella is prior art.
`
`44. Campanella describes a digital broadcast system that attempts to
`
`overcome the drawbacks in then-existing systems, namely, the degradation in
`
`signal quality due to fading and inter-symbol interference. Ex. 1005
`
`[Campanella] at 1:21-25. Figure 1, reproduced below, depicts Campanella’s
`
`satellite system.
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 20
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`
`45. Campanella notes that in urban areas with tall buildings, line-of-
`
`sight (“LOS”) reception can be blocked thus inhibiting suitable operation of a
`
`receiver. Campanella recognizes that one way to address this problem is to
`
`raise the satellite power, but quickly notes that “raising satellite power is both
`
`excessively expensive and technically impractical.” Id. at 7:39-45.
`
`Campanella’s solution is to include a network of terrestrial repeaters.
`
`“Accordingly, a more practical alternative is to augment the direct LOS
`
`satellite reception by adding a network of terrestrial repeaters 18.” Id. at 7:45-
`
`47.
`
`46. Campanella teaches sending the same signal using a single
`
`satellite (12 or 16) and a terrestrial repeater 18, which employ multi-path
`
`tolerant modulation techniques, to radio receivers, which are programmed to
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 21
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`select either the satellite signal or the repeater signal. Id. at 2:18-31.
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`Campanella also teaches sending the same signal over two spatially separate
`
`paths (as well as through a terrestrial repeater) in order “to achieve high
`
`availability reception by mobile radios, static radios and portable radios.” Id.
`
`at 1:10-18; see also id. at 6:35-36 (“The satellite signals can be transmitted
`
`from one satellite 12 or 16 or from two satellites 12 and 16.”). Campanella’s
`
`concern with “high availability reception” is central to its purpose and is
`
`repeated throughout Campanella’s disclosure. See, e.g., id. at 11:55-60 (“Each
`
`of these types of diversity taken alone can significantly improve the availability
`
`of the LOS signal … and the improvement in availability is further
`
`significantly enhanced by both space and time diversity.”); id. at 1:50-53 (“A
`
`need exists for a fully satisfactory radio reception …”).
`
`B. GROUND 1: CHEN IN VIEW OF CAMPANELLA DOES
`NOT RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`1.
`Neither Chen Nor Campanella Discloses the Claimed
`“Partitioner”
`47. Claim 1 of the ’289 patent recites “a partitioner for partitioning the
`
`second number of output bits into the two portions of output bits.” Ex. 1001
`
`[‘289 patent] at 13:22-23. Independent claims 2, 6, 9, 18, 19, 23, and 26 have
`
`similar “partioner[ing]” limitations. Id. at 13:54-55 (claim 2), 14:42-43 (claim
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 22
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`6), 15:12-13 (claim 9), 16:64-65 (claim 18), 17:28-29 (claim 19), 18:14-15
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`(claim 23), and 18:56-57 (claim 26).
`
`48. The ’289 patent discloses a partitioner 130, as depicted below in
`
`Figure 1 (annotated by red box), that “partitions rather than duplicates the
`
`output signal of the encoder into two portions of output bits.” Ex. 1001 [‘289
`
`patent] at 6:37-38 (emphasis added).
`
`49. The partitioner 130 receives from an encoder 120 an output
`
`
`
`bitstream and produces two bitstreams for transmitting on two separate
`
`channels (Channel1 300 and Channel2 400 in Figure 1). “The demultiplexer
`
`included in the partitioner 130 demultiplexes the serial bitstream output by the
`
`parallel-to-serial converter into two bitstreams, in order to produce the first
`
`portion 410 and the second portion 420 of output bits.” Ex. 1001 [‘289 patent]
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`- 23 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 23
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`at 9:31-34. As the ’289 patent example states, “the partitioner 130 feeds means
`
`for transmitting, i.e., a transmitter, 140 for transmitting the first portion of
`
`output bits via the first channel 300 and the second portion of output bits via
`
`the second channel 400. It is to be noted that both channels 300 and 400 are
`
`spatially different from each other.” Id. at 7:54-59.
`
`50. Neither the Chen reference nor the Campanella reference discloses
`
`the claimed partitioner of the ’289 patent. Both the Petition and the expert
`
`declaration rely on Chen for disclosing a partitioner. In particular, the Petition
`
`argues that Chen’s convolutional encoder produces two portions of output bits
`
`which are mapped to upper and lower sidebands. “Chen’s convolutional
`
`encoder partitions the rate-2/5 code, which includes the two rate-4/5 codes, and
`
`maps [sic] the them to the Upper and Lower Sidebands.” Paper 1 [Petition] at
`
`32; Ex. 1002 [Lyon] at ¶¶ 119-120. But Chen’s mapping of codes output by
`
`the convolutional encoder to upper and lower sidebands is not partitioning as
`
`disclosed and claimed in the ’289 patent. First, there is no reference to a
`
`“partitioner” or “partitioning” in Chen. There are no such words disclosed in
`
`Chen. Second, the output of Chen’s convolutional encoder 26 is fed to an
`
`interleaver 27 which interleaves the upper and lower sideband codes with a
`
`carrier signal as part of a single bitstream. Chen teaches:
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`- 24 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 24
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`The sequence of symbols from convolutional encoder 26 are
`interleaved in an interleaver 27, and then applied to a modulator
`28. The modulator 28 may perform several stages of modulation
`such as, for example, modulating the interleaved symbols onto
`one or more sub-carriers, and then frequency modulating the sub-
`carriers onto a radio frequency (RF) carrier.
`
`Chen at 3:61-69 (emphasis added). Chen’s “modulating the interleaved
`
`symbols onto one or more sub-carriers” is not “partitioning” the symbols into
`
`two bit streams for transmission onto two channels as disclosed in the ‘289
`
`patent. The sub-carriers are not partitioned into two bitstreams. Rather, Chen
`
`teaches “frequency modulating the sub-carriers onto a radio frequency (RF)
`
`carrier.” Chen at 3:68-69. In other words, Chen’s transmitter produces a
`
`single bitstream representing a radio frequency (RF) carrier having sub-carriers
`
`that are modulated on the carrier signal. There is no disclosure or teaching in
`
`Chen for outputting the upper and lower sideband codes onto two respective bit
`
`streams or for output on two respective channels. There would be no reason in
`
`Chen to partition the output of the convolutional encoder 26 into two
`
`bitstreams since Chen teaches that both the upper and lower sidebands are
`
`modulating onto a single host signal (RF carrier).
`
`51. Chen describes using encoded symbols to generate a signal
`
`appropriate for transmission. Ex. 1004 [Chen] at 3:61-67. A POSITA would
`
`10497705
`
`
`
`- 25 -
`
`
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2042-p 25
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00690
`
`
`
`understand this, in the context of Chen’s disclosure, to include steps such as
`
`Case IPR2018-00690
`Patent No. 6,314,289
`
`
`modulating the symbols onto subcarriers and then modulating the subcarriers
`
`onto an RF carrier. When modulating onto subcarriers, a group of symbols are
`
`used to generate a signal that consists of multiple sinusoidal signals. This is
`
`often accomplished with an operation known as an inverse fast Fourier
`
`transform (“IFFT”), grouping many symbols together so that a collection of
`
`subcarriers can be generated at once. See Ex. 2049 [Wireless Multimedia
`
`Communications § 3.4] at 3-5. This collection of subcarriers, added together,
`
`is then mixed up to a frequency appropriate for transmission. Chen Figure 3A
`
`and 3B as implemented would take 10 symbols as a group and use that as the
`
`input to an IFFT to generate the baseband version of the transmitted signal.
`
`The baseband version of the transmitted signal is then mixed up to a carrier
`
`frequency (radio frequency). In fact, this grouping of symbols so that a
`
`collection of subcarriers can be generated
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
