`___________________
`
`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