UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. 2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ANDREW C. SINGER
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 1
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. 2018-01473
`U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ANDREW C. SINGER
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Andrew C. Singer, hereby declare the following:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I, Andrew C. Singer, have been retained by counsel for Petitioner as a
`
`technical expert in the above-captioned case. Specifically, I have been asked to
`
`render certain opinions in regards to the IPR petition with respect to U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,611,676 (“the ’676 Patent”). I understand that the Challenged Claims are claims
`
`1-11. My opinions are limited to those Challenged Claims.
`
`2. My compensation in this matter is not based on the substance of my
`
`opinions or the outcome of this matter nor do I have any financial interest in the
`
`outcome of this proceeding. I am being compensated at an hourly rate of $500 for
`
`my analysis and testimony in this case.
`
`3.
`
`In reaching my opinions in this matter, I have reviewed the following
`
`materials:
`
`• Exhibit 1001 – U.S. Patent No. 6,611,676 to Ue (“the ’676 Patent”);
`• Exhibit 1004 – International Application WO 95/10145 to Keskitalo et al.
`(“Keskitalo”);
`• Exhibit 1005 – U.S. Patent No. 5,524,275 to Lindell (“Lindell”);
`• Exhibit 1006 – U.S. Patent No. 5,822,318 to Tiedemann et al.
`(“Tiedemann”);
`• Exhibit 1007 – Vijay K. Garg, Kenneth Smolik, Joseph E. Wilkes,
`Applications of CDMA in Wireless/Personal Communications, Prentice
`Hall (October 1996) (“Garg”); and
`• Exhibit 1008 – John C. Proakis and Masoud Salehi, Communication
`Systems Engineering, Prentice Hall (1994) (“Proakis”);
`
`A. Background and Qualifications
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`I am currently a Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering, where I hold a Fox Family endowed Professorship. I also serve as
`
`Associate Dean for Innovation and Entrepreneurship for the College of Engineering
`
`at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
`
`5.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1990; a Master of
`
`Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology in 1992; and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1996.
`
`6.
`
`Since 1990, I have been active in the signal processing and
`
`communications fields. I have authored and/or co-authored numerous publications,
`
`including books and refereed journal publications and conference articles on the
`
`topic of signal processing and communication systems and devices. A focus of many
`
`of these publications is on methods for interference mitigation, adaptive modulation
`
`and coding, and channel estimation, as well as methods for reducing power and
`
`preserving battery life in mobile applications.
`
`7.
`
`I have designed, built, and patented various components of
`
`communication and signal processing systems. These include various radio-
`
`frequency, SONAR, LIDAR, air-acoustic and underwater acoustic signal processing
`
`systems as well as wire-line, wireless, optical and underwater acoustic
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`communication systems. An important aspect in many of these systems is the design
`
`of interference mitigation, adaptive modulation and coding, and channel estimation,
`
`as well as methods for reducing power and preserving battery life in mobile
`
`applications.
`
`8.
`
`I have taught both undergraduate and graduate level courses in signal
`
`processing, and communication systems. For example, I have taught Digital Signal
`
`Processing and Embedded DSP Laboratory classes. Additional examples of courses
`
`I have taught at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign include: Advanced
`
`Digital Signal Processing; Digital Signal Processing; Digital Signal Processing
`
`Laboratory; Probability with Engineering Applications; Random Processes; Optical
`
`Communication Systems; Advanced Lectures in Engineering Entrepreneurship;
`
`Embedded DSP Laboratory; Developing Design Thinking; Technology
`
`Commercialization; and Senior Design Laboratory. I have also overseen numerous
`
`PhD and Master’s students researching topics related to signal processing and
`
`communication systems.
`
`9.
`
`I was the co-founder and CEO of Intersymbol Communications, Inc., a
`
`communications component manufacturer focused on the development of signal
`
`processing-enhanced components used in optical communication networks.
`
`Intersymbol Communications, Inc. was acquired by Finisar Corporation, the world's
`
`largest supplier of optical communication modules and subsystems.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`10.
`
`I was appointed Associate Dean for Innovation and Entrepreneurship in
`
`the College of Engineering, where I direct a wide range of entrepreneurship
`
`activities, including the campus-wide Illinois Innovation Prize, celebrating our most
`
`innovative students on campus, as well as our annual Cozad New Venture
`
`Competition. I am also the Principal Investigator for the National Science
`
`Foundation’s Innovation Corps Sites program at the University of Illinois, working
`
`with faculty and student startup companies.
`
`11. My research and commercial experience led to my authoring of
`
`numerous papers. I have authored over 200 papers on digital signal processing and
`
`communication systems, several of which were voted "Best Paper of the Year" by
`
`technical committees of the IEEE. Citing these and other contributions, I was elected
`
`Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") “for
`
`contributions to signal processing techniques for digital communication.” I was also
`
`selected as a Distinguished Lecturer of the Signal Processing Society.
`
`12.
`
`I hold ten granted U.S. patents, all in the field of communication
`
`systems.
`
`13.
`
`In summary, I have over 25 years of experience related to signal
`
`processing and communication systems.
`
`14.
`
`I have attached my curriculum vitae as Appendix A, which includes a
`
`list of all publications I have authored within the last ten years.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`15.
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However,
`
`counsel has informed me that in proceedings before the USPTO the claims of an
`
`unexpired patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of
`
`the specification from the perspective of one skilled in the art. The broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather,
`
`the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition
`
`in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the
`
`specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would
`
`reach. I have been informed that the ’676 patent has not expired.
`
`16.
`
`I have also been informed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”) may soon apply the standard applied by Article III courts (i.e., the Phillips
`
`standard). With the exception of a number of means-plus-function claim limitations
`
`discussed in the Petition to which my Declaration is filed in support, I have applied
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning of all remaining claim terms. I believe the plain and
`
`ordinary meanings I’ve applied are consistent with both the BRI and Phillips
`
`standards, and I do not believe any claim terms other than the means-plus-function
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`limitations require express construction to resolve the proposed grounds of rejection
`
`discussed herein.
`
`17.
`
`I have also been informed that the implicit or inherent disclosures of a
`
`prior art reference may anticipate the claimed invention. Specifically, if a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known that
`
`the claimed subject matter is necessarily present in a prior art reference, then the
`
`prior art reference may “anticipate” the claim. Therefore, a claim is “anticipated” by
`
`the prior art if each and every limitation of the claim is found, either expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single item of prior art.
`
`18. Counsel has also informed me that a person cannot obtain a patent on an
`
`invention if his or her invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the invention was made. A conclusion of obviousness may
`
`be founded upon more than a single item of prior art. In determining whether prior
`
`art references render a claim obvious, counsel has informed me that courts consider
`
`the following factors: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3) the level of skill in the pertinent art,
`
`and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. In addition, the obviousness
`
`inquiry should not be done in hindsight. Instead, the obviousness inquiry should be
`
`done through the eyes of one of skill in the relevant art at the time the patent was
`
`filed.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`19.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent claim
`
`obvious, counsel has informed me that courts allow a technical expert to consider
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, including the fact that one of skill in the art
`
`would regularly look to the disclosures in patents, trade publications, journal articles,
`
`industry standards, product
`
`literature and documentation,
`
`texts describing
`
`competitive technologies, requests for comment published by standard setting
`
`organizations, and materials from industry conferences. I believe that all of the
`
`references that my opinions in this IPR are based upon are well within the range of
`
`references a person of ordinary skill in the art would consult to address the type of
`
`problems described in the Challenged Claims.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed that the United States Supreme Court’s most
`
`recent statement on the standard for determining whether a patent is obvious was
`
`stated in 2007 in the KSR decision. Specifically, I understand that the existence of
`
`an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements of the
`
`prior art is a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness.
`
`Thus, the teaching suggestion-motivation test is not to be applied rigidly in an
`
`obviousness analysis. In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is
`
`obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee
`
`controls. Instead, the important consideration is the objective reach of the claim. In
`
`other words, if the claim extends to what is obvious, then the claim is invalid. I
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`further understand the obviousness analysis often necessitates consideration of the
`
`interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the
`
`technological community or present in the marketplace, and the background
`
`knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. All of these issues
`
`may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine
`
`the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent.
`
`21.
`
`I also understand that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a precise
`
`teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim need not be
`
`sought out because it is appropriate to take account of the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. I understand that the
`
`prior art considered can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of
`
`endeavor at the time of invention and can provide a reason for combining the
`
`elements of the prior art in the manner claimed. In other words, the prior art need
`
`not be directed towards solving the same specific problem as the problem addressed
`
`by the patent. Further, the individual prior art references themselves need not all be
`
`directed towards solving the same problem. Under the KSR obviousness standard,
`
`common sense is important and should be considered. Common sense teaches that
`
`familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.
`
`22.
`
`I also understand that the fact that a particular combination of prior art
`
`elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious even
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it is
`
`likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. I further
`
`understand that in many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious
`
`techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather
`
`than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an invention. I
`
`understand that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do more than
`
`yield predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that for a patent claim to be obvious, the claim must be
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I
`
`understand that the factors to consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art include (1) the educational level and experience of people working in the field
`
`at the time the invention was made, (2) the types of problems faced in the art and the
`
`solutions found to those problems, and (3) the sophistication of the technology in the
`
`field.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that at least the following rationales may support a finding
`
`of obviousness:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`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 a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`25.
`
`Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`“Obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified,
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`A predictable variation of work in the same or a different field of
`endeavor, which a person of ordinary skill would be able to implement;
`If, at the time of the alleged invention, there existed a known problem
`for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s
`claim;
`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 technological
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and/or
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior-art reference or to
`combine prior-art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`I understand that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is established,
`
`the
`
`final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an invention
`
`would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which include: (a)
`
`commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a
`
`long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of others to find the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention
`
`by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the
`
`invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of independent simultaneous invention
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`within a comparatively short space of time; (h) teaching away from the invention in
`
`the prior art.
`
`26.
`
` I further understand that secondary considerations evidence is only
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art features.
`
`The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. While I understand that Patent
`
`Owner has not offered any secondary considerations at this time, I will supplement
`
`my opinions in the event that Patent Owner raises secondary considerations during
`
`the course of this proceeding.
`
`III. OPINION
`A. Background of the Technology
`
`27. Electrical communication systems send information from a source to
`
`one or more destinations. Ex. 1008, Proakis at 5. As shown in the following
`
`functional block diagram, the typical communication system consists of an
`
`information source, a transmitter, a physical channel, a receiver, and an output
`
`transducer:
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`28. The physical channel is the physical medium that is used to send the
`
`signal from the transmitter to the receiver. Id. at 7. In wireless communications
`
`systems, the physical channel is the atmosphere. Id. In radio communications, an
`
`antenna radiates electromagnetic energy into the atmosphere in a specified frequency
`
`range. Id. at 15.
`
`29.
`
` Noise in the atmosphere (e.g., lightning, rain, thermal noise, etc.) and
`
`other man-made noises can degrade the quality of the signal. Id. at 7, 19. Other
`
`sources of channel quality degradation include interference between nearby users of
`
`a wireless system.
`
`30. CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) is a commonly used multiple
`
`access scheme between a base station and a mobile station that allows multiple users
`
`to communicate at the same time. In a CDMA system, users are able to communicate
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`on all frequencies within a given frequency band at any time without concern for
`
`interfering with other users within that frequency band. This is in contrast to a
`
`Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) system in which users communicate
`
`on separate frequencies from one another, or with a Time Division Multiple Access
`
`(TDMA) system where users communicate in separate time blocks from one another,
`
`in a serial manner. Id.
`
`31. For several decades, researchers have been devising ways to decrease
`
`the effects of noise, fading, and other adverse channel conditions in order to improve
`
`channel conditions and maximize system throughput. In a CDMA system, like many
`
`communication systems, researchers are faced with a tradeoff. When faced with low
`
`quality channels, communicating increasing transmission power can improve system
`
`throughput by improving the ability of the receiver to correctly receive the signal
`
`and distinguish it from noise. But using a higher power can also have an opposite
`
`impact by causing interference between nearby users, which decreases system
`
`capacity. Transmission power control methods have thus been developed to ensure
`
`transmission power is not increased above certain thresholds as a means of
`
`preventing interference between nearby users.
`
`32.
`
`In addition to transmission power control methods to address variable
`
`channel quality, researchers have also utilized data rate control methods to optimize
`
`system throughput. For example, if channel quality is extremely high, data rates can
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`be increased as a means of increasing overall system throughput. Conversely, when
`
`channel quality is low, a data rate can be decreased as a means of ensuring that
`
`transmitted data is not misinterpreted even though channel distortions will have
`
`increased in view of the poor channel qualities. In a CDMA system, a user’s data is
`
`modulated using a spreading code, which allows a user’s communication signal to
`
`be identified uniquely amongst other users at a receiver by decoding the spreading
`
`code. This process is referred to as despreading. A spreading code is generally used
`
`to represent a single symbol, or word, of information that comprises one or more bits
`
`of data. The spreading code is composed of a number of elements, each referred to
`
`as a “chip,” and the number of chips per second modulated at the transmitter is called
`
`a “chip rate.” The end-to-end information rate is the rate at which bits are transferred
`
`from one side of the communication path to the other (i.e., pre-encoding to post-
`
`decoding), while the symbol rate is the rate at which multi-bit symbols are modulated
`
`onto the spreading code. Similarly, the rate at which the spreading code sequences
`
`through the individual chips that make up the spreading code is called the chip rate.
`
`The chip rate is always higher than the symbol rate because a single multi-chip
`
`spreading code represents only a single symbol, comprising several bits of
`
`information. The relationship between the chip rate and the symbol transmission
`
`rate is called a spreading factor. The larger the spreading factor, the lower the
`
`throughput of the system because more chips are transmitted per symbol, and hence
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`per information bit, thus yielding a lower throughput. However, for a given chip
`
`rate, with a larger spreading factor, the robustness of the system is increased because
`
`the communication is less prone to error when there is deteriorated channel quality.
`
`The increased robustness comes at the cost of a decrease in system throughput.
`
`Conversely, a smaller spreading factor yields less robust communication while
`
`providing higher throughput.
`
`33. These concepts described in the preceding paragraphs, including
`
`transmission power control, data rate control for communications systems were
`
`already well developed by April 19, 1997
`
`B.
`
`34.
`
`Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I was asked to provide my opinion as to the level of skill of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) of the ’676 Patent at the time of the
`
`claimed invention, which counsel has told me to assume is April 19, 1997. In
`
`determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art of
`
`the ’676 Patent, I considered several factors, including the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art, the solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made in the field, the sophistication of the technology, and the
`
`education level of active workers in the field. I also placed myself back in the time
`
`frame of the claimed invention and considered the colleagues with whom I had
`
`worked at that time.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`35.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been a
`
`person having a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent plus
`
`three years of experience working with digital communication systems or in network
`
`engineering or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering with an emphasis on
`
`communication systems or the equivalent plus one year of experience working with
`
`digital communication systems or in network engineering.
`
`36. My opinion is based on my experience in hiring and leading technical
`
`teams in areas related to the ’676 Patent and its supporting technologies, and on
`
`working with others in these same technical fields. Additionally, I was at least a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of the ’676 Patent.
`
`C. Summary of Prior Art
`
`Keskitalo
`1.
`37. Keskitalo describes a CDMA cellular radio system in which a
`
`transmission rate and transmission power are independently adjusted in response to
`
`changing channel quality conditions. Like many systems at the time, Keskitalo
`
`describes standard transmission power adjustment techniques by which “the mobile
`
`stations adjust their transmit power according to control signals supplied by the base
`
`station.” Keskitalo (Ex. 1004) at 5:23-4. But Keskitalo also recognizes that there is
`
`a limit to how much transmission power can be increased, noting that “if the mobile
`
`station is already transmitting with its highest power,” further increase in power is
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`disadvantageous to the entire system.” Id. at 3:19-29. Describing a transmission rate
`
`solution to improving system fidelity once this maximum power threshold has been
`
`reached, Keskitalo teaches that the signal quality can be improved “without
`
`increasing the transmit power and the interference to other connections in the cell.”
`
`Id. at 4:18-5:2. This is accomplished by adjusting “the spreading ratio of the
`
`connection.” Id.
`
`38. Both Keskitalo and the ’676 Patent describe CDMA systems where
`
`power control and transmission rate adjustments are made independently in response
`
`to changing channel conditions. Additionally, both Keskitalo and the ’676 Patent
`
`describe
`
`transmission rate adjustments made by modifying
`
`the spreading
`
`factor/ratio. Thus, Keskitalo is in the same field of endeavor and is reasonably
`
`pertinent to the claims in the ’676 Patent.
`
`Lindell
`2.
`39. Lindell describes monitoring average transmission power in a mobile
`
`station and comparing that average transmission power value with a predetermined
`
`allowable power value. Lindell (Ex. 1005) at Abstract. Additionally, Lindell
`
`discloses an average power determining circuit, such as an integrating circuit. Id. at
`
`4:7-10, 9:30-33. Lindell also discloses a comparator for comparing the average
`
`power to a predetermined maximum power threshold. Id. at 4:17-21, 5:57-63, 7:4-
`
`22. Like the ’676 Patent, Lindell discloses a cellular radio system in which the
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`transmission power of a mobile station, such as a hand-held radio telephone, is
`
`monitored and adjusted when a transmission power exceeds a maximum
`
`transmission power threshold. Thus, Lindell is in the same field of endeavor as the
`
`’676 Patent and is reasonably pertinent to the claims in the ’676 patent.
`
`Tiedemann
`3.
`40. Tiedemann describes a “method and apparatus for controlling
`
`transmission power in a variable rate” CDMA communication system. Tiedemann
`
`(Ex. 1006) at 1:8-21. Similar to the ’676 Patent, Tiedemann discloses reducing a
`
`transmission rate instead of increasing the transmission power of the link to
`
`strengthen a data link. Id. at 5:66-6:1. Additionally, Tiedemann discloses
`
`decreasing a transmission rate for the reverse link if “a mobile station detects its
`
`power is at a maximum” and increasing a transmission rate if a mobile station
`
`“detects its power is lower than a threshold for the reverse link.” Id. at 5:35-65. Both
`
`Tiedemann and the ’676 Patent disclose CDMA systems with transmission power
`
`control and transmission rate control based on channel quality between a mobile
`
`station and a base station. Therefore, Tiedemann is in the same field of endeavor
`
`and is reasonably pertinent to the claims in the ’676 Patent.
`
`D. Obvious to Combine Keskitalo and Lindell
`
`41.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11 are
`
`obvious over Keskitalo in view of Lindell. It is my opinion that they are indeed
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`obvious and that the combination of Keskitalo and Lindell teaches all elements of
`
`claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11 as set forth in the Petition.
`
`42. Keskitalo discloses transmission power limits, but does not specify
`
`whether those limits are based on a set transmission power level or an average power.
`
`It would have been obvious, however, to implement Keskitalo such that its
`
`transmitter would have included an integrator function for monitoring average
`
`transmission power in accordance with the teachings well known in the prior art.
`
`One such example is Lindell, which discloses an integrator and an average power
`
`determining circuit that calculate average transmission power at a mobile station.
`
`Lindell (Ex. 1005) at Abstract, 4:5-15, 5:57-61, 8:53-61, 9:30-62, Figs 1, 3. It would
`
`have been apparent to one of ordinary skill that Lindell’s integrator function could
`
`be incorporated into Keskitalo’s transmitter to monitor average transmission power
`
`of a mobile station. Imposing a maximum transmission power limit in a
`
`communications system would allow a system to comply with FCC regulations
`
`regarding RF exposure to a user of a mobile handset. Such RF exposure regulations
`
`were well known at the time and system designers were well aware that cellular
`
`systems should be designed to accommodate such regulations. In fact, Lindell
`
`expressly recognizes that “new guidelines . . . encompass land-mobile systems, such
`
`as cellular radio, pocket and hand-held radio telephones” and can be exempted “if
`
`the radiated power is below a certain level.” A POSITA would have been motivated
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`by this express teaching and by the widely recognized deign guidelines that the
`
`system described by Keskitalo should limit power exposure over a period of time.
`
`Additionally, a POSITA would have recognized that limiting transmission power
`
`over time would reduce power consumption, which would increase usage time for a
`
`handset before requiring charging its power supply or changing its battery. As I
`
`discussed above in ¶¶ 29, 31, in a CDMA system transmission power of mobile
`
`stations causes interference to other users, such that reducing transmission power
`
`reduces interference. It would have been apparent to a POSITA that the system of
`
`Keskitalo could incorporate an average power as the maximum power threshold
`
`instead of an instantaneous maximum power threshold. Such a modification would
`
`have permitted the additional benefit of ensuring RF exposure of a user remains
`
`below FCC mandated levels while having no negative impact on minimizing power
`
`consumption or interference.
`
`43. Such a modification to Keskitalo would be straightforward, not requiring
`
`undue experimentation, and would produce predictable results. Lindell itself even
`
`acknowledges that its described technology “can be implemented in preexisting
`
`system designs through an easily made software modification or through a slight
`
`circuit modification, such as the inclusion of an integrator circuit.” Lindell (Ex.
`
`1005) at 2:13-17. I agree. It would have involved nothing more than ordinary skill
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`and common sense to implement Keskitalo with the average power transmission
`
`teachings of Lindell.
`
`44. Claim 1 recites the limitation, “allowable transmission power holding
`
`means for holding a predetermined allowable transmission power value.” As
`
`discussed in the Petition, the corresponding structure for the allowable transmission
`
`power holding means is a processor or other circuitry programmed or designed to
`
`hold a predetermined allowable transmission power value. The combination of
`
`Keskitalo and Lindell satisfies this limitation. As discussed above, Keskitalo
`
`discloses a predetermined allowable transmission power value (Keskitalo (Ex. 1004)
`
`at 3:19-35, 6:8-16) and it would have been obvious modify Keskitalo such that its
`
`predetermined thresholds for transmission power are average transmission power
`
`values in accordance with the teachings of Lindell. A POSITA would have
`
`recognized that the threshold setting circuit as taught by Lindell is a processor or
`
`other circuitry programmed or designed to hold an allowable transmission power
`
`value. Lindell (Ex. 1005) at 4:17-25, 7:4-26, 9:34-35.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01473
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1.
`
`45. Claim 1 recites the limitation, “comparing means for comparing the
`
`average value with the allowable transmission power value.” As discussed in the
`
`Petition, the corresponding structure for the allowable transmission power holding
`
`means is a processor or other circuitry programmed or
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
