UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. 2018-01474
`U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ANDREW C. SINGER
`
`IPR2018-01474
`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.
`
`7,206,587 (the “’587 Patent”). I understand that the Challenged Claims are claims
`
`3 and 4. 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. 7,206,587 to Miyoshi et al. (the “’587
`Patent”)
`• Exhibit 1002 – File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,206,587
`• Exhibit 1004 – “CDMA/HDR: A Bandwidth-Efficient High-Speed
`Wireless Data Service for Nomadic Users,” Bender, et al. (“Bender”)
`• Exhibit 1005 – U.S. Patent No. 4,747,104 to Piret (“Piret”)
`• Exhibit 1006 – U.S. Patent No. 6,470,470 to Jarvinen et al. (“Jarvinen”)
`• Exhibit 1007 – U.S. Patent No. 6,289,485 to Shiomoto (“Shiomoto”)
`• Exhibit 1008 – U.S. Patent No. 4,908,827 to Gates (“Gates”)
`• Exhibit 1009 – U.S. Patent No. 4,589,112 to Karim (“Karim”)
`• Exhibit 1010 – U.S. Patent No. 5,274,646 to Brey et al. (“Brey”)
`• Exhibit 1011 – U.S. Patent Application No. 2001/0014612 to Uesugi
`(“Uesugi”)
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 2
`
`

`

`• Exhibit 1012 – Burt Masnick, Jack Wolf, On Linear Unequal Error
`Protection Codes, IEEE Transaction on Information Theory, Vol. IT-3,
`No. 4, October 1967 (“Masnick”)
`• Exhibit 1013 – John C. Proakis and Masoud Salehi, Communication
`Systems Engineering, Prentice Hall (1994) (“Proakis”)
`• Exhibit 1014 – Michael Andersin, Zvi Rosberg, Time Variant Power
`Control
`in Cellular Networks, Hifa Research
`lab., Science and
`Technology, MATAM, 31905 Haifa, Israel (August 1996) (“Andersin”)
`• Exhibit 1015 – Vijay K. Bhargava, Qing Yang, David J. Peterson, Coding
`Theory and its Applications in Communication Systems, Defense Science
`Journal, Vol. 43, No. 1, January 1993 (“Bhargava”)
`• Exhibit 1016 – Adem Durak, Evaluation and Methods to Reduce Co-
`Channel Interference on the Reverse Channel of a CDMA Cellular System,
`Naval Postgraduate School (March 1999) (“Durak”)
`• Exhibit 1017 – Daniel A. Spielman, The Complexity of Error-Correcting
`Codes, Lecture Notes in Computer Science #1279, pp. 67-84 (September
`1997) (“Spielman”)
`• Exhibit 1018 – Rachel L. Pruitt-Billingsley, Analysis of Digital Cellular
`Standards, Naval Postgraduate School (June 1996) (“Pruitt-Billingsley”)
`• Exhibit 1019 – Leycheoh Lim, Chip for Interleaving CDMA Cellular
`Systems, Graduate Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
`University of Toronto, Canada (May 1997) (“Lim”)
`• Exhibit 1020 – Hang Liu, Magda El Zarki, Transmission of Video
`Telephony Images Over Wireless Channels, Wireless Networks 2, 219-228
`(1996) (“Liu”)
`• Exhibit 1021 – Ezio Biglieri, Dariush Divsalar, Peter J. McLane, Marvin
`K. Simon, Introduction to Trellis-Coded Modulation with Applications,
`Macmillan Publishing Company, 1991 (“Biglieri”)
`• Exhibit 1022 – Digital Computer, McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of
`Engineering, 2nd Ed. 1993 (“Mcgraw-Hill”)
`• Exhibit 1023 – Andrew J. Viterbi, CDMA Principles of Spread Spectrum
`Communciation, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1995 (“Viterbi”)
`• Exhibit 1024 – U.S. Patent No. 5,828,662 to Jalali et al. (“Jalali”)
`• Exhibit 1025 – U.S. Patent No. 6,101,399 to Raleigh et al. (“Raleigh”)
`
`A. Background and Qualifications
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`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 the design and analysis of digital
`
`communication systems that employ data transmission, modulation, and detection at
`
`the physical layer. These include the development of algorithms, architectures, and
`
`circuits that map binary information onto channel symbols, such as QAM, PSK or
`
`other modulation formats, as well as the analysis of the transmission performance,
`
`error rates, and error control coding for such systems
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`communication systems. An important aspect in many of these systems is the design
`
`of signal processing, modulation, and coding algorithms, architectures and circuits
`
`for data encoding, mapping, modulation, detection, and decoding.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`10.
`
`I was the co-founder and CEO of OceanComm, Inc., an underwater
`
`acoustic communications component manufacturer focused on the development of
`
`acoustic communications links for the subsea industry.
`
`11.
`
`I was appointed the Associate Dean for Innovation and Entrepreneurship
`
`in the College of Engineering, where I direct a wide range of entrepreneurship
`
`activities. These include 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.
`
`12. 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.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`13.
`
`I hold ten granted U.S. patents, all in the field of communication
`
`systems.
`
`14.
`
`In summary, I have over 25 years of experience related to signal
`
`processing and communication systems.
`
`15.
`
`I have attached my curriculum vitae as Appendix A, which includes a
`
`list of all publications I have authored within the last ten years.
`
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`16.
`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 ’587 patent has not expired.
`
`17.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`standard). 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 Philips standards, and I do not believe any claim terms require
`
`express construction to resolve the proposed grounds of rejection discussed herein.
`
`18.
`
`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.
`
`19. 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
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`done through the eyes of one of skill in the relevant art at the time the patent was
`
`filed.
`
`20.
`
`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.
`
`21.
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`22.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`23.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`24.
`
`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.
`
`25.
`
`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;
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`26.
`
`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;
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of independent simultaneous invention
`
`within a comparatively short space of time; (h) teaching away from the invention in
`
`the prior art.
`
`27.
`
` 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
`
`28. Electrical communication systems send information from a source to
`
`one or more destinations. Ex. 1013, 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:
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Id. In this system, information is input from a source and transmitted through the
`
`communication channel to a receiver before being output as an output signal. Id. The
`
`quality of this signal is dependent on various factors associated with the
`
`communication system. Id.
`
`29. Noise in the atmosphere (e.g., lightning, rain, thermal noise, etc.), in the
`
`electronics implementing the communication system, and other man-made sources
`
`of noise can degrade the quality of the signal. Id. at 7, 19. Another form of
`
`degradation in radio communications is called interference. Id. Interference is
`
`commonly caused by multipath propagation—where the transmitted signal arrives
`
`at the receiver via multiple propagation paths, possibly at different delays. Id. at 16.
`
`In mobile cellular transmissions, for example, signal transmissions between the base
`
`station and the subscriber unit can be reflected from buildings, hills and other
`
`obstructions. Id. at 696. This causes the signal to arrive at the receiver via multiple
`
`propagation paths at different delays. Id. As a result, multipath propagation can
`
`cause interference and signal fading. Id. at 16. The following figure illustrates
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`multipath propagation between a base station and a subscriber unit in a cellular
`
`communication system:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1025, Raleigh at Figure 1. The signal originating from the mobile is obstructed
`
`by various environmental factors, causing the receiver to receive multiple signals at
`
`different time intervals. Id. at 1:16-56.
`
`30. Cellular communications systems have a definite structure, the simplest
`
`of which being a point-to-point communication system. Ex. 1021, Biglieri at 1. In a
`
`point-to-point communication system, a transmitter (referred to as Tx) and a receiver
`
`(referred to as Rx) are communicatively linked via a communication channel. Id. at
`
`1. Data is transmitted from Tx to Rx in binary form—if the source is analog, it is
`
`presumed digitized. Id. Before transmission, however, the data is introduced to both
`
`source encoding and channel encoding. Id. at 2. Source encoding is used to
`
`efficiently represent the source data, potentially removing redundant information
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`present in the source signal. Id. For example, a speech signal that has a long silence
`
`interval need not represent the entire silence interval with the same fidelity as it
`
`would the speech signal, thereby preserving channel resources. Id. After the source
`
`signal has been encoded such that it may make efficient use of the channel resources,
`
`channel encoding introduces forward error protection, in the form of error correction
`
`codes to combat channel transmission errors. Id.
`
`31. Cellular communication
`
`systems commonly employ different
`
`communication techniques to facilitate mobile communications, such as Code
`
`Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Global System for Mobile Communications
`
`(GSM), Frequency-Division Multiple Access (FDMA), and Time-Division Multiple
`
`Access (TDMA). Ex. 1018, Pruitt-Billingsley at Abstract. Of particular importance
`
`here is CDMA. CDMA is a commonly used wireless communication scheme,
`
`adopted by the Telecommunication Industry Association in 1993, that allows
`
`multiple users to communicate with a base station at the same time. Ex. 1023, Viterbi
`
`at xviii. In a CDMA system, users are able to communicate 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.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`32.
`
`In a CDMA system, base stations send pilot signals, which are known
`
`signals, to subscriber devices where they are used by subscribers to estimate the
`
`signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) or channel quality of the communications downlink, or
`
`path from the base station to the subscriber unit. Ex. 1023, Viterbi at 87-96, 183-
`
`184. The SNR compares the received power of a signal to the power of the respective
`
`noise and interference caused by extraneous factors. Id. If the SNR drops below a
`
`predefined threshold, the system outputs a correspondingly low signal quality. A
`
`POSITA would have understood that this channel determination would necessarily
`
`be measured by a measurer, which would be software and/or hardware in the
`
`subscriber device. This channel quality information is fed back to the base station,
`
`where the base station is responsible for assigning downlink channels to subscribers
`
`based on these reported SNR/channel quality values. Ex. 1024, Jalali at Fig. 2. Base
`
`stations are necessarily responsible for assigning downlink channels because they
`
`are uniquely in possession of information regarding other subscribers using nearby
`
`channels. Id. at 5:16-52.
`
`33. The accuracy of these channel quality measurements is paramount, as
`
`system
`
`throughput
`
`is dependent on allocating communication
`
`resources
`
`commensurate with the quality of the subscriber’s connection. Ex. 1015, Barghava.
`
`In order to ensure accurate receipt of channel quality measurements, CDMA systems
`
`typically use error-correction processes. Id. Error-correction was introduced to deal
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`with a fundamental communication problem—when a message is sent from one
`
`location to another, it is often corrupted along the way. Id. at 59. An error-correcting
`
`code provides a systematic way of adding redundant information to a message so
`
`that if any part of the message were distorted during transmission, the receiver may
`
`nevertheless be able to decipher the message. Id. The more distortion expected, the
`
`more error-correction is needed. Error-correction generally works by adding
`
`redundant information to the transmitted message to increase the likelihood that the
`
`individual components of the message can be accurately reproduced. Id. at 59-61.
`
`34. CDMA systems typically employ forward error correction. Ex. 1019,
`
`Lim at 5. Forward error correction involves sending additional information along
`
`with the original data to allow the receiver to use this information to locate errors
`
`and correct them without additional communication with the transmitter. Ex. 1008,
`
`Gates at 1:13-4:32. Two common types of forward error correction include block
`
`codes and convolutional codes. Id. Block codes partition the data into equal
`
`segments, or blocks, and add redundant data to each partitioned block, creating a
`
`larger block with redundant information to combat errors during transmission. Id.
`
`Convolutional codes typically do not operate on blocks of data but rather are suitable
`
`for operating on a continuous stream of data. Id. Data is continuously passed into an
`
`encoder where additional data is generated based on the input and appended into the
`
`continuous stream. Id.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`35. Since
`
`forward error correction appends additional
`
`redundant
`
`information into the data that is to be transmitted over a communication link, it
`
`naturally consumes valuable communication link resources, or bandwidth. Ex. 1020,
`
`Liu at 219. Communication systems frequently implemented unequal error
`
`protection to make the best use of channel bandwidth by allocating higher error
`
`correction to more significant data while maintaining lower levels of error correction
`
`for less significant data. Id. at 220. The fundamental principle of unequal error
`
`protection is to provide increased protection for more important information when
`
`compared to less important information. Id. In this way, resource allocation is
`
`prioritized and optimized and thus overall bandwidth is conserved. Id.
`
`36. A well-known form of unequal error protection utilizes longer code
`
`lengths (lower information rate codes) for more significant data to ensure the more
`
`significant data is correctly decoded by the receiving device. Ex. 1007, Shiomoto at
`
`2:34-62. This form of unequal error protection may encode parity bits of longer
`
`lengths to construct a reinforced code word to the more significant data. Id. at 4:12-
`
`49. This reinforcement increases the error correction ability for the more significant
`
`data, rendering it more robust to errors. Id. This method of unequal error protection
`
`is thus able to decrease the bit error rate while not significantly increasing bandwidth
`
`usage by focusing longer code lengths on more significant data and balancing shorter
`
`code lengths for less significant data. In this way, the code length is proportional to
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`the degree of significance of the data—i.e. longer code lengths for more important
`
`data and shorter code lengths for less important data.
`
`37. As time progressed and data processing became more sophisticated,
`
`systems were designed to operate in conditions under which additional errors might
`
`occur during data transmission. Ex. 1009, Karim at 1:6-4:21. Therefore, a need for
`
`systems to detect and correct multiple errors arose. Id. In response to this need,
`
`systems providing varying levels of detection and correction were implemented. Id.
`
`Using varying levels of error protection enabled a reduction in bit error rate as
`
`compared with systems of similar throughput that employed a single level of
`
`protection, across all data. Id. For example, single-bit error correction could provide
`
`for the detection of two errors when transmitting a codeword but the correction of
`
`only a single bit. Id. While easily decoded, such single-bit error correction schemes
`
`produced an increased likelihood of misinterpreting a coded value having more than
`
`one error. In order to provide a solution to systems that might encounter multiple
`
`errors within a single codeword, higher levels of error correction were introduced.
`
`In double-bit error correction, three errors might be detected while two corrected.
`
`See generally id. at 4:59-10:64. This reduced the bit-error rate when compared to
`
`single-bit error correction. Double-bit error correction, for example might add
`
`additional mathematical information to detect and resolve a higher quantity of errors.
`
`Id. These additional algorithms might be readily implemented and not require
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 20
`
`

`

`
`
`significant additional computational resources. Similarly, the introduction of triple-
`
`bit error correction allotted for three errors to be corrected and four errors detected.
`
`Ex. 1010, Brey at 4:51-68. This increased the number of correctable errors during
`
`data transmission and provided for a more robust system that was less susceptible to
`
`errors. Id.
`
`B.
`
`38.
`
`Level of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I was asked to provide my opinion as to the level of skill of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) of the ’587 Patent at the time of the claimed
`
`invention, which counsel has told me to assume is August 2, 2000. In determining
`
`the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’587
`
`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.
`
`39.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`someone having a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent plus
`
`three years of experience working with wireless communication systems or a
`
`Master’s degree in electrical engineering with an emphasis on communication
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01474
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 21
`
`

`

`
`
`systems or the equivalent plus one year of experience working with digital
`
`communication systems or in network engineering.
`
`40. Based on my education, training, and professional experience in the field
`
`of the claimed invention, I am familiar with the level and abilities of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at t