`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01476
`U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711
`
`DECLARATION OF BRANIMIR VOJCIC
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`I, BRANIMIR VOJCIC, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am competent to testify, and if called upon during an Inter Partes Review
`
`(IPR) proceeding, I would do so. If called upon as a witness, I can competently
`
`testify to the truth of each statement herein.
`
`2.
`
`I was asked to provide an opinion on the grounds asserted in IPR2018-
`
`01476, regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711 (“’711 Patent”) (Ex. 1001), statements
`
`made in the Petition related to those grounds, and exhibits in support of those
`
`grounds.
`
`3. My opinion is based upon my knowledge and experience, and my review of
`
`the ’711 Patent, the Petition, and exhibits in support of the Petition.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`I am an expert in wireless technology and other areas of
`
`4.
`
`telecommunications, signal processing, and electrical engineering. I am presently a
`
`Professor Emeritus of Engineering and Applied Science at The George
`
`Washington University. I retired from the university in May 2015, where I was a
`
`member of the faculty since September 1, 1991. In addition, I have served as a
`
`consultant for a number of companies in the wireless communications industry in
`
`various technology areas. I have also served on numerous committees and as a
`
`reviewer and editor for several journals, conferences, and organizations.
`
`5.
`
`I am presently President of Xplore Wireless, LLC, a small
`
`
`
`1
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`telecommunication consulting company. I am also a co-founder, Director, CEO
`
`and CTO of LN2, a startup in the telecommunication space.
`
`6.
`
`I received my Diploma of Engineering, Master of Science, and Doctor of
`
`Science degrees in Electrical Engineering from the University of Belgrade in
`
`Yugoslavia in 1981, 1986, and 1989, respectively. The primary focus of my Doctor
`
`of Science studies was on Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and spread
`
`spectrum communications technologies.
`
`7.
`
`In 1991, I joined The George Washington University as an Assistant
`
`Professor and was promoted to Associate Professor and Professor in 1997 and
`
`2000, respectively. From 2001 to 2004, I served as the Chairman of the Electrical
`
`and Computer Engineering Department at The George Washington University.
`
`During my tenure at The George Washington University, until May 2015, I taught
`
`many different courses on communications theory and networks, wireless
`
`communications, CDMA, and I was a course director for a number of courses in
`
`communications. I have supervised students mostly in the areas of communications
`
`and coding theory, wireless communications/networks , CDMA (including IS-95,
`
`CDMA2000, WCDMA/HSDPA/HSUPA) and OFDM/LTE and have been a thesis
`
`director for a number of Doctor of Science candidates, who now have successful
`
`careers in academia, industry, and government.
`
`8. My research in the areas I just mentioned has been supported by the
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`communications industry and various Government agencies, such as Advanced
`
`Research Project Agency (ARPA), National Science Foundation (NSF), and
`
`National Security Agency (NSA). Much of this research concerns communications
`
`theory, performance evaluation, modeling wireless networks, multi-user detection,
`
`adaptive antenna arrays, and ad-hoc networks.
`
`9.
`
`I have authored or co-authored numerous journal and conference papers,
`
`contributed to various books, and co-authored a text book on CDMA, entitled “The
`
`cdma2000 System for Mobile Communications,” Prentice Hall, 2004. I also served
`
`as a co-editor of a book on wireless communications, entitled “Multiaccess,
`
`Mobility and Teletraffic in Wireless Communications, Volume III,” Kluwer
`
`Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts, 1998. My CV includes a detailed
`
`listing of my publications.
`
`10.
`
`I have also received awards for my work. In 1995, I received the prestigious
`
`National Science Foundation Faculty Early CAREER Development Award. The
`
`award is given annually by NSF to a select group of young professors nationwide
`
`to promote excellence in teaching and research.
`
`11.
`
`I have served as a consultant for numerous companies in the wireless
`
`communications industry in technology areas, in the areas of 2G/3G/4G mobile
`
`technologies, Wireless LANs, new generation broadcast systems, advanced mobile
`
`satellite systems and other aspects of modern communication systems. I have also
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`taught academic courses as well as short courses for the industry and government
`
`on various aspects of communications in the areas of 2G, 2.5G, 3G and 4G cellular
`
`standards, such as CDMA2000 1xRTT, CDMA2000 Evolution Data Optimized
`
`(EVDO), Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) and LTE.
`
`12.
`
`I am a Senior Member of the IEEE and was an Associate Editor for IEEE
`
`Communications Letters and Journal on Communications and Networks. I served
`
`as a member of technical program committees, as a session organizer for many
`
`technical conferences and workshops, and as a reviewer of technical papers for
`
`many journals and conferences.
`
`13.
`
`I am a co-inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,523,147, entitled “Method and
`
`Apparatus for Forward Error Correction Coding for an AM In-Band On-Channel
`
`Digital Audio Broadcasting System,” US Patent No. 8,595,590 B1, entitled
`
`“Systems and Methods for Encoding and Decoding Check-Irregular Non-
`
`Systematic IRA Codes,” and applications, “Joint Source-Channel Decoding with
`
`Source Sequence Augmentation”, US 20140153654 A1, Jun 5, 2014, “Systems and
`
`Methods for Advanced Iterative Decoding and Channel Estimation of
`
`Concatenated Coding Systems”, US 20140153625 A1, Jun 5, 2014, “Advanced
`
`Decoding of High/Medium/Low Density Parity Check Codes”, PCT/US13/72883,
`
`and International Application Number PCT/CA01/01488, entitled “Multi-User
`
`Detector For Direct Sequence - Code Division Multiple Access (DS/CDMA)
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`Channels.”
`
`14. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 2003.
`
`II. PERSON SKILLED IN THE ART
`I have reviewed the ’711 Patent, the Petition, the Singer Declaration (Ex.
`
`15.
`
`1003), the Paulraj reference (Ex. 1005), the Huang reference (Ex. 1006), the
`
`Walton reference (Ex. 1008), and the Wallace reference (Ex. 1007). I have equally
`
`reviewed all of the exhibits filed concurrently with Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`16. The inventions of the ’711 Patent relate to, among other things, a MIMO
`
`transmission apparatus that uses spatial multiplexing of a plurality of different data
`
`items transmitted over different antennas and also transmit diversity of a specific
`
`data item and its replica over a plurality of antennas at the same time. Ex. 1001 at
`
`2:7–12; 5:13–25, 7:29–8:6.
`
`17. As such, I believe that a person skilled in the art of the technology described
`
`in the ’711 Patent would have at least a bachelor’s degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering, or equivalent, with three years of experience researching or working
`
`with cellular radio communication systems, or a master’s degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering, or equivalent, with one year of experience researching or working
`
`with cellular radio communication systems.
`
`18.
`
`I believe that I am a person skilled in the art of the technology described in
`
`the ’711 Patent.
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`I have been informed that expert opinion testimony is generally permitted
`
`19.
`
`where the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help
`
`the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. The
`
`expert witness must be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
`
`training, or education to testify in the form of an opinion.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that there is no requirement of a perfect match between the
`
`expert’s experience and the relevant field. A person may not need to be a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in order to testify as an expert, but rather must be “qualified
`
`in the pertinent art.” For example, the absence of an advanced degree in a
`
`particular field may not preclude an expert from providing testimony that is helpful
`
`to the Board, so long as the expert’s experience provides sufficient qualification in
`
`the pertinent art.
`
`21.
`
`I also understand that expert testimony may have many uses. For example, it
`
`may be used to explain the relevant technology to the panel. It may also be used to
`
`establish the level of skill in the art and describe the person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. Experts may testify about the teachings of the prior art and how they relate to
`
`the patentability of the challenged claims. Expert testimony may also be offered on
`
`the issue of whether there would have been a reason to combine the teachings of
`
`references in a certain way, or if there may have been a reasonable expectation of
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`success in doing so.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that the question of whether a patent claim is obvious
`
`is an objective test, and that it follows the following analysis: first, a determination
`
`of the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue is made; and the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art is determined. Against this backdrop, the
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness of the claim is determined. I have also been
`
`advised that, as part of this obviousness analysis, it can be important to identify a
`
`reason why a person of ordinary skill would have been a reason to combine the
`
`teachings of references in a certain way, or if there may have been a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in doing so. I further have been advised that it is critical that
`
`the obviousness analysis not be made in hindsight, but rather from the perspective
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`23.
`
` I also understand that objective evidence relevant to the issue of
`
`obviousness must be evaluated. Such evidence, sometimes referred to as
`
`“secondary considerations,” may include evidence of commercial success, long-
`
`felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, and unexpected results.
`
`24. These legal standards help me understand the issues on which I have been
`
`asked to opine. I am not an attorney, however, and legal standards are not
`
`necessary, nor did they play a role, in the development of my opinions in this
`
`matter. My role, as I understand it, is to help the Board and the parties understand
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`the technology and the issues addressed herein.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,764,711
`25. The technology disclosed and claimed in the ‘711 Patent relates to wireless
`
`communications technologies used in 4G (LTE) cellular communications systems.
`
`4G cellular communications systems are capable of transmitting and receiving
`
`(e.g., uploading and downloading) data over radio frequencies. Data is used for
`
`applications such as connecting to the Internet, social media, streaming videos,
`
`email, etc. Today, mobile communications generally use 3G and/or 4G
`
`communications systems. Because interoperability is important for
`
`communications devices, the majority of cellular communications devices
`
`presently sold in the United States comply with both the 3G and LTE standards.
`
`26. Communications between the base station and UE generally occur via
`
`communication “channels,” where there are multiple uplink and downlink
`
`channels. The communication quality between a base station and a UE is also
`
`impacted by “interference,” either around the base station or around the UE.
`
`Further, before being transmitted between a base station and a UE, data is first
`
`modulated and encoded for transmission. Modulation involves changing one or
`
`more parameters of a waveform used for carrying signals that need to be
`
`transmitted between the UE and base station. Encoding is used to ensure the data is
`
`protected during such a transmission. Different modulation and encoding schemes
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`can be used to account for different levels of interference and/or channel quality.
`
`27.
`
` It was well known in the art at the time of the inventions to execute
`
`functionalities such as the above described encoding, transmitting, and receiving,
`
`using structures such as a digital signal processor (DSP) with code implemented,
`
`an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), discrete circuitry and memory,
`
`and/or combinations thereof.
`
`28. The ‘711 Patent describes inventions related to data transmission and
`
`reception between a UE and a base station. Its Claims relate to two methods of
`
`multiple-antenna transmission: transmit diversity and spatial multiplexing.
`
`Transmit diversity designates a specific data item as having a higher priority than
`
`other data items (see, e.g., Ex. 1001 (’711 Patent) at 3:1-67-4:1-67). Spatial
`
`multiplexing, on the other hand, allows parallel transmission of multiple data
`
`items.
`
`V. THE ’711 PATENT REQUIRES SIMULATNEOUS
`IMPLEMENTATION OF SPATIAL MULTIPLEXING (SM)
`AND TRANSMIT DIVERSITY (TD)
`29. The Claims of the ’711 Patent impose spatial multiplexing transmission and
`
`transmit diversity at the same time. Specifically, the ’711 Patent describes a MIMO
`
`data transmission scheme where a mobile device transmits a specific data item, as
`
`well as a replica of the specific data item, from different antennas at the same time.
`
`To that end, the Claims each recite a “mapping section [that] generates a replica
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`data item by replicating a specific data item of the plurality of data items.” Id. at 11
`
`(Claim 1). Dependent claims 2-5 depend from Claim 1 and therefore incorporate
`
`this limitation. Claim 6, the other independent claim, recites a similar limitation.
`
`30.
`
`“MIMO” transmission, also referred to as “spatial multiplexing,” involves
`
`utilizing different antennas to transmit different data through multiple antennas in
`
`parallel. Id. at 1:18-47. “Spatial Multiplexing” is thus primarily used to increase
`
`data transfer speeds, by increasing the number of antennas the data is transmitted
`
`through. Id. at 1:48-59. Spatial Multiplexing, however, has no inherent error
`
`resiliency.
`
`31.
`
`“Transmit Diversity,” on the other hand, is specifically intended to provide
`
`increased error resiliency, which it achieves by replicating the same data and
`
`transmitting that same data through multiple antennas at the same time. Id. at 1:60-
`
`67. By transmitting the same (replicated) data through multiple antennas as the
`
`same time, Transmit Diversity results in “redundancy.” Redundancy provides
`
`improved error resiliency or protection by providing more chances for the data to
`
`be received correctly. However, indiscriminate use of Transmit Diversity both
`
`decreases data transfer speed and decreases efficiency due to unnecessary
`
`replication (e.g. replication even where there are no errors to correct). Id. at 1:60-
`
`67.
`
`32. While the prior art focused on trying to efficiently “switch” between
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`Transmit Diversity and Spatial Multiplexing, the ’711 Patent avoids such tradeoffs
`
`by employing both approaches at the same time. Id. at 1:60-67. The ’711 Patent,
`
`however, does not employ Transmit Diversity indiscriminately, but instead uses
`
`Transmit Diversity for “specific data items,” which the Board in its Decision
`
`agreed with Patent Owner are “higher priority” data items. Id. at 1:60-67, 7:29-8:6;
`
`Institution Decision (Paper 9) at 7. Specifically, claim 1 of the ’711 Patent claims
`
`an apparatus that transmits a specific data item, as well as a replica of the specific
`
`data item, from different antennas, at the same time, while also employing a
`
`MIMO data transmission scheme (Spatial Multiplexing) to transmit other data. Ex.
`
`1001 at 7:29-8:6; see also Ex. 1001 at Figure 4.
`
`33. The challenged claims take advantage of spatial multiplexing by “using a
`
`plurality of antennas in parallel.” Yet, notably, the challenged claims also take
`
`advantage of transmit diversity by transmitting a replica data item of a specific data
`
`item “such that the specific data item and the replica data item are transmitted from
`
`different antennas at a same time.” Ex. 1001 (’711 Patent) at 11. Therefore, the
`
`specific data item described in transmit diversity (TD) with the replica data item, is
`
`also involved in spatial multiplexing (SM) at the same time (simultaneously or in
`
`parallel), with other data items of the plurality data items— it necessarily follows
`
`that the challenged claims (limitation found in both independent claims 1 and 6)
`
`teach simultaneous combination of SM and TD.
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`VI.
`
` NONE OF THE REFERENCES CITED BY PETITIONERS,
`ALONE OR IN COMBINATION, DISCLOSED
`SIMULTANEOUS SPATIAL MULTIPLEXING AND
`TRANSMIT DIVERSITY OF A SPECIFIC DATA IN THE
`MANNER REQUIRED BY THE ’711 PATENT.
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,067,209 To Paulraj et al. (“Paulraj”) (Ex. 1005)
`34. Paulraj describes implementing “spatial multiplexing in conjunction with
`
`one or more multiple access protocols in a wireless network.” Ex. 1005 at Abstract.
`
`Paulraj focused on the problem of improving data transfer speed in multiple
`
`access environments. Ex. 1005 at 33 (“What is needed is a way to improve data
`
`transfer speed in the multiple access environments currently utilized for wireless
`
`communications within the constraints of available bandwidth.”).
`
`35. The invention of Paulraj focuses on spatial multiplexing to increase data
`
`transfer speed. While transmit diversity is also discussed, there is not even a
`
`suggestion to implement it at the same time using replicas of one or more ”specific
`
`data items”, let alone an explanation as to how a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art would do so.
`
`36.
`
`In its Institution Decision (Paper 9), the Board cites to the Petition (Paper 1)
`
`and description on FIG. 9A embodiment to show that Paulraj discloses one data
`
`stream 176, i.e. data item, can be transmitted by breaking it up into two substreams
`
`456 and 458 that could be transmitted by two antennas 136T and 134T. Optionally,
`
`additional block 314A could be used to add Diversity / S-T Coding /Beam Forming
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`and facilitate transmission of substreams via a form of diversity on additional
`
`antennas 942 and 940. See Paper 9 at 13-15 and Ex. 1005 26:10-60. However,
`
`substreams 456 and 458 necessarily have the same priority because they represent
`
`alternate symbols of a data item, datastream 176. Therefore, even if, arguendo,
`
`Patent Owner were to concede that substreams 456-458 are data items, they could
`
`not represent a data item and a specific data item, because they are of the same
`
`priority. Id. In the same instance, datastream 182, i.e. “Voice?”, is not applicable
`
`because it is transmitted in a different time slot.
`
`Ex. 1005 at Fig. 9A (highlighting added).
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`37. Evidenly, Paulraj does not disclose replicating a specific data item of the
`
`plurality of data items, and mapping the plurality of data items to at least one of a
`
`plurality of antennas such that the specific data item and the replica data item are
`
`transmitted from different antennas at the same time (where the specific data is
`
`data of a higher priority).
`
`B. “Achieving High Data Rates in CDMA Systems Using Blast
`Techniques” By Howard Huang, Harish Viswanathan, And G.J.
`Foschini (“Huang”) (Ex. 1006)
`38. The Petition’s Ground 1 reference, Huang, is a conference paper that
`
`describes allocating resources such as spreading codes, antennas, and power
`
`“efficiently among K high-speed data users” in a downlink system under idealized
`
`conditions, and plots the resulting spectral efficiencies. Ex. 1006 at 2316, Fig. 4.
`
`39. Huang provides only a narrow discussion focused on a demonstration of
`
`“potential for significant capacity gains from using multiple transmit and receive
`
`antennas in CDMA systems, [where] the results were based on assumptions such a
`
`perfect power control, perfect channel estimation and complex processing at the
`
`receiver.” Ex. 1006 at 2320 (emphasis added). Huang admits that “it remains for
`
`future work to study the effect of non-idealities that occur in practical systems and
`
`to consider channel coding to achieve significant fractions of the potential capacity
`
`gains.” Id. (emphasis added). Huang “studied a high-speed downlink CDMA
`
`system which uses multiple antenna transmit diversity, multicode transmission, and
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`space-time detectors” and developed and used “a novel technique for evaluating
`
`the system capacity.” Id.
`
`40. Huang does not disclose transmitting spatial multiplexing and transmit
`
`diversity simultaneously in a way claimed in the ‘711 Patent. Specifically,
`
`substreams in Huang are derived from a single datastream, i.e. data item, they all
`
`necessarily have same importance/ priority, whether is SM or TD modes.
`
`Therefore, Huang does not teach transmission of, nor allows for, transmission of a
`
`specific data item, with its replica at the same time, and simultaneously with other
`
`data items from other antennas.
`
`41. Notably, the results of Huang’s study “were based on assumptions such as
`
`perfect power control, perfect channel estimation and complex processing at the
`
`receiver.” Ex. 1006 at 2320 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Huang is focused on
`
`“evaluat[ing] the capacity of a downlink cellular CDMA system where the
`
`transmitters use multiple antennas and the receivers use space-time multiuser
`
`detection.” Ex. 1006 at 2316 (emphasis added).
`
`42. The majority of Huang is devoted to explaining the assumptions underlying
`
`the study and the calculation of spectral efficiency for four transmission
`
`configurations, where capacity is determined “in terms of the number of users per
`
`sector the system can support” and “spectral efficiency is given by the total data
`
`throughput per sector divided by the bandwidth.” Ex. 1006 at 2316.
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`43. None of the four transmission configurations discloses implementing
`
`transmit diversity for a specific data item at a same time with spatial multiplexing
`
`with one or more data streams of different importance/priority. Specifically,
`
`Huang’s discussion of “multicode” or “different-code” transmission and “transmit
`
`diversity” for a given number of transmit antennas does not, on its face, “map[] the
`
`plurality of data items to the at least one of the plurality of antennas such that the
`
`specific data item and the replica data item are transmitted from different antennas
`
`at a same time.” See, e.g., id. at Figure 1A-D.
`
`44. Further, Huang ultimately recommends not using simultaneous spatial
`
`multiplexing and transmit diversity, concluding that transmit diversity should not
`
`be used - “For the range of parameters we considered, the maximum spectral
`
`efficiency (4.0 bps/Hz per sector) was achieved using same-code transmission with
`
`M=4 transmit, and P=12 receive antennas, and no transmit diversity.” Ex. 1006 at
`
`2320.
`
`45.
`
` Huang does not disclose simultaneous spatial multiplexing and transmit
`
`diversity of any specific data item.
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 7,095,709 to Walton et al. (“Walton”) (Ex. 1008)
`46. The Petition’s Ground 1 reference, Walton, describes “using a number of
`
`diversity transmission modes depending on the capability of the receiver device
`
`and the channel conditions.” Ex. 1008 at 2:17-20. Like the Petition’s other
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`references, Walton does not disclose the simultaneous use of spatial multiplexing
`
`and transmit diversity in a MIMO transmission scheme.
`
`47. Walton focuses on “diversity transmission modes [that] attempt to achieve
`
`transmit diversity by establishing orthogonality among the multiple transmit
`
`antennas.” Ex. 1008 at 2:31-34. Walton is not focused on spatial multiplexing. In
`
`the instances where spatial multiplexing is briefly referenced, Walton states
`
`generally that “[t]he transmission modes may also include spatial multiplexing
`
`transmission modes and beam steering transmission modes, which may be used to
`
`achieve higher bit rates under certain favorable channel conditions.” Ex. 1008 at
`
`2:36-39; 9:63-65. Walton’s vague statements regarding transmission modes cannot
`
`be equated with implementation of transmit diversity for a specific data item at a
`
`same time with spatial multiplexing of a data stream.
`
`48. Where spatial multiplexing is mentioned, Walton describes switching
`
`between diversity transmission and spatial multiplexing, the prior art upon which
`
`the ’711 Patent aimed to improve. Ex. 1008, 19:61-66 (describing that the diversity
`
`transmission modes may be “fixed or dynamically selected”). Although Walton
`
`provides that “one diversity transmission mode may be used for all data-carrying
`
`subbands, or a separate diversity transmission mode may be selected for each data-
`
`carrying subband” or “for a given subband, it may be possible to use different
`
`diversity transmission modes for different sets of transmit antennas,” Walton
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`contains no disclosure or support for implementation of transmit diversity for a
`
`specific data item at a same time with spatial multiplexing of a data stream. Ex.
`
`1008 at 20:3-11.
`
`D. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0193146 to Wallace et
`al. (“Wallace”) (Ex. 1009)
`49. The Petition’s Ground 2 primary reference, Wallace, describes the use of
`
`“antenna diversity” to support “mixed mode (i.e., one transmitter communicating
`
`with a MIMO and/or MISO user and also with a SISO user).” Ex. 1009 at [0041].
`
`Petitioners allege that Wallace was publicly available as of December 19, 2002.
`
`Paper 1 at 44. Wallace, however, does not disclose implementing transmit diversity
`
`for a specific data item at a same time with spatial multiplexing of a data stream.
`
`Rather, Wallace describes selecting either spatial diversity or transmit diversity,
`
`and does not suggest implementing both spatial multiplexing and transmit diversity
`
`at the same time.
`
`50. Wallace describes handling mixed mode transmission by determining an
`
`“appropriate transmission scenario.” See, e.g., Ex. 1009 at [0105], [0106], [0110],
`
`[0123], [0125], [0126]. Wallace proposes the use of a base station to “determine[]
`
`the configuration and requirements of each communication link.” Ex. 1009 at
`
`[0121]. For example, the base stations of Walton determine whether “the mobile
`
`station has multiple receive antennas,” and if it does “[p]rocessing then continues
`
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`to step 418 to determine the particular model capability of the receiver, i.e., spatial
`
`diversity or pure diversity.” Ex. 1009 at [0105]. In this way, Wallace describes
`
`selecting either spatial diversity or transmit diversity. For example, Wallace
`
`explains “[i]f the link quality is good, spatial diversity is used, else pure diversity is
`
`applied.” Ex. 1009 at [0106]. Wallace further suggests that the base station should
`
`perform “the methods 400 and 500 of FIGS. 13 and 14, respectively,” i.e., either
`
`“pure diversity” or “spatial diversity.” Ex. 1009 at [0125]; Figures 13 and 14.
`
`51. To accomplish switching between spatial diversity or transmit diversity,
`
`Wallace describes requiring or requesting “information regarding the configuration
`
`and operating mode of each communication link,” or “information regarding the
`
`channel quality of a given link” to “determin[e] the appropriate configuration and
`
`processing for the FL [forward link or RL, reverse link].” Ex. 1009 at [0104]; see
`
`also id. at [0107]. The majority of Wallace consists of explaining “negotiating a
`
`transmission scenario in a mixed spectrum wireless communication system capable
`
`of both MISO and SISO traffic.” Ex. 1009 at 1 (Abstract).
`
`52. As discussed above, none of the references disclosed the simultaneous
`
`implementation of spatial multiplexing and transmit diversity required by the ’711
`
`Patent. In particular, the references, alone or in combination, do not disclose or
`
`suggest “maps the plurality of data items to the at least one of the plurality of
`
`antennas such that the specific data item and the replica data item are transmitted
`
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`from different antennas at a same time” as required by the claims of the ‘711
`
`Patent.
`
`VII. LACK OF MOTIVATION TO COMBINE PAULRAJ,
`WALTON AND HUANG
`53. Not only should all elements of a claim be disclosed by a reference, or a
`
`combination of references for a finding of obviousness, there must also be shown a
`
`motivation to combine the references as proposed by a Petitioner.
`
`54. The Petition attempts to interpret Paulraj as having spatial multiplexing and
`
`diversity simultaneously. Walton is explicitly teaching spatial multiplexing for
`
`high data rates and diversity for low data rates. See e.g. Walton at 9:63-65 and
`
`10:4-5. That is, Walton is teaching only a single mode at a time which is
`
`incompatible with the scenario in which the Petition seeks to use it, simultaneous
`
`spatial multiplexing (one mode) and diversity (another mode). Combining Walton
`
`with Paulraj would contravene the purpose of Paulraj.
`
`55. Walton does not cure the deficiency of Paulraj with respect to “replicating a
`
`specific data item of the plurality of data items, and mapping the plurality of data
`
`items to at least one of a plurality of antennas such that the specific data item and
`
`the replica data item are transmitted from different antennas at the same time.”
`
`56. A POSITA would not look to combine Walton with Paulraj for SM, TD or
`
`for using TD for channels that experience poor transmission quality because
`
`
`
`20
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2002 - Page 21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01476
`Patent 7,764,711
`
`Paulraj already discloses these features to some extent.
`
`57.
`
`In its Institution Decision, the Board cites to the Petition relying on Walton’s
`
`disclosure that “diversity transmission modes may be used for overhead channels
`
`on the downlink, such as broadcast, paging, and other common channels.” See
`
`Paper 9 at 15. Apparently this was intended to bring the specific data item of
`
`higher importance than the other data items from Walton to Paulraj. However, this
`
`does not work because substreams 454-456 are necessarily of the same priority and
`
`it would be nonsensical to make alternate symbols of datastream 176 to have
`
`different importance/priority. Also bringing Walton’s higher importance
`
`datastream to either datastream 176 or 182 would not work in view of the ‘711
`
`Patent because datastreams 176 and 182 are not transmitted at the same time, i.e.
`
`they are transmitted in different time slots.
`
`58.
`
`In addition to Paulraj and Walton being