`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
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
