IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`Apple Inc., and
`ZTE (USA) Inc.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Case: IPR2018-01477
`
`United States Patent No. 7,848,439
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BRANIMIR VOJCIC
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 1
`
`
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`Apple Inc., and
`ZTE (USA) Inc.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Case: IPR2018-01477
`
`United States Patent No. 7,848,439
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BRANIMIR VOJCIC
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`I, BRANIMIR VOJCIC, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am competent to testify, and, if called upon during an Inter Partes
`
`Review (IPR) proceeding, would do so. If called upon as a witness, I could
`
`competently testify to the truth of each statement herein.
`
`2.
`
`I was asked to provide an opinion on the Petition asserted in IPR2018-
`
`01477, regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439 (’439 patent) (Ex. 1001), statements
`
`made in the Petition, and exhibits in support of the Petition, including the
`
`declaration of Dr. Andrew Singer (Ex. 1003). In particular, I was asked to provide
`
`an opinion on the Petition’s Ground 1, which asserts unpatentability based on a
`
`combination of the Li patent (Ex. 1004) and the Walton patent (Ex. 1005), and the
`
`Petition’s Ground 2, which asserts unpatentability based on the combination of Li,
`
`Walton, further in view of the Vijayan patent (Ex. 1006).
`
`3. My opinion is based upon my knowledge and experience, and my
`
`review of the ’439 patent, the Petition, and exhibits in support of the Petition.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`4.
`
`I am an expert in wireless technology and other areas of
`
`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
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`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
`
`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, and I was a course director for a number of courses in
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`communications. I have supervised students mostly in the areas of communications
`
`and coding theory, wireless communications/networks, including 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
`
`communications industry and various Government agencies, such as the 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 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. Ex.
`
`2002.
`
`10.
`
`I have also received awards for my work. In 1995, I received the
`
`prestigious National Science Foundation Faculty Early CAREER Development
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`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. These also include conference submissions on
`
`“Adaptive modulation in ad-hoc DS/CDMA packet radio networks,” at Proc. IEEE
`
`GLOBECOM (Dec. 2003) and IEEE Trans. on Communications (Apr. 2006). Ex.
`
`2002 at 7 and 11.
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`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)
`
`Channels.”
`
`14. A copy of my CV is attached as Exhibit 2002.
`
`II. THE ’439 PATENT
`
`15.
`
`I have reviewed, among other things, the ’439 patent (Ex. 1001), the
`
`prosecution file (Ex. 1002), the Petition, the Singer declaration (Ex. 1003), the Li
`
`patent (Ex. 1004), the Walton patent (Ex. 1005), the Vijayan patent (Ex. 1006), and
`
`all other documents filed in this proceeding.
`
`16. The invention in the ’439 patent relates to communication
`
`apparatuses, systems, and methods for carrying out adaptive modulation and
`
`coding in adaptive transmission technology in subcarrier communication systems.
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:7-12. In particular, the communication systems in the ’439 patent are
`
`wireless communication orthogonal frequency division multiplexing systems or
`
`“OFDM” systems. Ex. 1001 at 1:12-14.
`
`17. Wireless communication systems are used in cellular networks that
`
`service modern day cellular phones. Cellular networks received their name because
`
`their coverage areas are divided into regions called “cells.” Typically, cellular
`
`towers within each cellular network each have one or more base stations, which
`
`communicate with cellular phones within the cell, and each base station may be
`
`assigned a unique frequency band from neighboring base stations to avoid
`
`unnecessary interference, among other things. In general terms, a cellular call is
`
`established when a cellular phone transmits RF signals to the base station on its
`
`particular frequency band, wherein those signals are then routed to a second,
`
`receiving cellular phone. In exemplary OFDM systems, a base station’s allocated
`
`frequency band can be divided into multiple orthogonal subcarriers used to
`
`communicate with one or more cellular devices.
`
`18. Base stations must be able to communicate with numerous cellular
`
`phones at the same time while accounting for a whole host of changing conditions,
`
`including constantly moving callers, unfavorable weather conditions, and other
`
`factors that can interfere with the call signal. OFDM systems can employ “adaptive
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`modulation/coding technology” which “is capable of effectively improving a
`
`throughput and an error rate (BER) of a system.” Ex. 1001 at 1:37-40. “The basic
`
`concept of AMC technology is adaptively changing one or more types of
`
`transmission power, symbol transmission rate, coordinate size, coding rate and
`
`coding mechanism.” Ex. 1001 at 1:43-46. This means, “when channel conditions
`
`are good, transmitting a large amount of information to increase spectrum
`
`utilization rate, and, when channel conditions are poor, transmitting a small
`
`amount of information to ensure a certain receiving BER request.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:46-52.
`
`19. The ’439 patent identifies two types of adaptive modulation and
`
`coding (AMC) that existed at the time: “AMC based on subcarriers and AMC
`
`based on subbands.” Ex. 1001 at 2:3-4. AMC based on subcarriers refers to
`
`“carrying out transmission using a modulation method and a coding method that
`
`are different per OFDM subcarrier taking each subcarrier as a minimum unit of
`
`adaptivity.” Ex. 1001 at 2:4-8. It was well-known in the art that such techniques
`
`were very difficult to implement in an actual system. The second method of
`
`conducting AMC based on subbands was more typically used. “Subbands” as
`
`defined in the ’439 patent refers to subcarrier groups comprised of subcarriers in
`
`neighboring positions on the frequency domain. Ex. 1001 at 2:19-21.
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`
`20. AMC based on subbands had several drawbacks. To address this, the
`
`communication apparatus disclosed in claim 1 of the ’439 patent used “a pattern
`
`storage section that stores in advance patterns for selecting subbands constituting
`
`the subband groups” where each subband group is “comprised of the subbands
`
`selected based on the patterns stored in the pattern storage section.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`13:21-27. The ’439 patent disclosed that these subband grouping patterns were “a
`
`fixed rule to as to give several subband groups, and then selecting modulation and
`
`coding parameters for use during joint coding with respect to each subband group.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 5:40-44.
`
`21. Storing patterns in advance of channel estimation meant that both the
`
`cellular device and the base station know beforehand which subbands (and, by
`
`implication, subcarriers) are used to transmit reference signals, thereby decreasing
`
`the amount of information that must be sent between the two devices. This has the
`
`potential advantages of reducing power consumption and increasing battery life
`
`within the cellular device and improving the network capacity on the base station
`
`side for the wireless provider.
`
`III. PERSONS SKILLED IN THE ART
`
`22.
`
`I believe that a person skilled in the art of the technology described in
`
`the ’439 patent would at least have both a bachelor’s degree in Electrical
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`Engineering (or an equivalent field) and three (3) years’ experience in wireless
`
`communications or an MSc degree in Electrical Engineering (or an equivalent
`
`field) and one (1) year of experience in wireless communications.
`
`23.
`
`In light of the above, I am a person skilled in the art of the technology
`
`described in the ’439 patent. I am also a person skilled in the art of the technology
`
`of the ’439 patent under the perspective of such a hypothetical person advanced by
`
`Dr. Singer. Ex. 1003 ¶ 33.
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed that expert opinion testimony is generally
`
`permitted 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.
`
`25.
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`qualification in the pertinent art.
`
`26.
`
`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 success in doing so.
`
`27.
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`28. 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
`
`the technology and the issues addressed herein.
`
`V.
`
`INACCURACIES IN THE PETITION AND SINGER
`DECLARATION
`
`29. The Petition’s Ground 1 is based on a combination of the Li patent
`
`(Ex. 1004) and the Walton patent (Ex. 1005). The Petition’s Ground 2 is based on
`
`a combination of Li, Walton, and the Vijayan patent (Ex. 1006). The Petition and
`
`the accompanying Singer declaration make a number of inaccurate statements with
`
`respect to its claims regarding obviousness and motivation to combine. I have
`
`included a discussion of several inaccuracies I have identified to date below.
`
`A.
`
`Inaccuracies with Respect to Li
`
`30. With respect to the Li reference, the Petition and Singer declaration
`
`arbitrarily mix and match several incompatible embodiments from Li to try to
`
`prove, with the benefit of a hindsight, that Li discloses different limitations in the
`
`’439 patent. For example, for element 1(f), the Petition relies on its discussion
`
`related to element 1(b), to demonstrate that Li teaches “joining subbands/clusters
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`into groups” which constitute “patterns stored in advance. Petition at 27. Element
`
`1(b) relies on Figure 6 in Li, shown below, to demonstrate that “Li teaches that
`
`subbands/clusters can be further joined into cluster groups”:
`
`
`
`Petition at 18.
`
`31. However, the predetermined clusters in Figure 6 are incompatible
`
`with the clusters that the Petition relies on for element 1(a). That is, the clusters
`
`used for element 1(a), as described above, are provided by the base station to the
`
`subscriber unit on the fly in real time, and they are not based on a predetermined
`
`pattern that is stored in advance, because the broadcasted availability occurs on a
`
`per cluster basis. This is clear from the Petition, which states:
`
`Li teaches channel estimation across the full frequency
`bandwidth:
`
`For downlink channels, each subscriber first measures
`the channel and interference information for all the
`subcarriers . . . The feedback may comprise channel and
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`
`interference information (e.g., signal-to-interference-
`plus-noise-ratio information) on all subcarriers or just a
`portion of subcarriers.
`
`
`Petition at 14 (emphasis in original). When first introducing the Li patent, the
`
`Petition also cites to the disclosure in Li stating that:
`
`“The techniques disclosed herein are described using
`OFDMA” wherein “each subscriber first measures the
`channel and interference information for all the
`subcarriers and then selects multiple subcarriers with
`good performance (e.g., a high signal-to-interference plus
`noise ratio (SINR)) and feeds back the information on
`these candidate subcarriers to the base station.”
`
`
`Petition at 9-10 (emphasis in original). Again, this is significantly different and
`
`incompatible with the method of selecting subbands disclosed by the ’439 patent,
`
`which selects subbands (and, therefore, subcarriers) based on predetermined
`
`subband grouping patterns that are stored in advance and known to both the
`
`cellular device and base station.
`
`B.
`
`Inaccuracies with Respect to Li and Walton
`
`32. The Petition cites a portion of Li that discloses groups of subcarrier
`
`clusters. Petition at 11 (citing Ex. 1004 at 11:61-67) (“The clusters may be
`
`allocated in groups.”). The Petition claims that these collections of clusters are
`
`analogous to the “subband groups” of the ’439 patent, but admits that Li does not
`
`teach “choosing the same parameters for all clusters within the group as required
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`by the Challenged Claims.” Petition at 11-12. For example, for the embodiments in
`
`Li used by the Petition to prove the existence of a “subband group,” the Petition
`
`admits that SINR values for each cluster is reported, rather than modulation and
`
`coding parameters. Petition at 18 (“Li teaches that the handset knows which
`
`clusters are included in a group and that both a group index and SINR values for
`
`each cluster within a selected group are communicated to the base station”); Ex.
`
`1004 at 12:9-19.
`
`33. To cure that deficiency in Li, the Petition relies on the Walton patent,
`
`and states that:
`
`Walton describes “[t]echniques . . . to select the proper
`transmission mode for a data transmission in a multi-
`channel communication system with multiple
`transmission channels having varying SNRs. A suitable
`transmission mode may be determined for each data
`stream to be independently processed (e.g., coded and
`modulated) and transmitted on a designated group of
`transmission channels.”
`
`
`Petition at 12 (citing Ex. 1005 at 2:21-27).
`
`34.
`
`I note that Walton uses transmission channels, i.e., subcarriers, for its
`
`OFDM communication system. Ex. 1005 at 10:25-46. Walton states: “An OFDM
`
`system effectively partitions the overall system bandwidth into multiple (N)
`
`orthogonal subbands, which may also be referred to as tones, bins, and frequency
`
`channels.” Ex. 1005 at 4:13-15. Thus, when Walton refers to OFDM channels or
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`subbands, he actually refers to subcarriers, similar to Vijayan (see below).
`
`35. Therefore, Walton does not disclose selecting “modulation parameters
`
`and coding parameters per subband group” as repeatedly stated throughout the
`
`claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 13:1-2 (emphasis added). This is because Walton at
`
`most only teaches parameter selection and reporting on a single set of subcarriers
`
`(i.e., a subband), rather than parameter selection and reporting for an entire group
`
`of subbands.
`
`36. The Petition incorrectly states that “Walton, like Li and the ’439
`
`Patent, discloses an OFDM communication system directed to minimizing AMC
`
`feedback overhead by selecting modulation and coding parameters for an entire
`
`group of subcarriers.” Petition at 13. The ’439 patent is not “selecting modulation
`
`and coding parameters for an entire group of subcarriers,” but rather selecting
`
`“modulation parameters and coding parameters per subband group” as repeatedly
`
`stated throughout the claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 13:1-2 (emphasis added).
`
`Therefore, neither Li nor Walton discloses this limitation from the ’439 patent.
`
`37. The Petition also relies on the Walton patent to prove other
`
`limitations, such as the limitation in claims 8 and 11 of the ’439 patent that states:
`
`“a number of information bits obtained by assigning a weight per subband group to
`
`a sum of information bits that are able to be assigned to all of the subbands within
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`the subband group, is assigned to the subband group.” The Petition states that “the
`
`back-off factor described in Walton is such a weighting value . . . .” Petition at 31,
`
`33-34, 41.
`
`38. For the same reasons discussed above, Walton also fails to disclose
`
`this limitation. Specifically, Walton discloses that the “back-off factor” is
`
`determined and applied to “a group of transmission channels with varying SNRs,”
`
`i.e., a group of subcarriers, rather than determined and applied to an entire group
`
`of subbands, i.e., a subband group. Ex. 1005 at 8:30-46.
`
`C.
`
`Inaccuracies with Respect to Vijayan
`
`39. The Petition relies on Vijayan for Ground 2 for claims 2 and 4.
`
`Petition at 41-46.
`
`40. The ’439 patent defines “subbands” as groups of “subcarriers in
`
`neighboring positions on the frequency domain.” Ex. 1001 at 2:20-22. I note that
`
`publications within the field sometimes use the term “subband” to refer to what are
`
`actually “subcarriers” (as defined in the ’439 patent). Walton is one such
`
`publication, where a subband is referred to a frequency-bin, frequency subchannel
`
`or subcarrier. Ex. 1005 at 4:13-18.
`
`41. Vijayan is another such publication. Although Vijayan uses the word
`
`“subband,” that term in Vijayan actually refers to individual “subcarriers” instead
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`of “groups of subcarriers.” For example, Vijayan expressly states: “These
`
`subbands are also referred to as tones, carriers, subcarriers, bins, and frequency
`
`channels.” Ex. 1006 at 1:29-30. I understand that the Petition agrees that Vijayan’s
`
`use of the term “subband” actually refers to subcarriers: “Vijayan uses the word
`
`‘subband,’ which is equivalent to a subcarrier in the ’439 Patent.” Petition at 16.
`
`42. Moreover, Vijayan relates to the allocation of data resources to
`
`physical layer channels (PLCs), where a PLC is defined as “a data channel, a
`
`traffic channel, or some other terminology.” Ex. 1006 at 4:16-19. These PLCs/data
`
`channels are not the same as the ’439 patent’s subband groups, which consist of
`
`multiple subbands and each subband consists of multiple carriers.
`
`43. Dr. Singer and the Petition rely upon an incorrect understanding of
`
`Vijayan for a number of limitations, including for limitations related to “subband
`
`groups.” In particular, Dr. Singer claims that Vijayan discloses “combining
`
`subbands into subband groups.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 39. However, Dr. Singer’s
`
`characterization of Vijayan is incorrect because the PLC of Vijayan is not
`
`equivalent to a “subband group” of the ’439 patent, and Vijayan does not cure this
`
`deficiency in Li or Walton. Moreover, subbands in a group could exhibit different
`
`channel behaviors and performance (as disclosed in the ’439 patent), and it would
`
`then be necessary to determine modulation and coding parameters for the entire
`
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`subband group accounting for these differences. Ex. 1001 at 11:19-65. Dr. Singer
`
`does not explain how to address the problem of selecting a joint modulation and
`
`coding scheme in such a situation.
`
`VI. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL WOULD NOT COMBINE THE
`LI PATENT WITH THE WALTON PATENT.
`
`44. A POSITA would not be motivated to combine Li and Walton
`
`because of the incompatibility between the two references. Specifically, the
`
`Petition relies on the embodiment of Figure 6 in Li for the group of subbands
`
`(clusters), as stated above. Petition at 18, 27, 29. Li expressly states the objective
`
`of separating clusters in frequency domain to provide frequency diversity, i.e., the
`
`clusters within a group do not occupy adjacent frequencies, or else they would not
`
`facilitate the desired frequency diversity within a group, i.e., the probability that at
`
`least some clusters would provide high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Ex. 1004 at
`
`11:54-61.
`
`45.
`
`In Walton, all subcarriers in a group of subcarriers occupy a
`
`contiguous space in the frequency domain, which is contrary to the stated objective
`
`in Li. Ex. 1005 at 12:25-46. Moreover, the use of an average SNR, with back-off,
`
`over all subcarriers in Walton wastes power and frequency-time resources
`
`compared to Li (and also of the ‘439 patent). That is because, in Walton, data is
`
`sent through subcarriers with an SNR below the average SNR, but such data
`
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`cannot be decoded. Conversely, data is sent through subcarriers with an SNR
`
`above such a threshold, such that resources are wasted because less information is
`
`transmitted than the amount possible. For the stated reasons, a POSITA would not
`
`be motivated to combine Li and Walton.
`
`VII. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL WOULD NOT COMBINE THE
`LI PATENT WITH THE VIJAYAN PATENT.
`
`46. The Petition and the Singer declaration both conclude that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in Li,
`
`Walton, and Vijayan. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49-51. I disagree with this conclusion, because a
`
`person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine these
`
`references, for at least the reasons above and further below.
`
`47. As discussed above, the Petition relies on Figure 6 in Li for the
`
`“patterns for selecting subbands constituting the subband groups.” Petition at 18,
`
`27, 29. The relevant disclosure in Li states that the clusters in Figure 6 “are spaced
`
`far apart over the entire bandwidth.” Ex. 1004 at 11:52-53 and Fig. 6.
`
`48. The clusters within a group do not occupy adjacent frequencies, or
`
`else they would not facilitate the desired frequency diversity within a group, i.e.,
`
`the probability that at least some clusters would provide high signal-to-noise ratio
`
`(SNR). Ex. 1004 at 11:54-61.
`
`49. Vijayan teaches that its PLCs are rectangular shapes comprised of
`
`
`
`20
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`contiguous subcarriers, thereby reducing the amount of overhead signaling
`
`necessary to define such rectangles by requiring only four parameters, such as the
`
`starting and ending positions in frequency and time, respectively. Ex. 1006 at 10:7-
`
`20. Although Vijayan has an embodiment with uniformly spaced subcarriers in
`
`frequency domain, this arrangement is discouraged by Walton in favor of
`
`rectangular shapes comprised of contiguous subcarriers, because of its stated
`
`objective of reducing signaling overhead, which is also an objective in Li and the
`
`’439 patent and because of conflicting design goals with respect to power
`
`consumption (on time), diversity, bit rate, and buffering. Ex. 1006 at 9:21-47 and
`
`10:7-20. Li’s arrangement with clusters that are widely spaced over the entire
`
`frequency band would be incompatible with Vijayan’s stated objective reducing
`
`overhead signaling for these shapes, as Li’s arrangement would require a manifold
`
`increase of overhead signaling compared to that of Vijayan, because Li feedbacks
`
`SINR information for all clusters. Ex. 1004 at 12:10-11.
`
`50. Moreover, the contiguous spacing of subbands (subcarriers) in the
`
`rectangles of Vijayan contradicts Li’s express motivation of spacing subbands
`
`further apart to achieve frequency diversity. Ex. 1004 at 11:54-61. Combining Li
`
`and Vijayan, as suggested by Singer, would be undesirable to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, who would recognize that the two configurations would be
`
`
`
`21
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`incompatible.
`
`
`
` I
`
` declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
`
`that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`December 13, 2018
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 22
`
`
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
