UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. 2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ANDREW C. SINGER
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 1
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. 2018-01477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ANDREW C. SINGER
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Andrew C. Singer, hereby declare the following:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I, Andrew C. Singer, have been retained by counsel for Petitioner as a
`
`technical expert in the above-captioned case. Specifically, I have been asked to
`
`render certain opinions in regards to the IPR petition with respect to U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,848,439 (“the ’439 Patent”). I understand that the Challenged Claims are claims
`
`1-11. My opinions are limited to those Challenged Claims.
`
`2. My compensation in this matter is not based on the substance of my
`
`opinions or the outcome of this matter nor do I have any financial interest in the
`
`outcome of this proceeding. I am being compensated at an hourly rate of $500 for
`
`my analysis and testimony in this case.
`
`3.
`
`In reaching my opinions in this matter, I have reviewed the following
`
`materials:
`
`• Exhibit 1001 – U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439 to She (“the ’439 Patent”);
`• Exhibit 1004 – U.S. Patent No. 6,904,283 (“Li”);
`• Exhibit 1005 – U.S. Patent No. 7,885,228 (“Walton”);
`• Exhibit 1006 – U.S. Patent No. 7,221,680 (“Vijayan”);
`• Exhibit 1007 – John C. Proakis and Masoud Salehi, Communication
`Systems Engineering, Prentice Hall (1994) (“Proakis”);
`• Exhibit 1008 – Edfors, Ove et al. “An introduction to orthogonal
`frequency-division multiplexing.” September 1996.
`http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~thush/engn3214/OFDM.pdf (“Edfors”);
`• Exhibit 1009 – Paulraj, Arogyaswami et al. Introduction to Space-Time
`Wireless Communications. Cambridge University Press. 2003
`(“Paulraj”); and
`• Exhibit 1010 – U.S. Patent No. 3,488,445 (“Chang”);
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Background and Qualifications
`
`4.
`
`I am currently a Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering, where I hold a Fox Family endowed Professorship. I also serve as
`
`Associate Dean for Innovation and Entrepreneurship for the College of Engineering
`
`at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
`
`5.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1990; a Master of
`
`Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology in 1992; and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1996.
`
`6.
`
`Since 1990, I have been active in the signal processing and
`
`communications fields. I have authored and/or co-authored numerous publications,
`
`including books and refereed journal publications and conference articles on the
`
`topic of signal processing and communication systems and devices. A focus of many
`
`of these publications is on methods for adaptive modulation, coding, transmission,
`
`and reception in wireless communication systems in general, and in orthogonal
`
`frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) and orthogonal frequency division
`
`multiple-access (OFDMA) systems in particular.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`I have designed, built, and patented various components of
`
`communication and signal processing systems. These include various radio-
`
`frequency, SONAR, LIDAR, air-acoustic and underwater acoustic signal processing
`
`systems as well as wire-line, wireless, optical and underwater acoustic
`
`communication systems. An important aspect in many of these systems is the design
`
`of adaptive modulation, coding and transmission for wireless communication
`
`systems.
`
`8.
`
`I have taught both undergraduate and graduate level courses in signal
`
`processing, and communication systems. For example, I have taught Digital Signal
`
`Processing and Embedded DSP Laboratory classes. Additional examples of courses
`
`I have taught at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign include: Advanced
`
`Digital Signal Processing; Digital Signal Processing; Digital Signal Processing
`
`Laboratory; Probability with Engineering Applications; Random Processes; Optical
`
`Communication Systems; Advanced Lectures in Engineering Entrepreneurship;
`
`Embedded DSP Laboratory; Developing Design Thinking; Technology
`
`Commercialization; and Senior Design Laboratory. I have also overseen numerous
`
`PhD and Master’s students researching topics related to signal processing and
`
`communication systems.
`
`9.
`
`I was the co-founder and CEO of Intersymbol Communications, Inc., a
`
`communications component manufacturer focused on the development of signal
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`processing-enhanced components used in optical communication networks.
`
`Intersymbol Communications, Inc. was acquired by Finisar Corporation, the world's
`
`largest supplier of optical communication modules and subsystems.
`
`10.
`
`I was appointed the Associate Dean for Innovation and Entrepreneurship
`
`in the College of Engineering, where I direct a wide range of entrepreneurship
`
`activities. These include the campus-wide Illinois Innovation Prize, celebrating our
`
`most innovative students on campus, as well as our annual Cozad New Venture
`
`Competition. I am also the Principal Investigator for the National Science
`
`Foundation’s Innovation Corps Sites program at the University of Illinois, working
`
`with faculty and student startup companies.
`
`11. My research and commercial experience led to my authoring of
`
`numerous papers. I have authored over 200 papers on digital signal processing and
`
`communication systems, several of which were voted "Best Paper of the Year" by
`
`technical committees of the IEEE. Citing these and other contributions, I was elected
`
`Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") “for
`
`contributions to signal processing techniques for digital communication.” I was also
`
`selected as a Distinguished Lecturer of the Signal Processing Society.
`
`12.
`
`I hold ten granted U.S. patents, all in the field of communication
`
`systems.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`13.
`
`In summary, I have over 25 years of experience related to signal
`
`processing and communication systems.
`
`14.
`
`I have attached my curriculum vitae as Appendix A, which includes a
`
`list of all publications I have authored within the last ten years.
`
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`15.
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However,
`
`counsel has informed me that in proceedings before the USPTO the claims of an
`
`unexpired patent are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of
`
`the specification from the perspective of one skilled in the art. The broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather,
`
`the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition
`
`in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the
`
`specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would
`
`reach. I have been informed that the ’439 patent has not expired.
`
`16.
`
`I have also been informed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”) may soon apply the standard applied by Article III courts (i.e., the Phillips
`
`standard). I have applied the plain and ordinary meaning of all remaining claim
`
`terms. I believe the plain and ordinary meanings I’ve applied are consistent with
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`both the BRI and Phillips standards, and I do not believe any claim terms require
`
`express construction to resolve the proposed grounds of rejection discussed herein.
`
`17.
`
`I have also been informed that the implicit or inherent disclosures of a
`
`prior art reference may anticipate the claimed invention. Specifically, if a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known that
`
`the claimed subject matter is necessarily present in a prior art reference, then the
`
`prior art reference may “anticipate” the claim. Therefore, a claim is “anticipated” by
`
`the prior art if each and every limitation of the claim is found, either expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single item of prior art.
`
`18. Counsel has also informed me that a person cannot obtain a patent on an
`
`invention if his or her invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the invention was made. A conclusion of obviousness may
`
`be founded upon more than a single item of prior art. In determining whether prior
`
`art references render a claim obvious, counsel has informed me that courts consider
`
`the following factors: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3) the level of skill in the pertinent art,
`
`and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. In addition, the obviousness
`
`inquiry should not be done in hindsight. Instead, the obviousness inquiry should be
`
`done through the eyes of one of skill in the relevant art at the time the patent was
`
`filed.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`19.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent claim
`
`obvious, counsel has informed me that courts allow a technical expert to consider
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, including the fact that one of skill in the art
`
`would regularly look to the disclosures in patents, trade publications, journal articles,
`
`industry standards, product
`
`literature and documentation,
`
`texts describing
`
`competitive technologies, requests for comment published by standard setting
`
`organizations, and materials from industry conferences. I believe that all of the
`
`references that my opinions in this IPR are based upon are well within the range of
`
`references a person of ordinary skill in the art would consult to address the type of
`
`problems described in the Challenged Claims.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed that the United States Supreme Court’s most
`
`recent statement on the standard for determining whether a patent is obvious was
`
`stated in 2007 in the KSR decision. Specifically, I understand that the existence of
`
`an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements of the
`
`prior art is a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness.
`
`Thus, the teaching suggestion-motivation test is not to be applied rigidly in an
`
`obviousness analysis. In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is
`
`obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee
`
`controls. Instead, the important consideration is the objective reach of the claim. In
`
`other words, if the claim extends to what is obvious, then the claim is invalid. I
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`further understand the obviousness analysis often necessitates consideration of the
`
`interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the
`
`technological community or present in the marketplace, and the background
`
`knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. All of these issues
`
`may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine
`
`the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent.
`
`21.
`
`I also understand that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a precise
`
`teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim need not be
`
`sought out because it is appropriate to take account of the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. I understand that the
`
`prior art considered can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of
`
`endeavor at the time of invention and can provide a reason for combining the
`
`elements of the prior art in the manner claimed. In other words, the prior art need
`
`not be directed towards solving the same specific problem as the problem addressed
`
`by the patent. Further, the individual prior art references themselves need not all be
`
`directed towards solving the same problem. Under the KSR obviousness standard,
`
`common sense is important and should be considered. Common sense teaches that
`
`familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.
`
`22.
`
`I also understand that the fact that a particular combination of prior art
`
`elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious even
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it is
`
`likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. I further
`
`understand that in many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious
`
`techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather
`
`than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an invention. I
`
`understand that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do more than
`
`yield predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that for a patent claim to be obvious, the claim must be
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I
`
`understand that the factors to consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art include (1) the educational level and experience of people working in the field
`
`at the time the invention was made, (2) the types of problems faced in the art and the
`
`solutions found to those problems, and (3) the sophistication of the technology in the
`
`field.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that at least the following rationales may support a finding
`
`of obviousness:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
`Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`25.
`
`Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`“Obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified,
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`A predictable variation of work in the same or a different field of
`endeavor, which a person of ordinary skill would be able to implement;
`If, at the time of the alleged invention, there existed a known problem
`for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s
`claim;
`Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`use in either the same field or a different one based on technological
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and/or
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior-art reference or to
`combine prior-art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`I understand that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is established,
`
`the
`
`final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an invention
`
`would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which include: (a)
`
`commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a
`
`long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of others to find the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention
`
`by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the
`
`invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of independent simultaneous invention
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`within a comparatively short space of time; (h) teaching away from the invention in
`
`the prior art.
`
`26.
`
` I further understand that secondary considerations evidence is only
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art features.
`
`The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. While I understand that Patent
`
`Owner has not offered any secondary considerations at this time, I will supplement
`
`my opinions in the event that Patent Owner raises secondary considerations during
`
`the course of this proceeding.
`
`III. OPINION
`A. Background of the Technology
`
`27. Electrical communication systems send information from a source to
`
`one or more destinations. Proakis (Ex. 1007) at 5. As shown in the following
`
`functional block diagram, the typical communication system consists of an
`
`information source, a transmitter, a physical channel, a receiver, and an output
`
`transducer:
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`28. Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) is a commonly
`
`used communication scheme that transmits data using orthogonal subcarriers
`
`between a transmitter and a receiver. OFDM can be used as a transmission scheme
`
`between a base station and a mobile station. OFDM has existed since at least the
`
`1960s. Edfors (Ex. 1008) at 1.
`
`29. Modulation and coding techniques in wireless communication systems
`
`such as radio have existed since at least 1933. Paulraj (Ex. 1009) at 2 (“A key
`
`advance was made in 1933, when Armstrong invented frequency modulation (FM),
`
`which made possible high quality radio communications.”). OFDM dates back to
`
`the mid 60s, for example, to the work by Robert Chang at Bell Labs. U.S. Patent No.
`
`3,488,445 to Chang (Ex. 1010) (“Chang”), filed in 1966, describes an “orthogonal
`
`frequency multiplex data transmission system.” As described by Chang, OFDM
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`transmits coded and modulated data on “a plurality of mutually orthogonal carrier
`
`waves such that overlapping, but band-limited, frequency spectra are produced
`
`without causing interchannel and intersymbol interference.” Id. at Abstract. These
`
`plurality of carriers are frequently referred to as subcarriers, and the band of
`
`frequencies spanned by the data modulated onto a given subcarrier is often referred
`
`to as a subband. It has long been known in the field that groups of subcarriers can be
`
`allocated to a particular user to increase overall throughput for that user. These
`
`groups of multiple subcarriers are often referred to as subbands, subband groups, or
`
`subcarrier groups.
`
`30. The physical channel is the physical medium that is used to send the
`
`signal from the transmitter to the receiver. Proakis (Ex. 1007) at 7. In wireless
`
`communications systems on Earth, the physical channel is the atmosphere. Id. In
`
`radio communications, an antenna radiates electromagnetic energy into the
`
`atmosphere in a specified frequency range. Id. at 15. Noise in the atmosphere (e.g.,
`
`lightning, rain, thermal noise, etc.), other man-made noises, interference caused by
`
`nearby users, and many other factors can degrade the quality of the signal. Id. at 7,
`
`19.
`
`Even for communications between a base station and a single user’s cellular handset,
`
`there can be significant differences in the channel quality among the subcarriers
`
`available to be allocated for that user’s communications. As channel quality
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`increases, one can increase the bit throughput of that channel without risking errors
`
`at reception. Accordingly, as explained in the background section of the ’439 Patent,
`
`it was known in the prior art that methods of Adaptive Modulation/Coding (“AMC”)
`
`could be used to (1) measure the channel quality of available subcarriers and (2)
`
`select optimal modulation and coding schemes (which dictate throughput) to
`
`maximize system throughput based on the current channel quality. See ’439 Patent
`
`(Ex. 1001) at 1:34-2:31. These prior art AMC techniques used channel quality
`
`measurements to both determine which subcarriers or groups of subcarriers were
`
`allocated to a user and to select proper coding and modulation schemes. Id. Lastly,
`
`the ’439 Patent also explains that it was known in the prior art to combine groups of
`
`subcarriers into subbands (or subband groups) for allocation. Id.
`
`31. Therefore, the OFDM communications and corresponding modulation
`
`and coding techniques, AMC, and subband grouping were well developed by
`
`November 19, 2004.
`
`B.
`
`32.
`
`Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I was asked to provide my opinion as to the level of skill of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) of the ’439 Patent at the time of the
`
`claimed invention, which counsel has told me to assume is November 19, 2004. In
`
`determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art of
`
`the ’439 Patent, I considered several factors, including the type of problems
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`encountered in the art, the solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made in the field, the sophistication of the technology, and the
`
`education level of active workers in the field. I also placed myself back in the time
`
`frame of the claimed invention and considered the colleagues with whom I had
`
`worked at that time.
`
`33.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been a
`
`person having a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent plus
`
`three years of experience working with digital communication systems or in network
`
`engineering or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering with an emphasis on
`
`communication systems or the equivalent plus one year of experience working with
`
`digital communication systems or in network engineering.
`
`34. My opinion is based on my experience in hiring and leading technical
`
`teams in areas related to the ’439 Patent and its supporting technologies, and on
`
`working with others in these same technical fields. Additionally, I was at least a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of the ’439 Patent.
`
`C. Summary of Prior Art
`
`1.
`Li
`35. Li describes an OFDMA (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple
`
`Access) communication system with subcarrier allocation in which subcarriers are
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`partitioned into groups called clusters. Li (Ex. 1004) at Abstract. The clusters are
`
`used in communication between a base station and a mobile handset (“subscriber”).
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 9. A POSITA would understand that the “cluster” terminology used by Li
`
`is analogous to “subbands” used elsewhere in the art, including in the ’439 Patent.
`
`36. Li discloses an adaptive modulation and coding (AMC) technique by
`
`which the subscriber terminal (cellular handset) estimates the SINR for each cluster
`
`based on pilot symbols received from the base station. Channel estimation is
`
`performed and the subscriber uses the received signal for calculating noise or
`
`interference. The AMC parameters can be changed based on channel conditions. Id.
`
`at 7:33-36 (“The coding/modulation rate can be adaptively changed according to the
`
`channel conditions observed at the receiver after the initial cluster allocation and rate
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`selection.”). Li also describes combining the OFDM subbands/clusters into groups
`
`as a means of, among other benefits, decreasing signaling overhead for the AMC
`
`process. Id. at 11:61-67 (“The clusters may be allocated in groups. Goals of group-
`
`based cluster allocation include reducing the data bits for cluster indexing, thereby
`
`reducing the bandwidth requirements of the feedback channel (information) and
`
`control channel (information) for cluster allocation.”).
`
`37. Both Li and the ’439 Patent teach OFDM communication systems
`
`employing AMC where modulation and coding parameters are selected in response
`
`to channel estimation. Additionally, both Li and the ’439 Patent teach combining
`
`subbands/clusters of subcarriers into groups. Thus, Li is in the same field of endeavor
`
`and is reasonably pertinent to the claims in the ’439 Patent.
`
`2. Walton
`38. Walton describes an OFDM-based transmission system where a single
`
`set of modulation and coding parameters (“transmission mode”) is applied to a group
`
`of transmission channels that have varying signal to noise ratios. Walton (Ex. 1005)
`
`at 2:21-27. Like the ’439 Patent and Li, Walton notes that significant feedback
`
`bandwidth is required to perform AMC on a per-subcarrier basis. Id. at 1:17-25,
`
`1:50-67. To minimize this overhead, Walton teaches a group-based AMC technique
`
`in which “an SNR estimate [] is initially obtained for each of the multiple
`
`transmission channels,” “an average SNR [] is then computer,” and “an operating
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`SNR” is then calculated, and a transmission mode is selected from the operating
`
`SNR, which is “utilized for all of the multiple transmission channels.” Id. at 2:28-
`
`67. Like the ’439 Patent, Walton discloses a OFDM communication system directed
`
`to minimizing AMC feedback overhead by selecting modulation and coding
`
`parameters for an entire group of subcarriers. Walton is in the same field of endeavor
`
`as the ’439 Patent and is reasonably pertinent to the claims in the ’439 patent. Thus,
`
`Walton and Li are analogous art with respect to each other and analogous to the
`
`claims in the ’439 Patent.
`
`Vijayan
`3.
`39. Vijayan describes an OFDM communication system that employs
`
`group-based AMC techniques. Like the ’439 Patent, Vijayan discloses grouping
`
`subbands into “subband groups” according to several methods, including a
`
`uniformly spaced technique and grouping consecutive subbands as a contiguous
`
`block. Vijayan (Ex. 1006) at 8:8-37. Both Vijayan and the ’439 Patent disclose
`
`OFDM AMC techniques that include various methods for combining subbands into
`
`subband groups. Therefore, Vijayan is in the same field of endeavor and is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the claims in the ’439 Patent.
`
`D. Obvious to Combine Li and Walton
`
`40.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether claims 1, 3, and 5-11 are obvious
`
`over Li in view of Walton. It is my opinion that they are indeed obvious and that the
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`combination of Li and Walton teaches all elements of claims 1, 3, and 5-11 as set
`
`forth in the Petition.
`
`41. The Claim 1 preamble recites, “A communication apparatus
`
`comprising.” Li discloses a multi-cell, multi-subscriber wireless communication
`
`system using orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) where
`
`subscribers are in communication with a base station. 3:30-38. Li discloses that the
`
`term subscribers refers to mobile handsets (“mobiles”). Li (Ex. 1004) at 3:5-17
`
`(“individual subscribers (e.g., mobiles)”). A POSITA would have understood that
`
`the “subscribers” in Li are mobile handsets, also commonly referred to as “mobile
`
`terminal,” “mobile station,” “mobile unit,” “subscriber unit,” “subscriber
`
`equipment,” “user equipment,” and other similar terms that refer to a mobile handset.
`
`Indeed, the ’439 Patent discloses a “mobile terminal (UE).” ’439 Patent at 2:58. A
`
`POSITA would have understood “UE” to mean “user equipment” and would have
`
`understood that numerous synonymous terms were used in the art to refer to a mobile
`
`handset. Thus, a skilled artisan would have understood that the “subscriber” in Li
`
`means a communication apparatus, such as a mobile handset.
`
`42. Claim 1 recites the limitation, “a parameter deciding section that decides
`
`modulation parameters and coding parameters per subband group comprised of a
`
`plurality of the subbands, based on a result of the channel estimation per subband.”
`
`To the extent that this limitation requires the handset, rather than the base station,
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`make the ultimate decision as to which groups of subbands to use, a POSITA would
`
`have understood that Li discloses just such an operation. Namely, Li teaches that,
`
`based on the pilot symbols received by the handset from the base station, preferred
`
`subbands/clusters and coding/modulation parameters are decided based on the
`
`channel estimation and that these parameters are indicated in the feedback from the
`
`handset to the base station. Li (Ex. 1004) at 5:50-6:10 (noting that feedback sent to
`
`the base station indicates the preferred subband/cluster and “indicates the
`
`coding/modulation rate that the subscriber desires to use”). Li also teaches that pilot
`
`symbols sent by the base station may indicate availability of each subband/cluster.
`
`Id. at 12:44-48. Implementing these concepts, a POSITA would understand that the
`
`handset would select subbands/clusters and coding/modulation parameters based, at
`
`least in part, on indicated availability. Thus, when the handset feeds back its
`
`preferred allocation, this preference has already considered availability and is thus
`
`effectively a final decision regarding allocation.
`
`43. Although Li discloses performing AMC on a per-subband/cluster basis,
`
`a POSITA would have found it obvious to modify Li such that AMC is performed
`
`per group of subbands/clusters in accordance with the teachings of Walton. Walton
`
`discloses that a single set of modulation and coding parameters, referred to as a
`
`“transmission mode,” is applied to a group of transmission channels having varying
`
`signal to noise ratios (SNRs). Walton (Ex. 1005) at 2:21-27. Walton accomplishes
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`this by calculating an “operating SNR” for the group of channels, which takes into
`
`consideration the individual channel SNRs and the variance between those SNRs,
`
`among other things. Id. at 2:28-67. Motivations to make this proposed modification
`
`to the teachings of Li come from the references themselves. For example, Li notes
`
`the significant benefit of reducing feedback bandwidth between the handset and base
`
`station that can be realized by grouping subbands/clusters of subcarriers. Li (Ex.
`
`1004) at 11:62-67. Walton similarly recognizes that “a high feedback rate may be
`
`needed to send back information (e.g., the SNR or transmission mode) for each
`
`transmission channel” if AMC is performed “on a channel-by-channel basis.”
`
`Walton (Ex. 1005) at 1:63-67. Walton avoids the need for high feedback bandwidth
`
`by performing ACM on a subband/cluster group basis rather than individually. Thus,
`
`a POSITA would understand that Walton provides a solution to the problem of high
`
`feedback bandwidth expressly recognized by Li. Incorporating the group-based
`
`AMC of Walton in the system of Li would be straightforward, would not require
`
`undue experimentation, and would produce predictable results. The infrastructure
`
`and signaling means necessary are already part of the Li system. The proposed
`
`modification would simply extend the group-based allocation embodiment
`
`described by Li to also assign transmission modes on a group basis. For the reasons
`
`discussed above, modifying Li with the common transmission node for all allocated
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01477
`Apple Inc. EX1003 Page 22
`
`
`
`
`
`channels as taught by Walton would have been natural and an application of nothing
`
`more than common sense and ordinary skill.
`
`44. Claim 1 recites the limitations, (1) “a receiving section that receives a
`
`signal containing data modulated and encoded on a per subband group basis at the
`
`communicating party using the modulation parameters and the coding parameters of
`
`the parameter information transmitted at the parameter information transmission
`
`section” and (2) “a data obtaining section that demodulates and decodes the received
`
`signal received at the receiving section on a per subband group basis using the
`
`modulation parameters and the coding parameters decided at the parameter deciding
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
