`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
`
`