IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 and Case IPR2018-01581
`
`United States Patent No. 7,848,439 B2
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BRANIMIR VOJCIC
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`i
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 1
`
`
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01555 and Case IPR2018-01581
`
`United States Patent No. 7,848,439 B2
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BRANIMIR VOJCIC
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`i
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`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 Petitions asserted in
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581, regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439 (’439
`
`patent) (Ex. 1001), statements made in those Petitions, and exhibits in support of
`
`the Petition, including the two declarations of Dr. Zhi Ding. In particular, I was
`
`asked to provide an opinion on a combination of the Li patent (Ex. 1003), the
`
`Vijayan patent (Ex. 1004), and the Hashem patent (Ex. 1005), as well as a
`
`combination with all three of the foregoing with the Cioffi patent (Ex. 1006).
`
`3. My opinion is based upon my knowledge and experience, and my
`
`review of the ’439 patent, the Petitions, and exhibits in support of the Petitions. I
`
`understand that the Board consolidated certain portions of the proceedings related
`
`to both Petitions. Because of the substantial overlap between the two Petitions and
`
`Ding declarations, the exemplary citations in this declaration will refer to the
`
`exhibits and papers from the IPR2018-01555 proceeding, unless I specify
`
`otherwise, but shall be equally applied to the IPR2018-01581 proceeding where
`
`appropriate.
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`“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
`
`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 2102.
`
`II. THE ’439 PATENT
`
`15.
`
`I have reviewed, among other things, the ’439 patent (Ex. 1001), the
`
`prosecution file (Ex. 1002), the Petitions, the Ding declarations (Ex. 1007), the Li
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`patent (Ex. 1003), the Vijayan patent (Ex. 1004), the Hashem patent (Ex. 1005),
`
`and the Cioffi patent (Ex. 1006), the Olofsson patent (Ex. 1009), and all other
`
`documents filed in both proceedings.
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`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.
`
`20. AMC based on subbands had several drawbacks. To address this, the
`
`communication apparatus disclosed in claim 1 of the ’439 patent used “a parameter
`
`deciding section that decides modulation parameters and coding parameters per
`
`subband group comprised of a plurality of subbands, based on a result of channel
`
`estimation per subband” and “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 13:1-4, 13:21-27. Regarding the latter,
`
`the ’439 patent disclosed that the 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. AMC techniques based on subband groups allowed for “selecting a
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`modulation and coding scheme for the entire subband group, instead of doing so
`
`for an individual subband” or subcarrier. By comparison, a communication device
`
`that feedbacks separate sets of modulation and coding parameters for each
`
`individual subband or subcarrier must instead transmit a significant amount of
`
`information before establishing a link with the base station. Further, 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. These inventive features
`
`disclosed by the ’439 patent have 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`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. Ding. See, e.g., Ex. 1007 ¶ 61.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`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 PETITIONS AND DING DECLARATIONS
`
`29. The Petitions assert combinations based on the Li patent (Ex. 1003),
`
`the Vijayan patent (Ex. 1004), the Hashem patent (Ex. 1005), and/or the Cioffi
`
`patent (Ex. 1006). The Petitions and the accompanying Ding declarations 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. The Ding declarations contain several inaccuracies regarding whether
`
`Li has a “parameter deciding section that decides modulation parameters and
`
`coding parameters per subband group comprised of a plurality of subbands, based
`
`on a result of the channel estimation per subband” and “a pattern storage section
`
`that stores in advance patterns for selecting subbands constituting the subband
`
`groups.” It is my opinion that the assertions made in the Petitions and
`
`accompanying declarations fail to demonstrate that Li expressly discloses either
`
`limitation.
`
`31. First, Dr. Ding asserts that “Block 303 decides one or more
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`modulation parameters and one or more coding parameters per cluster group, based
`
`on the per-cluster results from block 301 and 302.” See, e.g., Ex. 1007 ¶ 115.
`
`Block 303 is the “Cluster Ordering and Rate Prediction” block in Figure 3 of Li:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003 at Fig. 3. However, Li is clearly measuring the SINR of individual
`
`subcarrier clusters. According to Li, “using processing block 303, the subscriber
`
`orders clusters and also predicts the data rate that would be available using such
`
`clusters.” Ex. 1003 at 9:35-37. Li then discloses that the “SINR on each cluster is
`
`reported to the base station through an access channel.” Ex. 1003 at 9:2-4. Li then
`
`explains that “predicated data rate information may be obtained from a look up
`
`table” that “store[s] the pairs of each SINR and its associated desirable
`
`transmission rate.” Ex. 1003 at 9:37-41. Thus, Li matches the SINRs for each
`
`individual subcarrier cluster with an “associated desirable transmission rate” for
`
`that cluster. Li does not disclose a joint modulation and coding parameter for
`
`groups of subcarrier clusters.
`
`32. Dr. Ding also asserts that: “Similar to block 303, block 405 decides
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`one or more modulation parameters and one or more coding parameters per cluster
`
`group, based on the cluster results from the SINR estimation processing block 401,
`
`power calculation processing block 402, and power calculation processing block
`
`403.” See, e.g., Ex. 1007 ¶ 117 (citing Ex. 1003 at 9:55-60). The same logic from
`
`the preceding paragraph above applies with equal strength to Dr. Ding’s claims
`
`with respect to block 405, which is reproduced below in Figure 4:
`
`
`
`33. Specifically, Li states that that “[r]eferring to FIG. 4, a subscriber
`
`includes SINR estimation processing block 401 to perform SINR estimation for
`
`each cluster in pilot periods,” and “processing block 405 [] performs cluster
`
`ordering and selection based on SINR and the power difference between pilot
`
`periods and data periods.” Ex. 1003 at 9:55-67. Similar to processing block 303,
`
`block 405 performs actions based on the SINR of individual clusters, and also
`
`therefore does not determine any modulation and coding parameters for an entire
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`subband group.
`
`34. The Ding declarations also cite an embodiment in Li where the
`
`“subscriber sends back the channel information on one or more cluster groups,
`
`simultaneously or sequentially” as part of a “group-based cluster allocation.” See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1007 ¶ 118 (citing Ex. 1003 at 12:1-3, 12:3-11). Lines 9 through 11 of Dr.
`
`Ding’s cited excerpt states that SINRs are the “feedback” for the “clusters in that
`
`group” and does not mention block elements 303 or 405. This compels the
`
`opposition conclusion, as Li explains that channel information comprises “SINR
`
`values for each of the clusters in the group,” rather than joint parameters for an
`
`entire subband group. Ex. 1003 at 12:1-3, 12:21-22.
`
`35. With respect to the claimed “pattern storage section that stores in
`
`advance patterns for selecting subbands constituting the subband groups,” Dr. Ding
`
`arbitrarily mixes and matches several incompatible embodiments from Li to try to
`
`prove this limitation in the ’439 patent. For example, for limitation 1(f), Dr. Ding
`
`relies on Figure 6 in Li, shown below, and the accompanying disclosure in 11:47-
`
`52, to demonstrate that Li teaches that “clusters are selected according to a
`
`pattern—every fourth cluster on the frequency axis f is selected for a cluster
`
`group.” See, e.g., Ex. 1007 ¶ 178.
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`
`
`
`36. However, the predetermined clusters in Figure 6 are incompatible
`
`with the clusters that Dr. Ding relies on for limitation 1(a). For the latter, Dr. Ding
`
`states that “Li discloses that the subscriber performs a channel estimation per
`
`subband (cluster)” using the embodiment shown below:
`
`In another embodiment, the pilot signal sent from the base
`station to the subscriber also indicates the availability of
`each cluster, e.g., the pilot signal shows which clusters have
`already been allocated for other subscribers and which
`clusters are available for new allocations. For example, the
`base station can transmit a pilot sequence 1111 1111 on the
`subcarriers of a cluster to indicate that the cluster is
`available, and 1111-1-1-1-1 to indicate the cluster is not
`available. At the receiver, the subscriber first distinguishes
`the two sequences using the signal processing methods
`which are well known in the art, e.g., the correlation
`methods, and then estimates the channel and interference
`level.
`
`Ex. 1003 at 12:44-56. That is, the clusters used for limitation 1(a), as described
`
`above, are provided by the base station to the subscriber unit on the fly in real time,
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`and they are not based on a predetermined pattern that is stored in advance,
`
`because the broadcasted availability occurs on a per cluster basis.
`
`37. As a further example, Dr. Ding again argues that limitation 1(a)
`
`relating to “channel estimation per subband (cluster)” exists in Li by stating: “each
`
`subscriber measures the SINR of each subcarrier cluster and reports these SINR
`
`measurements to their base station through an access channel.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 105
`
`(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 Vijayan
`
`38. The Petitions and Ding declarations also contain several inaccuracies
`
`with respect to whether Vijayan teaches a “parameter deciding section that decides
`
`modulation parameters and coding parameters per subband group comprised of a
`
`plurality of subbands, based on a result of the channel estimation per subband” and
`
`“a pattern storage section that stores in advance patterns for selecting subbands
`
`constituting the subband groups.” See, e.g., Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 121-29, 186-88.
`
`39. At a high level, Vijayan discloses assigning resources in the form of
`
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`subcarriers and subbands to active physical layer channels called “PLCs.” Ex. 1004
`
`at Abstract, 2:8-26, 4:16-19. The various figures in Vijayan demonstrate various
`
`resources assignments in the form of rectangular shapes, such as those shown in
`
`Figure 7A of Vijayan:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 7A. Vijayan discloses that these rectangular resource allocations
`
`are determined by “the number of slots allocated to the PLC,” with the height and
`
`length of each rectangle based on “the maximum bit rate” and “number of
`
`allocated slots,” respectively. Ex. 1004 at 9:57-63. The height of the rectangle
`
`depends on “various factors such as the maximum bit rate.” Ex. 1004 at 9:59-61.
`
`40. Dr. Ding implicitly admits that Li is only teaching modulation and
`
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`coding parameters per subband/cluster. Ex. 1007 ¶ 126 (suggesting that Li must
`
`incorporate Vijayan’s purported disclosures). To cure that deficiency, Dr. Ding
`
`relies on Vijayan for “modulation and coding parameters per subband group” by
`
`claiming that Vijayan discloses “that a PLC, equivalent to the subband group of the
`
`’439 Patent, is comprised of multiple subbands” and “an OFDM system in which
`
`each PLC is a subband group comprised of a plurality of the subbands.” Ex. 1007
`
`¶ 122. Dr. Ding refers specifically to rectangles contiguous over frequencies and
`
`time in Vijayan. Ex. 1007 ¶ 122; Ex. 1004 at 10:7-13. However, nowhere does
`
`Vijayan disclose using joint modulation and coding parameters based on a result of
`
`the channel estimation per subband to make these assignments. See Ex. 1004. at
`
`4:43-59, 10:21-37 (discussing unrelated factors).
`
`41. With respect to the claimed “pattern storage section that stores in
`
`advance patterns for selecting subbands constituting the subband groups,” the Ding
`
`declaration does not establish that Vijayan discloses the claimed “pattern storage
`
`section” that stores patterns based on “fixed rules for choosing subbands based on
`
`frequency.” Instead, Vijayan’s resources are allocated and assigned by the base
`
`station in real time based on a number of performance factors, without any
`
`feedback from the mobile device, much less one based on channel estimation on a
`
`per subband basis, rather than any patterns that are fixed, including the following:
`
`
`
`20
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`(1) “Minimize the transmission time for each PLC to reduce ON time and power
`
`consumption by the wireless devices to recover the PLC”; (2) “Maximize time
`
`diversity for each PLC to provide robust reception performance”; (3) “Constrain
`
`each PLC to be within a specified maximum bit rate”; and (4) “Minimize buffering
`
`requirements for the wireless devices.” Ex. 1004 at 9:25-34. Against this backdrop,
`
`Dr. Ding cites a number of generic storage elements, none of which establish any
`
`fixed patterns that are stored in advance. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 187-188
`
`C.
`
`Inaccuracies with Respect to Hashem
`
`42. Dr. Ding does not assert that Hashem addresses the deficiencies with
`
`Li and Vijayan with respect to the claimed “parameter deciding section that
`
`decides modulation parameters and coding parameters per subband group
`
`comprised of a plurality of subbands, based on a result of the channel estimation
`
`per subband.” Still, I will note that Hashem does not address these deficiencies
`
`because Hashem also does not disclose joint modulation and coding parameters on
`
`a “per subband group” basis based on a result of channel estimation per subband.
`
`That is because Hashem discloses two embodiments with only one subband
`
`comprised of acceptable carriers and reports either S/I feedback on a per subcarrier
`
`basis or the average S/I over all subcarriers in the subband of acceptable
`
`subcarriers. Ex. 1005 at 5:41-8:20. In another embodiment, Hashem groups
`
`
`
`21
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`subcarriers into groups of acceptable subcarriers and reports the Link Mode
`
`(modulation and coding parameters) for each group, similarly as in Li. Ex. 1005 at
`
`8:21-44. That is, Hashem does not have joint modulation and coding parameters
`
`per group of subbands.
`
`D.
`
`43.
`
`Inaccuracies with Respect to Cioffi
`
`In the IPR2018-01581 proceeding, the Petition and Ding declaration
`
`argue that “[t]he subchannels taught in Cioffi thus are subbands—subcarrier
`
`groups comprised of subcarriers in neighboring positions on the frequency
`
`domain.” See, e.g., IPR2018-01581, Ex. 1007 ¶ 254. This is a mischaracterization
`
`of Cioffi as Cioffi clearly teaches that subcarriers/carriers are subchannels. Ex.
`
`1006 1:21-25 and 5:65. Furthermore, Cioffi teaches that a transmission channel
`
`corresponds to a set of carriers/subchannels. IPR2018-01581, Ex. 1006 1:16-22.
`
`Thus a transmission channel in Cioffi corresponds to one subband in view of the
`
`’439 Patent. Thus, Dr. Ding’s characterization is incorrect in view of Cioffi and
`
`how the terms “subband” and “subband group” are defined in the ’439 patent.
`
`44. As stated previously, the ’439 patent defines “subbands” as groups of
`
`“subcarriers in neighboring positions on the frequency domain.” Ex. 1001 at 2:20-
`
`22. Given this definition, Cioffi’s subchannels are subcarriers, not subbands, as
`
`Cioffi uses carriers and subchannels as synonyms. See IPR2018-01581, Ex. 1006
`
`
`
`22
`
`IPR2018-01555
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 22
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`at 1:21-25, 1:27-30, 5:65-66. Therefore, Cioffi’s subchannels are not the same as
`
`the ’439 patent’s subbands (each of which consisting of multiple carriers), and
`
`Cioffi does not disclose subband groups at all.
`
`45. Further, the Petition and Ding declaration cite to a short passage in
`
`Cioffi for the alleged “weighting” limitation. See, e.g., IPR2018-01581, Ex. 1007
`
`¶ 255 (citing Ex. 1006 at 10:53-60). That passage reads:
`
`For example, the numbers of bits allocated to the
`different subchannels may be determined also to take into
`account factors other than the SNR monitored at the
`receiver, for example subchannels at low frequencies
`may be assigned relatively fewer bits to reduce the
`effects of interference with POTS signals, and the
`allocation of numbers of bits to subchannels may also be
`weighted in accordance with other factors such as
`sources of interference.
`
`See IPR2018-01581, Ex. 1006 at 10:53-60. Cioffi does not provide additional,
`
`sufficient details with respect to how to conduct the “weight[ing] in accordance
`
`with other factors such as sources of interference.”
`
`VI. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL WOULD NOT COMBINE THE
`LI PATENT WITH THE VIJAYAN PATENT.
`
`46. The Petitions and the Ding declarations each conclude that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in the
`
`Li and Vijayan. See, e.g., Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 84-90
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
