`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 1
`
`
`
`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.
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 2
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 3
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 4
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 5
`
`
`
`“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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 6
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 7
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 8
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 9
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 10
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 11
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 12
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 13
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 14
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 15
`
`
`
`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.
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`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,
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 18
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 19
`
`
`
`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:
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 20
`
`
`
`(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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 22
`
`
`
`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. I disagree with this conclusion,
`
`because a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Li
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2101 - Page 23
`
`
`
`with Vijayan, for at least the reasons below.
`
`47. First, the Ding declaration ignores Li’s express goal of maximizing
`
`performance/throughput through frequency diversity. Li’s invention was the
`
`adaptive use of “different modulation and coding rates” for different subcarrier
`
`clusters. Specifically, Li selects “the appropriate coding/modulation rate for each
`
`cluster” and uses “different modulation and coding rates” for different clusters “to
`
`support reliable transmission over channels with different SINR.” Ex. 1003 at
`
`7:10-14, 7:56-65, 7:66-67, 8:1-5. These make possible Li’s goal of transmitting
`
`more information through high-SINR clusters while simultaneously maintaining
`
`reliable transmission through low-SINR clusters. Ex. 1003 at 1:64-67, 3:17-22,
`
`5:49-54, 7:9-32, and 15:4-9.
`
`48. Moreover, as discussed above, the Ding declarations and the Petitions
`
`rely on Figure 6 in Li for the “patterns for selecting subbands constituting the
`
`subband groups.” The relevant disclosure in Li states that the clusters in Figure 6
`
`“are spaced far apart over the entire bandwidth.” Ex. 1003 at 11:52-53 and Fig. 6.
`
`The clusters within a group do not occupy adjacent frequencies, or else they would
`
`not facilitate the desired fre