UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`HTC Corporation, and
`HTC America, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Case: IPR2018-01581
`
`United States Patent No. 7,848,439
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BRANIMIR VOJCIC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 1
`
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`HTC Corporation, and
`HTC America, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Case: IPR2018-01581
`
`United States Patent No. 7,848,439
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BRANIMIR VOJCIC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 1
`
`
`
`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 Petition asserted in IPR2018-
`
`01581regarding 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. Zhi Ding. 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. 1003), the Vijayan patent (Ex. 1004), the Hashem patent (Ex. 1005),
`
`and the Cioffi 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
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`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
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`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
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`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
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`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 Ding declaration (Ex. 1007), the Li
`
`patent (Ex. 1003), the Vijayan patent (Ex. 1004), the Hashem patent (Ex. 1005),
`
`and the Cioffi 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.
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`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
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`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.
`
`20. AMC based on subbands had several drawbacks. To address this, the
`
`communication apparatus disclosed in the ’439 patent used subband groups
`
`“comprised of a plurality of subbands . . . .” Ex. 1001 at 14:2-4. The ’439 patent
`
`disclosed that these subband groups were created based on “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. Having both the cellular device and the base station know beforehand
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`which subbands (and, by implication, subcarriers) are used to transmit reference
`
`signals, decreases 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
`
`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. Ding. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 59-61.
`
`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,
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`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
`
`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
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`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
`
`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 DING DECLARATION
`
`29. The Petition’s only ground is based on a combination of the Li patent
`
`(Ex. 1003), the Vijayan patent (Ex. 1004), the Hashem patent (Ex. 1005), and the
`
`Cioffi patent (Ex. 1006). The Petition and the accompanying Ding 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.
`
`30.
`
`In particular, I note that Dr. Ding offers a number of erroneous
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`opinions based on claims that are not even at issue in the Petition. For example, Dr.
`
`Ding offers opinions relating to the terms “pattern storage section” which he
`
`claims is present in “claims 1 and 8.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 66. The term “pattern storage
`
`section” does not appear in claim 8. Dr. Ding also offers a construction for
`
`“modulation parameters with a highest classification,” but that term only appears
`
`in claim 5, which is not at issue here. Dr. Ding also mistakenly offers a number of
`
`his opinions on claim limitations from claims 1 through 7, which are not at issue in
`
`this proceeding. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 98-245 (discussing claims 1-7).
`
`31. To the extent Dr. Ding offers opinions regarding issues and claims
`
`that are not implicated by this proceeding, I expressly incorporate by reference my
`
`expert declaration from the IPR proceeding IPR2018-01555 and the responses and
`
`opinions therein.
`
`A.
`
`Inaccuracies with Respect to Vijayan
`
`32. The Petition and Ding declaration also argue that Vijayan teaches
`
`“subband groups comprised of a plurality of subbands.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 121. This is
`
`incorrect in view of how the terms “subband” and “subband group” are defined in
`
`the ’439 patent.
`
`33. Although the Petition suggests that Vijayan presents rectangular
`
`shapes with certain regions marked “subband groups” on the vertical axis, those
`
`are not actually “subband groups” at all, but rather subcarrier groups. The ’439
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`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). U.S. Patent No. 7,885,228 to Walton et al. (“Walton”),
`
`relied upon in the IPR proceeding IPR2018-01477, is one such publication, where
`
`a subband is referred to a frequency-bin, frequency subchannel or subcarrier. Apple
`
`et al. v. INVT SPE LLC, IPR2018-01477, Ex. 1008 at 2:1-7. Vijayan is another
`
`such publication. Although Vijayan uses the word “subband,” that term in Vijayan
`
`actually refers to “subcarriers” instead of “groups of subcarriers.” For example,
`
`Vijayan expressly states: “These subbands are also referred to as tones, carriers,
`
`subcarriers, bins, and frequency channels.” Ex. 1004 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 20.
`
`34. 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. 1004 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. Dr. Ding and the
`
`Petition rely upon an incorrect understanding of Vijayan for a number of
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`limitations, including for the “subband groups” and for the “modulation parameters
`
`and coding parameters per subband group.” In particular, Dr. Ding admits that Li is
`
`only teaching modulation and coding parameters per subband/cluster. Ex. 1007
`
`¶ 126. 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, as I explained above, Dr. Ding’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. 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 subband
`
`group accounting for these differences. Ex. 1001 at 11:19-65. Dr. Ding does not
`
`explain how to address the problem of selecting a joint modulating and coding
`
`scheme in such a situation.
`
`B.
`
`Inaccuracies with Respect to Cioffi
`
`35. The Petition and Ding declaration argue that “[t]he subchannels taught
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`in Cioffi thus are subbands—subcarrier groups comprised of subcarriers in
`
`neighboring positions on the frequency domain.” See Ex. 1007 ¶ 254. This is
`
`incorrect in view of how the terms “subband” and “subband group” are defined in
`
`the ’439 patent.
`
`36. 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 Ex. 1006 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.
`
`37. Further, the Petition and Ding declaration cite to a short passage in
`
`Cioffi for the alleged “weighting” limitation. 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.
`
`Cioffi does not provide additional details with respect to how to conduct the
`
`“weight[ing] in accordance with other factors such as sources of interference.”
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`VI. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL WOULD NOT COMBINE THE
`CIOFFI PATENT WITH THE OTHER REFERENCES IN THE
`PROPOSED COMBINATION.
`
`38. The Petition and Ding declaration conclude that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Cioffi with
`
`Li and Vijayan. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 96-97. I note that neither document explains why a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Cioffi with
`
`Hashem. More importantly, I disagree with their conclusion, because a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Cioffi with
`
`Hashem, Li, or Vijayan, for at least the reasons below.
`
`39. As an initial matter, Cioffi is solely directed towards wired
`
`communications through an “asymmetric digital subscriber line” or “ASDL, where
`
`communications occurs through a “plain old telephone service” or “POTS”
`
`landline. Ex. 1006 at Abstract, 1:42-50, 5:7-11, 5:22-26, 5:53-59, 10:53-60. This is
`
`distinct from the technology field of the other references, which pertain to wireless
`
`cellular OFDM communication networks. In wireline ADSL communications, the
`
`main problems are impulsive noise, frequency selective interference, and cross-talk
`
`between different subscribers1. On the other hand, the dominant degrader of
`
`
`1 J. Cook at all, “The Noise and Crosstalk Environment for ADSL and
`VDSL Systems,” IEEE Communications Magazine (May 1999).
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`performance in wireless OFDM systems is time and frequency varying multipath
`
`fading. Because these different problems require different solutions, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to consider ADSL references to
`
`solve the problems addressed by the ’439 invention, but rather would look at
`
`wireless OFDM references.
`
`VII. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL WOULD NOT COMBINE THE
`LI PATENT WITH THE VIJAYAN PATENT.
`
`40. The Petition and the Ding declaration also conclude that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in the
`
`Li and Vijayan. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 84-90. I disagree with this conclusion, because a
`
`person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Li with
`
`Vijayan, for at least the reasons below.
`
`41. As discussed above, the Ding declaration and the Petition rely on
`
`Figure 6 in Li for subband groups. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 112, 177-78, 202. 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.
`
`42. 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. 1003 at 11:54-61.
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`43. The Ding declaration, at paragraph 122, relies on rectangles
`
`contiguous over time and frequency to reduce the amount of overhead signaling
`
`and make the slot assignments for PLCs more compact, specifically citing to
`
`Vijayan at 9:64-66 and 10:7-13. These compact rectangular shapes are described
`
`by Figures 7A through 7C as shown below:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at Figs. 7A, 7B, and 7C.
`
`44. Vijayan teaches that these compact, rectangular shapes are comprised
`
`of 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. 1004 at 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. 1003 at 12:10-11.
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`Patent 7,848,439
`
`
`45. 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. 1003 at 11:54-61. Combining Li
`
`and Vijayan, as suggested by Ding, would be undesirable to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, who would recognize that the two configurations would be
`
`incompatible.
`
`
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
`
`that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`
`
`January 16, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01581
`HTC v. INVT
`INVT Exhibit 2001 - Page 19
`
`
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
