DOCKET NO.: 0107131-00573US5
`Filed on behalf of Intel Corporation
`By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`John V. Hobgood, Reg. No. 61,540
`Benjamin S. Fernandez, Reg. No. 55,172
`Gregory H. Lantier, pro hac vice
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email:
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`John.Hobgood@wilmerhale.com
`
`Ben.Fernandez@wilmerhale.com
`
`Gregory.Lantier@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2019-00129
`U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356
`
`DECLARATION OF PATRICK FAY, PH. D. IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`INTEL 1439
`Intel v. Qualcomm
`IPR2019-00129
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 2 
`II. 
`III.  RELEVANT LAW .......................................................................................... 2 
`IV.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 3 
`V. 
`REBUTTAL TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE AND DR. FOTY’S
`OPINIONS 4 
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Claim Construction is Incorrect and Overly
`Narrow ................................................................................................... 4 
`1. 
`“Carrier Aggregation” Construed in Accordance With its
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ............................................ 4 
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction of “Carrier
`Aggregation” is Narrower than the Broadest Reasonable
`Interpretation of that Term in Light of the Specification ........... 5 
`Ground I: Anticipation by Lee ............................................................ 15 
`1. 
`Applying the Correct Claim Construction, Lee Anticipates
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 15 
`Claims 2-6 are Anticipated by Lee ........................................... 17 
`2. 
`Ground II: Obviousness of Claim 10 Over Lee in View of Youssef .. 21 
`C. 
`D.  Ground III: Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are Obvious over Lee in View
`of Feasibility Study ............................................................................. 23 
`1. 
`The Feasibility Study is Analogous Art .................................... 24 
`2. 
`The Petition Establishes the Reasons to Combine Lee and the
`Feasibility Study ....................................................................... 24 
`Patent Owner’s Additional Arguments ..................................... 29 
`3. 
`VI.  AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ...................................... 30 
`VII.  RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT .......................................................................... 30 
`VIII.  JURAT ........................................................................................................... 30 
`
`2. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`
`I, Patrick Fay, declare as follows:
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained by Intel Corporation (“Intel” or “Petitioner”) as
`
`an independent expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office. I previously prepared and submitted a Declaration in
`
`support of the Petition in this proceeding, dated November 9, 2018 (Ex. 1402).
`
`2.
`
`Since preparing my Declaration, I have reviewed Qualcomm’s Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response (“POPR”), the Board’s Decision on Institution
`
`(“DOI”), Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”), Dr. Foty’s declaration submitted in
`
`support of the POR (Ex. 2024), and the transcript of Dr. Foty’s deposition on
`
`November 8, 2019 (Ex. 1440). I have been asked to review and respond to Dr.
`
`Foty’s opinions, including those reflected in the POR, as well as the Board’s
`
`Decision on Institution.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my work on this matter, but my opinions
`
`are based on my own views of the patented technology and the prior art. My
`
`compensation in no way depends on the outcome of this proceeding or the content
`
`of my testimony.
`
`4.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I reviewed and considered the
`
`specification, claims, and file history of U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356 (“’356 patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1401). I have been informed the ’356 patent has a priority date of August 21,
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`2012. I have also reviewed and considered the documents cited by Dr. Foty in his
`
`declaration (Ex. 2024). Additionally, I have reviewed the related Reply, which I
`
`understand Intel will file at the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(USPTO) at the same time as this Declaration is filed at the USPTO.
`
`5.
`
`I have also reviewed all of the documents I cite in this declaration.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`6.
`I describe my qualifications in my first Declaration. Ex. 1402, ¶¶2-9.
`
`III. RELEVANT LAW
`7.
`In my first Declaration, I set forth the applicable principles of patent
`
`law that were provided to me by counsel. Ex. 1402, ¶¶15-30. As appropriate, I
`
`have continued to apply those principles in providing my opinions in this
`
`Declaration. In addition, I understand that the following legal principles apply, as
`
`explained to me by Intel’s legal counsel.
`
`8.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as follows.
`
`9.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the Petitioner in an inter
`
`partes review Petition may request cancellation of claims as unpatentable only on
`
`grounds that such claims are anticipated or would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the purported invention, and only on the basis
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. A petitioner need only
`
`establish unpatentability of challenged claims by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence—i.e., that the claims are more likely than not unpatentable. My opinions
`
`in this matter address the invalidity of the challenged claims as anticipated and
`
`obvious.
`
`10.
`
`I have been informed and understand that an applicant for a patent can
`
`disclaim or disavow claim scope via statements made during prosecution without
`
`an express amendment, but only if such statements of disavowal or disclaimer are
`
`clear, unmistakable, unambiguous, and unequivocal.
`
`11.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a prior art reference is
`
`considered analogous art to the challenged patent for purposes of determining
`
`obviousness if it is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
`
`addressed, or if the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
`
`which the inventor of the challenged patent was involved.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`12. As stated in my original declaration (Ex. 1402), a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention would have had at
`
`least an M.S. degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and would
`
`have had at least two years of experience with the structure and operation of RF
`
`transceivers and related structures (or the equivalent).
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`13. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Foty, does not dispute this statement of the
`
`level of ordinary skill of a POSITA. Ex. 2024, ¶78.
`
`V. REBUTTAL TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE AND DR. FOTY’S
`OPINIONS
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Claim Construction is Incorrect and
`Overly Narrow
`1.
`“Carrier Aggregation” Construed in Accordance With its
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`14. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “carrier aggregation” is
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers.” This construction comes directly
`
`from the specification, which defines the term. See Ex. 1401, 1:32-33 (“A wireless
`
`device may support carrier aggregation, which is simultaneous operation on
`
`multiple carriers.”); id., 2:53-54 (“Wireless device 110 may support carrier
`
`aggregation, which is operation on multiple carriers.”); id., 2:54-55 (“Carrier
`
`aggregation may also be referred to as multi-carrier operation.”). Given the clear
`
`guidance in the specification, “carrier aggregation” should be construed as
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers” under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (“BRI”) claim construction standard. This meaning is consistent
`
`with the understanding of the term by a POSITA.
`
`15. For this IPR proceeding, it is my understanding that the BRI claim
`
`construction standard applies. Paper 9, Decision on Institution (“DOI”), 18.
`
`4
`
`

`

`2.
`
`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction of “Carrier
`Aggregation” is Narrower than the Broadest Reasonable
`Interpretation of that Term in Light of the Specification
` Despite the ’356 patent expressly defining “carrier aggregation” as
`
`16.
`
`“simultaneous operation on multiple carriers” and discussing “Bluetooth,” WiFi
`
`(e.g., “802.11”), and “LTE” devices (among others) that support carrier
`
`aggregation, Patent Owner’s proposed construction appears to be based on one
`
`subset of those technologies, LTE. Patent Owner’s proposed construction of
`
`carrier aggregation is narrower than any disclosure in the ’356 specification.
`
`17. Patent Owner proposes a tripartite construction for carrier aggregation
`
`as “[1] simultaneous operation on multiple carriers [2] that are combined as a
`
`single virtual channel [3] to provide higher bandwidth.” The second and third
`
`parts of this proposed construction lack support in the ’356 patent specification.
`
`3.
`
`The Intrinsic Evidence Does Not Support Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`18. Patent Owner’s citation of the ’356 patent specification in the Petition
`
`does not support this proposed construction. For example, Patent Owner cites
`
`column 2, lines 63-67 of the ’356 patent in support of “combined higher bandwidth
`
`channel for communications,” and the addition of LTE-Advanced carrier
`
`aggregation “[t]o relieve this [data] rate-limiting step.” POR, 12-14. However,
`
`the ’356 patent includes no discussion of these concepts; the quoted section merely
`
`recites the maximum carrier bandwidth in LTE, and indicates the number of bands
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`defined in LTE and how they can be configured. No mention of combined
`
`bandwidth or data rate is provided. Ex. 1401. In fact, parts [2] and [3] of Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed construction lack written description in the ’356 patent, and the
`
`LTE carrier aggregation described at column 2, lines 63-67 is just one example of
`
`carrier aggregation in the patent.
`
`19. The applicant of the ’356 patent chose very broad language to
`
`describe the types of transmissions and communications equipment encompassed
`
`by the invention. For example, the written description broadly states that a
`
`“carrier” “may refer to a range of frequencies used for communication…A carrier
`
`may also be referred to as a component carrier (CC), frequency channel, a cell,
`
`etc.,” expressly broadening the meaning of “carrier” beyond the “component
`
`carrier” example given in the written description. This “component carrier”
`
`example from among the list of examples in the ‘356 specification is now the only
`
`example upon which the Patent Owner appears to rely. Ex. 1401, 1:33-38. Ex.
`
`1440, 50:14-51:9. A “frequency channel” or “cell” are far broader than the
`
`definition of “carrier” that the Patent Owner currently seeks to embed within its
`
`definition of “carrier aggregation,” which is effectively a “component carrier” as
`
`that term is used in the context of LTE. Id. Likewise, the ’356 patent states that
`
`“[w]ireless device 110 may be a cellular phone, a smartphone, a tablet, a wireless
`
`modem, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a handheld device, a laptop computer, a
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`smartbook, a netbook, a cordless phone, a wireless local loop (WLL) station, a
`
`Bluetooth device, etc. Wireless device 110 may be capable of communicating with
`
`wireless system 120. Wireless device 110 may also be capable of receiving signals
`
`from broadcast stations (e.g., a broadcast station 134), signals from satellites (e.g.,
`
`a satellite 150) in one or more global navigation satellite systems (GNSS).” Ex.
`
`1401, 2:40-50. Thus, the applicant signaled that the invention would cover devices
`
`other than those that implement LTE. The patent further states that “[w]ireless
`
`device 110 may support one or more radio technologies for wireless
`
`communication such as LTE, cdma2000, WCDMA, GSM, 802.11, etc.” Id., 2:50-
`
`53. By broadly encompassing all of these devices, device types, and wireless
`
`technologies, the ’356 patent’s written description expressly broadens the scope of
`
`the alleged invention to encompass virtually any wireless device or radio
`
`technology. Patent Owner’s current proposed narrow construction is inconsistent
`
`with the broadening approach taken by the applicant in the written description.
`
`20. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Foty, stated that parts two and three of
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed tripartite claim construction do not find support in
`
`the ’356 patent’s written description. His deposition testimony includes
`
`explanations that, while “simultaneous operation on multiple carriers” came from
`
`the ’356 patent written description, Ex. 1440, 69:12-19, the [2] “that are combined
`
`as a single virtual channel” and [3] “to provide higher bandwidth” portions of the
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`proposed claim construction come only from prior art that was cited in the
`
`prosecution history. Id., 70:12-71:18; 72:14-74:7. Dr. Foty alleges that WO
`
`2012/008705 (Ex. 2016), GB2472978 (Ex. 2017), and U.S. Pat. No. 8,442,473 (Ex.
`
`1425) are intrinsic evidence that support this portion of the construction. Id.
`
`21. However, based upon my review and search, the phrases “combined
`
`as a single virtual channel” or “provide higher bandwidth” do not appear in any of
`
`the three references relied upon by Dr. Foty. A POSITA would not consider Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments about these references to limit the BRI of the term “carrier
`
`aggregation” given the clear definition of that term in the ’356 written description.
`
`Indeed, while the three references may mention concepts similar to those proposed
`
`for parts [2] and [3] of the Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, the references’
`
`various descriptions of instances of carrier aggregation are all encompassed by the
`
`BRI of that term: simultaneous operation on multiple carriers. Further, based on
`
`my review of the ’356 patent’s file history, none of the evidence on which Patent
`
`Owner now relies for parts [2] and [3] of its proposed claim construction was
`
`discussed during prosecution of the ’356 patent. Kaukovuori (Ex. 1425) was cited
`
`during prosecution on December 26, 2014, but the prosecution file wrapper does
`
`not include the quote reproduced at page 15 of the POR, and the Examiner
`
`referenced a different passage in the office action. Ex. 1418, 7. Furthermore, my
`
`review of the prosecution history indicates that by rejecting the claims based on the
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`Kaukovuori reference disclosing one specific type of carrier aggregation, a
`
`POSITA would not have understood the Examiner to be limiting the Examiner’s
`
`interpretation of carrier aggregation based on the Kaukovuori reference. For the
`
`other two references which Dr. Foty identifies as intrinsic, I note that these are two
`
`references selected from among approximately 350 references cited either by the
`
`Examiner or in information disclosure statements, and that Dr. Foty reproduces in
`
`his declaration (Ex. 2024) quotes from these references that were not part of the
`
`prosecution file wrapper. Ex. 2024, ¶¶89-92.
`
`4.
`
`Prosecution Disclaimer Does Not Limit the Broadest
`Reasonable Interpretation Here
`In its POR, Patent Owner also seeks to invoke the doctrine of
`
`22.
`
`prosecution history disclaimer in arguing for its proposed construction. POR, 24-
`
`27. However, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Foty, stated with respect to carrier
`
`aggregation: “I don’t think there’s a disavowal of that or a disclaimer.” Ex. 1440,
`
`32:2-15. Reviewing the prosecution history of the ’356 patent, I agree that there
`
`was no disavowal or disclaimer of claim scope with respect to “carrier
`
`aggregation.”
`
`23. During prosecution of the ’356 patent, the Examiner rejected the
`
`claims based on anticipation by U.S. Patent No. 7,317,894 (“Hirose”) (Ex. 1424).
`
`Ex. 1414, 2-4. Hirose taught a receiver used for frequency, space, and time
`
`diversity having two amplifiers that receive a common input and provide separate
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`outputs to process “the same signals [sent] over different paths.” Ex. 1415, 7. In
`
`Hirose, three different carriers (e.g., both “satellite wave” carriers and the “ground
`
`wave” carrier illustrated in Hirose Figure 1, annotated below) containing the same
`
`data are received simultaneously and synthesized to obtain a single stream of data,
`
`as shown in annotated Figure 1 of Hirose, below. Id.
`
`
`
`24. Patent Owner responded to the Examiner’s rejection by amending its
`
`claims to require an input RF signal “employing carrier aggregation.” Id., 2-6.
`
`Patent Owner argued that Hirose does not disclose carrier aggregation because it
`
`describes receiving “redundant data” over multiple carriers, which Patent Owner
`
`contended does not result in an “increased aggregated data rate.” Id., 7-8. Thus,
`
`when Patent Owner added “the input RF signal employing carrier aggregation” to
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`distinguish the Hirose reference, Patent Owner’s point of distinction was that
`
`Hirose did not employ “carrier aggregation” because it disclosed redundant data
`
`transmissions. Id. Patent Owner did not argue that “carrier aggregation” required
`
`anything more than non-redundant data transmissions. See id.
`
`25. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s statement that “Patent Owner did
`
`not argue during prosecution that carrier aggregation required anything more than
`
`non-redundant transmissions.” POR, 14 (quoting Pet., 31). As support for its
`
`position, Patent Owner points to the same file history quote provided in the
`
`Petition, with an emphasis on Patent Owner’s argument that “‘carrier aggregation’
`
`requires an ‘increased aggregated data rate.’” Id. A POSITA would understand
`
`those words to not amount to a clear and unmistakable disclaimer as I understand
`
`to be required for prosecution history disclaimer. The “increased aggregated” here
`
`refers to “data rate.” Hirose’s transmission of the “same signals over different
`
`paths” does not increase aggregated data rate because it “results in redundant data
`
`at a common data rate.” Ex. 1415, 7 (bold, italics in original). If Hirose’s
`
`simultaneous signals contained non-redundant (i.e., different) data, Patent Owner
`
`could not have made the argument that it did, and therefore a POSITA reviewing
`
`the prosecution history would understand that the applicant was distinguishing
`
`Hirose on the basis of its redundant transmissions. My initial declaration explains
`
`this. Ex. 1402, ¶83 (“Patent Owner distinguished the prior art reference Hirose
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`(EX1424-Hirose) on the grounds that it described sending redundant data over
`
`three different carriers and therefore did not lead to an “increased aggregated data
`
`rate.”). At a minimum, a POSITA would understand that the competing
`
`interpretations of the prosecution history set forth in the Petition and in the POR
`
`demonstrate that any disclaimer was not “clear and unmistakable.”
`
`5.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Find Patent Owner’s Citation to
`Extrinsic Evidence Helpful in Understanding How the ’356
`Patent Defines “Carrier Aggregation”
`In a case such as this one where the intrinsic evidence so clearly
`
`26.
`
`supports the definition that Patent Owner included in its specification, a POSITA
`
`would assign this extrinsic evidence little or no relevance. Furthermore, many of
`
`the extrinsic references included with Patent Owner’s Response were dated or filed
`
`well after the filing date of the ’356 patent, and are also not prior art to the ’356
`
`patent. See Exs. 2018 (earliest filing 2013), 2019 (Sep. 2013), 2022 (2014). A
`
`POSITA would not accord these extrinsic sources significant weight and, in any
`
`event, these extrinsic sources are not inconsistent with Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction of “carrier aggregation,” which is broad enough to encompass each of
`
`the differing examples of carrier aggregation provided in Patent Owner’s extrinsic
`
`evidence sources.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`Petitioner’s Proposed BRI Construction Does Not Read Out
`“Aggregation”
`27. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s BRI construction reads out the
`
`6.
`
`word “aggregation.” POR, 28. I disagree. When the claimed “input RF signal”
`
`employs “simultaneous operation on multiple carriers,” those carriers will be
`
`aggregated along the input RF signal. Pet., 49-51; Ex. 1402, ¶84 (“receiving and
`
`processing data on multiple carriers at the same time in a single input RF signal”).
`
`Thus, “carrier aggregation” in the context of the challenged claims accounts for
`
`aggregation (i.e., collected together, assembled, as defined in the POR, at 29),
`
`because the multiple carriers would be present simultaneously in the input RF
`
`signal.
`
`28. Because the ’356 patent describes “carrier aggregation” as
`
`encompassing wireless devices that support “one or more radio technologies for
`
`wireless communication such as LTE, cdma2000, WCDMA, GSM, 802.11, etc.,”
`
`when two or more carriers in a carrier aggregated signal are received according to
`
`“one or more” of these technologies, those carriers are all aggregated in the input
`
`RF signal (e.g. “RFin” in FIG. 6A) that enters the amplifier.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`
`
`
`29. This RFin is one wire, one input, and whether two carriers received
`
`are two LTE carriers, or two WiFi carriers, or one Bluetooth and one WiFi carrier,
`
`the input RF signal RFin will include all of these carriers. The only difference
`
`would be the numerical values of the frequencies of these carriers that are present
`
`simultaneously on the input. Thus, any two or more carriers received
`
`simultaneously are aggregated at RFin, which is the claimed “input RF signal.”
`
`The ’356 patent challenged claims relate to “receiv[ing] an input radio frequency
`
`(RF) signal” or “amplifying a first input radio frequency (RF) signal.” Ex. 1401,
`
`Claims 1, 17. To the extent Patent Owner’s arguments about “aggregation”
`
`suggest a singular transmission node or a single logical transmission channel, these
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`narrow interpretations are inconsistent with the ’356 patent, and are not supported
`
`by any presented evidence.
`
`B. Ground I: Anticipation by Lee
`1.
`Applying the Correct Claim Construction, Lee Anticipates
`Claim 1
`30. With respect to anticipation grounds for the Lee reference (Ex. 1435),
`
`Patent Owner’s only argument in favor of patentability for claim 1 appears to be
`
`that Lee does not disclose the “input RF signal employing carrier aggregation”
`
`under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. POR, 34-37. I do not agree with
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`31. Lee discloses that its input RF signal (VIN) employs carrier
`
`aggregation (e.g., simultaneous operation on multiple carriers (e.g., WiFi and
`
`Bluetooth)). Patent Owner’s expert agreed that the Bluetooth and WiFi signals in
`
`Lee are separate signals that can be received simultaneously. Ex. 1437, 2205:12-
`
`22; Ex. 1440, 7:17-18:5.
`
`32. Lee also teaches that the two carriers, e.g. Bluetooth and WiFi, are
`
`aggregated at VIN just as the carriers in the ’356 patent are aggregated at the input
`
`radio frequency (RF) signal RFin. Pet., 47-48. As also explained above, when a
`
`Bluetooth carrier is received simultaneously with a WiFi carrier in Lee, those
`
`carriers are aggregated at VIN – because VIN goes along a single wire, and is a
`
`single input that is the claimed “input RF signal,” the Bluetooth and WiFi carriers
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`are aggregated, e.g., collected together, assembled at VIN. See POR, 29
`
`(“Aggregate means ‘to collect together, assemble.’”).
`
`
`
`33. While Patent Owner’s expert refers to them as “separate signals,”
`
`Bluetooth and WiFi carriers would be present simultaneously at VIN in the same
`
`manner as two LTE carriers would be present simultaneously at VIN, the only
`
`difference being the numerical values of their carrier frequencies. This is true
`
`regardless of whether or not the two carriers originate from a common source, or
`
`whether or not they are logically related to one another (e.g., at the baseband
`
`level). The two carriers do not somehow travel down separate sides of the wire or
`
`avoid one another along VIN. Calling the simultaneously-received Bluetooth and
`
`WiFi carriers of Lee a single signal, or labeling them as separate carriers or
`
`separate signals, does not change the fact that their physical presence and behavior
`
`is the same – they are aggregated along VIN as they are received by the amplifier
`
`stages of Lee.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`34. The Patent Owner’s Response does not identify any arguments in
`
`favor of patentability for claim 1 under Petitioner’s proposed construction. POR,
`
`32-34. For the reasons identified in the Petition and in my original declaration,
`
`claim 1 is thus anticipated by Lee.
`
`35.
`
`If the Board were to construe carrier aggregation to require “non-
`
`redundant data” or its logically equivalent synonym “increased aggregated data
`
`rate” (though neither party proposes this construction), Lee also teaches this. Ex.
`
`1402, ¶87. Lee uses multiple carriers to send different data, not redundant data.
`
`Id. Patent Owner’s expert admits that typically, the two “radio streams” in Lee are
`
`not redundant. Ex. 1437, 2213:22-2214:1; Ex. 1440, 7:17-18:5. The Patent
`
`Owner’s Response does not identify any additional arguments for patentability of
`
`claim 1. Thus, Patent Owner has failed to rebut Petitioner’s showing that Lee
`
`teaches “input RF signal employing carrier aggregation.”
`
`2.
`Claims 2-6 are Anticipated by Lee
`36. Claims 2-6 are anticipated by Lee for the reasons set forth in the
`
`Petition and in my original declaration. Pet., 42-71; Ex. 1402, ¶¶95-120. Patent
`
`Owner argues for claims 2-6 that Lee fails to teach the “input RF signal employing
`
`carrier aggregation” however, this is incorrect for the reasons identified above.
`
`Patent Owner further argues that the Petition fails to show disclosure in Lee of the
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`claimed first and second cascode transistors. POR, 37. For the reasons described
`
`below, this is incorrect.
`
`37. A cascode amplifier stage consists of a cascade of a common-source
`
`(i.e., gain, transconductance, or input) transistor and a common-gate transistor.
`
`Within this amplifier stage, the “cascode” transistor is the common-gate transistor
`
`that couples the current from the gain transistor (at the cascode transistor’s source
`
`terminal) to the amplifier output (at the cascode transistor’s drain terminal). See
`
`Razavi, DESIGN OF ANALOG CMOS INTEGRATED CIRCUITS, 1st ed., 2001
`
`(Ex. 1441), at 83-92. Ex. 1402, ¶¶36, 96. As set forth in the Petition, at 59-62,
`
`Lee teaches the first amplifier stage (e.g., amplifier block 202_1) comprising a first
`
`gain transistor (e.g., transistor M1_1 of input stage 204_1) coupled to a first
`
`cascode transistor (e.g., transistor M1_1 of output stage 208_1). The transistors
`
`M1_1 and M1_K in the output stage 208_1 are cascode transistors because they
`
`couple the output of the input stage gain transistors M1_1 and M1_J to the
`
`amplifier output VOUT_1. Pet., 59-60; Ex. 1402, ¶¶96-97.
`
`38. Similarly, Lee teaches the second amplifier stage (e.g., amplifier
`
`block 202_N) comprising a second gain transistor (e.g., transistor MN_1 of input
`
`stage 204_N) coupled to a second cascode transistor (e.g., transistor MN_1 of
`
`output stage 208_N). Similarly, the output stage 208_N transistors MN_1 and
`
`MN_L are cascode transistors because they couple the output of the gain
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`transistors MN_1 and MN_I of the input stage 204_N to the amplifier output signal
`
`VOUT_N. Pet., 60-61; Ex. 1402, ¶99.
`
`39. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not shown that the transistors
`
`M1_1, M1_K, MN_1, and MN_L of the output stages 208_1 and 208_N are
`
`cascode transistors. POR, 41. To reach this incorrect conclusion, Patent Owner
`
`argues that a transistor is not cascode unless it improves amplifier performance by
`
`reducing the impact of the “Miller effect” of a gain transistor. POR, 37-42. Patent
`
`Owner argues that the presence of selecting stages 206_1 and 206_N between the
`
`gain transistor stages 204_1 and 204_N on one hand, and the cascode transistor
`
`stages 208_1 and 208_N on the other hand, means that Petitioner has not shown
`
`that the transistors M1_1, M1_K, MN_1, and MN_L are cascode. Id., 39-42.
`
`Notably, however, Patent Owner and its expert do not expressly state that these
`
`transistors are not cascode transistors. POR, 37-42; Ex. 2024, ¶¶153-161.
`
`40. There are several technical flaws in Patent Owner’s argument. First,
`
`Patent Owner’s expert misidentifies and misdescribes the Miller capacitance. See
`
`Ex. 2024, ¶159. What Patent Owner’s expert identifies as the Miller capacitance is
`
`instead what a POSITA would refer to as Cgd (i.e., gate-to-drain capacitance).
`
`Further, the Patent Owner’s expert asserts that the Miller effect leads to a reduction
`
`in maximum frequency of operation in an amplifier. In the context of RF circuitry
`
`employing reactive matching networks (e.g., reference 632 in Figure 6 of the ’356
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`patent), the effect on transistor operating frequency implied by the Patent Owner’s
`
`expert is incorrect. See Ex. 2024, ¶159. Use of the Miller effect to control
`
`frequency response in low-frequency circuits is well known (e.g. in the context of
`
`op-amp design), but this is not effective in the RF domain where input matching
`
`networks are used.
`
`41.
`
`I teach my students at Notre Dame about these topics. Cascode is a
`
`topology, not an effect. Cascode transistors have many purposes (e.g., increase the
`
`voltage gain, increase the output impedance, provide shielding between the gain
`
`transistors and load circuitry (also referred to as improved reverse isolation)) (Ex.
`
`1441), at 83-92, but mitigation of the Miller effect is not a defining feature of
`
`them. Nor does the ’356 patent or its file history mention the Miller effect; in fact,
`
`a POSITA would understand based on the ’356 patent’s disclosure that it does not
`
`contemplate limitations to amplifier performance from the Miller effect or gate-to-
`
`drain capacitance, as evidenced by the omission of a Miller capacitance or Cgd
`
`(the gate-to-drain capacitance) in the input capacitance equations at column 9, lines
`
`43-49.
`
`42. A POSITA would understand that the transistors identified by the
`
`Petition as cascode transistors are cascode transistors, and exhibit the same cascode
`
`topology shown and described in the ’356 patent. For example, transistors M1_1,
`
`M1_K, MN_1, and MN_L of output stages 208_1-208_N each couple the current
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00129
`US Patent 9,154,356
`from their respective gain transistors (at each of the cascode transistors’ source
`
`terminals) to the amplifier output (at each of the cascode transistors’ drain
`
`terminals). Ex. 1435, ¶¶28, 33, Figure 2. They also function in precisely the same
`
`manner as described for the cascode transistors (e.g. 656a, 656b) of the ’356
`
`patent. The presence of selecting stages 206_1 and 206_N does not change the
`
`nature of the operation of the transistors in stage