UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2019-00129
`Patent 9,154,356
`______________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. DANIEL FOTY
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`further, that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`By:
`
`
`___________________________
`
`Daniel Foty, Ph.D.
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`Professional Background ................................................................................. 1
`Relevant Legal Standards ................................................................................ 2
`Summary of Conclusions ................................................................................. 7
`Technology Background .................................................................................. 8
`A.
`Overview of the Physics and Mathematics of Bandwidth .................... 8
`B.
`Overview of Wireless Network Architecture and Carrier Aggregation
` ............................................................................................................. 17
`THE ’356 PATENT ....................................................................................... 21
`A.
`Overview of the ’356 Patent ................................................................ 21
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’356 Patent ............................................... 32
`Level of Skill in the Art ................................................................................. 42
`VI.
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 43
`A.
`The Patent Owner’s Construction Is The Ordinary And Customary
`Meaning, As Would Be Understood By A Skilled Artisan In The
`Context Of The Entire Disclosure. ...................................................... 43
`The Specification Supports the Patent Owner’s Proposed
`1.
`Construction .............................................................................. 44
`The File History Supports Patent Owner’s Proposed
`Construction .............................................................................. 47
`Extrinsic Evidence Supports Patent Owner’s Proposed
`Construction .............................................................................. 54
`The Petitioner’s Proposed Construction Should Be Rejected ............. 68
`1.
`The Petitioner’s Proposed Construction Is Unreasonably Broad
` ................................................................................................... 68
`The Amendment To Add “Carrier Aggregation” To Overcome
`Hirose Precludes Petitioner’s Proposed Construction .............. 69
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction Is Not Indicative Of How A
`Skilled Artisan Understood the Term ....................................... 72
`VIII. Overview Of The Cited References............................................................... 78
`Overview of Lee .................................................................................. 78
`A.
`B.
`Overview of “The Feasibility Study” .................................................. 82
`C.
`Overview of Youssef ........................................................................... 84
`IX. GROUND 1: Lee Does Not Anticipate Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, OR 6 .................. 88
`D.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 89
`E.
`Claims 2 through 6 .............................................................................. 94
`1.
`“the first amplifier stage comprising a first gain transistor
`coupled to a first cascode transistor, the second amplifier stage
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`-i-
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 2
`
`

`

`comprising a second gain transistor coupled to a second
`cascode transistor” .................................................................... 95 
`X.  GROUND 2: Lee and Youssef Do Not Render Obvious Claim 10 ............. 99 
`XI.  GROUND 3: Lee and The Feasibility Study Do Not Render Obvious
`Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, OR 6 ................................................................................101 
`A. 
`The Petitioner Fails To Sufficiently Articulate A Motivation To
`Combine ............................................................................................102 
`A Person of Skill In The Art Would Not Have Combined Lee And
`The Feasibility Study ........................................................................104 
`XII.  GROUND 4: Lee, the Feasibility Study, and Youssef Do Not Render
`Obvious Claim 10 ........................................................................................112 
`XIII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................112 
`
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 3
`
`

`

`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Qualcomm Incorporated
`
`(“Qualcomm” or “Patent Owner”) in the matter of the Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,154,356 (“the ’356 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate of $475 for consulting services. My compensation in no way depends
`
`on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I considered all materials cited in the
`
`body of this Declaration, which includes but is not limited to the following:
`
`a.
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`The ’356 Patent (Ex. 1401) and its file history;
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356,
`IPR2019-00128 (Paper 3) (“Petition”) and materials cited therein;
`The Declaration of Dr. Patrick Fay (Ex. 1402) and materials cited
`therein;
`United States Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0056681 (Ex.
`1435) (“Lee”)
`Feasibility Study for Further Advancements for E-UTRA (LTE-
`Advanced) (3GPP TR 36.912 version 9.1.0 Release 9) (Ex. 1404)
`(“Feasibility Study”)
`Digitally-Controlled RF Passive Attenuator in 65 nm CMOS for
`Mobile TV Tuner ICs, IEEE (2010) (Ex. 1409) (“Youssef”).
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`4.
`I have thirty years of experience as an engineer, scientist, and consultant
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`I.
`
`in the electronics industry, including in the areas of integrated circuit (IC) design,
`-1-
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 4
`
`

`

`layout, structure, and operation, in RF technology for wireless communications, in
`
`technology development, and in technical and business development. I have
`
`authored or co-authored four books and some sixty papers (published in refereed
`
`journals and refereed conference proceedings), mostly on various aspects of
`
`integrated circuit technology and RF/wireless technology. I have also given some
`
`eighty lectures and presentations (many of them invited) at various conferences and
`
`other similar fora, and have given a number of invited keynote talks on next-
`
`generation wireless technologies at a variety of conferences and events throughout
`
`the world. I have also served extensively as an expert witness is a wide variety of
`
`matters over the past 15+ years.
`
`5. My qualifications to testify as an expert in the field of integrated circuit
`
`technology and RF/wireless technology, including my expertise in the structure and
`
`operation of RF transceivers and related structures, are described in my curriculum
`
`vitae, which is attached at Appendix A.
`
`II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`6.
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether claims [insert
`
`claims] of the ’356 Patent are anticipated by the alleged prior art or would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention, in view of the alleged prior art.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 5
`
`

`

`7.
`
`I am an engineer and scientist by education and profession. The
`
`opinions I am expressing in this Declaration involve the application of my
`
`engineering knowledge and experience to the evaluation of certain alleged prior art
`
`with respect to the ’356 Patent. Aside from my experience in litigation support, my
`
`knowledge of patent law is no different than that of any lay person. Therefore, I
`
`have requested that the attorneys from Jones Day, who represent Qualcomm, provide
`
`me with guidance as to the applicable patent law in this matter. The paragraphs
`
`below express my understanding of how I must apply current principles related to
`
`patentability.
`
`8.
`
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`anticipated or obvious in view of the alleged prior art, the Patent Office must
`
`construe the claim by giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`consistent with the specification – as it would have been understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of the filing date of the patent. I understand that the claim
`
`language, specification, and prosecution history are relevant to determine the
`
`meaning of a claim term. I understand that the prosecution history of a patent
`
`provides the record of the examination of a patent application before the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (PTO). The prosecution history provides evidence of how
`
`the patent examiner and the inventors understood the patent application and the
`
`claims, and can therefore be instructive on how to interpret the claims. My
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 6
`
`

`

`understanding is that extrinsic evidence may also be used in understanding the
`
`meaning of a claim term. Extrinsic evidence includes dictionaries, treatises, expert
`
`testimony, and prior art. But it is my understanding that one should first look to the
`
`intrinsic evidence in construing claims.
`
`9. My understanding is that there are at least two circumstances where the
`
`words in a patent claim may differ from and not be given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning. One circumstance is when the applicants act as their own lexicographer by
`
`clearly setting forth a definition of a claim term that may differ from the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. Another circumstance is when the
`
`applicant includes or provides an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim
`
`scope. My understanding is that an applicant may act as their own lexicographer, or
`
`disclaim or disavow claim scope, in either the specification or the prosecution
`
`history of the patent. My understanding is also that the applicant may act as a
`
`lexicographer, or disclaim or disavow claim scope, by making amendments to the
`
`claims during prosecution, or by making assertions to the PTO about the differences
`
`between the claimed inventions and the prior art.
`
`10.
`
`It
`
`is my understanding
`
`that a claim
`
`is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 if each and every element and limitation of the claim is found either
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 7
`
`

`

`11.
`
`It
`
`is my understanding
`
`that a claim
`
`is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. I also
`
`understand that an obviousness analysis takes into account the scope and content of
`
`the prior art, the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art,
`
`and the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`12.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, it is my
`
`understanding that a reference is considered appropriate prior art if it falls within the
`
`field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is prior art if it is reasonably
`
`pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. A
`
`reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would have commended itself to an
`
`inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a reference relates to the same
`
`problem as the claimed invention, that supports use of the reference as prior art in
`
`an obviousness analysis.
`
`13. To assess the differences between prior art and the claimed subject
`
`matter, it is my understanding that 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires that the claimed
`
`invention be considered as a whole. I also understand that a finding of obviousness
`
`requires more than merely demonstrating that each claim element was known in the
`
`prior art. Obviousness requires showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art to achieve the
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 8
`
`

`

`claimed invention and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing
`
`so.
`
`14.
`
`It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show the
`
`obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include: combining
`
`prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; simple
`
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; a
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions;
`
`applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; and some
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`15.
`
`It is my further understanding that there are certain limits on combining
`
`references in an obviousness determination. One limit is that the combination of
`
`references cannot be based on impermissible hindsight. I understand that
`
`impermissible hindsight may occur if, for example, different components are
`
`selectively culled from the prior art to fit the parameters of the invention, without a
`
`teaching or suggestion within the prior art, or within the general knowledge of a
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 9
`
`

`

`person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention, to look to particular sources of
`
`information, to select particular elements, and to combine them in the way they were
`
`combined by the inventor. Another limit on combining references is when a
`
`reference teaches away from a specific combination. I understand that a first prior
`
`art reference may teach away from a second reference if the first reference
`
`discourages a person of ordinary skill in the art from following the path set out in
`
`the second reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path taken by
`
`the applicant. Additionally, I understand that even if a reference is not found to teach
`
`away, its statements regarding preferences are still relevant to a finding regarding
`
`whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine that
`
`reference with another reference.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
`16.
`It is my opinion that, at the time of filing of the ’356 Patent, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term “carrier aggregation” to
`
`mean “simultaneous operation on multiple carriers that are combined as a single
`
`virtual channel to provide higher bandwidth.” I disagree with Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction.
`
`17.
`
`It is my opinion that the Petitioner and its expert fail to show by clear
`
`and convincing evidence that any of the claims of the ’356 patent are unpatentable
`
`as being anticipated and/or obvious.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 10
`
`

`

`IV. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`A. Overview of the Physics and Mathematics of Bandwidth
`18. As will become obvious below (and is also obvious upon review of the
`
`material produced in this matter), the term “bandwidth” is central to both the
`
`technologies associated with the ’356 patent and with other related art – in the
`
`generalized field of wireless communications.
`
`19.
`
`It also quickly becomes obvious that the term “bandwidth” appears to
`
`carry two meanings in this field – on one hand referring to an actual range of
`
`spectrum space between a lower frequency limit and an upper frequency limit, while
`
`on the other hand referring generically to the rate at which data can be conveyed
`
`using some means of communication. However, this de facto synonymous use of
`
`the same term is neither accidental nor contrived – as the two versions of the term
`
`are actually intimately related by the underlying physics and mathematics associated
`
`with communications – particularly wireless communications or any other form of
`
`communication that is based upon the use of an oscillating, sinusoidal signal.
`
`20. First, consider a simple, perfect sinusoidal signal.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 11
`
`

`

`Such a signal is described mathematically as
`
`(cid:1850)(cid:4666)(cid:1872)(cid:4667)(cid:3404)(cid:1827)∙sin(cid:4666)(cid:1875)∙(cid:1872)(cid:4667),
`
`
`
`where X is the function at a particular point in time t, A is the amplitude of the signal
`
`(as sin(x) varies only between -1 and 1, this factor must be included to describe a
`
`real signal), and ω is the radial frequency of the signal. By inspection, it can be seen
`
`that this signal is continually repetitive – and it will repeat itself over a span of time
`
`known as the period, which can be written as tp. The period is in units of time – and
`
`thus the sine wave repeats itself every tp seconds. For clarity, it is the common
`
`practice to treat the sinusoidal signal not in terms of how long one period is – but
`
`rather in terms of how many repetitions occur in one second; this is the inverse of
`
`the period, and is known as the frequency (f);
`
`(cid:1858)(cid:3404) 1(cid:1872)(cid:3043) .
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 12
`
`

`

`As just noted, the frequency is defined as the number of sinusoidal repetitions that
`
`occur per second – which was long referred to in radio engineering as “cycles per
`
`second”). In more recent decades – reflecting a practice that is common in physics
`
`and engineering – this unit of “cycles per second” was given the name “Hertz”
`
`(abbreviated in usage as “Hz”) – in honor of the early (late 19th century) German
`
`radio pioneer Heinrich Hertz. Further, because (when using a scale of radians), one
`
`cycle of a sine wave takes a “time” (mathematically) of 2π, the relationship between
`
`the actual frequency f and the mathematical expression necessary for use in the
`
`equation above (which requires the use of the radial frequency ω) is:
`
`(cid:2033)(cid:3404)2(cid:2024)(cid:1858).
`
`Fortunately, from here, only the frequency f will be used – in terms of signal
`
`repetition in some given number of Hz.
`
`21. As noted above, an oscillating, sinusoidal signal will be defined by its
`
`particular magnitude (A) and its frequency (f). To describe the nature of both
`
`sinusoidal signals and their ability to convey information, only discussion of the
`
`frequency f will be necessary.
`
`22. An example of a sinusoidal wave is the auditory (sound) frequency of
`
`440 Hz; this sound frequency is known as “A-440.” This particular sound frequency
`
`is near the center of a typical piano keyboard – and is of critical importance in the
`
`tuning of both pianos and symphony orchestras. This 440 Hz signal simply means
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 13
`
`

`

`that a vibration is moving through the air – from the source to the end user – at a
`
`vibrational frequency of 440 Hz.
`
`23.
`
`In time, as described above, this 440 Hz signal is a sine wave. However,
`
`one can also look at the signal not in time – but instead with respect to the frequency
`
`(or range of frequencies) that the signal occupies. A range of frequencies is usually
`
`defined as representing a spectrum over which (and within which) a frequency (or
`
`multiple frequencies) may be found. In this particular case, the frequency spectrum
`
`associated with a clean, pure 440 Hz tone is rather non-descript:
`
`Not surprisingly, the frequency spectrum of a single, pure sinusoidal signal is a
`
`single “spike” in the frequency spectrum description – at that single frequency.
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 14
`
`

`

`24. However, there are some mathematical implications that will become
`
`important momentarily. For the frequency spectrum of the signal to be a “spike”
`
`(i.e., for the frequency spectrum representation to be infinitely narrow), the
`
`sinusoidal signal must continue infinitely in time.
`
`25.
`
`In the case of an infinite-in-time sinusoidal 440 Hz auditory signal, that
`
`“signal” will convey a continuous note of “A” to the end-user (the listener) – and
`
`nothing more; other than its presence, no other information is being conveyed (or
`
`even can be conveyed). An obvious consequence of this situation is that if such a
`
`sinusoidal signal is to convey actual information, it cannot be infinitely-unchanging
`
`with time. The basic sinusoidal signal will have to be changed in time to convey
`
`information.
`
`26. For a simple example of the conveying of information (such as an
`
`on/off signaling that will convey the binary 0’s and 1’s of digital logic/information),
`
`consider again the 440 Hz tone. In order for an end-listener to perceive that tone as
`
`having a frequency of 440 Hz, that signal must persist for the duration of at least one
`
`cycle; as the time of the cycle is the inverse of the frequency (440 Hz), that time is
`
`2.3 milliseconds (ms). Thus, a 440 Hz auditory signal must persist for at least 2.3
`
`ms (at minimum) for the listener to be able to detect it as being a 440 Hz signal. If
`
`information is to be conveyed by turning the signal on and off, this represents a form
`
`of communication using pulses – and it is necessary that there be enough separation
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 15
`
`

`

`between the pulses for the separate bits of information to be discernible (in the
`
`stream) from each other. If “on” represents “1,” then a period of time between the
`
`pulses equal to the length of the pulses must be provided – in order to keep the
`
`individual pulses separate. Further, if “off” represents “0,” then “off pulses” of no
`
`signal must still be provided with gaps of the same length between them – in order
`
`to be able to keep the 1 and 0 pulses separately-detectable.
`
`27. As a result, the conveyance of a single bit of information requires a time
`
`that is twice the period of the underlying sinusoidal signal (in this case, 440 Hz).
`
`Thus, to use a 440 Hz tone to convey information, a time of 4.6 ms is required to
`
`convey one bit. The inverse of 4.6 ms is (not surprisingly) 220; thus, it can be said
`
`that the maximum simple-case theoretical bit rate of the 440 Hz tone is 220 bits per
`
`second (bps).
`
`28.
`
`It is also obvious that, under this simple description of data rate, the
`
`data rate will increase in simple linear proportion to the frequency of the transmitting
`
`signal. If this were in fact the precise situation, wireless communication would be a
`
`rather simple matter; the achievable data rate would be proportional to the sinusoidal
`
`signal frequency, and the ability to pack together single-frequency channels (of the
`
`type depicted in the “spike” spectrum above) would only be limited by the ability to
`
`differentiate between two very-nearby (in frequency) carriers.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 16
`
`

`

`29. However, this is not what happens. As just described, in order to use a
`
`sinusoidal signal to convey information, that signal must be altered from that form
`
`(with respect to time). If the signal is no longer infinitely-long in time, then it cannot
`
`be infinitely narrow in its frequency spectrum1 – as in the depiction shown earlier
`
`for the ideal case of a perfect sinusoid which continues infinitely in time. The
`
`immediate implication of this statement is that in order to convey information, more
`
`than one frequency must be used. That is, to convey information, at least some range
`
`of frequencies around the central carrier frequency must be used; it is the span of
`
`this range of frequencies that defines the bandwidth of a channel.
`
`30. Thus, there is an obvious relationship of some sort between the
`
`bandwidth of a channel and the ability of that channel to convey data – in particular,
`
`it is obvious to ask what data rate can be supported by any particular channel based
`
`upon a particular carrier frequency.
`
`31. This relationship is elucidated via what is known as the bandwidth
`
`theorem (which is also sometimes referred to as the Fourier limit).2 The bandwidth
`
`theorem states that:
`
`
`1 This is actually one of several notable contributions made by the late-17th
`and early-18th century French physicist and mathematician Joseph Fourier – who
`demonstrated this basic physics and mathematics nearly a century before any serious
`work on radio communications (such as that done by Hertz) had begun.
` Two useful
`references on
`this
`topic
`can be
`2
`https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waves/node59.html
`
`at
`and
`
`found
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 17
`
`

`

`∆(cid:1858)∙∆(cid:1872) ≅1 ,
`
`where Δf is the bandwidth and Δt is the duration of the pulses that are conveying the
`
`information.
`
`32. The implications of the bandwidth theorem become obvious upon
`
`simple inspection. First, note that the duration of the pulses (Δt) is roughly the
`
`inverse of the data rate – that is, a smaller Δt corresponds to a higher data rate and a
`
`larger Δt corresponds to a lower data rate. Thus, according to the bandwidth
`
`theorem, a higher data rate requires a correspondingly-larger bandwidth. This is
`
`the reason for the equivalence (in both word and deed) of “bandwidth” and “data
`
`rate” – as the two terms really are two sides of the same coin. As there are two
`
`variables, the application of this finding can be interpreted in two ways – for a given
`
`desired data rate, a particular minimum bandwidth is required; while conversely, for
`
`a given bandwidth, only a particular maximum data rate is achievable.
`
`33. A second implication of the bandwidth theorem is that it is the
`
`bandwidth rather than the carrier frequency that determines the data-conveying
`
`ability of a particular signal. In contrast to the blissfully-simple (and, in fact,
`
`overidealized) case first considered, the carrier frequency in use is fundamentally-
`
`
`https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128882/why-is-bandwidth-range-of-
`frequencies-important-when-sending-wave-signals-suc .
`-15-
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 18
`
`

`

`irrelevant to the data rate – it is instead the bandwidth of the channel that determines
`
`the data rate at any particular frequency.
`
`34. Of course, it is not possible to have a bandwidth that is larger than the
`
`carrier frequency – which is the prime reason that, in practice, higher carrier
`
`frequencies allow for higher-bandwidth channels. For example, it can be shown
`
`relatively easily that the bandwidth necessary to transmit simple black-and-white
`
`television pictures is about 10 MHz; thus, the introduction of broadcast television
`
`required radio communications equipment that could operate at frequencies in the
`
`tens of MHz – and indeed, the lower band of television channels introduced c. 1945
`
`used a spectrum range of 54 MHz to 88 MHz.
`
`35.
`
`In addition, when slices of spectrum are allocated, they tend to be
`
`allocated in some range (bottom frequency to top frequency) that has some
`
`proportion to the frequencies in question; spectrum allocations at higher frequencies
`
`tend to be larger in absolute terms than spectrum allocations at lower frequencies.
`
`Thus, if the same number of channels are allocated within two different allocations
`
`of spectrum, the channels at the higher frequencies will have larger bandwidths than
`
`will the channels at the lower frequencies. However, note that there is also another
`
`fundamental trade-off in channel allocation – no matter the frequency involved, if a
`
`spectrum allocation tries to slice that spectrum up into more channels, each channel
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 19
`
`

`

`will have a reduced bandwidth available to it; conversely, if high-bandwidth-
`
`channels are desired, then fewer channels can be designated within that allocation.
`
`36. Further, these allocations are not arbitrarily set and cannot be altered at
`
`will (either in a static form, or “on the fly” as the network is used). Both the spectrum
`
`allocations and the actual channel details (number, frequency, bandwidth,
`
`transmission power) are set by regulatory bodies – such as (in the United States) the
`
`Federal Communications Commission
`
`(FCC).
`
` Operators of wireless
`
`communication networks must adhere closely to these standards, and all equipment
`
`and operations must conform to these rules as well. Obviously, making the best and
`
`most-efficient use of both spectrum allocations and particular channels is a critical
`
`aspect of wireless communications.
`
`37. This section was not intended to provide an exhaustive description of
`
`wireless data communications; but hopefully it has served to clarify the key details
`
`surrounding the terms “bandwidth” and “data rate.”
`
`B. Overview of Wireless Network Architecture and Carrier
`Aggregation
`38. When wireless communications networks came to be used for the
`
`transmission of data, several challenges immediately appeared. First, the backhaul
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 20
`
`

`

`capacity (such as fiber optic cable3) that delivers content to the transmission facility
`
`is much faster (i.e., it has a much higher data throughput rate) than is an over-the-air
`
`wireless communications channel. And second, wireless spectrum is a carefully-
`
`allocated (by regulation) and scarce resource; while it is relatively easy to add more
`
`backhaul capacity (i.e., more fiber), it is difficult (both in terms of regulation and in
`
`terms of physics) to add more wireless data capacity-and-speed to the wireless part
`
`of the network.
`
`
`3 This is the method for the delivery of data to base stations that is most-
`commonly used in North America; the tower operating companies (such as
`American Tower, Crown-Castle, and SBC Communications) own and operate large
`fiber-optic networks for this purpose. In other parts of the world, microwave links
`are frequently used for the same purpose. However, taken together, the situation is
`the same – the rate at which a data stream can be sent to a base station (or similar) is
`much larger than is the data rate that is accessible (for transmission to a receiving
`device) using a single-frequency over-the-air transmission. This is similar to the
`situation with in-home networks that use WiFi to transmit to user devices from a
`WiFi router that is connected to a wired network of some sort, where the wired
`network provides the connection to the outside world; the data rate attainable using
`the wired line into the house (be it fiber, cable, or even DSL) is typically much larger
`than is the data rate attainable with a WiFi connection to the router; the WiFi
`connection is the data-rate-limiting-step in the connection between the original
`source of the data and the end-user-device.
`-18-
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00129
`Qualcomm 2024, p. 21
`
`

`

`
`
`39. Referring to the figure above, in conventional operation (as available
`
`under the LTE standard), a user device connects to the wireless network over a single
`
`carrier frequency. The end user performs tasks using that single carrier; this can
`
`include, for example, 1) no particular tasks going on, but the carrier frequency is
`
`active in keeping the user connected to the network; 2) one task in progress as the
`
`end-user device; 3) two-or more tasks going on simultaneously at the end-user
`
`device. As the maximum-available data rate of the single-carrier connection is the
`
`rate-limiting step for the end user of the network, if the user makes a request for a
`
`large amount of data, that data can only be transferr