`
`
`
`
`
`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
`__________
`
`IPR Case No. IPR2018-01581
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`__________
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ZHI DING, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311 ET SEQ. AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`(CLAIM 8 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,848,439)
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 1
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Zhi Ding. I have been retained as a technical expert on
`
`behalf of HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. to provide assistance in the
`
`above-captioned matter. I understand that HTC Corporation and HTC America,
`
`Inc. are the Petitioners in this proceeding. I have no financial interest in or
`
`affiliation with the Petitioners or the Patent Owner, which I understand is INVT
`
`SPE LLC. My compensation does not depend upon the outcome of, or my
`
`testimony in, this inter partes review proceeding or any litigation proceedings.
`
`2.
`
`I have reviewed each of the following documents, which I am
`
`informed are also identified in the Petition.
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439 to She et al. (“the '439 Patent”)
`
`1002
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439 to She et al.
`
`1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,904,283 to Li et al. (“Li”)
`
`1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,221,680 to Vijayan et al. (“Vijayan”)
`
`1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,721,569 to Hashem et al. (“Hashem”)
`
`1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,596,604 to Cioffi et al. (“Cioffi”)
`
`1008
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Zhi Ding, Ph.D.
`
`1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,167,031 to Olofsson et al. (“Olofsson”)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 2
`
`
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the application leading to U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`
`(“the '439 Patent”) was U.S. Application No. 11/719,611 filed on May 17, 2007.
`
`This application was a national stage filing of PCT/JP2005/021246, filed on
`
`November 18, 2005. The PCT application claimed priority to Chinese Application
`
`No. 2004 1 0094967, filed on November 19, 2004, which I have been asked to treat
`
`as the effective filing or priority date of the '439 Patent.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`4.
`
`I presently serve as a Professor in the Department of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering at the University of California, Davis. I have held this
`
`position since my appointment on July 1, 2000. I am also a private technical
`
`consultant on various technologies related to information systems. I have more
`
`than three decades of research experience on a wide range of topics related to data
`
`communications and signal processing.
`
`5.
`
`I earned my Bachelor of Science degree in 1982 in wireless
`
`engineering from the Nanjing Institute of Technology (later renamed as Southeast
`
`University) in Nanjing, China. I earn my Master of Science degree in 1987 in
`
`electrical engineering from the University of Toronto in Toronto, Canada. I earned
`
`my Ph.D. in 1990 in electrical engineering from Cornell University in Ithaca, New
`
`York.
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 3
`
`
`
`6. My responsibilities as a Professor at University of California, Davis,
`
`include classroom instruction on various topics of communication systems and
`
`signal analysis, as well as mentoring undergraduate students and supervising
`
`graduate students in their research and development efforts on various topics
`
`related to digital communications. I have directly supervised such research and
`
`development works ranging from signal detection to wireless networking. As the
`
`chief academic advisor, I have also directly supervised the completion of over 20
`
`Masters theses and 25 Ph.D. dissertations on various topics related to digital
`
`communications. I have served full time as a faculty member at three major
`
`research universities in the United States over the past 28 years, including Auburn
`
`University from 1990 to 1998, University of Iowa from 1999 to 2000, and
`
`University of California, Davis, from 2000 to present.
`
`7.
`
`Since 1990, I have been selected as the principal investigator of
`
`multiple highly competitive federal and local research grants, including sixteen
`
`major research projects supported by the National Science Foundation and two
`
`research projects funded by the U.S. Army Research Office. These competitive
`
`research projects focused on developing more efficient and effective digital
`
`communication transceivers, networks, and signal processing tools. I have also
`
`participated in several large-scale projects supported by the Defense Advanced
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 4
`
`
`
`Research Projects Agency (DARPA) with teams of researchers. I have applied for,
`
`and received support from, other federal, state, and industry sponsors.
`
`8.
`
`I have published over 170 peer-reviewed research articles in premier
`
`international journals, in addition to over 220 refereed technical articles at top
`
`international conferences on communications and information technologies. I also
`
`authored two books on communications technologies. My most recent book, co-
`
`authored with B.P. Lathi, is entitled, “Modern Digital and Analog Communication
`
`Systems,” 5th edition, and was published by the Oxford University Press in 2018.
`
`The 4th edition of this book (published in 2009) had been widely adopted as an
`
`introductory textbook to communication systems.
`
`9.
`
`In addition to the 400 published technical papers that have been cited
`
`over 10,000 times according to Google Scholar, I am also co-inventor of 3 issued
`
`U.S. patents on communication technologies.
`
`10.
`
`I am a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE) and was elevated to the grade of Fellow in January 2003 for contributions
`
`made in signal processing for communication. The IEEE is the world’s largest
`
`professional society of engineers, with over 400,000 members in more than 160
`
`countries. The IEEE has led the development of many standards for modern
`
`digital communications and networking, most notably, the IEEE 802 series of
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 5
`
`
`
`network standards. The IEEE Grade of Fellow is conferred by the Boards of
`
`Directors upon a person with an extraordinary record of accomplishments in any of
`
`the IEEE fields of interest. The total number selected in any one year does not
`
`exceed one-tenth of one percent of the total voting Institute membership.
`
`11.
`
`I have served the IEEE in the following capacities:
`
`• Chief Information Officer of the IEEE Communications Society from
`
`Jan. 2018 to present.
`
`• General Chair of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics,
`
`Speech, and Signal Processing, the flagship conference of the IEEE
`
`Signal Processing Society.
`
`• Chair of the Steering Committee for the IEEE Transactions on Wireless
`
`Communications from 2008 to 2010.
`
`• Distinguished Lecturer of the IEEE Communications Society from
`
`January 2008 to December 2009.
`
`• Technical Program Chair of the 2006 IEEE Globecom, one of two
`
`flagship annual IEEE Communication Society conferences.
`
`• Distinguished Lecturer of the IEEE Circuits and Systems Society from
`
`2004 to 2005.
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 6
`
`
`
`• Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing from
`
`1994 to 1997 and from 2001 to 2004.
`
`• Member of the IEEE Statistical Signal and Array Processing for
`
`Communications Technical Committee from 1993 to 1998.
`
`• Member of the IEEE Signal Processing for Communications Technical
`
`Committee from 1998 to 2004.
`
`12.
`
`In 2012, I received the annual Wireless Communications Technical
`
`Committee Recognition Award from the IEEE Communications Society, a peer
`
`award given to a person with a high degree of visibility and contribution in the
`
`field of “Wireless and Mobile Communications Theory, Systems, and Networks.”
`
`13.
`
`I have also served as a technical consultant for the telecommunication
`
`industry. For example, in 1995 I consulted for Analog Devices, Inc., on the
`
`development of the first generation DOCSIS cable modem systems. I have also
`
`consulted for other companies, including Nortel Networks and NEC US
`
`Laboratories. I worked as a visiting faculty research fellow at NASA Glenn
`
`Research Center in 1992 and at U.S. Air Force Wright Laboratory in 1993. I have
`
`served on multiple review panels of the National Science Foundation to evaluate
`
`competitive research proposals in the field of communication. I have also
`
`reviewed a large number of research proposals at the request of the National
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 7
`
`
`
`Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada as an expert
`
`panelist from 2010 to 2013, and also at the request of the Research Grant Council
`
`(RGC) of Hong Kong as an external reviewer.
`
`14.
`
`I have served as an expert witness or consulting expert on a number of
`
`matters related to intellectual property, mostly in the arena of telecommunications,
`
`including cellular communications, Wi-Fi technologies, Bluetooth, and optical
`
`communications. For example, since 2007, I have been engaged to work on
`
`various litigations involving cellular, WiFi, and optical communication networks.
`
`15. Further experience and a complete list of my publications are
`
`presented in my curriculum vitae, which is being submitted with this declaration as
`
`Exhibit 1008.
`
`16. Based on my above-described near 3 decades of experience in
`
`communications technologies, and the acceptance of my publications and
`
`professional recognition by societies in my field, I believe that I am qualified to be
`
`an expert in wireless communication systems, communication networks, and signal
`
`processing.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS AND BACKGROUND
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed by counsel of several legal standards that govern
`
`my analysis, including those discussed below. For example, a proper validity
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 8
`
`
`
`analysis includes resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,
`
`determining the scope and content of the prior art, and ascertaining the differences
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art. I address all of these factors in my
`
`declaration below.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`18.
`
`I have been advised that the claims of a patent are reviewed from the
`
`perspective of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention. The “art” is the field of technology to which a patent is related.
`
`I understand that the purpose of using the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (POSITA) is for objectivity.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`19.
`
`It is my understanding that terms should be given their broadest
`
`reasonable construction in an inter partes review proceeding. Under this standard,
`
`the terms should be given their ordinary and customary meaning to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, unless the patent teaches a different meaning in the
`
`specification.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the appropriate context in which to read a claim term
`
`includes both the specification and the claim language itself.
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 9
`
`
`
`Validity
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the Petitioners bear the burden of proving the
`
`instituted grounds of invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand
`
`that “preponderance” means “more likely than not.” I understand that general and
`
`conclusory assertions, without underlying factual evidence, may not support a
`
`conclusion that something is “more likely than not.”
`
`22. Rather, the “preponderance of the evidence” standard requires that a
`
`reasonable finder of fact be convinced that the existence of a specific material fact
`
`is more probable than the non-existence of that fact. The preponderance of the
`
`evidence standard does not support speculation regarding specific facts and is
`
`instead focused on whether the evidence more likely than not demonstrates the
`
`existence or non-existence of specific material facts. Here, I understand that
`
`Petitioners have argued that the claims at issue are rendered obvious by certain
`
`prior-art references.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that a reference may qualify as prior art to a
`
`patent if the reference was known or used by others in this country, or patented or
`
`described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention
`
`by the patent holder. I have also been informed that a reference may qualify as
`
`prior art to a patent if the invention was patented or described in a printed
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 10
`
`
`
`publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country,
`
`more than one year before the effective filing date of the patent. For a printed
`
`publication to qualify as prior art, I understand that the Petitioner must demonstrate
`
`that the publication was disseminated or otherwise sufficiently accessible to the
`
`public.
`
`24.
`
`I have further been informed that a reference may qualify as prior art
`
`to a patent if the invention was described in a published application for a patent
`
`filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant of the challenged
`
`patent.
`
`Obviousness
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a patent claim may be found unpatentable as obvious
`
`if the Petitioners establish by a preponderance of the evidence that, as of the
`
`priority date, the subject matter of the claim, considered as a whole, would have
`
`been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field of the technology (the
`
`“art”) to which the claimed subject matter belongs.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the analysis of whether a claim is obvious depends
`
`upon a number of factual inquiries, for example, (1) the scope and content of the
`
`prior art; (2) the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 11
`
`
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of non-
`
`obviousness.
`
`27.
`
`I have also been informed that the claimed invention must be
`
`considered as a whole in analyzing obviousness or non-obviousness. In
`
`determining the differences between the prior art and the claims, the question
`
`under the obviousness inquiry is not whether the differences themselves would
`
`have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been
`
`obvious.
`
`28. Relatedly, I understand that it might be appropriate to consider
`
`whether there is evidence of a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to combine the
`
`teachings in the prior art, the nature of the problem, or the knowledge of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a prior-art reference
`
`inherently discloses a limitation if the reference must necessarily function in
`
`accordance with, or include, the limitation in the context of the patented
`
`technology.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that one indicator of non-obviousness is when prior art
`
`“teaches away” from combining certain known elements. For example, a prior art
`
`reference teaches away from the patent’s particular combination if it leads in a
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 12
`
`
`
`different direction or discourages that combination, recommends steps that would
`
`not likely lead to the patent’s result, or otherwise indicates that a seemingly
`
`inoperative device would be produced.
`
`31.
`
`I further understand that certain objective indicia can be important
`
`evidence regarding whether a patent is obvious or nonobvious, including the
`
`existence of a long-felt but unsolved need, unexpected results, commercial success,
`
`copying, and industry acceptance or praise.
`
`STATE OF THE ART AT THE TIME THE ’439 PATENT WAS FILED
`
`Cellular Networks
`
`32. The ’493 Patent generally concerns technologies related to wireless
`
`cellular telephones and operating such phones within a cellular network. A cellular
`
`network is a wireless communication infrastructure that provides voice and data
`
`services to subscribing cellular phones, also known as mobile terminals or user
`
`equipment (“UE”).
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`33.
`
`In a cellular network, the network coverage area is divided into many
`
`cells that typically take the shape of a hexagon. Each cell is served by a base
`
`station (BS), which directly communicates with the mobile terminals or user
`
`equipment (UE) within the cell. In the basic cellular mode, each mobile terminal
`
`communicates directly only with the base station. The signal flow from the base
`
`station to the mobile terminal is known as the downlink (or forwardlink). The
`
`signal flow from the mobile terminal to the base station is known as the uplink (or
`
`reverselink).
`
`34.
`
`In general, many subscriber mobile terminals are served within each
`
`cell by the cell’s base station in both the uplink and downlink directions. To serve
`
`many mobile terminals simultaneously without detrimental mutual interferences,
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 14
`
`
`
`the mobile terminals must follow a strict channel sharing process known as
`
`multiple channel access or “multiple accesses.”
`
`35. The best known multiple access schemes are frequency division
`
`multiple access (FDMA), in which each mobile terminal has its own access
`
`frequency band, time division multiple access (TDMA), in which each mobile
`
`terminal has a unique access time slot, and code division multiple access (CDMA),
`
`in which each mobile terminal has a unique access code. Before the priority date
`
`of the '439 Patent, CDMA was the predominant technology in 3G cellular wireless
`
`standards and included two major families: UMTS and CDMA2000. In 4th
`
`generation (4G) LTE networks, another multiple access technology known as
`
`OFDMA (orthogonal frequency division multiple access) was proposed that would
`
`jointly apply TDMA and FDMA.
`
`
`
`Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM)
`
`36. There are many ways for a wireless link to use an allocated amount of
`
`bandwidth to transmit and receive data signals. Orthogonal Frequency Division
`
`Multiplexing (OFDM) was one way to transmit data that existed before the priority
`
`date of the '439 Patent. In general, OFDM is a way to modulate digital data on
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 15
`
`
`
`multiple carrier frequencies in a wireless network for high-speed data transmission
`
`between a base station (BS) and a user equipment (UE).
`
`37. With OFDM, a transmitter (such as a base station or a mobile
`
`terminal) can divide its allocated frequency band into a number of orthogonal
`
`(non-overlapping) subcarriers to transmit data-bearing signals in each time slot.
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of the '439 Patent (labeled “prior art”), the signal bandwidth
`
`can be divided into hundreds of orthogonal subcarriers along the frequency axis
`
`and a number of OFDM symbol intervals along the time axis. In each subcarrier
`
`for each OFDM symbol interval, the BS can transmit a data symbol to a UE.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 16
`
`
`
`Channel Conditions and “Adaptive Modulation and Coding”
`
`38. The BS may modulate each subcarrier with data using a specific
`
`modulation scheme combined with a specific coding scheme. The modulation and
`
`coding schemes are chosen based on channel conditions, which can be affected by
`
`phenomena such as interference and fading due to multipath propagation. When
`
`the channel quality is high, higher-rate modulation and higher-rate coding can be
`
`applied to achieve a higher data rate while maintaining a sufficiently low bit error
`
`rate (BER). When the channel quality is poor, lower-rate modulation and coding
`
`must be applied to reduce the data rate and maintain a sufficiently low bit error
`
`rate.
`
`39.
`
`In general, the signals transmitted on different subcarriers will pass
`
`through physical propagation channels to reach the intended receiver unit (mobile
`
`terminal or base station). Because of pathloss, multipath effect, Doppler effect, co-
`
`channel interferences, and noise, the transmitted signal quality will degrade by the
`
`time it reaches the receiver. Because the channel conditions on different
`
`subcarriers might vary, signal qualities due to channel degradation might also vary
`
`across the multiple subcarriers in OFDM. This phenomenon is known as
`
`frequency selective fading and leads to a lower achievable data rate (channel
`
`capacity) for a given channel bandwidth. This frequency selective fading problem
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 17
`
`
`
`was well known before the priority date of the '439 Patent. It was also well known
`
`before the priority date of the '439 Patent that one effective counter-measure
`
`against frequency selective fading is to adjust the modulation and coding for each
`
`subcarrier in response to the channel quality.
`
`40.
`
`In cellular systems, the channel conditions vary over time because of
`
`UE mobility. To compensate against time-varying channel conditions, a cellular
`
`UE periodically estimates the downlink channel quality of its subcarriers. A
`
`modulation and coding combination can then be chosen for each subcarrier or a
`
`group of subcarriers based upon the estimated channel conditions, often known as
`
`the channel state information (or CSI). Adjusting modulation and coding in
`
`response to channel quality is known as adaptive modulation and coding (AMC).
`
`AMC was mainstream technology before the priority date of the '439 Patent.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’439 PATENT
`
`Prior-Art Systems Alleged in the '439 Patent
`
`41.
`
`To execute AMC on a subcarrier-by-subcarrier basis during downlink,
`
`channel information for hundreds or thousands of subcarriers needs to be sent from
`
`the mobile terminals to the base station. It was well known to people of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, before the priority date of the '439 Patent, that AMC of subcarrier
`
`granularity required too much feedback signaling overhead. It was also recognized
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 18
`
`
`
`by people of ordinary skill in the art, before the priority date of the '439 Patent, that
`
`neighboring subcarriers typically experience similar channel conditions.
`
`42.
`
`In its background, the '439 Patent acknowledges that, to reduce the
`
`feedback overhead, multiple subcarriers can be bundled into subbands—groups of
`
`multiple subcarriers in neighboring positions in the frequency domain—and that
`
`this was done in the prior art. Ex. 1001, 2:12-31, 4:56-60. With AMC applied on
`
`subband basis, a joint (i.e., common) modulation parameter and a joint (i.e.,
`
`common) coding parameter can be applied to all of the subcarriers in a particular
`
`subband. With less-granular CSI needing to be sent back from the UE to the base
`
`station, the uplink spectral efficiency (i.e., spectrum utilization rate) for CSI
`
`feedback can be improved. Such AMC based on subbands was typically used
`
`before the priority date of the '439 Patent.
`
`43. Figure 2 of the '439 Patent, labeled “prior art,” helps explain AMC
`
`based on subbands. In Figure 2, all of the subcarriers along the frequency
`
`(vertical) axis are bundled into subbands 1 through N. A joint (common)
`
`modulation parameter and a joint (common) coding parameter are then applied to
`
`all of the subcarriers in each subband, as shown by the classification numbers in
`
`each coding and modulating block. Each classification number denotes a specific
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 19
`
`
`
`coding parameter and a specific modulation parameter, given in Table 1 of the
`
`“Background Art” section of the '439 Patent. Ex. 1001, 2:12-49.
`
`FIG. 2 of ‘439 Patent
`
`
`
`44. Figures 3 and 4 of the '439 Patent show an alleged prior-art system
`
`implementing AMC based on subbands. As shown in Figures 4A and 4B, each
`
`subband has a modulation parameter M and a coding parameter C, which are
`
`applied to all of the subcarriers in the subband. Ex. 1001, 2:50-4:60.
`
`45. On the downlink receiving side (the mobile terminal) shown in
`
`Figures 3B and 4B of the '439 Patent, a subband AMC parameter section 318
`
`analyzes the condition of the OFDM subbands based on channel characteristics
`
`received from a channel estimation section 319. The subband AMC parameter
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 20
`
`
`
`section 318 also selects subband modulation parameters MN and coding parameters
`
`CN to be sent back to the transmission side (the base station) via a feedback path
`
`implemented by an uplink transmission section 320. These subband modulation
`
`parameters MN and coding parameters CN are also stored by the receiving side in a
`
`parameter storage section 410 so that the receiving side can later use them to
`
`demodulate and decode the serial data stream sent by the transmission side (at BS).
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:14-61, 4:29-55.
`
`46. On the transmission side (the BS) shown in Figures 3A and 4A of the
`
`'439 Patent, an AMC control section 308 controls an AMC section 301 using the
`
`subband modulation parameters MN and the subband coding parameters CN
`
`obtained from the receiving side (the UE) via a parameter reception/extraction
`
`section 307. The result is a serial data stream 404 in which each subband k from 1
`
`through N has its own modulation and coding. Ex. 1001, 2:61-3:13, 4:1-28.
`
`47. Thus, in subband-based AMC of the alleged prior art acknowledged in
`
`the '439 Patent, each UE estimates the channel conditions for its downlink
`
`subbands, determines the subband AMC parameters, and feeds parameters back to
`
`the BS on a subband-by-subband basis. The BS then modulates and encodes each
`
`downlink subband to achieve an acceptable bit error rate. The '439 Patent
`
`acknowledges that such an alleged prior-art system using subband-level coding and
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 21
`
`
`
`modulation reduces the difficulty of implementation and the feedback overhead of
`
`the system compared to AMC based on subbcarriers. Ex. 1001, 4:56-60.
`
`The Purported Improvement of the ’439 Patent
`
`48. The '439 Patent alleges that prior-art systems implementing AMC
`
`based on subbands still required too much feedback overhead and thus still suffer
`
`from low uplink spectrum utilization rate and difficulty of adaptivity. In particular,
`
`the ’439 Patent identifies a problem of “increasing spectrum utilization rate based
`
`on high-speed fading and channel estimation error, reducing the degree of
`
`difficulty of adaptivity, and reducing the feedback overhead compared with
`
`subband adaptive methods of the related art.” Ex. 1001, 5:35-39.
`
`49. The '439 Patent purportedly solves this problem by taking the
`
`subbands of the prior art, which were bundles of subcarriers, and further
`
`combining these subbands into “subband groups,” which are groups of subbands.
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:40-44. The '439 Patent then has a communication apparatus select a
`
`joint modulation parameter and a joint coding parameter for each subband group,
`
`instead of selecting a modulation parameter and a coding parameter for each
`
`subband as was done in the alleged prior art. Ex. 1001, 5:42-44.
`
`50. For example, as an alleged solution to the problems identified in the
`
`prior art, the '439 Patent describes a system implementing AMC performed on
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 22
`
`
`
`subband groups in Figures 5A-6B. The system of Figures 5A-6B is mostly the
`
`same as the alleged prior-art system of Figures 3A-4B of the '439 Patent. In
`
`Figures 5A-6B, however, the units for implementing AMC are subband groups
`
`rather than subbands. In particular, as shown in Figures 6A and 6B of the '439
`
`Patent, each subband group has a modulation parameter M and a coding parameter
`
`C, which are equally applied to all of the subbands within the subband group. Ex.
`
`1001, 7:48-9:7.
`
`51. Regarding the alleged solution, Figures 5B and 6B of the '439 Patent
`
`show the receiving side of the communication system (e.g., a mobile terminal),
`
`where a subband AMC parameter section 504 analyzes the performance of the
`
`OFDM subbands based on channel characteristics received from a channel
`
`estimation section 319. The subband AMC parameter section 504 also selects
`
`subband group modulation parameters Mk and coding parameters Ck to be sent to
`
`the transmission side (the BS) via a feedback path implemented by a parameter
`
`transmission section 320 on uplink. These subband modulation parameters Mk and
`
`coding parameters Ck are also stored by the receiving side (i.e. UE) in a parameter
`
`storage section 410 so that the UE can later use them to demodulate and decode the
`
`serial data stream sent by the transmission side (the BS). Ex. 1001, 7:60-8:15,
`
`8:29-36, 8:57-9:7.
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 23
`
`
`
`52. On the downlink transmission side (e.g., a base station) shown in
`
`Figures 5A and 6A of the '439 Patent, an adaptive transmission control section 501
`
`controls an AMC section 301 using the subband group modulation parameters Mk
`
`and the subband group coding parameters Ck that it received on uplink from the
`
`feedback message sent by the downlink receiving UE via a parameter
`
`reception/extraction section 307. The result is a serial data stream 603 in which
`
`each subband group 1 through K has its own modulation and coding. Ex. 1001,
`
`8:16-28, 8:41-56.
`
`53.
`
`In the '439 Patent, the OFDM subbands are formed into subband
`
`groups based on combination patterns in the 2-dimensional frequency-time
`
`domain. These combination patterns are stored in pattern storage sections 601, 605
`
`and 607, shown in FIGS. 6A and 6B. Along the frequency axis, the combination
`
`patterns may involve combining neighboring subbands, combining subbands
`
`spaced at intervals, or combining all of the subbands into a single subband group.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:21-33.
`
`54. Figure 8 of the '439 Patent, reproduced below, shows an example of
`
`combining neighboring subbands on the frequency axis across M time units, each
`
`of which corresponds to an OFDM symbol. In Figure 8, each four neighboring
`
`subbands for M consecutive OFDM symbols are combined into one subband
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 24
`
`
`
`group, as shown by the shading in the figure. Subbands having the same shading
`
`in this figure belong to the same subband group. Ex. 1001, 10:48-49. This is
`
`similar to how neighboring subcarriers are combined to form subbands. Ex. 1001,
`
`10:33-49.
`
`55. Figure 9 of the '439 Patent, reproduced below, shows another example
`
`of combining subbands spaced at intervals on the frequency axis. In Figure 9,
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 25
`
`
`
`every fourth subband is combined into one subband group, as shown by the
`
`shading in the figure. Ex. 1001, 10:50-61.
`
`56. Figure 10 of the '439 Patent, reproduced below, shows yet another
`
`example of combining all of the subbands into a single subband group. Ex. 1001,
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 26
`
`
`
`10:62-11:3. As shown in Figures 8-10, the subband groupings disclosed in the '439
`
`Patent can be quite broad.
`
`
`
`57.
`
`In summary, the ’439 patent alleges the following improvements over
`
`prior art OFDM systems: (1) combining subbands into subband groups; (2) having
`
`IPR2019-00959
`Apple Inc. EX1007, Page 27
`
`
`
`the receiving side (e.g., a mobile terminal) decide and send to the transmission side
`
`(e.g., a BS) a joint modulation parameter and a joint coding parameter for each
`
`subband group to be used for subsequent data transmission by the transmission
`
`side (e.g., a base station); and (3) storing in advance (by the receiving side)
`
`patterns for combining subbands into subband groups.
`
`58. As demonstrated in detail below, it was well known in the art, before
`
`the earliest claimed priority date of the ’439 patent, to combine subbands into
`
`subband groups, to decide joint modulation and coding parameters for each
`
`subband group for the transmission side, to send the decided modulation and
`
`coding parameters for each subband group to the transmission side, and to store in
`
`advance patterns for combining subbands into subband groups by the receiving
`
`side as well as the transmission side. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have been motivated to implement the decision function regarding the
`
`joint modulation and coding parameters at the receiving side instead of the
`
`transmission side, in order to achieve the well-recognized goal of saving signaling
`
`overhead in a wireless communication system.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE