`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________
`IPR Case No. IPR2020-00038
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`__________
`
`
`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 17 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,868,079)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 1
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Zhi Ding. I have been retained as a technical expert on
`
`behalf of Motorola Mobility LLC to provide assistance in the above-captioned
`
`matter. I understand that Motorola Mobility LLC is the Petitioner in this
`
`proceeding. I have no financial interest in or affiliation with the Petitioner or the
`
`Patent Owner, which I understand is UNILOC 2017 LLC. My compensation does
`
`not depend upon the outcome of, or the specifics of 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 that some are also identified in the Petition.
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,868,079 ("the '079 Patent")
`
`Prosecution History of the '079 Patent
`
`Merakos (U.S. Patent No. 5,521,925)
`
`Kay (U.S. Patent No. 5,299,198)
`
`Borth (U.S. Patent No. 4,829,543)
`
`Alamouti (U.S. Patent No. 5,933,421)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Zhi Ding, Ph.D.
`
`Dahlman (U.S. Patent No. 6,606,313)
`
`Barnett (U.S. Patent No. 6,216,009)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 2
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`Raitola & Ranta, Comparison of Diversity Combining Techniques
`for GSM (1996).
`
`Zhang, A Bandwidth Reservation Multiple Access Protocol for
`Wireless ATM Local Networks (1997).
`
`Brennan, Linear diversity combining techniques (1959).
`
`Meierhofer, Priority scheduling algorithm for ATM wireless
`network access (1997).
`Simpson & Houts, Fundamentals of Analog and Digital
`Communication Systems (1971).
`Van Trees, Detection, Estimation, and Modulation Theory, Part I
`(Wiley 1968).
`Lee (U.S. Patent No. 5,301,333)
`
`Crisler (U.S. Patent No. 5,142,533)
`
`Andersson (U.S. Patent No. 5,604,744)
`
`Tobagi (U.S. Patent No. 4,503,533)
`
`Claim Construction Order
`
`Messerschmitt (U.S. Patent No. 5,267,244)
`
`Order Staying Apple Case
`
`Order Dismissing Samsung Case
`
`Order Staying LG Case
`
`Fenwick (U.S. Patent No. 4,001,692)
`
`Order Staying Motorola Case
`
`Atkinson (U.S. Patent No. 5,031,193)
`
`Raitola (U.S. Patent No. 6,445,757)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 3
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`1031
`
`Jasper (U.S. Patent No. 5,140,615)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 4
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`I understand that the application leading to U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`
`3.
`
`("the '079 Patent") was filed as U.S. Application No. 09/455,124 on December 6,
`
`1999. This application claims priority to Great Britain Application No. 9827182,
`
`filed on December 10, 1998, which I have been asked to treat as the effective filing
`
`or priority date of the '079 Patent (also referred hereafter as the "Critical Date").
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`I presently serve as a Professor in the Department of Electrical and
`
`4.
`
`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 earned 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 5
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`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
`
`twenty Masters' theses and more than twenty-seven 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
`
`twenty-nine 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 6
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`participated in several large-scale projects supported by the Defense Advanced
`
`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 190 peer-reviewed research articles in premier
`
`international journals, in addition to over 230 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 already been widely adopted
`
`as an introductory textbook to communication systems.
`
`9.
`
`In addition to the more than 400 published technical papers that have
`
`been cited over 10,000 times according to Google Scholar, I am also a co-inventor
`
`of three issued U.S. patents on communication technologies.
`
`10.
`
`I am an active 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 7
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`modern digital communications and networking, most notably, the IEEE 802.11
`
`series of WiFi 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 8
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
` Distinguished Lecturer of the IEEE Circuits and Systems Society from
`
`2004 to 2005.
`
` 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 U.S.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 9
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`competitive research proposals in the field of communication. I have also reviewed
`
`a large number of research proposals at the request of the National 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 the above-described near three decades of my 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 10
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS AND BACKGROUND
`I have been informed by counsel of several legal standards that govern
`
`17.
`
`my analysis, including those discussed below. For example, a proper validity
`
`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 as of the Critical
`
`Date of the '079 Patent ("POSA"). The "art" is the field of technology to which a
`
`patent is related, which, in this case, is wireless communications. I understand that
`
`the purpose of using the viewpoint of the POSA is for objectivity.
`
`19. To determine the characteristics of the POSA, I have considered the
`
`prior art and the various approaches in the prior art, the types of problems
`
`encountered, the solutions to those problems, the problems encountered by the
`
`inventor, and the rapidity with which innovations were made. I also considered the
`
`sophistication of the technology involved and the educational background and
`
`experience of those actively working in the relevant field at the Critical Date.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 11
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`Finally, I placed myself back at the Critical Date and considered the technology
`
`available at the Critical Date, the students whom I have trained, and the engineers
`
`and other professionals with whom I worked or interacted in the relevant
`
`industries, and their level of education, activities, and sophistication.
`
`20. Based on those considerations, the POSA as of the Critical Date of the
`
`'079 Patent would have had at least a Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering,
`
`Computer Engineering, or Computer Science, plus two to three years of work
`
`experience in communications systems or networking. Alternatively, the POSA
`
`would also have received a graduate degree such as Master's or PhD degree with at
`
`least one year of work experience related to communications systems or
`
`networking.
`
`21.
`
`In view of my education and experience, as summarized above and in
`
`my curriculum vitae (EX-1008), I meet and exceed this definition of the POSA.
`
`22.
`
`In arriving at my opinions and conclusions in this declaration, I have
`
`considered the issues from the POSA at the Critical Date.
`
`Claim Construction
`23. Motorola's Counsel has told me that terms should be given the
`
`meaning that the term would have to a POSA in question at the Critical Date in an
`
`inter partes review proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 12
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`I understand that the appropriate context in which to read a claim term
`
`24.
`
`includes both the specification and the claim language itself. I understand that a
`
`patent may include two types of claims, independent claims and dependent claims.
`
`I understand that an independent claim stands alone and includes only the
`
`limitations it recites. I understand that a dependent claim depends from an
`
`independent claim or another dependent claim. I understand that a dependent claim
`
`includes all the limitations that it recites in addition to the limitations recited in the
`
`claim (or claims) from which it depends.
`
`25.
`
`In comparing the Challenged Claim to the prior art, I have carefully
`
`considered the patent and its file history in light of the understanding of the POSA
`
`at the Critical Date.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that to determine how the POSA would have understood
`
`a claim term, one should look to sources available at the Critical Date that show
`
`what the POSA would have understood disputed claim language to mean. It is my
`
`understanding that this may include what is called "intrinsic" evidence as well as
`
`"extrinsic" evidence.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that, in construing a claim term, one should primarily
`
`rely on intrinsic patent evidence, which includes the words of the claims
`
`themselves, the remainder of the patent specification, and the prosecution history. I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 13
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`understand that extrinsic evidence, which is evidence external to the patent and the
`
`prosecution history, may also be useful in interpreting patent claims when the
`
`intrinsic evidence itself is insufficient. I understand that extrinsic evidence may
`
`include principles, concepts, terms, and other resources available to the POSA at
`
`the Critical Date.
`
`Validity
`28.
`
`I understand that the Petitioner bears 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."
`
`29. 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
`
`Petitioner has argued that the claim at issue (e.g., Challenged Claim) is rendered
`
`obvious by certain prior-art references.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 14
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`30.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`31.
`
`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
`32.
`I understand that a patent claim may be found unpatentable as obvious
`
`if the Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, as of the
`
`priority date, the subject matter of the claim, considered as a whole, would have
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 15
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field of the technology (the
`
`"art") to which the claimed subject matter belongs.
`
`33.
`
`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;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of non-
`
`obviousness.
`
`34.
`
`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 Challenged Claim, 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.
`
`35. 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 POSA.
`
`36.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a prior-art reference
`
`inherently discloses a limitation if the reference must necessarily function in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 16
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`accordance with, or include, the limitation in the context of the patented
`
`technology.
`
`37.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`38.
`
`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.
`
`RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE '079 PATENT
`Background of the Technology
`39. The '079 Patent discussed establishing resource allocation in a
`
`wireless network before a mobile station communicates with a base station. EX-
`
`1001, 3:22–40. At the Critical Date, both static and dynamic resource allocation
`
`strategies were known. In a static resource allocation strategy, the base station
`
`would pre-allocate a certain amount of channel resources or bandwidth (e.g., time
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 17
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`slots) to each potential mobile station. However, this would be inefficient because
`
`it did not consider the time-varying, dynamic uplink needs of mobile stations. For
`
`example, bandwidth waste would occur when a mobile station did not need all of
`
`the uplink bandwidth allocated to it, and poor service would occur when a mobile
`
`station required more bandwidth. For these reasons, a dynamic resource allocation
`
`strategy was considered in many wireless networks.
`
`40.
`
`In dynamic resource allocation, mobile stations would first send an
`
`uplink allocation request to the base station (i.e., an access request). Upon
`
`decoding the access request, the base station would evaluate the amount of
`
`requested resources versus the amount of available resources before allocating
`
`channel resources to the requesting mobile station.
`
`41. For multiple mobile stations attempting to send their uplink requests,
`
`"multiple access" protocols were implemented. There were two main types of
`
`"multiple access" protocols: random access or dedicated access. In a "random
`
`access" protocol (also referred to as a "contention" protocol), mobile stations
`
`contend for uplink resources by sending access requests to the base station at
`
`pseudo-random time instants in a random access channel. Collisions are likely to
`
`occur due to simultaneous requests transmitted by multiple stations. Consequently,
`
`contention resolution schemes for random access collisions were developed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 18
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`42. Alternatively, one in a "dedicated access" protocol (also referred to as
`
`a "fixed assignment" protocol), mobile stations sent access requests to the base
`
`station in their dedicated, pre-assigned channel resources (e.g., time slots). In such
`
`a dedicated uplink signaling channel, there would be no collisions from multiple
`
`access. The decision to use either random access or dedicated access signaling
`
`channel for sending uplink requests is a matter of design tradeoff. Random access
`
`can accommodate different numbers of potential mobile stations and is appropriate
`
`for providing services when the number of mobile stations tends to vary greatly.
`
`However, random access also must deal with contention and contention resolution
`
`issues. On the other hand, dedicated uplink signaling channels for access requests
`
`do not have contention issues but can accommodate only a pre-determined,
`
`dedicated number of mobile stations. Providing too many dedicated request
`
`signaling channels risks wasting valuable bandwidth resources, whereas assigning
`
`too few channels limits the number of mobile stations the network can effectively
`
`serve.
`
`Overview of the '079 Patent
`43. At the Critical Date, both types of multiple access protocols discussed
`
`above were well known in the wireless communications art. For example, WiFi
`
`standards (IEEE 802.11-1997, and IEEE 802.11a/b under development) and the 3G
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 19
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`cellular standard (UMTS under development), well known at the Critical Date,
`
`utilized random access. As an example of a dedicated assignment multiple access
`
`protocol, a bandwidth reservation multiple access (BRMA) had been proposed in
`
`published works that disclosed the use of pre-assigned mini-slots by secondary
`
`stations as reservation channels for establishing uplink access. See EX-1012, at
`
`147–161; see also EX-1018, 1:13–35 (describing a dedicated access system).
`
`44.
`
`In the Background of the Invention section, the '079 Patent alleged
`
`that a random access channel used in conventional cellular systems (e.g., 2G GSM)
`
`worked satisfactorily only with a low traffic load and would not handle the
`
`requirements of the 3G UMTS cellular system. EX-1001, 1:35–42. The '079 Patent
`
`acknowledged that UMTS would address this problem by providing a dedicated
`
`signaling channel whereby a mobile station (MS) transmits a request for services in
`
`an allocated time slot in the channel and then waits for an acknowledgement from
`
`the base station (BS). Id., 1:35–49. The '079 Patent alleged, however, that the
`
`dedicated signaling channel scheme can still experience performance issues such
`
`as false alarms (where the BS erroneously identifies a MS as requesting a service),
`
`missed detections (where the BS does not detect a request from a MS), and delays
`
`between a request for a service by the MS and the provision of that service by the
`
`BS. Id., 1:49–54. Consequently, the '079 Patent purports to improve the dedicated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 20
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`signaling channel scheme by re-transmitting the request in allocated time slots until
`
`an acknowledgement is received from the primary station. Id., 1:57–67.
`
`45. Annotated Figure 1 (reproduced below) shows an example radio
`
`communication system of the '079 Patent, including a primary station 100 (shown
`
`in red) and a plurality of secondary stations (only one secondary station 110,
`
`shown in green, is depicted in Figure 1). EX-1001, 3:10–24, 5:49–55, FIG. 1.
`
`Examples of a primary station 100 and a secondary station 110 include a BS and a
`
`MS, respectively. Id., 1:11–22, 5:49–55. The primary station 100 transmits signals
`
`to the secondary station 110 on downlink channel 122 (identified in blue), while
`
`the secondary station 110 transmits signals to the primary station 100 on uplink
`
`channel 124 (also identified in blue). Id., 3:19–22.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 21
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`46. Figure 2 (reproduced below) shows an example frame format for a
`
`dedicated uplink signaling channel 124 that is "dedicated to the transmission of
`
`requests for services by a MS 110 to a BS 100," in which the secondary station 110
`
`transmits a request for services to the primary station 100. EX-1001, 3:23–26. The
`
`dedicated uplink signaling channel 124 is divided into frames 202 in a time
`
`division multiple access (TDMA) fashion, where each registered secondary station
`
`is allocated a time slot 204 in each frame 202. Id., 3:26–30.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 22
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`
`
`47. Figure 3 (reproduced below) shows an example process of the
`
`secondary station requesting a service from the primary station. EX-1001, 3:54–55.
`
`At 302, the secondary station determines that it requires a service from the primary
`
`station. Id., 3:55–57. In other words, the secondary station requires uplink resource
`
`allocation from the primary station before it can transmit uplink data. Id. At 304,
`
`the secondary station sends a service request in the next allocated time slot in the
`
`uplink channel 124. Id., 3:57–59. The secondary station repeats the requests in
`
`successive allocated time slots until a first test 306 determines that no further
`
`requests should be made, for example by examining the value of a flag. Id., 3:61–
`
`65.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 23
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`
`
`48. A second test 308 at the secondary station determines whether it has
`
`received an acknowledgement from the primary station. EX-1001, 3:66–67. Upon
`
`receiving an acknowledgement to its transmitted request, the secondary station at
`
`310 stops sending the request, for example, by setting the flag checked in the first
`
`test 306 to false. Id., 3:67–4:4. The secondary station begins negotiations with the
`
`BS 100 to define fully the required services at step 312, and the required services
`
`are set up by the primary station at step 314. Id., 4:4–7.
`
`49.
`
`If the primary station does not correctly receive a request for a
`
`service, the secondary station can repeat the request. EX-1001, 4:8–12. The request
`
`may be repeated "at least in every allocated time slot if the system is busy and a
`-20-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00038
`MM EX1007, Page 24
`
`
`
`Ding Declaration re Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079
`(IPR2020-00038)
`
`
`
`time slot is not allocated in every frame." Id. In more traditional schemes, the time
`
`that the secondary station has to wait before re-transmitting a failed request may be
`
`relatively long if it waits for an acknowledgement . Id., 4:12–17. As the '079 Patent
`
`acknowledges, and a POSA would have understood, the purportedly inventive re-
`
`transmission feature of the '079 Patent is simply a form of a diversity scheme
`
`known as "time diversity" that utilizes multiple transmissions of the same request
`
`signal to combat the effects of fading, near-far effect, and other interferences to
`
`improve the accuracy of the detection by the base station. Id., 4:26–28.
`
`50. Additionally, the '079 Patent described that the primary station
`
`determines that it has received a service request signal by comparing a strength of
`
`the received service request signal to a threshold value and determining that the
`
`strength exceeds the threshold value (hereafter the "threshold decision feature").
`
`EX-1001, 2:9–14, 4:51–54, 4:59–62, 5:25–33. In one embodiment, a service
`
`request signal in the form of an uplink signaling sequence (e.g., a predetermined
`
`code sequence) is detected at the base station by a matched filter, which outputs a
`
`vector sum of the uplink signaling sequence and a noise signal. Id., 3:59–61 (the
`
`"request 304 is made by transmitting a predetermined code sequence"), 4:36–37. In
`
`the threshold decision feature, "the magnitude of t
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
