`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`PETITIONER,
`V.
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`PATENT OWNER.
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00108
`U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`___________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF EDWIN A. HERNANDEZ-MONDRAGON, PHD
`
`
`
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 1 of 46
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 2
`II.
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES .................................................................................. 7
`III.
`IV. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................. 10
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 11
`V.
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD AND CITED REFERENCES ................... 13
`VII. PRIOR ART REFERENCES ...................................................................... 17
`Ground 1: Claims 9-12 – Li-748 in view of Tong and Mao ............................ 18
`Ground 2: Claims 9-12 – Tong in view of Mao .............................................. 26
`Ground 3: Claims 9, 11-12 – Li-054 in view of Mao ...................................... 28
`VIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ............ 30
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 2 of 46
`
`
`
`I, Edwin A. Hernandez-Mondragon, PhD, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and otherwise
`
`competent to make this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Bell
`
`Northern Research, LLC for the above-captioned inter partes review (“IPR”). I
`
`understand that the petition for inter partes review involves U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,416,862 (“the ’862 patent”), which was filed on September 28, 2005. The
`
`’862 Patent names Carlos Aldana and Joonsuk Kim as co-inventors. The ’862
`
`Patent issued on May 2, 2006.
`
`3.
`
`I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge,
`
`educational background and training, consideration of the materials I discuss
`
`herein, and my expert opinions.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $600 per hour for my time
`
`in this matter. My compensation does not depend on the outcome of this
`
`proceeding and I have no financial interest in its outcome.
`
`5.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed and considered
`
`the ’862 Patent, the ’862 Patent prosecution history, and each of the documents
`
`cited herein, and I have considered them in light of general knowledge in the art
`
`in the time frame of April 21, 2005, the earliest priority date of the ’862 Patent.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 3 of 46
`
`
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my experience, education and
`
`knowledge as they relate to the relevant art. I also have considered the
`
`viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art in the time frame of the filing
`
`date of the ’862 patent.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I am an owner and founder of EGLA CORP, an intellectual
`
`property, engineering consulting, and startup accelerator incubator in the fields
`
`of a) wireless communications, 4G and 5G, b) media streaming, and c) health
`
`technologies.
`
`7.
`
`I have a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering in Mobile Computing
`
`in 2002 and obtained a Masters in Science in Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering in 1999, both from the University of Florida. Prior to that, I
`
`graduated with my B.S. in Electronics Engineering from Costa Rica Institute of
`
`Technology in 1995. A copy of my curriculum vitae, which includes a more
`
`detailed summary of my background, experience, patents, and publications, is
`
`marked as Exhibit 2005.
`
`8.
`
`I have previously been retained as an independent expert
`
`consultant in the fields of cable television systems and broadcasting,
`
`multimedia streaming, mobile devices and systems, air-interface and Long-
`
`Term Evolution (LTE), cloud storage and data synchronization, wireless
`
`
`
`2
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 4 of 46
`
`
`
`communications, block-chain technology, power management, personal area
`
`networking, and smart phones and wireless embedded software development.
`
`9. My experience in Wireless Communications, modulation, RF
`
`propagation models, and antenna engineering dates back to the 1990s, where I
`
`was an engineer working on AX.25 radio node in from 1996 – 1997, working
`
`with civil band radio, VHF bands (140 MHz), and FSK (Frequency-Shift
`
`Keying) modulation.
`
`10.
`
` I founded COMPUNET in 1997 and was its lead engineer from
`
`1997 to 2009. While at COMPUNET, I was a lead developer for authentication
`
`services, security services, web services, and networking configuration services.
`
`11.
`
`I worked for Microsoft from 2001 to 2003 as a Technical
`
`Program Manager. In that position, I was responsible for driving architecture,
`
`design, test automation, and security analysis for Bluetooth Personal Area
`
`Networking (PAN). I also drove testing over networking protocols, such as
`
`IPv4 networks and IPv6 networks, including early versions of 802.11b and
`
`candidates in the 2.4GHz bands that used Frequency Hopping Spread spectrum.
`
`12. As part of my PhD, I became an expert in RF system
`
`simulation, including propagation models, and selection of appropriate
`
`modulation techniques based on SNR (Signal to Noise Ratios) and other
`
`parameters experimented with using 802.11b technologies and SISO Antennas.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 5 of 46
`
`
`
`13.
`
`I worked for Motorola, Inc. from 2003 to 2010 as a Principal
`
`Staff Software Engineer. In that position, I was responsible for application
`
`development for Google and Android platforms. I participated in kernel-level
`
`prototyping, data support, and digital rights management (DRM).
`
`14. While at Motorola, I received training on RF system testing, RF
`
`modulation techniques, specially trained on WIMAX technologies, and other air
`
`interfaces that were used by Motorola, namely iDEN, CDMA, and WIMAX.
`
`15. As a result of my experience, I am very familiar with RF
`
`modulation, system testing, and have been involved in this field since 2001.
`
`16. From 2009 to 2019, I have been working with Software-defined
`
`Radios and GNU Radio-based systems including Ettus Research boxes, and
`
`recently with Blade RF in the creation of a Soft\ware & hardware LTE emulator
`
`based on the US Patent 7,231,330.
`
`17. Blade RF 2.0 provides a 2x2 MIMO interface that I have used
`
`for testing and experimentation at my technology incubator in Boca Raton, FL.
`
`18.
`
` Starting in 2010, I founded EGLA CORP. There, I created
`
`MEVIA applications, such as Clout to Cable. MEVIA is a “software-as-a
`
`service” and a cloud-based platform that enables “MEVIA Music,” which is
`
`currently in operation in several countries including Brazil, Honduras, and the
`
`United States.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 6 of 46
`
`
`
`19. Cloud to Cable is a patented platform that merges cloud and
`
`cable television systems and simplifies music and video distribution to different
`
`platforms. Cloud to Cable is servicing operators, such as CABLE COLOR in
`
`Honduras.
`
`20. As part of my experience in EGLA, I have worked for cable TV
`
`systems in multiple operators: CABLEVISION Mexico, Axtel TV, CLARO,
`
`Direct TV, SKY Brazil, and many others. Hence, my technical experience and
`
`training covers cable TV systems, STBs, video-on-demand (VOD) systems, and
`
`several broadcasting methodologies.
`
`21. Additionally, over my career, my research has involved aspects
`
`of network security, wireless communications, network and communications
`
`reliability, artificial intelligence, multimedia streaming, and software
`
`engineering.
`
`22.
`
`I am a named inventor on eleven patents issued by the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office, including the following:
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,564,810 – Method and System for Managing Power
`
`Consumption of a Network Interface Module in a Wireless Computing
`
`Device
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,231,330 – Rapid Mobility Network Emulator Method
`
`and System
`
`5
`
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 7 of 46
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,697,508 – System, Apparatus, and Method for
`
`Proactive Allocation of Wireless Communication Resources
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,417 – System, Apparatus, and Method for
`
`Proactive Allocation of Wireless Communication Resources
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,388 – Bluetooth PAN Driver
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,788,715 – Rules-based Network Selection Across
`
`Multiple Media
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,996,505 – Rules-based Network Selection Across
`
`Multiple Media
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,024,487 – Smart Scan for Bluetooth PAN Services
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,707,337 – Java-based Push to Talk
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,331,793 – Magnetic Connector
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,123,074 and 10,524,002– Method, System, and
`
`Apparatus for Multimedia Content Delivery to Cable TV and Satellite
`
`Operators
`
`
`
`6
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 8 of 46
`
`
`
`23.
`
`I have assisted several IPRs and provided testimony on
`
`handover patents for LTE and other wireless technologies.
`
`24.
`
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions, but in my
`
`work, I have had experience studying and analyzing patents and patent claims
`
`from the perspective of a person skilled in the art.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`25.
`
` Claim Construction: I understand that the first step in
`
`performing a validity analysis of the patent claims is to interpret the meaning
`
`and scope of the claims by construing the terms and phrases found in those
`
`claims. I understand that a determination of the meaning and scope of the
`
`claims of the Patents-in-Suit is a matter of law. I have been informed that to
`
`determine the meaning of the claims, courts consider the intrinsic evidence,
`
`which includes the patent’s claims, written description, prosecution history,
`
`materials incorporated by reference in the patent, and prior art cited in the
`
`patent or its prosecution history. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and
`
`accustomed meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention in the context of the entire patent. A patentee may also define
`
`his or her own terms or disclaim claim scope. The intrinsic record may also
`
`resolve ambiguous claim terms where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of
`
`the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 9 of 46
`
`
`
`claim to be ascertained from the words alone. However, particular embodiments
`
`and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the
`
`claims. A term’s context in the asserted claims can also be helpful. Differences
`
`among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. For
`
`example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it
`
`is presumed that the independent claim does not include the limitation.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed that extrinsic evidence can also be useful
`
`in determining the meaning of claim terms, however, it is less significant than
`
`the intrinsic record. Technical dictionaries may be useful to show the manner in
`
`which one skilled in the art might use claim terms, but technical dictionaries
`
`may provide definitions that are too broad or may not be indicative of how the
`
`term is used in the patent.
`
`27.
`
` Standard for Obviousness: I have been instructed by counsel
`
`and understand that a combination of prior-art references may render a claim
`
`obvious if, at the time of the invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have selected and combined those prior-art elements in the normal
`
`course of research and development to yield the claimed invention.
`
`28.
`
` I understand that in making the obviousness inquiry, one
`
`should consider the Graham factors: the scope and content of the prior art; the
`
`differences between the claimed inventions and the prior art; the level of
`
`
`
`8
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 10 of 46
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art; and certain secondary considerations, identified below.
`
`I further understand the obviousness analysis is to be performed on a claim-by-
`
`claim basis. I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a person of
`
`ordinary creativity, not an automaton.
`
`29.
`
` I have been instructed by counsel and understand that
`
`obviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes
`
`separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under
`
`examination. I understand obviousness requires the additional showing that a
`
`person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have been motivated
`
`to combine those references, and, in making that combination, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`30.
`
` I also understand that an obviousness analysis must be
`
`conducted with awareness of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and with
`
`caution of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning. Counsel has instructed me
`
`that when considering obviousness, I should not consider what is known today
`
`or what was learned from the asserted patents. Instead, I should put myself in
`
`the position of a person of ordinary skill in the field at the time of the invention.
`
`31.
`
`In particular, I understand that it is improper to use the
`
`invention as a roadmap to find its prior-art components because such an
`
`
`
`9
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 11 of 46
`
`
`
`approach discounts the value of combining various existing features or
`
`principles in a new way to achieve a new result.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that an invention would not have been obvious to
`
`try when one would have had to try all possibilities in a field unreduced by
`
`direction of the prior art. Stated another way, when what would have been
`
`“obvious to try” would have entailed varying all parameters or trying each of
`
`numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result,
`
`where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical
`
`or no direction as to which of many possible choices would have been likely to
`
`be successful, an invention would not have been obvious. Further, an invention
`
`is not obvious to try where prior art does not guide one toward a particular
`
`solution.
`
`33.
`
`It is my understanding that I must also consider certain
`
`objective evidence of no obviousness if present, which includes, among others,
`
`the prior art as a whole teaching away from the invention, a long-felt need for
`
`the invention, the failure of others, copying of the invention, and industry
`
`recognition/praise by others.
`
`IV. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`34.
`
`I understand that the claim terms of a patent are to be construed
`
`from the point of view of a hypothetical person of skill in the art (POSA) in the
`
`
`
`10
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 12 of 46
`
`
`
`time frame of the patent’s priority date. (At times I may refer to a person of skill
`
`in the art as simply “a skilled person.”) For the purpose of assessing the level of
`
`ordinary skill of such an individual, I have considered the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art, the prior solutions to those problems found in the
`
`literature, the speed with which innovations were made in the time relevant time
`
`frame, and the level of education and expertise of active workers in the field.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that Dr. Wells has opined that a Person of
`
`Ordinary Skill in the Art would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or a related field, and
`
`at least 2–4 years of experience in the field of wireless communication, or a
`
`person with equivalent education, work, or experience in this field. (Ex. 1003, ¶
`
`23.) For the purposes of this declaration, I do not dispute Dr. Wells’ definition
`
`of a POSA, though I reserve the right to offer my own at a later date, should it
`
`be necessary.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`36.
`
`It is my opinion that the term “decompose the estimated
`
`transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) to produce the transmitter
`
`beamforming information” would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention, and that no construction would be necessary.
`
`To the extent that the Board believes construction would be necessary or
`
`
`
`11
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 13 of 46
`
`
`
`helpful, a person of skill in the art would understand that “decompose the
`
`estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) to produce the
`
`transmitter beamforming information” means “factor the estimated transmitter
`
`beamforming unitary matrix (V) to produce a reduced number of coefficients or
`
`angles.”
`
`37.
`
`In the context of this term, it is important to understand that the
`
`goal of the claimed approach, as described in the specification, is to reduce the
`
`size of the feedback required. See Ex. 1003, 13:25-36. Citing one example of
`
`the decomposition that may be done, the patent states that “with the condition
`
`of V*V=VV*=I, some of angles of the Givens Rotation are redundant. With a
`
`decomposed matrix form for the estimated transmitter beamforming matrix (V),
`
`the set of angles fed back to the transmitting wireless device are reduced.” Ex.
`
`1003, 13:64-14:3.
`
`38. Further, the “coefficients of Givens Rotation and the phase
`
`matrix coefficients serve as the transmitter beamforming information that is
`
`sent from the receiving wireless communication device to the transmitting
`
`wireless communication device.” See Ex. 1003, 15:34-39. In the example at the
`
`top of column 15, one can see an example of the decomposition, which shows
`
`how the reduction can reduce the number of elements within a matrix but
`
`importantly also retain the dimension of the matrix. The Givens rotation
`
`
`
`12
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 14 of 46
`
`
`
`operates to reduce the set of coefficients of the estimated transmitter
`
`beamforming matrix (V). See Ex. 1003, 14:48-15:8. This reduction permits
`
`transmitting fewer coefficients back.
`
`39. Thus, it is my opinion that a person of skill in the art would
`
`understand that the plain and ordinary meaning of “decompose the estimated
`
`transmitter beamforming unitary matrix (V) to produce the transmitter
`
`beamforming information” requires a matrix decomposition that reduces the set
`
`of elements (be the called coefficients or angles) of the estimated transmitter
`
`beamforming unitary matrix (V). So, it is my opinion that the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of this term is “factor the estimated transmitter beamforming unitary
`
`matrix (V) to produce a reduced number of coefficients or angles.”
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD AND CITED REFERENCES
`
`40. All cited references, Li-748 (Ex. 1004), Tong (Ex. 1005), Mao
`
`(Ex. 1006), Li-054 (Ex. 1007), and Poon (Ex. 1009) refer to different
`
`mechanisms used by MIMO feedback channels to send parameters to the
`
`transmitter to adjust transmission based on the noise of the channel. The main
`
`dilemma that many systems are designed to perform is, how to determine the
`
`value of H assuming that N, which is the Noise, at the receiving antenna can be
`
`measured.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 15 of 46
`
`
`
`41. There are several ways to solve this equation in MIMO
`
`systems, especially when m, or the number or transmitters, is greater than one
`
`and the number of receivers is also greater than one, which we refer to mxn
`
`MIMO systems.
`
`42. Signal processing engineers apply standard linear algebra and
`
`can solve for X by finding the inverse of matrix H. The inverse of H is a
`
`difficult task, and in many cases cannot be easily implemented in a chipset or
`
`receiver that is supposed to handle Megabits per second or even Gigabits per
`
`second.
`
`43. Hence determining the fastest way to solve for H is valuable
`
`and highly important.
`
`44. The research literature defines multiple ways to solve H and
`
`determine its value, including a method called “Singular Value Decomposition”
`
`(SVD). SVD is a method by which two matrices, U and V, are used, where one
`
`of the matrices is known at the transmitter and the other one known at the
`
`receiver, by feeding back the receiver matrix to the transmitter. Dr. Wells
`
`presents a mathematical example in Ex. 1003, ¶¶51-52.
`
`45.
`
`In essence, each modulation technique may or not work
`
`correctly as the lesser number of matrices to multiply and less complexity to be
`
`used the better.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 16 of 46
`
`
`
`46. On the other hand, Petitioner prior art can be summarized as
`
`follow:
`
`a. Tong (Ex. 1005):
`
`i. Presents a system that is inefficient in the way to solver
`
`SVD requiring complex multiplication of several Givens
`
`matrices,
`
`ii. Uses real numbers that makes it more inefficient and
`
`non-bit friendly,
`
`iii. Complexity of O(n2) which increases given the amount
`
`of computations derived from more multiplications and
`
`complex operations.
`
`b. Li-748 (Ex. 1004)
`
`i. Presents a way to use Hermitian matrices to solve SVD
`
`that will only work for nxn systems as it is unclear how
`
`mxn systems would function using Hermitian matrices.
`
`ii. Hence, complexity for this solution remains O(n2) times
`
`the number of sub-carriers,
`
`c. The combination of Tong (Ex. 1005) and Li-748 (Ex. 1004)
`
`(has several issues, specially how the Hermitian matrix
`
`processing would be combined with Tong, plus Tong uses CQI-
`
`
`
`15
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 17 of 46
`
`
`
`messages as part of the feedback channel to determine the type
`
`of coding that an AMC (Adaptive Modulation Coding) module
`
`should utilize. The combination of both prior-arts is highly
`
`unlikely and, the use of CQI-messages and higher payload
`
`makes Tong a highly inefficient prior-art.
`
`d. Mao (Ex. 1006) on the other hand is introduced by Petitioner,
`
`however Mao uses a Maximal-Ratio Combiner (MRC) which is
`
`a method of diversity combination where the gain of each
`
`channel is made proportional to the rms signal level and
`
`inversely proportional to the noise. MRC is depicted in FIG 1
`
`and FIG 2 of Id. reflect the use of a signal quality measurement
`
`or power for the Beamforming function. Hence, given prior
`
`PTAB order, Mao is not applicable as prior art at it operates in
`
`the RF amplitude domain and does even incorporate an FFT
`
`components, at all.
`
`e. Li-054 (Ex 1007) on the other hand is essentially the same as
`
`Li-748 but uses codebooks and other techniques that will be
`
`covered in this report. Hence, the same deficiencies found in
`
`Li-748 apply to Li-054. In summary, all combinations of
`
`systems where signal processing or software tools operate in the
`
`
`
`16
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 18 of 46
`
`
`
`frequency domain, are not combinable with anything that
`
`operates with power-levels.
`
`47. Additionally, Yang (Ex. 1008) and Poon (Ex. 1009) are brought
`
`as prior art in combination with others.
`
`a. Yang (Ex. 1008) is nothing but one of the older research
`
`publications describing SVD processing from 1991.
`
`b. Poon (Ex. 1009) is another patent that operates with the
`
`“Weakest N Spatial Channel” which means it works with
`
`amplitude or power-levels.
`
`48. Hence,
`
`a. All combinations of Ex. 1004-Ex. 1009 suggested by Petitioner
`
`does not make obvious Claims 9-12 of the ’862 patent.
`
`VII. PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`49.
`
` I have reviewed the arguments and prior-art references
`
`included in the Petition to support Grounds 1-5. In the paragraphs below, I offer
`
`limited opinions and observations about those references. If required or asked to
`
`do so, I will offer additional opinions regarding the grounds asserted in the
`
`Petition at a later time.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 19 of 46
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Claims 9-12 – Li-748 in view of Tong and Mao
`50.
` The Li-748 (Ex. 1004) reference presents a method of using a
`
`Hermitian matrix for Id. at 5:40-52. The Hermitian matrix is a “square” matrix
`
`of n2 elements as presented in Id. at Eq. 3. Additionally, a square matrix is one
`
`where the number of rows equal the number of columns. Below are a sample of
`
`the generator matrices disclosed in Li-748:
`
`Ex. 1004, 11:10-26.
`51. Clearly, Li -748 is limited to nxn systems, as Hermitian Matrix
`
`
`
`is necessarily A=AT requiring a square number of antennas, not asymmetrical
`
`like an mxn MIMO system.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 20 of 46
`
`
`
`52. Attempting to combine Li-748 and Tong reference on the other
`
`hand fails for several reasons:
`
`a. Tong Relies on CQI-messages (Channel Quality Indicator) to
`
`determine the type of constellation used by the receiver,
`
`b. A POSA would not seek to combine Tong with Li-748 for
`
`reasons I will explain below.
`
`53. Petitioner concedes that Tong uses n2-n on pp. 21 of Petition
`
`and that Li-748 uses n2-1. (Pet. at 30 (citing 1004, 2:63-67).)
`
`54. Further, Petitioner identifies FIG 43, shown below, as support
`
`for its position:
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 21 of 46
`
`
`
`Id. FIG 43.
`
`55. As shown in Fig. 43, Element 320 or Beamformer VT uses each
`
`stream of the AMC or Adaptive Modulation Coding that is generated from the
`
`CQI Feedback Channel or Channel Quality Indicator (Element 342) which was
`
`generated from the AMC/Eigenvector Assignments or Element 343.
`
`56. The CQI Feedback Channel shown in FIG. 43 comes from the
`
`802.16 WIMAX specification, clearly at [0072] Tong defines CQI as CQI-
`
`Channel Quality Indicator.
`
`57. Further, a person of skill in the art would be well aware that
`
`WIMAX 802.16 includes a Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) as part of the
`
`CQICH layer.
`
`58. Tong describes in [00085] how the CQI Feedback channel is
`
`used
`
`
`
`20
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 22 of 46
`
`
`
`Id. at 48; at [0085].
`
`
`59. The degree of modulation is chosen base on the CQI for a
`
`
`
`particular mobile terminal.
`
`60. CQI-messages does not exist in 802.11 nor in LTE. Notably,
`
`Dr. Wells omits in his report all references to 802.16d presented by Tong on
`
`throughout the reference.
`
`61. Therefore, although Tong presents a Givens operation, it also
`
`identifies two feedback channels: one AMC -> CQI Feedback -> AMC ->
`
`Beamformer; and another where V is passed along to the Beamformer module.
`
`A POSA would not attempt to combine the two, and it is not clear how a
`
`combination could be accomplished, in any event. First, Li-748 uses a single
`
`parameter as feedback, the Matrix V, a POSA would not be motivated to
`
`
`
`21
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 23 of 46
`
`
`
`combine Tong’s path with Givens (Elements 330, 334, 336, 338, 340) to
`
`replace Li-748’s method using Hermitian Matrices.
`
`62.
`
`Instead, Tong at [0195] states that “SVD generally provides
`
`optimal performance when Adaptive Modulation Coding (AMC) can be
`
`performed on each individual layer”
`
`63. The Mao reference on the other hand presented in Ex. 1006 and
`
`cited by Petitioner in pp. 23 citing FIG. 1. Presented herein:
`
`
`
`Id., FIG. 1.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 24 of 46
`
`
`
`64. As presented in FIG 1, a Maximal Ratio Combiner (MRC) or
`
`Maximum Radio Combiner is the generator of the Output sequence, y(n) from
`
`all the different delayed signals after passing the Multipath Delay Profile
`
`Estimator.
`
`Id. at 9:15-24
`65.
`
` A Maximal Ratio Combiner is defined by1:
`
`
`
`
`66. Since the Maxima-radio Combining technique that “weights the
`
`output of each signal by the amplitude of that channel before adding them
`
`together,” instead of measuring Phase or angles, indeed constellation, Mao uses
`
`
`1 Mischa Schwartz, Mobile Wireless Communications, Cambridge University, 2005, Pp. 54
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 25 of 46
`
`
`
`voltage or power of a signal. Power can be computed from the amplitude or to
`
`voltage through well-known relationships.
`
`67. Similarly, on Id. FIG 2, it is clear that signal quality
`
`measurement or amplitude is applied at element 710, 715, 720, and combined to
`
`MRC (Maximal-Ratio Combiner) at element 480.
`
`Id. at FIG 3. Pg. 3.
`68. Mao’s patent also describe at 3:63-66 states that, “… tuning the
`
`
`
`beam based on the best measurement of quality metric for the received signal
`
`such as instant power, SINR, or BER…. .” further confirming that Mao’s
`24
`
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 26 of 46
`
`
`
`technique is an evolution of US Pat. No. 6,049,307 as presented in Id. at 3:8-17,
`
`which was analog now, a similar mechanism is performed digitally using a DSP
`
`or Digital Signal Processor.
`
`69. Since, an appeal process existed and as cited by petitioner on
`
`Pp. 9.
`
`“In its Appeal Brief, Applicant argued that Kim
`discloses “a method of determining the ‘transmission
`power’ to be allocated to each of the transmit
`antennas,” and not “any mechanism or determining
`transmitter beamforming information.’”
`
`70. Therefore, Mao cannot be used in combination with Tong
`
`and/or Li, as Mao is related to power not to beamforming as defined by this
`
`court in the past.
`
`71. Dr. Wells also recognizes all components in ¶ 70 for Mao but
`
`omits the MRC element, which is the one that generates ultimately the signal,
`
`y(n). However, Dr. Wells manages to combine Mao that uses amplitude and
`
`power, with Li-748 uses angles and phases with Tong.
`
`72. First, although my prior opinions clearly explain why these
`
`references are not valid as prior art and how arguments for obviousness are
`
`hence false. I will now address Petitioner’s arguments as follows:
`
`a. Simply because Li-748 uses SVD and determines the values of
`
`matrix V and sends it to the transceiver, it is clear that the
`
`
`
`25
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 27 of 46
`
`
`
`proposed method is highly inefficient, complex, and it does not
`
`take advantage of constellation mapping and de-mapping, and
`
`therefore the methods provided by Li-748 to obtain matrix V
`
`does not make the ‘862 patent obvious,
`
`b. Although Tong makes use of the Given’s transform, Tong’s
`
`solution uses two paths to provide feedback to the beamformer,
`
`one using CQI-CH (part of WiMAX protocol) and the
`
`computation of a value of VT using QR Factorization.
`
`c. Finally, Mao uses a Maximal Ratio Combiner (MRC) that
`
`operates at the power-level of an RF signal. Just because an RF
`
`signal is converted to a base band, doesn’t make it a prior-art or
`
`provides and obvious argument as suggested by Petitioner on
`
`Pg. 24.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 9-12 – Tong in view of Mao
`73. First, a POSA will not be motivated to combine Tong’s and
`
`Mao cannot be combined, as a hybrid of amplitude and phase will have to be
`
`created, further increasing the complexity of the system, and it may not be
`
`combinable at all, as the MRC output will contain a set of weights and will
`
`definitely alter an SVD process handled by Tong. For example, Tong’s
`
`equations work in the frequency domain, in fact Tong’s FIG. 43 on pp. 38
`
`
`
`26
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2004, Page 28 of 46
`
`
`
`element 326 and element 328 depict “SVD H=UDV” on elements in the
`
`frequency domain, whereas Mao’s at 10:42-52 explains how at different phases
`
`or beam directions, e.g. 15o, 45o each will be processed at weight banks
`
`referring to amplitudes (real-time signal power estimation in Id. at 11:18-23).
`
`74. Hence, it is unclear for a POSA will be motivated to combine
`
`the teachings of Tong using SVD methods that compute V matrices with Mao
`
`that uses a weight-based system and power levels and does not even convert a
`
`sequence x(n) from the time to domain to the frequency domain using an FFT
`
`(Fast Fourier Transform). Further, in Mao the term FFT is not in the patent at
`
`all.
`
`75.
`
`Indeed, both methods convert Analog to Digital, but Mao in
`
`particular implemented in a DSP and will not work on frequency domain, a
`
`POSA will not be motivated to combine Mao and Tong in any way as
`
`processing at the Digital Signal Processor for Tong will requ
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
