DOCKET NO.: 01033300-00348US1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2020-00465
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. WELLS IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,102,833 B2
`
`APPLE 1002
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW .............................................................. 6 
`II. 
`III.  BACKGROUND TECHNOLOGY ............................................................... 13 
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’833 PATENT .......................................................... 17 
`A.  Alleged Problem .................................................................................. 17 
`B. 
`Proposed Solution of the ’833 Patent .................................................. 18 
`1. 
`Arrangement of Signals ............................................................ 18 
`2. 
`Arrangement Steps .................................................................... 21 
`Priority of the Claimed Subject Matter ............................................... 25 
`C. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 26 
`D. 
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 28 
`V. 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 29 
`VII.  SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES .................................... 30 
`A.  Qualcomm (Ex-1006) .......................................................................... 30 
`B. 
`Cho (Ex-1005) ..................................................................................... 35 
`C. 
`Samsung (Ex-1008) ............................................................................. 36 
`D.  Qualcomm-269 (Ex-1007) .................................................................. 36 
`VIII.  SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ............................................................... 37 
`IX. 
`INVALIDITY OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ..................................... 37 
`A.  Ground I: Claims 1-14 are Obvious over Qualcomm, Cho,
`Qualcomm-269, and Samsung ............................................................ 37 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 37 
`2. 
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 71 
`3. 
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 71 
`4. 
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 73 
`5. 
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 74 
`6. 
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 79 
`7. 
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 84 
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`8. 
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 84 
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 87 
`9. 
`10.  Claim 10 .................................................................................... 87 
`11.  Claim 11 .................................................................................... 88 
`12.  Claim 12 .................................................................................... 88 
`13.  Claim 13 .................................................................................... 89 
`14.  Claim 14 .................................................................................... 90 
`X.  AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ...................................... 91 
`XI.  RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT .......................................................................... 91 
`XII.  JURAT ........................................................................................................... 92 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`
`I, Dr. Jonathan Wells, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Dr. Jonathan Wells.
`
`2.
`
`I have over 30 years of wireless communications experience in areas
`
`including cellular technologies, network infrastructure, and wireless standards,
`
`rules and regulations. I have written a textbook and multiple industry reports and
`
`journal/conference papers which focus on wireless communications system, which
`
`are outlined in my CV, attached hereto as Appendix A. For example, I am the
`
`author of the textbook “Multi-Gigabit Microwave and Millimeter-Wave Wireless
`
`Communications,” published by Artech House in 2010. I have also authored four
`
`comprehensive industry reports on cellular connectivity for Mobile Experts. I
`
`have lectured as part of undergraduate programs at UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon
`
`University, and University of Bath, and have given over two dozen lectures and
`
`conference presentations on topics germane to wireless communications. I am a
`
`listed inventor of several patents, and am an author of over 40 academic and
`
`commercial publications and presentations. I have been a member of the Institute
`
`of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) since 1995 and a Senior Member of
`
`IEEE since 1999. In 2019, I was recognized by the IEEE Santa Clara Valley
`
`Section as their “Outstanding Engineer” of the year. The IEEE Santa Clara Valley
`
`Section encompasses Silicon Valley and is the largest IEEE Section in the world.
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`This was awarded “For his acknowledged expertise in the field of wireless
`
`communications and wireless technology, for his willingness to mentor others in
`
`the field, and for his work in the development of the next generation of creative
`
`and innovative technical products.”
`
`3.
`
`I received my B.Sc. degree in Physics with Physical Electronics,
`
`awarded with 1st Class Honours, from the University of Bath, United Kingdom, in
`
`1987. In 1991, I earned my Ph.D., also from the University of Bath. I earned my
`
`M.B.A., awarded with distinction, from Massey University, New Zealand, in
`
`1998.
`
`4.
`
`I began my career in 1985, as an Engineer for Plessey Research,
`
`Caswell, United Kingdom, developing high-speed fiber optic transmitter/receiver
`
`devices. In 1987, I worked at British Aerospace, Bristol, United Kingdom,
`
`designing and fabricating novel mixer devices, to support my Ph.D. research.
`
`Later, in 1990, as a Post-Doctoral Research Officer for University of Bath, I
`
`designed and fabricated novel quantum amplifiers, and developed computer
`
`models to predict the performance of these and other devices. I also taught
`
`undergraduate classes and ran laboratory sessions.
`
`5.
`
`In 1993, I joined Matra Marconi Space, Portsmouth, United Kingdom
`
`as a Senior Design Engineer, and developed integrated electronic components and
`
`space-qualified sub-systems for two satellite payloads.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`From 1994 to 1998, I worked at MAS Technology (now Aviat
`
`6.
`
`Networks), Wellington, New Zealand, first as a Senior Design Engineer and later
`
`as Engineering Group Manager. I was responsible for hardware development for
`
`cellular and telecommunication applications; developed three generations of
`
`wireless transmission, switching, and multiplexing products; designed and had
`
`sustaining responsibility for satellite ground station terminals; and was responsible
`
`for the company’s European regulatory approvals.
`
`7.
`
`In 1998, I joined Adaptive Broadband (now GE Digital Energy),
`
`Rochester, New York, first as an Engineering Group Leader, and later as Director
`
`of Wideband Products. I was responsible for the Terrestrial Infrastructure Group,
`
`providing telecommunications products for cellular and private network
`
`applications. I had full P&L responsibility for a wireless division, and was
`
`responsible for the development of a family of digital radios and associated
`
`switching/multiplexing equipment.
`
`8.
`
`From 2000 to 2004, I worked for Stratex Networks (now Aviat
`
`Networks), San Jose, California, as Director of Product Development. I was
`
`responsible for global product development of a portfolio of high-end digital
`
`microwave radios primarily for cellular backhaul applications; led a development
`
`team of 35 engineers based in two continents. I also led the technical radio
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`frequency aspects of Stratex’s flagship Eclipse product, and managed the
`
`technical aspects of overseas manufacturing subcontractors.
`
`9.
`
`In 2005, I joined GigaBeam Corporation in Herndon, Virginia, as
`
`Director of Product Management and Global Regulatory Affairs. I was
`
`responsible for product strategy for a wireless communication product and
`
`participated in and drove standard development in European Telecommunications
`
`Standards Institute (“ETSI”), Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), and
`
`European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations
`
`(“CEPT”) 1 technical meetings.
`
`10. Since 2007, I have been an independent consultant with AJIS
`
`Consulting, Pleasanton, California, where I provide technical consulting on
`
`cellular technologies, wireless devices, network infrastructure, and wireless rules
`
`and regulations. The services I provide include: providing cellular and wireless
`
`technology technical and industry analysis for companies, analysts, and
`
`investment institutions, and researching and publication of analyst reports;
`
`providing wireless product development and marketing strategies; providing
`
`specialized technical workshops on various wireless technologies, including
`
`cellular networks, mm-wave radios, security sensors, and short range radios;
`
`1 From the French “Conférence Européenne des administrations des Postes et des
`
`Télécommunications.”
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`providing specialized global regulatory tasks and product approvals; and acting as
`
`a technical expert supporting 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular and Wireless LAN
`
`patent litigation; providing analysis of cellular and wireless patents and infringing
`
`equipment.
`
`11. Throughout my design, development and consulting career I have had
`
`extensive experience using wireless specifications, including 3GPP specifications.
`
`During this time, I have been a member of 3GPP and have subscribed to 3GPP
`
`email lists.
`
`12. A copy of my CV is attached as Appendix A.
`
`13.
`
`I have reviewed the specification, file history and claims of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,102,833 to Dae Won Lee et al. (the “’833 patent”).
`
`14.
`
`I have reviewed and understand the following references:
`
` Qualcomm Europe, Draft Change Request: 36.212.v.8.0.0, Document
`
`R1-075037 (“Qualcomm” (Ex-1006)).
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2006/0262871 A1 (“Cho”
`
`(Ex-1005)).
`
` Qualcomm Europe, Rate matching details for control and data
`
`multiplexing, 3GPP TSG-RAN #50 Document R1-073269
`
`(“Qualcomm-269” (Ex-1007)).
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
` Samsung, Control Signaling Location in Presence of Data in E-
`
`UTRA UL, 3GPP TSG RAN #49 Document R1-073094 (Samsung
`
`(Ex-1008)).
`
`15.
`
`I have been retained by Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) to provide my
`
`conclusions concerning the validity of the ’833 patent in connection with its
`
`petition for inter partes review of the ’833 patent.
`
`16.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $600 per
`
`hour for my work. My compensation is not in any way dependent on the outcome
`
`of any inter partes review, and in no way affects the substance of my statements
`
`in this declaration, nor have I any financial or personal interest in the outcome of
`
`this proceeding.
`
`17. To the best of my knowledge, I have no financial interest in Petitioner
`
`or in the ’833 patent. To the extent any mutual funds or other investments I own
`
`have a financial interest in the Petitioner or the ’833 patent, I do not knowingly
`
`have any financial interest that would affect or bias my judgment.
`
`II. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`18.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, Petitioner’s
`
`counsel has informed me about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my
`
`analysis and conclusions. My understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`I understand that in an Inter Partes Review proceeding, a patent is not
`
`19.
`
`presumed valid and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will evaluate the validity of
`
`the challenged claims under a preponderance of evidence standard. A
`
`preponderance standard is met when, considering the evidence presented, it is
`
`more likely than not a challenged claim is invalid.
`
`20. A patent claim is invalid if it is “anticipated” by prior art. For a claim
`
`to be invalid because it is anticipated, all of its requirements must have existed in
`
`a single device or method that predates the claimed invention or must have been
`
`described in a single publication or patent, either expressly, inherently, or
`
`implicitly, that predates the claimed invention.
`
`21. The description in a written prior art reference does not have to be in
`
`the same words as the claim, but all the requirements of the claim must be there,
`
`either stated, necessarily implied (i.e., inherent), or implied, so that someone of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, looking at that one reference, would have been able to
`
`make and use the claimed invention based on the reference.
`
`22. A patent claim is also anticipated if more than one year before the
`
`filing date of the patent, the claimed invention was patented anywhere in the
`
`world or described in a printed publication anywhere in the world.
`
`23. A patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`This means that even if all the requirements of a claim cannot be found in a single
`
`prior art reference that would anticipate the claim or constitute a statutory bar to
`
`that claim, the claim is invalid if it would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill at the time of the alleged invention. That is, the claim is obvious if
`
`the person of ordinary skill would adapt the reference to meet the claim by
`
`applying known concepts to achieve expected results.
`
`24. The determination of whether a claim is obvious should be based
`
`upon several factors, including:
`
` the level of ordinary skill in the art that someone would have had at
`
`the time of the claimed invention;
`
` the scope and content of the prior art; and
`
` what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and
`
`the prior art.
`
`25.
`
`In considering the question of obviousness, it is also appropriate to
`
`consider any objective indicia (or secondary considerations) of obviousness or
`
`non-obviousness that may be shown. These include:
`
` whether a product that practices the claimed invention has achieved
`
`commercial success, to the extent any such success is due to the
`
`merits of the claimed invention;
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
` whether a long-felt need existed in the prior art for the solution
`
`provided by the claimed invention;
`
` whether there were unsuccessful attempts by others to find the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention;
`
` whether there was copying of the claimed invention by others;
`
` whether there were unexpected and/or superior results from the
`
`claimed invention;
`
` whether there was acceptance by others of the claimed invention as
`
`shown by praise from others in the field or from the licensing of the
`
`claimed invention; and
`
` whether there was independent invention of the claimed invention by others
`
`before or at about the same time the named inventor conceived of it.
`
`26.
`
`I further have been informed and understand that a “nexus” must exist
`
`between the claimed invention and the alleged commercial success. In other
`
`words, proof of commercial success of a product that practices the claimed
`
`invention is not enough; there must be evidence that the commercial success
`
`resulted, at least in meaningful part, from the claimed invention.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed and understand a patent claim composed of
`
`several elements is not obvious merely because each of its elements was
`
`independently known in the prior art. In evaluating whether such a claim would
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`have been obvious, it is relevant to consider if there would have been a reason that
`
`would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the known
`
`elements or concepts from the prior art in the same way as in the claimed
`
`invention. For example, market forces or other design incentives may be what
`
`produced a change, rather than true inventiveness. It is also appropriate to
`
`consider:
`
` whether the change was merely the predictable result of using prior art
`
`elements according to their known functions, or whether it was the
`
`result of true inventiveness;
`
` whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make
`
`the modification or combination of elements claimed in the patent;
`
` whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used
`
`to improve a similar device or method in a similar way; or
`
` whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to try,
`
`meaning that the claimed innovation was one of a relatively small
`
`number of possible approaches to the problem with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success by those of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`28.
`
`In considering obviousness, it is important to be careful not use the
`
`benefit of hindsight.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`29. A single prior art reference can alone render a patent claim obvious, if
`
`any differences between that reference and the claims would have been obvious to
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention—that is,
`
`the patent claim is obvious if a person of ordinary skill would adapt the prior art
`
`reference to meet the claim by applying known concepts to achieve expected
`
`results.
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that claim construction is a matter of law and
`
`that the final claim construction will ultimately be determined by the Board. For
`
`the purposes of my analysis in this proceeding and with respect to the prior art, I
`
`have been informed that claim terms in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding
`
`are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, with the claim term read not
`
`only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but
`
`also in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. I understand
`
`that this is referred to as the “Phillips standard.”
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed that the Patent Owner can serve as his or her
`
`own lexicographer. As such, if a claim term is provided with a specific definition
`
`in the specification, that claim term should be interpreted in light of the particular
`
`definition provided by the Patent Owner.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`I have been informed that a patent must satisfy the written description
`
`32.
`
`requirement separate from any enablement requirement, each of which are found
`
`in 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph.
`
`33. To satisfy the written description requirement, I understand that the
`
`patent’s description must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had
`
`possession of the claimed invention. I understand that the breadth of the claims
`
`determines the extent of the required disclosure. I understand that the written
`
`description must be commensurate with the scope of the claims. In other words, I
`
`understand that the test is whether the disclosure of the application reasonably
`
`conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed
`
`subject matter as of the filing date. I understand that new matter is matter not
`
`supported by the disclosure.
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed that a patent must satisfy the enablement
`
`requirement separate from any written description requirement. To satisfy the
`
`enablement requirement, the patent’s description must describe the invention such
`
`that one skilled in the art is enabled to make and use it without undue or
`
`unreasonable experimentation. I understand that certain factors are relevant,
`
`including the breadth of the claims, the nature of the invention, the state of the
`
`prior art, the level of one of ordinary skill, the level of predictability in the art, the
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`amount of direction provided by the inventor, the existence of working examples,
`
`and the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on
`
`the content of the disclosure.
`
`III. BACKGROUND TECHNOLOGY
`
`35. The ’833 patent relates to mobile communication technology. Ex-
`
`1001, 1:33-35, 4:4-5, 4:9-11, 8:58-62. The ’833 patent describes “a method for
`
`transmitting uplink signals, which include ACK/NACK signals, control signals
`
`other than the ACK/NACK signals, and data signals.” Id., Abstract. In a mobile
`
`communication system, a user equipment (“UE”), such as a mobile device,
`
`transmits “uplink signals” (“ULs”) to a base station, and the base station transmits
`
`“downlink signals” to the UE. Both uplink and downlink signals can contain
`
`different kinds of information, such as data signals (e.g., voice information from a
`
`telephone call) and control information (e.g., information passed between network
`
`nodes relating to operation of and coordination between such nodes).
`
`ACK/NACK signals are a type of control information or signals (Id., 5:3-6) sent
`
`from a UE that signifies the acknowledgment (“ACK”) of receipt or a negative
`
`acknowledgment (“NACK”) indicating a problem with receiving downlink data.2
`
`2 NACK signals are also sometimes referred to as “NAK” signals. See, e.g., Ex-
`
`1007, §2.2 (“The UE transmits “NAK” if the CRC of the PDCCH checks and the
`
`PDSCH decoding fails.”).
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`The ’833 patent also uses the terms “control information” or “control signals” to
`
`refer to control information or control signals other than the ACK/NACK signals.
`
`See, e.g., Id., 1:40-44, 5:13-24. Reference signals, which are known to both the
`
`UE and base station, can also be transmitted to make reception more accurate.
`
`36.
`
`In order to send digital information in a mobile communication
`
`network, the device must convert that digital signal into an analog signal to be
`
`sent as an analog radio wave. Conveying digital signals through analog carrier
`
`waves can be done by varying the phase, frequency, and/or amplitude of a wave,
`
`which is referred to as “modulation.” The receiving node “demodulates” the
`
`signal to identify the information carried therein. Because many UEs and base
`
`stations are competing for the same frequency space, techniques have been
`
`devised to split up these airwaves—both in frequency and in time. This process is
`
`known as “multiple access” since the partitioning allows multiple devices to
`
`access the time and frequency resources at the same time.
`
`37.
`
`In some mobile communication networks, such as 3GPP LTE
`
`networks, the frequency space of the airwaves is split into various frequency
`
`bands (“carriers”) and sub-bands (“sub-carriers”) that can be assigned and used to
`
`transmit multiple bits of information at the same time. A common way to
`
`represent this division is called a frequency/time grid, such as that shown below in
`
`Figure 5.2.1-1 of 3GPP TS 36.211 (Ex-1018). A frequency-time grid is made up
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`of a number of squares (“resource elements”), each of which is associated with a
`
`particular frequency (sub-carrier) and time period during which information is to
`
`be transmitted. For an uplink transmission, data, control, and ACK/NACK signals
`
`can be arranged in particular locations on this resource grid.
`
`slotT
`
`UL
`symbN
`
`N
`
`UL
`symb N
`
`
`RB
`sc
`
`
`
` ),( lk
`
`sc N
`RB
`
`sc
`RB
`
`RBN
`UL
`
`
`
`N
`
`0l
`
` Nl
`
`UL
`symb 
`
`1
`
`
`
`Ex-1018, Figure 5.2.1-1
`
`38. According to the ’833 patent, the 3GPP LTE system uses a single
`
`carrier frequency division multiple access (SC-FDMA) scheme for sending uplink
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`transmissions across multiple carriers. Ex-1001, 1:33-35. SC-FDMA assigns data
`
`to be transmitted to a predetermined number of sub-carrier frequencies, which are
`
`then processed using a discrete Fourier transform to make the multiple sub-
`
`carriers appear as a single carrier. This signal is then transmitted in a time period
`
`known as an SC-FDMA symbol. A single uplink transmission can comprise
`
`multiple SC-FDMA symbols transmitted over time.
`
`39.
`
`In LTE, a resource block represents the basic unit of transmission, and
`
`is defined in both the time and frequency domains. See Ex-1018, §§4.1, 5.2.1,
`
`FIG. 5.2.1-1. An uplink resource block comprises one slot (7 SC-FDMA
`
`symbols) in the time domain. Ex. 1018, §5.2.3. Each SC-FDMA symbol in a slot
`
`comprises a multiple of 12 subcarriers in a frequency domain. Id. A sub-frame
`
`comprises two slots, totaling 14 SC-FDMA symbols. See Ex-1018, §5.2.3, Fig.
`
`4.1-1 (reproduced below); §4.1; Ex-1001, 5:40-43.
`
`Ex-1018, Figure 4.1-1
`
`
`
`40. Thus, in the time domain, an LTE sub-frame comprises two resource
`
`blocks and comprises 14 SC-FDMA symbols, each SC-FDMA symbol comprising
`
`a plurality of 12 sub-carriers. Two of the 14 SC-FDMA symbols in each sub-
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`frame are used as reference signals, which, when received, are used to as reference
`
`points (“channel estimation”) for coherent demodulation of the received signal.
`
`All technical features described above were well known prior to the filing of the
`
`’833 patent.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’833 PATENT
`
`41. The ’833 patent issued from U.S. App. No. 12/209,136, filed on
`
`September 11, 2008, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application Nos.
`
`60/972,244 (“’244 provisional,” Ex-1013), filed on September 13, 2007,
`
`60/987,427 (“’427 provisional,” Ex-1014), filed on November 13, 2007, and
`
`60/988,433 (Ex-1015) filed on November 16, 2007, and to Korean Application
`
`No. 10-2008-006834, filed July 15, 2008.
`
`A. Alleged Problem
`
`42. The ’833 patent relates to arranging control signals, data signals, and
`
`ACK/NACK signals in uplink signals using the SC-FDMA scheme and existing
`
`LTE resource blocks described, supra, in Section III. Ex-1001, 1:25-64. The
`
`’833 patent explains that, at the time of the alleged invention, 3GPP had already
`
`“decided” that data information and control information would be multiplexed
`
`together. Id., 1:43-46. Furthermore, the ’833 patent admits that it was known that
`
`“to improve channel estimation performance” “control signals” could be placed
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`close to reference signals, since “control signals generally require higher
`
`reliability than data signals.” Id., 1:46-51.
`
`43. The ’833 patent indicates that among the various control signals to be
`
`multiplexed in an uplink signal, “ACK/NACK signals require higher reliability
`
`than the other control signals” (Ex-1001, 1:53-55)—a requirement already
`
`identified in the prior art (see generally Ex-1008). Accordingly, when non-
`
`ACK/NACK control signals are placed close to the reference signals, “problems
`
`occur in that the ACK/NACK signals can neither be transmitted by puncturing the
`
`control signals arranged near the reference signal nor be transmitted near the
`
`reference signal.” Ex-1001, 1:57-61.
`
`B.
`
`Proposed Solution of the ’833 Patent
`
`The purported invention of the ’833 patent is “efficiently arranging
`
`ACK/NACK signals and other control signals in a resource region.” Ex-1001,
`
`1:63-64. In particular, the claims require (1) a particular arrangement of three
`
`types of signals (data, control, and ACK/NACK) in an uplink transmission and (2)
`
`three specific steps (multiplexing, mapping, and overwriting) for producing such
`
`an arrangement. Each of these requirements is described below.
`
`1.
`
`Arrangement of Signals
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`44. Figure 6, which I have annotated below,3 illustrates an arrangement of
`
`control information, data information, and ACK/NACK signals in a “time-
`
`frequency region” (denoted by reference numeral 603), which is described as a “2-
`
`dimensional resource matrix” in claim 1. Ex-1001, cl.1, 6:49-7:14.
`
`Ex-1001, Figure 6
`
`
`
`45.
`
`In the resource matrix of Figure 6, the columns correspond to
`
`subcarriers and rows correspond to SC-FDMA symbols. Ex-1001, 6:66-7:3, 7:6-
`
`
`3 Emphasis in quotations and annotation in figures added unless otherwise noted.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`10, 9:6-21. These SC-FDMA symbols (rows in Figure 6) are ultimately
`
`transmitted one row at a time, with intervening reference signals. In the claims,
`
`however, the rows and columns are oriented opposite of Figure 6. In claim 1, for
`
`example, rows correspond to subcarriers, and columns correspond to symbols.
`
`Id., cl. 1, limitation (b). In other words, the first claimed row corresponds to the
`
`first subcarrier represented by the leftmost column of the matrix in Figure 6, and
`
`the first claimed column corresponds to the first SC-FDMA symbol (#1)
`
`represented by the top row of the matrix in Figure 6.
`
`46. As shown in Figure 6, control information is placed column-by-
`
`column in locations corresponding to the first subcarriers of each SC-FDMA
`
`symbol. In this way, control information is spread across multiple SC-FDMA
`
`symbols, which was known to improve detection of control information by
`
`obtaining time diversity. See Ex-1005, ¶62. Data information occupies resource
`
`elements in the remainder of the resource matrix.
`
`47.
`
`In addition to the control and data signals, reference signals are also
`
`transmitted in a subframe. Ex-1001, 5:37-45, 6:60-7:5. For example, “the
`
`reference signal is transmitted through a part between symbol indexes #3 and #4
`
`and a part between symbol indexes #9 and #10.” Id., 7:2-5. These correspond to
`
`“SC-FDMA symbols used for a reference signal” in claim 1. Id., cl. 1. Before the
`
`’833 patent, it was well known that symbols transmitted adjacent to a reference
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00465 – Exhibit 1002
`Declaration of Dr. Wells
`signal were more reliable than symbols transmitted farther away from the
`
`reference signal. See, e.g., Ex-1008, §2. Therefore, as explained in more detail
`
`below, ACK/NACK signals are located in rows adjacent to where reference
`
`signals will be transmitted. Ex-1001, 9:22-29, Fig. 6 (showing ACK/NACK
`
`signals in modulation symbols 5, 6, 11, 12, N-9, N-8, N-3, N-1).
`
`48. Arranging control signals in the first subcarriers of SC-FDMA
`
`symbols and locating ACK/NACK signals in SC-FDMA symbols adjacent
`
`reference signals was already well known by the time of the ’833 patent’s alleged
`
`priority date, as discussed in the sections that follow.
`
`2.
`
`Arrangement Steps
`
`49. The claims of the ’833 patent require three steps to arrange signals as
`
`shown in Figure 6: (1) multiplexing data and control signals, (2) mapping data
`
`and control signals to a resource matrix, and (3) mapping ACK/NACK signals by
`
`overwriting data signals. Each of these steps are described in more detail below.
`
`50. First, data and control signals are multiplexed into a multiplexed
`
`signal 6014. Ex-1001, 6:60-63. As shown in Figure 6,