CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`UNWIRED PLANET, LLC, UNWIRED
`PLANET INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
`AND PANOPTIS PATENT
`MANAGEMENT, LLC,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:19-CV-00066-JRG
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`APPENDIX 2: EXPERT REPORT OF DR. JONATHAN WELLS, PH.D. REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,102,833
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 1
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`E.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`A.
`Identification of the ’833 Patent and Scope of Opinion ......................................... 1
`B.
`Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon ........................................................ 2
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................ 2
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 3
`A.
`Radio communications............................................................................................ 3
`B.
`Error Correction Coding ......................................................................................... 6
`C.
`Modulation .............................................................................................................. 7
`D.
`Long Term Evolution .............................................................................................. 8
`1.
`OFDM & SC-FDMA .................................................................................. 9
`2.
`LTE Uplink Signal Processing.................................................................. 13
`3.
`Reference Signals...................................................................................... 17
`Signal Processing Functionality ............................................................................ 19
`1.
`Interleaving ............................................................................................... 19
`2.
`Padding, Puncturing, and Overwriting...................................................... 20
`SUMMARY OF THE 3GPP SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................ 21
`A.
`3GPP TS 36.201 v2.0.0 (Sept. 2007) .................................................................... 21
`B.
`3GPP TS 36.211 v2.0.0 (Sept. 2007) .................................................................... 22
`C.
`3GPP TS 36.212 v2.0.0 (Sept. 2007) .................................................................... 29
`D.
`3GPP TS 36.213 v2.1.0 (Sept. 2007) .................................................................... 35
`E.
`3GPP TS 36.300 v8.1.0 (July 2007) ..................................................................... 36
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’833 PATENT .............................................................................. 39
`A.
`Date of Invention for the ’833 Patent ................................................................... 39
`B.
`Disclosure of the ’833 Patent ................................................................................ 40
`C.
`The Alleged Problem ............................................................................................ 46
`D.
`The Proposed Solution of the ’833 Patent ............................................................ 47
`1.
`Arrangement of Signals ............................................................................ 47
`2.
`Arrangement Steps .................................................................................... 50
`Prosecution History ............................................................................................... 52
`E.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................................... 54
`F.
`OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART................................................................................. 55
`
`i
`
`I.
`
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 2
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`B.
`
`R1-075037 by Qualcomm (Ex. 1006) ................................................................... 55
`A.
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0262871 to Cho (Ex. 1005) ........ 60
`B.
`R1-073094 by Samsung (Ex. 1008) ...................................................................... 61
`C.
`R1-073269 by Qualcomm (Ex. 1007) ................................................................... 62
`D.
`R1-073926 by Qualcomm (Ex. 1066) ................................................................... 62
`E.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,374,161 to Malladi (Ex. 1068) ................................................. 63
`F.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,367 to Malladi (Ex. 1067) ................................................. 65
`G.
`The Inventors of the ’833 Patent Attended the 3GPP Meetings ........................... 82
`H.
`SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 83
`INVALIDITY BASED ON PRIOR ART......................................................................... 84
`A.
`Claims 1 and 8 are Obvious over Qualcomm-037 in view of Cho,
`Samsung-094, and Qualcomm-269 ....................................................................... 84
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................................... 84
`2.
`Claim 8 .................................................................................................... 111
`Claims 1 and 8 are Obvious over Qualcomm-037 in view of Cho,
`Samsung-094, and Qualcomm-926 ..................................................................... 113
`1.
`Claim 1 .................................................................................................... 113
`2.
`Claim 8 .................................................................................................... 140
`Claims 1 and 8 are Obvious over Qualcomm-037 in view of Malladi ’161,
`Samsung-094, and Malladi ’367 ......................................................................... 142
`1.
`Claim 1 .................................................................................................... 142
`2.
`Claim 8 .................................................................................................... 171
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ................................ 173
`A.
`Commercial Success ........................................................................................... 174
`B.
`Long-Felt But Unsolved Need ............................................................................ 178
`C.
`Failure of Others ................................................................................................. 181
`D.
`Copying by Others .............................................................................................. 184
`E.
`Unexpected Results ............................................................................................. 188
`F.
`Industry Praise .................................................................................................... 191
`G.
`Lack of Independent Simultaneous Invention by Others .................................... 195
`H.
`Teaching Away ................................................................................................... 197
`I.
`Skepticism in the Industry .................................................................................. 199
`J.
`Licensing by Others ............................................................................................ 201
`1.
` License ....................................................................... 204
`
`C.
`
`ii
`
`VII.
`VIII.
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 3
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
` License ....................................................................... 204
`2.
` License ..................................................................................... 205
`3.
` License .................................................................................... 205
`4.
` License...................................................................................... 206
`5.
` License .................................................................................... 206
`6.
` License ............................................................................ 207
`7.
` License ................................................................................. 207
`8.
`License ....................................................................................... 208
`9.
`ACCEPTABLE NON-INFRINGING ALTERNATIVES ............................................. 208
`X.
`REVISION OR SUPPLEMENTATION ........................................................................ 218
`XI.
`XII. DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS ................................................................................... 218
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 4
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Identification of the ’833 Patent and Scope of Opinion
`
`My name is Dr. Jonathan Wells. I have been retained by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) to
`
`investigate and opine on certain issues relating to U.S. Patent No. 8,102,833 (“’833 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I understand that Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, Optis Cellular Technology,
`
`LLC, Unwired Planet, LLC, Unwired Planet International Limited, and PanOptis Patent
`
`Management, LLC (collectively, “Optis” or “Plaintiffs”) has asserted the ’833 patent in litigation
`
`against Apple in Optis Wireless Technology, LLC et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00066-
`
`JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“the Litigation”). In the Litigation, Optis has asserted claims 1 and 8 of the
`
`’833 patent (“the Asserted Claims”).
`
`3.
`
`Specifically, I have been asked to determine if any or all of the claims of the ’833
`
`patent are invalid based on, among other things, 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112. In this report, I
`
`explain the manner in which the prior art, known before the applicable priority date of the ’833
`
`patent, discloses each limitation of the Asserted Claims, and I explain how the known prior art
`
`would render the asserted claims obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`inventions were made.
`
`4.
`
`To support my opinions, I have further been asked to provide an overview of the
`
`technology. In this report, I will discuss the technology related to the ’833 patent, including an
`
`overview of that technology as it was known at the time of the ’833 patent’s priority date.
`
`5.
`
`I have based my report on information currently available to me. To the extent
`
`that additional information becomes available, I reserve the right to continue my investigation
`
`and study, which may include a review of documents and information that recently have been or
`
`may be produced, as well as testimony from depositions that may yet be taken in this case. I
`
`1
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 5
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`may thus expand or modify my opinions as my investigation and study continues. I may also
`
`supplement my opinions in response to any additional information that becomes available to me,
`
`any matters raised by Optis, and/or opinions provided by Optis’ experts, or in light of any
`
`relevant orders from the judge overseeing the Litigation
`
`6.
`
`My qualifications are set forth in my main report, of which this Report is an
`
`appendix, and in my curriculum vitae, which is attached to my main report as Appendix 1. I also
`
`incorporate my main report herein by reference. .
`
`B.
`
`7.
`
`Documents and Other Materials Relied Upon
`
`I have reviewed and considered, in the preparation of this report, materials and
`
`testimony shown in Appendix A referred to herein, including the ’833 patent, its file history, and
`
`the prior art references described below. Additionally, I have reviewed information generally
`
`available to, and relied upon by a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, including
`
`publicly available technical reference materials and books.
`
`8.
`
`I anticipate using some of the documents and information listed in Appendix A, as
`
`well as other information and material that may be produced during the course of this
`
`proceeding, such as deposition testimony, representative charts, graphs, schematics and
`
`diagrams, animations, and models based on those documents and information, to support and to
`
`explain my testimony before the Court regarding the invalidity of the ’833 patent.
`
`II.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`9.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention would be someone with a working knowledge of wireless networking. The person
`
`would have gained this knowledge through an undergraduate Bachelor of Science degree in
`
`Electronic Engineering or a related field, and approximately two years of education, training or
`
`2
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 6
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`specifications were one of many available options for each specific decision implemented to the
`
`prior 3GPP specifications. 3GPP was free to select from the variety of options, but often
`
`suboptimal selections are made for a variety of reasons, including because the working group
`
`had run out of time and had to adopt a position before completely analyzing all the alternatives,
`
`because selections made in an effort to reach consensus within the Working Group often are at
`
`the expense of selecting optimal options; and because the individual members may not have the
`
`resources available to further investigate or research other options.
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’833 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`86.
`
`Date of Invention for the ’833 Patent
`
`The patent application that issued as the ’833 patent was filed on September 11,
`
`2008, as U.S. Patent Application No 12/209,136, and issued on January 24, 2012. The ’833
`
`patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos. 60/972,244 (“the ’244
`
`provisional”) (Ex. 1013), filed on September 13, 2007; 60/987,427 (“the ’427 provisional”) (Ex.
`
`1014), filed on November 13, 2007; 60/988,433 (“the ’433 provisional”) (Ex. 1015), filed on
`
`November 16, 2007; and Korean Patent Application No. 10-2008-0068634 (“the ’634
`
`application”) (Ex. 1016), filed on July 15, 2008. Ex. 1001, 1.
`
`87.
`
`I have been informed that to be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a
`
`provisional application, the disclosure of the invention in the provisional application must be
`
`sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1. I understand that an
`
`application cannot claim priority to an earlier provisional application if the earlier application
`
`does not provide adequate written description and enablement for the claims of the subsequent
`
`application. I further understand that there is no presumption of entitlement to priority date.
`
`39
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 7
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`88.
`
`As I discuss below, independent claims 1 and 8 require a particular multiplexing
`
`for control and data signals, and a specific mapping pattern for a 2-dimensional resource matrix.
`
`The ’244 provisional, filed on September 13, 2007, and to which the ’833 patent claims priority,
`
`provides no support for these limitations. In fact, “matrices,” “columns,” and “rows” do not
`
`appear anywhere in the certified translation of the original Korean-language specification—in
`
`words or concept—much less the particular arrangement of signals found in the claims. See Ex.
`
`1013, pp. 11-23. Nor do Figures 2-9 of the ’833 patent appear in that earlier ’244 provisional.
`
`See Ex. 1013, pp. 11-23, 33-39. Furthermore, I have been informed that November 13, 2007 (the
`
`date of the later-filed ’427 provisional), is the earliest priority date alleged by plaintiffs in the
`
`Litigation. Accordingly, the ’833 patent is entitled to a priority date no earlier than the filing
`
`date of the ’427 provisional (November 13, 2007).15
`
`B.
`
`89.
`
`Disclosure of the ’833 Patent
`
`The ’833 patent, entitled “Method for Transmitting Uplink Signals,” issued on
`
`January 24, 2012, and was originally assigned to LG Electronics Inc. Ex. 1001.
`
`90.
`
`The ’833 patent is directed to the transmission of uplink signals, and in particular
`
`the arrangement of ACK/NACK signals within the uplink transmission. Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`91.
`
`The ’833 patent concedes in the “Discussion of the Related Art” section that, as of
`
`the time of filing, a “3GPP LTE system uses a single carrier frequency division multiplexing
`
`access (SC-FDMA) scheme for uplink signal transmission.” Id. at 1:33-35. As part of this
`
`system, “the 3GPP LTE system prescribes that data signals and control signals among the uplink
`
`signals are first multiplexed and ACK/NACK signals are transmitted to the multiplexed signals
`
`
`15 I understand that Apple does not concede that the ’833 patent is entitled to claim priority to the ’427 provisional,
`and reserves the right to challenge priority to the same in the Litigation. For purposes of this report, I have not
`analyzed whether the ’833 patent is entitled to a priority date of November 13, 2007.
`
`40
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 8
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`by puncturing the data or control signals[.]” Id. at 1:35-38. Additionally, at the time, 3GPP had
`
`decided that “the control information is multiplexed with the data information, wherein the
`
`control information is transmitted near a reference signal.” Id. at 1:45-49. 3GPP recognized this
`
`because “the control signals generally require higher reliability than the data signals,” and so
`
`placing the control signals close to reference signals would “improve channel estimation
`
`performance.” See id. at 1:49-53.
`
`92.
`
`The ’833 patent further explains that “the ACK/NACK signals require higher
`
`reliability than the other control signals.” Id. at 1:55-57. As such, the ’833 patent discloses a
`
`system and method which “arrang[esJ the ACK/NACK signals at both symbols near to symbols
`
`through which a reference signal is transmitted.” Id. at 2:25-27.
`
`93.
`
`The ’833 patent additionally explains that ACK/NACK signals are a type of
`
`control information or signals. Ex. 1001, 5:3-6. An ACK signal signifies receipt of downlink
`
`data, and a NACK signal signifies some type of error with received downlink data. To
`
`distinguish ACK/NACK signals from other types of control information or signals, the ’833
`
`patent refers to “control information” or “control signals” as control information or control
`
`signals other than the ACK/NACK signals. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:40-44, 5:13-24.
`
`94.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’833 patent, shown below, is “a block diagram illustrating a
`
`transmitter to describe a method for transmitting signals in accordance with a single carrier
`
`frequency division multiplexing access (SC-FDMA) scheme.” Id. at 4:5-8. The transmitter
`
`takes an “information sequence[]” as an input and performs “direct-to-parallel conversion” (101).
`
`Id. at 4:11-14. “[D]irect-to-parallel” conversion is also referred to as “serial-to-parallel”
`
`conversion, therefore Figure l labels 101 as “S/P.”
`
`41
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 9
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`The transmitter performs a discrete Fourier transform (DFT) on signals that have
`
`95.
`
`been converted to parallel sequences (102), and then performs an inverse fast Fourier transform
`
`(IFFT) to obtain a single carrier feature (103). Id. at 4:11-17. The output of the IFFT is
`
`converted to serial signals by a parallel-to-serial conversion module 104. Id. at 4:22-23. After
`
`that, the transmitter inserts a cyclic prefix (CP) (105) to the signals and transmits the signals in
`
`the form of an SC-FDMA signal. Id. at 4:23-26.
`
`96.
`
`Figure 2, shown below, “is a diagram illustrating a procedure of multiplexing data
`
`information, control information and ACK/NACK signals for uplink signal transmissions.” Id.
`
`at 4:45-4 7. The data information is channel coded at S204, and control information is channel
`
`coded separately at S211. Id. at 4:52-54, 4:60-61. Channel coding adds redundancy to
`
`information or signals for correcting transmission errors. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:59-61; Ex. 1076,
`
`3:60-61. The channel coded control information is then multiplexed with the data information in
`
`S230. Id. at 4:61-64. The ACK/NACK signals are channel coded separately from the data and
`
`42
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 10
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`control signals at S22l. Id. at 4:65-66. The ACK/NACK signals can be transmitted by
`
`overwriting or “puncturing” “bit streams of the data information or symbols where data
`
`information and control information are multiplexed” (S240). Id. at 4:67-5:2, 6:9-21.
`
`97.
`
`The ’833 patent defines “overwritten” as “specific information mapped in the
`
`resource region is skipped and the corresponding region is mapped” and “the length of the entire
`
`information is maintained equally even after specific information is inserted.” Id. at 6:15-21.
`
`“This overwriting procedure may be represented by puncturing.” Id.
`
`
`The ’833 patent describes transmitting information using a “resource block” and a
`
`98.
`
`“sub-frame.” Ex. 1001, 5:37-45. As described above, “resource block” and “sub-frame” are
`
`43
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 11
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`terms of art in LTE communication and were well-known before the priority date of the ’833
`
`patent. Each subframe is 1 ms in time, and includes two adjacent slots with each slot containing
`
`seven contiguous SC-FDMA symbols. Ex. 1001, 5:40-45, cl. 3. In addition, resource blocks
`
`consist of twelve OFDM subcarriers and seven SC-FDMA symbols in one slot. Id. at 5:37-40.
`
`Two of the fourteen SC-FDMA symbols in each sub-frame are used as reference signals that are
`
`pilot signals. Ex. 1001, 5:40-43. Reference signals are also referred to as demodulation
`
`reference signals or pilot signals, which are used to provide channel estimation for coherent
`
`demodulation of the received signal. Ex. 1001, 5:40-43; Ex. 1073, 1:56-65; Ex. 1077, 7
`
`(referring to “a sub-frame structure comprising of symbols carrying data or control signals and
`
`demodulation reference signals”).
`
`99.
`
`As was already known before the priority date of the ’833 patent, information
`
`sequences are mapped to modulation symbols using a “time-first” mapping method. Ex. 1001,
`
`5:49-52. Figure 3, annotated below, illustrates an example of the time-first mapping method. Id.
`
`at 5:53-56. The twelve SC-FDMA symbols are marked in the right of the Figure with numbers
`
`“#l” through “#12.” Each horizontal row in the matrix represents one SC-FDMA symbol, each
`
`vertical column in the matrix represents one subcarrier, and each square in the matrix of
`
`represents one modulation symbol. Information data 1 through 12 are mapped to modulation
`
`symbols in the same subcarrier from SC-FDMA symbol #1 through #12, then information data
`
`13 through 24 are mapped to modulation symbols in the next subcarrier again from SC-FDMA
`
`symbol #1 through #12, so on and so forth until all of information data 1 through information
`
`data N are mapped. Id. at 5:60-65.
`
`44
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 12
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`100. As noted above, a modulation symbol is an individual unit of modulated data in
`
`the frequency / time domain, whereas a SC-FDMA symbol includes multiple modulation
`
`symbols in all of the frequency subcarriers in one time instance. For example, Figure 3 above
`
`shows that one SC-FDMA symbol includes multiple modulation symbols in one time unit (e.g.,
`
`SC-FDMA symbol #1 includes all of the subcarriers in one subframe, and thus includes
`
`modulation symbols 1, 13, 25, 37, ... N-23, and N-11). See also Ex. 1001, Figs. 6-9 (similar).
`
`45
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 13
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`101. Figure 4, annotated below, illustrates the steps for transmitting information
`
`mapped using a time-first mapping method as illustrated in Figure 3. Ex. 1001, 5:56-59, 5:66-
`
`6:8.16
`
`C.
`
`The Alleged Problem
`
`102. 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
`
`
`
`
`16 Figure 4 utilizes a normal cyclic prefix (CP) where one slot includes seven symbols. Figure 5 shows a similar
`scenario, but where an extended CP is used, meaning each slot includes only six symbols. Ex. 1001, 6:6-8.
`
`46
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 14
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`blocks described above. 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. at 1:43-46. Furthermore, the ’833 patent admits that it was
`
`known that, “to improve channel estimation performance,” “control signals” could be placed
`
`close to reference signals, since “control signals generally require higher reliability than data
`
`signals.” Id. at 1:46-51.
`
`103. 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.
`
`D.
`
`The Proposed Solution of the ’833 Patent
`
`104. 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. 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, prior to transmitting information from the signals in symbols.
`
`Each of these requirements is described below.
`
`1.
`
`Arrangement of Signals
`
`105. Figure 6 of the ’833 patent, which I have annotated below, illustrates an
`
`arrangement of control information, data information, and ACK/NACK signals in a “time-
`
`47
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 15
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`frequency region” (denoted by reference numeral 603), which is described as a “2-dimensional
`
`resource matrix” in claim 1.17 Ex. 1001, cl.1, 6:49-7:14.
`
`
`
`106.
`
`In Figure 6, element 601 shows data information (1-ND, highlighted in purple)
`
`being placed after control data (l-NC, highlighted in blue) as part of the serially multiplexed
`
`signal. Element 602 shows a similar serially multiplexed control and data signal, but with
`
`ACK/NACK signals arranged by puncturing the multiplexed data (highlighted in yellow). Id. at
`
`6:68-66. Element 603 is the 2-dimensional resource matrix into which the sequence 601 is
`
`
`17 Note, however, that the 2-dimensional resource matrix required by claim 1 is rotated by 90 degrees compared to
`what is shown in Figure 6. For example, in 603 a row represents an SC-FDMA symbol, whereas in claim 1 columns
`of the 2-dimensional resource matrix correspond to SC-FDMA symbols.
`
`48
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 16
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`mapped (and after ACK/NACK signals are punctured into the multiplexed data in the matrix).
`
`Id. at 6:66-7:14.
`
`107.
`
`In the resource matrix 603 of Figure 6, the columns correspond to subcarriers and
`
`the rows correspond to SC-FDMA symbols. Ex. 1001, 6:66-7:3, 7:6-10, 9:6-21. As shown in
`
`Figure 6, the resource matrix 603 includes a total of fourteen SC-FDMA symbols along the time
`
`axis (the vertical axis) within one subframe - twelve SC-FDMA symbols with numbers #1
`
`through #12, and two SC-FDMA symbols that carry reference signals in a part between symbols
`
`indices #3 and #4 and in a part between symbols indices #9 and #10. Id. at 5:37 -45, 7:2-5. The
`
`serially multiplexed control and data signal is mapped into the resource matrix in accordance
`
`with the time-first mapping method. Id. at 7:6-10.
`
`108. The ACK/NACK signals are set in such a manner that they overwrite data signals
`
`on both sides of the parts to which the reference signals are transmitted (i.e., into SC-FDMA
`
`symbols #3, 4, 9 and 10). Id. at 7:10-14.
`
`109. After information is populated into the matrix, the SC-FDMA symbols (rows in
`
`Figure 6) are 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 SC-FDMA 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.
`
`110. 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
`
`49
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 17
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`detection of control information by obtaining time diversity. See Ex. 1005, ¶62. Data
`
`information occupies resource elements in the remainder of the resource matrix.
`
`111.
`
`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. at 7:2-5. These correspond to “SC-FDMA symbols used for a reference signal” in
`
`claim 1. Id. at cl. 1. Before the ’833 patent, it was well known that symbols transmitted adjacent
`
`to a reference 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).
`
`112. 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
`
`113. 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 the multiplexed signals to a 2-
`
`dimensional resource matrix, and (3) mapping ACK/NACK signals by overwriting some of the
`
`signals mapped to the 2-dimensional resource matrix. Each of these steps are described in more
`
`detail below.
`
`50
`
`Optis Cellular Ex 2037-p. 18
`Apple v Optis Cellular
`IPR2020-00465
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`114. First, data and control signals are multiplexed into multiplexed signals 601.18 Ex.
`
`1001, 6:60-63. As shown in Figure 6, control signals 1-NC are serially multiplexed in front of
`
`(i.e., to the left of) data signals 1-ND. Id., Fig. 6, 6:52-60, 8:36-40, 9:1-5.
`
`115. Second, the multiplexed sign