DOCKET NO.: 1033300-00350
`
`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________________________________
`Case IPRIPR2020-00466
`________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF MARK LANNING IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,411,557
`
`APPLE 1002
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ................................................................ 5
`III. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY ............................................... 12
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’557 PATENT ........................................................... 16
`A. Summary of the ’557 Patent ........................................................................ 16
`B. Prosecution History ..................................................................................... 20
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................. 26
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................... 26
`VII. OVERVIEW OF PRIMARY PRIOR ART REFERENCES ...................... 27
`A. Sutivong ....................................................................................................... 27
`B. Harris ........................................................................................................... 28
`C. Tan ............................................................................................................... 29
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION .................................................... 32
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-10 Are Obvious Over Harris in View of Tan ............. 32
`1. Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 32
`2. Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 47
`3. Claim 3 ..................................................................................................... 48
`4. Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 49
`5. Claim 5 ..................................................................................................... 51
`6. Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 52
`7. Claim 7 ..................................................................................................... 54
`8. Claim 8 ..................................................................................................... 54
`9. Claim 9 ..................................................................................................... 55
`10. Claim 10 ................................................................................................ 55
`B. Ground 2: Claims 1-10 Are Obvious Over Sutivong in View of Tan ........ 56
`1. Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 56
`i
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`2. Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 69
`3. Claim 3 ..................................................................................................... 70
`4. Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 72
`5. Claim 5 ..................................................................................................... 73
`6. Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 74
`7. Claim 7 ..................................................................................................... 75
`8. Claim 8 ..................................................................................................... 76
`9. Claim 9 ..................................................................................................... 77
`10. Claim 10 ................................................................................................ 77
`IX. AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ....................................... 78
`X. RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT ............................................................................ 79
`XI.
`JURAT ............................................................................................................ 80
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`I. INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Mark Lanning.
`
`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`
`2.
`
`I am currently the President of three consulting companies: Telecom
`
`Architects, Inc., I.N. Solutions, Inc., and Reticle Consulting, LLC. All three
`
`companies provide professional consulting services and custom software
`
`development different technical areas. Telecom Architects, Inc. was established in
`
`1999 to provide specialized consulting services to fixed and wireless telecom
`
`service providers and their suppliers. I.N. Solutions (Intelligent Networking
`
`Solutions) was established in 1991 with an emphasis on applications design and
`
`network architecture engineering for telephone-based switching and Advanced
`
`Intelligent Networking systems. Reticle Consulting was created in 2009 to provide
`
`specialized consulting services for forensic software analysis and software source
`
`code comparison for misappropriation cases.
`
`3.
`
`I have over 40 years’ experience in a wide variety of communication
`
`technologies including, but not limited to, paging systems and pager protocols,
`
`modems and modem protocols, circuit-switched and packet-switched networks,
`
`cellular networks and their components, advanced cellular network based services,
`
`Public Switched Telephone Network (“PSTN”) networks, VoIP networks,
`
`Advanced services that use Intelligent Networking (“AIN”) network elements, and
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`various signaling protocols (e.g., Signaling System 7 (“SS7”) and Integrated
`
`Digital Services Network (“ISDN”)).
`
`4.
`
`For at least 30 years, I have worked with wireless communications
`
`systems of different types, and have worked as either a development engineer or
`
`system architect in each of the three generations of cellular systems
`
`5.
`
`Beginning in 1984, I was a member of a team responsible for
`
`converting a PSTN switch into a cellular mobile switching center that Motorola
`
`and other companies used extensively in cellular networks located the U.S. and
`
`other countries. I have also been a member or manager of development teams that
`
`built cellular network elements and specialized cellular applications. These
`
`network element types include at least: base station; home location register; short
`
`and multimedia message centers; intelligent peripherals; personal number plans;
`
`and pre-paid billing systems. These applications include, but are not limited to,
`
`creating, processing and delivering Short Message Service (SMS) and Multimedia
`
`Message Service (MMS) messages in cellular networks and cellular phones.
`
`6.
`
`Since 1991, I have been responsible for the design and
`
`implementation of various cellular network systems. For example, I was the
`
`program manager responsible for the design and rollout of BT’s Advanced
`
`Cellular Network (ACN) that used AIN functionality. BT’s ACN was one of the
`
`largest cellular networks in the world and also includes advanced corporate virtual
`2
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`private network (VPN) and pre-pay validation services. And, starting in 1998, I
`
`and my team at Telecom Architects (TAI) were contracted by Nextel to design
`
`their 2.5G cellular iDEN switching, VoIP dispatch network and its TDM/SONET
`
`transmission networks. After completion of the 2.5G network design, I and the
`
`TAI team performed a large part of the qualification, testing and rollout phases for
`
`new equipment suppliers and their applicable products into Nextel’s network.
`
`7.
`
`I am a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE), including the IEEE Standards Association. I am also a member of the
`
`Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). I was also a member of the
`
`American National Standards Institute (ANSI) T1 and T1X1 standard groups
`
`responsible for the definition and standardization of the Advanced Intelligent
`
`Network (AIN) and Signaling System 7 (SS7) protocol.
`
`8.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from
`
`Southern Methodist University (SMU) in 1983. More details on my education,
`
`work experience and technical consulting experience, as well as a list of
`
`publications that I have authored or co-authored, and my testifying experience are
`
`contained in my curriculum vitae, included in attached Appendix A.
`
`9.
`
`I have reviewed the specification, file history and claims of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,411,557 to Imamura et al. (the “’557 patent”) (Ex-1001).
`
`10.
`
`I have reviewed and understand the following references:
`3
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`Published International Application No. WO 2006/019710
`
`•
`
`(“Sutivong”) (Ex-1003), published on February 23, 2006, is prior art
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,009,637 (“Harris”) (Ex-1004), filed on
`
`January 18, 2007, and claiming priority to provisional application
`
`60/781,527 (filed Mar. 10, 2006), was issued on August 30, 2011, is
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0165567 (“Tan”) (Ex-1005),
`
`filed on January 10, 2007, and claiming priority to provisional
`
`application 60/759,697 (filed Jan. 17, 2006), was published on July
`
`19, 2007, is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`11.
`
`I have been retained by Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) to provide my
`
`conclusions concerning the validity of the ’557 patent in connection with its
`
`petition for inter partes review of the ’557 patent.
`
`12.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $550 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.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`13. To the best of my knowledge, I have no financial interest in Petitioner
`
`or in the ’557 patent. To the extent any mutual funds or other investments I own
`
`have a financial interest in the Petitioner or the ’557 patent, I do not knowingly
`
`have any financial interest that would affect or bias my judgment.
`
`II. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`14.
`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:
`
`15.
`
`I understand that in an Inter Partes Review proceeding, a patent is not
`
`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.
`
`16.
`
` 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.
`
`17. 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,
`5
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`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.
`
`18. 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.
`
`19. 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.
`
`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.
`
`20. 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
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`• what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and
`
`the prior art.
`
`21.
`
`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;
`
`• 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
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`• whether there was independent invention of the claimed invention by
`
`others before or at about the same time the named inventor conceived
`
`of it.
`
`22.
`
`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.
`
`23.
`
`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
`
`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;
`8
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`• 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.
`
`24.
`
`In considering obviousness, it is important to be careful not use the
`
`benefit of hindsight.
`
`25. 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.
`
`26.
`
`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
`9
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`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.”
`
`27.
`
`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.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed that a patent must satisfy the written description
`
`requirement separate from any enablement requirement, each of which are found
`
`in 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph.
`
`29. 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
`10
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`subject matter as of the filing date. I understand that new matter is matter not
`
`supported by the disclosure.
`
`30.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that there is a “means-plus-function” type of claim
`
`interpretation that may be argued to apply to certain terms, pursuant to 35
`
`§112(6). For these terms, if the term is determined to be a “means-plus-function”
`
`term under §112(6), I understand that there must be a corresponding structure
`
`disclosed in the specification in a way that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand what structure would perform the claimed function. I
`
`understand the disclosure may be implicit in the specification if it would have
`
`been clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art what structure corresponds to the
`11
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`claimed function. With respect to a computer-implemented function, an algorithm
`
`must be disclosed in the specification.
`
`III. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`32. The ’557 patent relates to access request messages sent over a channel
`
`called the Random Access CHannel (“RACH”).
`
`33. For most cellular networks, including the 4G LTE (Long Term
`
`Evolution) network, when a mobile device (User Equipment, UE) wants to
`
`communicate with a base station (eNodeB, eNB), the UE’s first transmission is an
`
`access request. This initial transmission is sent over a specific uplink channel
`
`called the RACH. This channel is called the random access channel because
`
`messages sent over it are unscheduled, and the base station may not be aware of
`
`the UEs sending the requests. When a random access procedure is successful, the
`
`UE is then known to the base station, and after further negotiation, may begin
`
`communicating with the base station. See Ex-1043 at 106 (“The Random Access
`
`Channel (RACH) is typically used for signaling purposes, to register the terminal
`
`after power-on to the network…”).
`
`34. Before the filing of the ’557 patent, it was well known for UEs to send
`
`initial access messages over a RACH. Ex-1001, 1:10-18 (admitting “studies
`
`[were] underway to use [the] RACH (Random Access Channel) for initial access
`
`from a radio communication mobile station apparatus … to a radio
`12
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`communication base station apparatus … in 3GPP RAN LTE (Long Term
`
`Evolution) …. The RACH is utilized, for example, to make an association request
`
`and a resource request to the base station, and in initial access upon acquiring
`
`uplink transmission timing synchronization.”).
`
`35. According to the ’557 patent, a UE seeking access selects a
`
`signature—a predefined sequence of bits used to modulate a radio signal—and
`
`transmits that signature over the RACH. As the patent acknowledges, the process
`
`of selecting and transmitting signatures over the RACH was already well known.
`
`Id., 1:19-22 (stating in Background Art, “a mobile station transmitting a RACH
`
`signal selects one of a plurality of unique signatures in the RACH and transmits
`
`the selected signature to the base station to distinguish itself from other mobile
`
`stations transmitting RACH signals”).
`
`36. Because RACH transmissions are not prescheduled (and resources are
`
`not yet allocated by the base station to the requesting UEs), multiple UEs may
`
`transmit initial access requests on the RACH simultaneously, resulting in
`
`interference between the transmissions. However, if multiple different signatures
`
`are generated from signal patterns with low cross-correlation and high
`
`autocorrelation characteristics are used, these signatures will not interfere with
`
`each other even when sent from different UEs simultaneously.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`37. Cross-correlation refers to the correlation between one signal pattern
`
`and another different signal pattern. High cross-correlation means that two signal
`
`patterns will interfere with each other when transmitted at the same time, whereas
`
`low cross-correlation means that two signal patterns will not interfere with each
`
`other when transmitted at the same time. Therefore, when two different signatures
`
`generated from low cross-correlation signal patterns are transmitted at the same
`
`time, there is a lower likelihood that the signatures will interfere with one another.
`
`38. Autocorrelation refers to the correlation between one signature and a
`
`delayed (or “shifted”) version of itself. Therefore, when the same high-
`
`autocorrelation signature is transmitted from two locations with a slight delay (for
`
`example, when two UEs are at different distances from a base station), the two
`
`signals will be indistinguishable, but nonetheless received. A signature can also
`
`be generated from a signal pattern with circular autocorrelation. Circular
`
`autocorrelation means that a signal only correlates with a delayed version of itself
`
`for small delays, but will not significantly interfere with itself for larger delays.
`
`39. Before the ’557 patent, it was known that CAZAC (Constant
`
`Amplitude Zero Auto-Correlation) sequences were one type of sequence that had
`
`low cross-correlation and high autocorrelation if generated from the same base
`
`sequence, and that CAZAC sequences could be used as RACH signatures.
`
`Specifically, the ’557 patent acknowledges that studies were already underway “to
`14
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`use sequences having low cross-correlation and high autocorrelation”
`
`characteristics as RACH signatures, including CAZAC sequences. Generalized
`
`Chirp-Like Sequences (GCL) are one specific example of CAZAC sequences. Id.,
`
`1:23-32. Another example of CAZAC sequences is a “Chu sequence,” discussed
`
`below.
`
`40. A UE can convey “control information” to the base station in its initial
`
`RACH access request. This information may be conveyed by selecting a
`
`signature that is associated with the control information the UE desires to send.
`
`When a base station receives a signature associated with the control sequence, the
`
`base station can look up that control information and act on it if required. Thus,
`
`by selecting and transmitting a signature associated with appropriate control
`
`information, the UE conveys control information to the base station. Control
`
`information in LTE can include, for example the size of a forthcoming message or
`
`the channel quality. The base station may use this control information to
`
`determine what resources to grant to the UE for subsequent communications. The
`
`idea of sending control information with an initial access request was known prior
`
`to the alleged priority date of the ’557 patent. Id., 1:33-39 (“[T]o reduce the
`
`processing delay after the initial access, studies [were] underway to report, in the
`
`RACH, control information including the mobile station ID, the reason for RACH
`
`transmission, bandwidth allocation request information, and downlink received
`15
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`quality information.”). See also Ex-1043 at 111 (“The terminal selects randomly
`
`one of the RACH sub-channels from the group its access class allows it to use.
`
`Further, the signature is also selected randomly from among the available
`
`signatures.”).
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’557 PATENT
`41. The ’557 patent relates to a purported improvement in sending control
`
`information over the RACH.
`
`A. Summary of the ’557 Patent
`42. The ’557 patent explains that it is “an object of the present invention
`
`to provide a mobile station and radio communication method for efficiently
`
`reporting control information in the RACH.” Ex-1001, 1:60-62. The patent
`
`describes a technique for conveying this control information by associating
`
`control information with groups of signatures, randomly selecting a signature
`
`from the group representing the control information to be reported, and sending
`
`the randomly selected signature to the base station. The claimed UE includes a
`
`selecting unit for selecting a sequence from a group associated with certain
`
`characteristics (“control information”). Id. 9:61-10:8.
`
`43. As shown in Figure 4, which I have annotated below, signatures are
`
`organized by the value of the control information to be conveyed over the RACH.
`
`Ex-1001, 4:64-67. For example, signatures #1-8 are associated with control
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`information “000” (blue). Signatures #9-16 are associated with control
`
`information “001” (green). To convey control information “000,” according to
`
`the patent, a UE would randomly select a signature from among signatures #1-8.
`
`To convey control information “001,” a UE would randomly select a signature
`
`from among signatures #9-16. Id., 5:1-8.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`44. According to the patent, the number of signatures assigned to a
`
`particular value of control information may vary, based on a “control signal” sent
`
`from the base station to the mobile device. Ex-1001, 8:41-51. As shown in
`
`Figures 9 and 11, which I have annotated below, the mobile device “changes the
`
`associations in the table shown in FIG. 9 … as shown in FIG. 11,” based on the
`
`control signal received from the base station. Id., 8:54-59. Figure 11 “shows a
`
`case where the number of code sequences associated with control information
`
`‘000’ [blue] is increased due to an increased rate of occurrence of control
`
`information ‘000’ and where the number of code sequences associated with
`
`control information ‘001’ [green] is decreased due to a decreased rate of
`
`occurrence of control information ‘001.’” Id., 8:58-63.
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`
`
`
`B. Prosecution History
`45.
`I have reviewed the prosecution history of the ’557 patent.
`
`46.
`
`I understand that the ’557 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 13/333,805 (“’805 application”). It was filed on December 21, 2011, and
`
`claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 12/293,530 (“’530 application”),
`
`which was filed as a National Stage Application of PCT/JP2007/055695 (filed
`
`Mar. 20, 2007) under 35 U.S.C. § 371, and which claims priority to Japanese
`
`Patent Application No. 2006-076995 (filed Mar. 20, 2006).
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`I further understand that on June 14, 2011, during prosecution of the
`
`47.
`
`’557’s parent application (the ’530 application) the Examiner rejected all pending
`
`claims, as anticipated by Tan (Ex-1005). Ex-1007 at 255 (“2011-06-14 Office
`
`Action” at 3). The Examiner stated, inter alia, that “Tan discloses a mobile
`
`station apparatus comprising a selecting unit to randomly select a sequence from a
`
`group of sequences corresponding to an amount of data or reception quality.” Id.
`
`The Examiner went on to describe Tan’s disclosure in six pages of the office
`
`action. Id., 3-8.
`
`48.
`
`In response to the Office Action, I understand that the applicant
`
`amended the claims of the ’530 application, including independent claim 12:
`
`12. A mobile station apparatus comprising:
`
`a selecting unit configured to randomly select a sequence from a group of
`
`sequences, the group corresponding to an amount of data or and a reception
`
`quality, wherein a plurality of sequences generated from a plurality of base
`
`sequences are grouped into a plurality of groups, which are respectively
`
`associated with both different amounts of data or and different reception
`
`qualities, such that each group provides an indication of an amount of data and
`
`a reception quality and that those sequences that are generated from the same
`
`base sequence are first included in a predetermined number of the sequences
`
`contained in the same group; and
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPRIPR2020-00466
`Declaration of Mark Lanning
`a transmitting unit configured to transmit the selected sequence.
`
`Ex-1007 at 291-293 (“2011-09-08 Patentee Reply” at 2-4).
`
`49.
`
`I understand that on November 2, 2011, the Examiner finally rejected
`
`all pending claims of the ’530 application as obvious over Tan in view of
`
`Sutivong (Ex-1003). Ex-1007 at 294 (“2011-11-02 Office Action”). The
`
`Examiner explained that Sutivong taught the amended limitations, including
`
`groups of sequences with each group providing an indication of an amount of data
`
`and a reception quality. Id., 298-299; see also Ex-1003 at Fig. 7, [0038], [0062].
`
`50. To overcome the rejection, I understand that