UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CASE NO. IPR2020-00510
`
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN VILLASENOR, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 1 of 118
`
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CASE NO. IPR2020-00510
`
`U.S. PATENT 8,023,580
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN VILLASENOR, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Exhibit 1002
`Page 1 of 118
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
`
`1. My name is John Villasenor. I am a professor at UCLA. I have been
`
`retained by Qualcomm, Inc. to provide opinions in the above-captioned inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) proceeding challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580 (“the ’580
`
`Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual and customary rate of $800 per
`
`hour for the time I spent in connection with this IPR. My compensation is not
`
`affected by the outcome of this IPR.
`
`3.
`
`Specifically, I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding
`
`whether claims 2 and 59 (each a “Challenged Claim” and collectively the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of the ’580 Patent would have been obvious to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of its claimed priority date, December
`
`5, 1997, which I may also refer to as earliest effective filing date (“EEFD”). It is my
`
`opinion that each Challenged Claim would have been obvious to a POSITA after
`
`reviewing the prior art discussed herein.
`
`4.
`
`I have either trained or worked in communications and digital
`
`information processing, including the relevant hardware, software, and devices, for
`
`approximately three decades. Since well before the priority date of the ’580 Patent,
`
`my work has addressed topics including communications, networking, and mobile
`
`devices and networks.
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`Page 2 of 118
`
`
`
`5.
`
`I received a B.S. in electrical engineering from the University of
`
`Virginia in 1985, an M.S. in electrical engineering from Stanford University in 1986,
`
`and a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Stanford University in 1989.
`
`6.
`
`Between 1990 and 1992, I worked for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
`
`Pasadena, CA, where I helped to develop techniques for imaging and mapping the
`
`earth from space. Since 1992, I have been on the faculty of the Electrical
`
`Engineering Department of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
`
`Between 1992 and 1996, I was an Assistant Professor; between 1996 and 1998, an
`
`Associate Professor; and since 1998, I have been a full Professor. For several years
`
`starting in the late 1990s, I served as the Vice Chair of the Electrical Engineering
`
`Department at UCLA. In addition to my faculty appointment in the UCLA Samueli
`
`School of Engineering, I hold faculty appointments in the Department of Public
`
`Policy within the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, in the UCLA School of
`
`Law, and in the UCLA Anderson School of Management.
`
`7.
`
`In the UCLA Samueli School of Engineering, I have taught courses on
`
`information processing and communications, addressing systems, algorithms, and
`
`devices. More specifically, on multiple occasions I have taught electrical
`
`engineering classes on communications, including addressing both the theoretical
`
`and practical considerations involved in different modulation schemes.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`Page 3 of 118
`
`
`
`8.
`
`At UCLA, I have performed extensive research over the past several
`
`decades on various aspects of communications and signal processing, including the
`
`associated mobile devices and the networks and systems used in relation to those
`
`devices. My research has addressed software, algorithms, hardware, networking,
`
`protocols and other aspects of communications systems, including the tradeoffs
`
`involved in various modulation schemes. In relation to systems that include mobile
`
`devices, my research has addressed issues including communications to/from mobile
`
`devices and processing at the mobile devices and/or at other locations in a network.
`
`My work has addressed both the hardware and software aspects of systems, and has
`
`included consideration of factors such as bandwidth utilization, data rate, tolerance
`
`to noise, protocols, and power consumption.
`
`9.
`
`I am an inventor on approximately 20 issued and pending U.S. patents
`
`in areas including signal (including image) processing, data compression,
`
`communications, and cybersecurity. I have published over 175 articles in peer-
`
`reviewed journals and academic conference proceedings. I have also been asked on
`
`multiple occasions to provide congressional testimony on technology topics.
`
`10.
`
`In addition to my work at UCLA, I am a nonresident senior fellow at
`
`the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. Through Brookings, I have examined
`
`a wide range of topics at the technology/policy intersection, including cybersecurity,
`
`wireless mobile devices and systems, and artificial intelligence.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Page 4 of 118
`
`
`
`11.
`
`In addition to publishing in traditional academic venues such as
`
`engineering journals, engineering conference proceedings, and law reviews, I have
`
`published papers through the Brookings Institution and articles and commentary in
`
`broader-interest venues including Billboard, the Chronicle of Higher Education, Fast
`
`Company, Forbes, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, Scientific
`
`American, Slate, and the Washington Post.
`
`12.
`
`I am also a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford and an
`
`affiliate of the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) at
`
`Stanford. In relation to those affiliations, I have led a research project funded by the
`
`U.S. Department of Homeland Security aimed at improving cybersecurity in U.S.
`
`critical infrastructure.
`
`13.
`
`I am also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. I have been
`
`a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on
`
`Cybersecurity. I was also a member and then vice chair of the World Economic
`
`Forum’s Global Agenda Council on the Intellectual Property System.
`
`14.
`
`I also have substantial experience in early-stage technology venture
`
`capital, including in the years preceding and at approximately the same time frame
`
`as the priority date for the ’580 Patent. In that work, I frequently engaged with,
`
`including performing technical due diligence on, companies working in the technical
`
`areas addressed by the ’580 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Page 5 of 118
`
`
`
`15. Further details of my background and experience are provided in my
`
`curriculum vitae, Ex. 1055.
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`16.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed the materials listed
`
`below, as well as any other documents cited herein:
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580 (“’580 Patent”)
`1002
`Declaration of Dr. John Villasenor (“Villasenor Decl.”)
`1003
`U.S. Patent No. 6,132,306 (“Trompower”)
`1004
`U.S. Patent No. 5,029,183 (“Tymes”)
`1005
`U.S. Patent No. 5,491,832 (“Malkamaki”)
`1006
`U.S. Patent No. 8,457,228 (“’228 Patent”)
`1007
`U.S. Patent No. 5,950,124
`1008
`Theodore S. Rappaport, Wireless Communications: Principles &
`Practice (“Rappaport”)
`Fuqin Xiong, Digital Modulation Techniques (“Xiong”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,381,449
`U.S. Patent No. 5,909,469 (“Frodigh”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,533,004 (“Jasper”)
`Sanjay Udani et al., Power Management in Mobile Computing (a
`Survey) (“Udani”)
`Huajing Fu et al., Experimental Test and Evaluation of a GMSK
`Chipset Compatible With the GSM and PCS Standards (“Fu”)
`
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Page 6 of 118
`
`
`
`1016
`1017
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`
`1029
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1015
`Amit Bodas et al., Low Complexity GSM Modulator for Integrated
`Circuit Implementations (“Bodas”)
`Robert K. Morrow, Bluetooth: Operation and Use (“Morrow”)
`Jennifer Bray et al., Bluetooth: Connect Without Cables (“Bray”)
`Kursat Tekbiyik, Robust and Fast Automatic Modulation
`Classification With CNN Under Multipath Fading Channels
`(“Tekbiyik”) and Declaration of Jason Guerrero Regarding
`Tekbiyik
`File Wrapper, U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580 (“’580 Patent”)
`IPR2014-00514, Briefing and Decisions
`IPR2014-00515, Briefing and Decisions
`IPR2014-00518, Briefing and Decisions
`IPR2015-00519, Briefing and Decisions
`IPR2015-00114, Briefing and Decisions
`IPR2015-00118, Briefing and Decisions
`OMITTED
`Reexamination No. 90/013,808 File History
`Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Claim Construction Order
`Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Apple Inc., Claim
`Construction Order
`Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Trial Transcript
`Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Rembrandt’s Appeal Brief
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Page 7 of 118
`
`
`
`1033
`1034
`1035
`
`1036
`1037
`1038
`1039
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1032
`Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Broadcom Inc., Order
`Denying Motion to Dismiss
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler regarding Exhibit 1013
`Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier regarding Exhibit 1015
`Declaration of William Johnson regarding Exhibits 1008, 1009, and
`1017
`Declaration of Mike Strawn regarding Exhibit 1015
`Declaration of Stacy Troubh regarding Exhibits 1014 and 1016
`OMITTED
`(“Bluetooth
`the Bluetooth System v2.1
`Specification of
`Specification”) and Declaration of Jason Guerrero Regarding
`Bluetooth Specification
`Reexamination No. 90/007,617 File History
`OMITTED
`OMITTED
`OMITTED
`OMITTED
`OMITTED
`OMITTED
`OMITTED
`OMITTED
`OMITTED
`OMITTED
`
`1040
`1041
`1042
`1043
`1044
`1045
`1046
`1047
`1048
`1049
`1050
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`Page 8 of 118
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1051
`IPR2020-00033, Petition
`1052
`IPR2020-00034, Petition
`1053
`OMITTED
`1054
`OMITTED
`1055
`Curriculum vitae of Dr. John Villasenor
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`
`17. Based on my knowledge, experience, education, and background, the
`
`instructions provided to me on the applicable legal standards and principles (as set
`
`forth in Section IV), and the documents that I have reviewed and analyzed in
`
`connection with preparing this declaration (as set forth in Section II and referenced
`
`elsewhere in this declaration), it is my opinion that:
`
`a. Trompower, Tymes, and Malkamaki are not cumulative to the
`
`prior art that was relied upon during prosecution of U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 12/543,910 (the ’910 App., which is the
`
`application from which the ’580 Patent issued) and its previously
`
`instituted and
`
`recently
`
`filed
`
`inter partes
`
`reviews and
`
`reexaminations (as set forth in Section IX.D below).
`
`b. Claims 2 and 59 are a routine and predictable combination of
`
`
`
`
`
`well-known elements.
`
`- 9 -
`
`Page 9 of 118
`
`
`
`c. As explained in Ground 1, Trompower renders obvious claims 2
`
`and 59 of the ’580 Patent. Trompower discloses or renders
`
`obvious every limitation of claims 2 and 59.
`
`d. As explained in Ground 2, Trompower in view of Tymes renders
`
`obvious claims 2 and 59 of the ’580 Patent. Specifically, although
`
`I believe Ground 1 renders claims 2 and 59 obvious, if one were
`
`to argue that Ground 1 fails to teach a mobile station and a base
`
`station in a “master” and “slave” / “trib” relationship, Ground 2
`
`discloses a mobile terminal that acts as a master and a base station
`
`that acts as a trib. Trompower expressly teaches portable
`
`computing devices transferring data in a wireless communications
`
`network. Similarly, Tymes expressly teaches portable computing
`
`devices transferring data in a wireless communications network.
`
`Tymes discloses that the mobile terminal acts as the master by
`
`initiating communications with the base station. Tymes discloses
`
`that the base station acts as the trib by responding to
`
`communications initiated by the mobile terminal. The reasons
`
`why a POSITA would be motivated to combine the teachings of
`
`Trompower in view of Tymes are set forth in Section IX.Ebelow.
`
`e. As explained in Ground 3, Trompower in view of Malkamaki
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`Page 10 of 118
`
`
`
`renders obvious claims 2 and 59 of the ’580 Patent. Specifically,
`
`although I believe Ground 1 renders claims 2 and 59 obvious, if
`
`one were to argue that Ground 1 fails to teach different families
`
`of modulation types because certain different families of
`
`modulation expressly disclosed by Trompower may have
`
`overlapping characteristics, as detailed below Malkamaki
`
`expressly teaches the use of two different modulation families
`
`with no overlapping characteristics, i.e., GMSK which modulates
`
`frequency and PSK which modulates phase to impart information
`
`on a carrier. Trompower expressly teaches that different
`
`modulation types may be used with its disclosed system, and the
`
`reasons why a POSITA would be motivated to combine the
`
`teachings of Trompower in view of Malkamaki are set forth in
`
`Section IX.F below.
`
`f. As explained in Ground 4, Trompower in view of Tymes and
`
`Malkamaki renders obvious claims 2 and 59 of the ’580 Patent.
`
`Specifically, I believe each of Grounds 1-3 renders claims 2 and
`
`59 obvious. If, however, one were to argue that Ground 1 fails to
`
`teach both a mobile station and a base station in a “master” and
`
`“slave” / “trib” relationship and different families of modulation
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`Page 11 of 118
`
`
`
`types, Ground 4 expressly discloses these limitations. As
`
`discussed in Ground 2, Tymes discloses mobile terminals and
`
`base stations in a master / trib relationship. And as discussed in
`
`Ground 3, Malkamaki discloses different families of modulation
`
`types with no overlapping characteristics. The reasons why a
`
`POSITA would be motivated to combine the teachings of
`
`Trompower in view of Tymes and Malkamaki are set forth in
`
`Section IX.G below.
`
`g. I am aware of no secondary considerations of non-obviousness
`
`that change my conclusion that claims 2 and 59 of the ’580 Patent
`
`are obvious.
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`18. My understanding of the law is based on information provided by
`
`counsel. I understand that a patent claim is presumed to be valid. I understand that
`
`to overcome that presumption, the challenger must show that the claim is invalid by
`
`a preponderance of the evidence. I understand the preponderance of the evidence to
`
`require the greater weight of evidence in favor of the challenger.
`
`19.
`
`In determining whether or not a patented invention would have been
`
`obvious, the following factors should be considered: (a) the scope and content of the
`
`prior art; (b) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (c) the
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`Page 12 of 118
`
`
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art; and (d) whatever “secondary considerations” may
`
`be present. I understand that certain “secondary considerations” may be relevant in
`
`determining whether or not an invention would have been obvious, and that these
`
`secondary considerations may include commercial success of a product using the
`
`invention, if that commercial success is due to the invention; long-felt need for the
`
`invention; evidence of copying of the claimed invention; industry acceptance; initial
`
`skepticism; failure of others; and praise of the invention.
`
`20.
`
`I also understand that it is not permissible to use hindsight in assessing
`
`whether a claimed invention is obvious. Rather, I understand that, to assess
`
`obviousness, you must place yourself in the shoes of a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the relevant field of technology at the time the invention was made who is trying
`
`to address the issues or solve the problems faced by the inventor and ignore the
`
`knowledge you currently now have of the invention. I understand that a patent
`
`composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that
`
`each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. While multiple prior
`
`art references or elements may, in some circumstances, be combined to render a
`
`patent claim obvious, I understand that I should consider whether there is an apparent
`
`reason to combine the prior art references or elements in the way the patent claims.
`
`To determine whether such an apparent reason exists to combine the prior art
`
`references or elements in the way a patent claims, it will often be necessary to look
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`Page 13 of 118
`
`
`
`to the interrelated teaching of multiple patents, to the effects of demands known to
`
`the design community or present in the marketplace, and to the background
`
`knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that for a combination of prior art references to render a
`
`claim prima facie obvious, all elements of that claim must be disclosed in the
`
`references that make up the combination.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that obviousness is not subject to a rigid formula and that
`
`common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations
`
`would have been obvious where others would not. I also understand that an
`
`obviousness analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
`
`subject matter of the challenged claim, for the Board can take account of the
`
`inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`I further understand that a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the
`
`relevant prior art teachings to achieve the claimed invention does not have to be
`
`found explicitly in the prior art references sought to be combined, but rather may be
`
`found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a
`
`whole, or the nature of the problem itself. I understand that the motivation need not
`
`be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not
`
`teach away.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`Page 14 of 118
`
`
`
`23.
`
`I understand that some rationales that may support a conclusion of
`
`obviousness include: (A) combining prior art elements according to known methods
`
`to yield predictable results; (B) simple substitution of one known element for another
`
`to obtain predictable results; (C) use of known technique to improve similar devices
`
`(methods, or products) in the same way; (D) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E)
`
`“obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) known work in one field of endeavor
`
`may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based
`
`on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art; or (G) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior
`
`art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`24.
`
`In making a determination as to whether or not the claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA, I understand the Board may consider certain
`
`objective factors if they are present, such as: commercial success of products
`
`practicing the claimed invention, long-felt but unsolved need, teaching away,
`
`unexpected results, copying, licensing, and praise by others in the field. These
`
`factors are referred to as “secondary considerations” or “objective indicia” of non-
`
`obviousness. I understand, however, that for such objective evidence to be relevant
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`Page 15 of 118
`
`
`
`to the obviousness of a claim, there must be a causal relationship (called a “nexus”)
`
`between the claim and the evidence. I also understand that this nexus must be based
`
`on a novel element of the claim instead something in the prior art. I also understand
`
`that there are instances when secondary considerations are unable to overcome
`
`primary evidence of obviousness (e.g., motivation to combine with predictable
`
`results) that is sufficiently strong.
`
`V. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND AT THE EEFD
`
`25. As of the EEFD, modulation was the process through which
`
`information was mapped onto an electromagnetic signal for transmission. Ex. 1008,
`
`p. 197. The attributes of electromagnetic waves, such as amplitude, phase, and
`
`frequency, were varied in a way that reflected, or “mapped,” the information to be
`
`transmitted. Ex. 1008, p. 197. The underlying information was either analog or
`
`digital. For example, in traditional AM radio, an analog waveform representing the
`
`audio to be broadcast was used to modify the amplitude of a carrier wave. Ex. 1008,
`
`p. 199. The resulting modulated carrier wave was then transmitted wirelessly from
`
`a broadcasting antenna to a radio receiver, where it was then demodulated to
`
`reconstruct the waveform representing the audio.
`
`26.
`
`In digital modulation, the information consisted of a series of ones and
`
`zeros (i.e., bits). There were many different digital modulation schemes as of the
`
`EEFD. For example, phase shift keying (PSK) encoded digital data in the form of
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`Page 16 of 118
`
`
`
`phase. Ex. 1009, p. 9. In binary phase shift keying (BPSK), one binary value was
`
`mapped to a transmission of the carrier at a first phase, and the other binary value
`
`was mapped to transmission of the carrier at a second phase that is offset by 180
`
`degrees from the first phase. Ex. 1008, pp. 238-239; Ex. 1009, p. 123. In quadrature
`
`phase shift keying (QPSK), bits were considered two at a time, with each pair of bits
`
`mapped to one of four different phases, and with phases distributed at 90-degree
`
`intervals. Ex. 1008, pp. 243-44; Ex. 1009, pp. 154-156. In 8-PSK, bits were
`
`considered in groups of three, with each group mapped to one of eight different
`
`phases that were distributed at 45-degree intervals. Ex. 1009, p. 137-138. Another
`
`form of digital modulation was amplitude shift keying (ASK), in which binary data
`
`was mapped to the amplitude of a carrier wave. Ex. 1009, p. 8.
`
`27.
`
`In quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM), the mapping from digital
`
`bits to transmitted waveform involved modifying both the amplitude and phase of a
`
`carrier wave. Ex. 1008, p. 270; Ex. 1009, p. 422. For example, in 16-QAM, bits
`
`were considered in groups of four, with each group mapping to one of 16 different
`
`amplitude/phase combinations. Ex. 1009, p. 435.
`
`28.
`
`In frequency shift keying (FSK), digital data was conveyed through the
`
`use of multiple frequencies. Ex. 1008, pp. 256, 272; Ex. 1009, pp. 8-9. One form
`
`of FSK was MSK (minimum shift keying). Ex. 1008, p. 259; Ex. 1009, p. 195. MSK
`
`had the attribute that the transitions between the two frequencies were performed in
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`Page 17 of 118
`
`
`
`a way that ensured that there were no phase discontinuities. Ex. 1008, pp. 260; Ex.
`
`1009, pp. 195, 196. An additional attribute of MSK was that the separation between
`
`the two frequencies was determined based on the bit rate in a manner that ensured
`
`that the frequencies were orthogonal to each other. Ex. 1008, p. 259; Ex. 1009, p.
`
`198. Gaussian Minimum Shift Keying (GMSK) was a form of MSK in which a
`
`special filter was applied prior to modulation. Ex. 1008, p. 262; Ex. 1009, p. 342.
`
`More specifically, the term “Gaussian” in GMSK was used because GMSK involved
`
`the use of a filter with a Gaussian impulse response that acted to shape the input
`
`signal so that the phase over time was not only continuous (an attribute also found
`
`in MSK), but was also free of the abrupt transitions in slope that characterize MSK.
`
`Ex. 1008, pp. 262, 264-65. This resulted in a signal in which the power in the
`
`frequency domain was more concentrated. This also meant there was less power
`
`transmitted at frequencies that are more distant from the center frequency, (Ex. 1008
`
`p. 262) which was an important advantage in wireless systems as of the EEFD due
`
`to the desire to minimize out-of-band transmissions that could interfere with signal
`
`transmissions centered at other frequencies.
`
`29. As known as of the EEFD, one of the important considerations in
`
`modulation schemes related to spectral efficiency, which is an indication of the data
`
`rate that can be transmitted within a given bandwidth. Ex. 1008, p. 222; Ex. 1009,
`
`p. 10. In digital modulation, the modulating signal can be represented as a time
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`Page 18 of 118
`
`
`
`sequence of symbols, where each symbol represents x bits of information. Ex. 1008.
`
`p. 221. For the same symbol rate in terms of symbols per second, a high order
`
`modulation scheme such as 64-QAM transmitted more bits per second than a low
`
`order modulation scheme such as BPSK. This is because each symbol in BPSK
`
`conveyed one bit, while each symbol in 64-QAM conveyed 6 bits.
`
`30. However, there was a tradeoff associated with this higher bit rate in the
`
`form of lower tolerance to noise. Assuming the same symbol rate, BPSK was much
`
`more robust to noise than 64-QAM. This is because the difference between the two
`
`symbols in BPSK was quite large (a full 180 degree phase shift), while the difference
`
`between two closely spaced points in a 64-QAM constellation only involved a
`
`relatively smaller change in amplitude and/or phase, making it more likely that a
`
`small amount of noise could lead to an error. See Ex. 1008, pp. 237, 267.
`
`31. Another important consideration in modulation schemes related to their
`
`impact on the use of power amplifiers. Peak to average power ratio (PAPR) referred
`
`to how widely the power level of a signal fluctuates. Ex. 1010, U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,381,449, 1:58-61. Modulation schemes such as high order QAM that involved a
`
`high PAPR forced the operation of power amplifiers at lower efficiencies. See id.,
`
`1:58-2:10. By contrast, constant envelope modulation schemes that maintained a
`
`narrower range of power output levels allowed amplifiers to be operated more
`
`efficiently. Ex. 1008, pp. 255-256.
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`Page 19 of 118
`
`
`
`32. As of the EEFD, the best choice of modulation scheme could depend
`
`on a variety of factors, including the available bandwidth, data rate requirements,
`
`noise environment, implementation complexity, protocol, and power efficiency
`
`considerations. See Ex. 1008, pp. 221-223. For environments in which the
`
`transmitter and receiver were closely spaced and the noise power (relative to the
`
`power of the transmitted waveform as seen by the receiver) was low, it may have
`
`been appropriate to leverage these favorable conditions by choosing a high order
`
`QAM modulation scheme, thus enabling a greater data rate. See Ex. 1003, 11:19-
`
`33. By contrast, for a receiver located far from the transmitter and at which the
`
`relative noise power was much higher, a low order modulation scheme such as BPSK
`
`may have been the best choice. See Ex. 1003, 11:19-33.
`
`33. POSITAs were aware before the EEFD that communication systems
`
`benefitted from using different modulation methods. U.S. Patent No. 5,909,469
`
`(“Frodigh”) teaches an cellular communication system that adaptively switches
`
`between GMSK, QPSK, and 16QAM modulation schemes. Ex. 1011, 3:22-26.
`
`Frodigh selected a modulation scheme based upon link quality and base station
`
`capabilities. Id., 10:4-13. U.S. Patent No. 5,533,004 (“Jasper”) discloses using
`
`QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, and 256 QAM in a wireless communication system. Ex.
`
`1012, Abstract, Fig. 4. Jasper chose a modulation scheme based on the channel
`
`quality, quantity of data to be transmitted, or the identity of the destination. Id.,
`
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`Page 20 of 118
`
`
`
`6:14-53. And Malkamaki teaches a first modulation scheme in large cells and a
`
`second modulation scheme in small cells. Ex. 1005, Abstract. Large cells used
`
`GMSK because it had a low PAPR and thus allowed the use of more power efficient
`
`amplifiers. Id., 2:22-35, 2:41-46. Small cells used QAM because it was more
`
`bandwidth efficient and thus provided a higher capacity. Id., 1:38-43, 2:27-35, 2:46-
`
`48.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’580 PATENT
`
`Introduction
`A.
`34. The ’580 Patent discloses communication among modems in a
`
`master/trib communication system using a plurality of modulation methods. Ex.
`
`1001, 1:19-23. The ’580 Patent admits that master/trib communication systems are
`
`prior art and depicts in Figure 3 “[a] block diagram of a master transceiver 64 in
`
`communication with a [single] trib 66 in accordance with the principles of the
`
`present invention . . . .” Ex. 1001, 5:23-24. Similarly, in the district court litigation,
`
`Rembrandt accuses devices that implement Bluetooth Enhanced Data Rate (EDR)
`
`of infringing. The master/trib relationships formed by these Bluetooth EDR devices
`
`may have one or many tribs communicating with a master:
`
`
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`Page 21 of 118
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1039, p. 230/1422.1
`
`’580 Patent Specification
`B.
`35. The ’580 Patent discloses a system such as the one illustrated in Figure
`
`3, in which a master transceiver 64 is capable of transmitting and receiving data
`
`using different modulation methods (e.g., “type A” modulation and “type B”
`
`modulation) (Ex. 1001, 5:23-33):
`
`
`1 Ex. 1039 is authentic. Ex. 1050, ¶2, 1422/1422.
`
`- 22 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 118
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 3. Master transceiver 64 communicates with tributary transceivers (“tribs”),
`
`e.g., trib 66, each of which communicates using either a type A or type B modulation
`
`method (shown as “type X” in Figure 3). Id., 5:34-46.
`
`36. Master transceiver 64 communicates with tribs using “incompatible
`
`modulation methods” by alternating between type A modulation to type A tribs and
`
`
`
`
`
`- 23 -
`
`Page 23 of 118
`
`
`
`type B modulation to type B tribs. See id., 2:55-57, 5:57-6:62. To switch from type
`
`A modulation, master transceiver 64 transmits a training sequence in which type A
`
`tribs are “notified of an impending change to type B modulation.” Id., 6:3-6. Further,
`
`master transceiver 64, “using type B modulation, transmits data along with an
`
`address in sequence 108, which is destined for a particular type B trib 66b.” Id., 6:10-
`
`12. Finally, “[a]fter completing transmission sequence 108, master transceiver 64
`
`transmits a trailing sequence 114 using type A modulation thus notifying all type A
`
`tribs 66a that type B modulation transmission is complete.” Id., 6:16-19.
`
`37. Figure 8 (recreated) illustrates two data transmission sequences sent by
`
`the master modem. Sequence 170 begins with a training signal, using Type A
`
`modulation, that contains the address of a Type A trib. Id., 4:21-24. The training
`
`signal is followed by a data signal and a trailing signal, both using Type A
`
`modulation. Id. Sequence 172 begins with a training signal, using Type A
`
`modulation, that contains a notification of a change to Type B modulation. Id., 4:42-
`
`44. The subsequent data signal is sent using Type B modulation, and the trailing
`
`signal uses Type A modulation. Id., 4:44.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 24 -
`
`Page 24 of 118
`
`
`
`
`
`38. The example shown in Figure 5 illustrates a master communicating
`
`with Type A Trib 1 66a and Type B Trib 2 66b. Id., 5:67 – 6:2. “To switch from
`
`type A modulation to type B modulation, master transceiver 64 transmits a training
`
`sequence 106 to type A tribs 66a in which these tribs are notified of an impending
`
`change to type B modulation.” Id., 6:3-6. “After notifying the type A tribs 66a of
`
`the change to type B modulation, master transceiver 64, using type B modulation,
`
`transmits data along with an address in sequence 108, which is destined for a
`
`particular type B trib 66b. Id., 6:8-12. “After completing transmission sequence
`
`108, master transceiver 64 transmits a trailing sequence 114 using type A modulation
`
`thus notifying all type A tribs 66a that type B modulation transmission is complete.”
`
`Id., 6:16-19. “If [] master transceiver 64 transmitted a poll request in sequence 108,
`
`then the type B trib 66b . . . transmit[s] data, using type B modulation, to master
`
`transceiver 64 in sequence 118.” Id., 6:30-33.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 25 -
`
`Page 25 of 118
`
`
`
`
`
`39.
`
`“To initiate a communication session with a type A trib 66a, master
`
`transceiver 64 transmits a training sequence 126 in which an address of a particular
`
`type A trib 66a is identified.” Id., 6:49-51. “After completing transmission sequence
`
`132, master transceiver 64 transmits a trailing sequence 134 using type A modulation
`
`signifying the end of the current communication session.” Id., 6:55-58.
`
`C. Admitted Prior Art
`40. During IPR2014
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
