`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`
`PETITIONER,
`
`V.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`PATENT OWNER.
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00611, IPR2020-00613
`U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`___________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. EDWIN HERNANDEZ-MONDRAGON IN
`SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 313 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 1 of 38
`
`
`
`I, Edwin A. Hernandez-Mondragon, PhD, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and otherwise
`
`competent to make this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Bell
`
`Northern Research, LLC for the above-captioned inter partes review (“IPR”). I
`
`understand that the petition for inter partes review involves U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,416,862 (“the ’862 patent”), which was filed on September 28, 2005. The
`
`’862 Patent names Carlos Aldana and Joonsuk Kim as co-inventors. The ’862
`
`Patent issued on May 2, 2006.
`
`3.
`
`I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge,
`
`educational background and training, consideration of the materials I discuss
`
`herein, and my expert opinions.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $600 per hour for my time
`
`in this matter. My compensation does not depend on the outcome of this
`
`proceeding and I have no financial interest in its outcome.
`
`5.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed and considered
`
`the ’862 Patent, the ’862 Patent prosecution history, and each of the documents
`
`cited herein, and I have considered them in light of general knowledge in the art
`
`in the time frame of April 21, 2005, the earliest priority date of the ’862 Patent.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 2 of 38
`
`
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my experience, education and
`
`knowledge as they relate to the relevant art. I also have considered the
`
`viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art in the time frame of the filing
`
`date of the ’862 patent.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6.
`
`I am an owner and founder of EGLA CORP, an intellectual
`
`property, engineering consulting, and startup accelerator incubator in the fields
`
`of a) wireless communications, 4G and 5G, b) media streaming, and c) health
`
`technologies.
`
`7.
`
`I have a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering in Mobile Computing
`
`in 2002 and obtained a Masters in Science in Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering in 1999, both from the University of Florida. Prior to that, I
`
`graduated with my B.S. in Electronics Engineering from Costa Rica Institute of
`
`Technology in 1995. a A copy of my curriculum vitae, which includes a more
`
`detailed summary of my background, experience, patents, and publications, is
`
`marked as Exhibit 2005.
`
`8.
`
`I have previously been retained as an independent expert
`
`consultant in the fields of cable television systems and broadcasting,
`
`multimedia streaming, mobile devices and systems, air-interface and Long-
`
`Term Evolution (LTE), cloud storage and data synchronization, wireless
`
`
`
`2
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 3 of 38
`
`
`
`communications, block-chain technology, power management, personal area
`
`networking, and smart phones and wireless embedded software development.
`
`9. My experience in Wireless Communications, modulation, RF
`
`propagation models, and antenna engineering dates back to the 1990s, where I
`
`was an engineer working on AX.25 radio node in from 1996 – 1997, working
`
`with civil band radio, VHF bands (140 MHz), and FSK (Frequency-Shift
`
`Keying) modulation.
`
`10.
`
` I founded COMPUNET in 1997 and was its lead engineer from
`
`1997 to 2009. While at COMPUNET, I was a lead developer for authentication
`
`services, security services, web services, and networking configuration services.
`
`11.
`
`I worked for Microsoft from 2001 to 2003 as a Technical
`
`Program Manager. In that position, I was responsible for driving architecture,
`
`design, test automation, and security analysis for Bluetooth Personal Area
`
`Networking (PAN). I also drove testing over networking protocols, such as
`
`IPv4 networks and IPv6 networks, including early versions of 802.11b and
`
`candidates in the 2.4GHz bands that used Frequency Hopping Spread spectrum.
`
`12. As part of my PhD, I became an expert in RF system
`
`simulation, including propagation models, and selection of appropriate
`
`modulation techniques based on SNR (Signal to Noise Ratios) and other
`
`parameters experimented with using 802.11b technologies and SISO Antennas.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 4 of 38
`
`
`
`13.
`
`I worked for Motorola, Inc. from 2003 to 2010 as a Principal
`
`Staff Software Engineer. In that position, I was responsible for application
`
`development for Google and Android platforms. I participated in kernel-level
`
`prototyping, data support, and digital rights management (DRM).
`
`14. While at Motorola, I received training on RF system testing, RF
`
`modulation techniques, specially trained on WIMAX technologies, and other air
`
`interfaces that were used by Motorola, namely iDEN, CDMA, and WIMAX.
`
`15. As a result of my experience, I am very familiar with RF
`
`modulation, system testing, and have been involved in this field since 2001.
`
`16. From 2009 to 2019, I have been working with Software-defined
`
`Radios and GNU Radio-based systems including Ettus Research boxes, and
`
`recently with Blade RF in the creation of a Soft\ware & hardware LTE emulator
`
`based on the US Patent 7,231,330.
`
`17. Blade RF 2.0 provides a 2x2 MIMO interface that I have used
`
`for testing and experimentation at my technology incubator in Boca Raton, FL.
`
`18.
`
` Starting in 2010, I founded EGLA CORP. There, I created
`
`MEVIA applications, such as Clout to Cable. MEVIA is a “software-as-a
`
`service” and a cloud-based platform that enables “MEVIA Music,” which is
`
`currently in operation in several countries including Brazil, Honduras, and the
`
`United States.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 5 of 38
`
`
`
`19. Cloud to Cable is a patented platform that merges cloud and
`
`cable television systems and simplifies music and video distribution to different
`
`platforms. Cloud to Cable is servicing operators, such as CABLE COLOR in
`
`Honduras.
`
`20. As part of my experience in EGLA, I have worked for cable TV
`
`systems in multiple operators: CABLEVISION Mexico, Axtel TV, CLARO,
`
`Direct TV, SKY Brazil, and many others. Hence, my technical experience and
`
`training covers cable TV systems, STBs, video-on-demand (VOD) systems, and
`
`several broadcasting methodologies.
`
`21. Additionally, over my career, my research has involved aspects
`
`of network security, wireless communications, network and communications
`
`reliability, artificial intelligence, multimedia streaming, and software
`
`engineering.
`
`22.
`
`I am a named inventor on eleven patents issued by the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office, including the following:
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,564,810 – Method and System for Managing Power
`
`Consumption of a Network Interface Module in a Wireless Computing
`
`Device
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,231,330 – Rapid Mobility Network Emulator Method
`
`and System
`
`5
`
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 6 of 38
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,697,508 – System, Apparatus, and Method for
`
`Proactive Allocation of Wireless Communication Resources
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,417 – System, Apparatus, and Method for
`
`Proactive Allocation of Wireless Communication Resources
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,388 – Bluetooth PAN Driver
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,788,715 – Rules-based Network Selection Across
`
`Multiple Media
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,996,505 – Rules-based Network Selection Across
`
`Multiple Media
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,024,487 – Smart Scan for Bluetooth PAN Services
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,707,337 – Java-based Push to Talk
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,331,793 – Magnetic Connector
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,123,074 and 10,524,002– Method, System, and
`
`Apparatus for Multimedia Content Delivery to Cable TV and Satellite
`
`Operators
`
`
`
`6
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 7 of 38
`
`
`
`23.
`
`I have assisted several IPRs and provided testimony on
`
`handover patents for LTE and other wireless technologies.
`
`24.
`
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions, but in my
`
`work, I have had experience studying and analyzing patents and patent claims
`
`from the perspective of a person skilled in the art.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`25.
`
` Claim Construction: I understand that the first step in
`
`performing a validity analysis of the patent claims is to interpret the meaning
`
`and scope of the claims by construing the terms and phrases found in those
`
`claims. I understand that a determination of the meaning and scope of the
`
`claims of the Patents-in-Suit is a matter of law. I have been informed that to
`
`determine the meaning of the claims, courts consider the intrinsic evidence,
`
`which includes the patent’s claims, written description, prosecution history,
`
`materials incorporated by reference in the patent, and prior art cited in the
`
`patent or its prosecution history. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and
`
`accustomed meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention in the context of the entire patent. A patentee may also define
`
`his or her own terms or disclaim claim scope. The intrinsic record may also
`
`resolve ambiguous claim terms where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of
`
`the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 8 of 38
`
`
`
`claim to be ascertained from the words alone. However, particular embodiments
`
`and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the
`
`claims. A term’s context in the asserted claims can also be helpful. Differences
`
`among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. For
`
`example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it
`
`is presumed that the independent claim does not include the limitation.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed that extrinsic evidence can also be useful
`
`in determining the meaning of claim terms, however, it is less significant than
`
`the intrinsic record. Technical dictionaries may be useful to show the manner in
`
`which one skilled in the art might use claim terms, but technical dictionaries
`
`may provide definitions that are too broad or may not be indicative of how the
`
`term is used in the patent.
`
`27.
`
` Standard for Obviousness: I have been instructed by counsel
`
`and understand that a combination of prior-art references may render a claim
`
`obvious if, at the time of the invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have selected and combined those prior-art elements in the normal
`
`course of research and development to yield the claimed invention.
`
`28.
`
` I understand that in making the obviousness inquiry, one
`
`should consider the Graham factors: the scope and content of the prior art; the
`
`differences between the claimed inventions and the prior art; the level of
`
`
`
`8
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 9 of 38
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art; and certain secondary considerations, identified below.
`
`I further understand the obviousness analysis is to be performed on a claim-by-
`
`claim basis. I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a person of
`
`ordinary creativity, not an automaton.
`
`29.
`
` I have been instructed by counsel and understand that
`
`obviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes
`
`separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under
`
`examination. I understand obviousness requires the additional showing that a
`
`person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have been motivated
`
`to combine those references, and, in making that combination, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`30.
`
` I also understand that an obviousness analysis must be
`
`conducted with awareness of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and with
`
`caution of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning. Counsel has instructed me
`
`that when considering obviousness, I should not consider what is known today
`
`or what was learned from the asserted patents. Instead, I should put myself in
`
`the position of a person of ordinary skill in the field at the time of the invention.
`
`31.
`
`In particular, I understand that it is improper to use the
`
`invention as a roadmap to find its prior-art components because such an
`
`
`
`9
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 10 of 38
`
`
`
`approach discounts the value of combining various existing features or
`
`principles in a new way to achieve a new result.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that an invention would not have been obvious to
`
`try when one would have had to try all possibilities in a field unreduced by
`
`direction of the prior art. Stated another way, when what would have been
`
`“obvious to try” would have entailed varying all parameters or trying each of
`
`numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result,
`
`where the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical
`
`or no direction as to which of many possible choices would have been likely to
`
`be successful, an invention would not have been obvious. Further, an invention
`
`is not obvious to try where prior art does not guide one toward a particular
`
`solution.
`
`33.
`
`It is my understanding that I must also consider certain
`
`objective evidence of no obviousness if present, which includes, among others,
`
`the prior art as a whole teaching away from the invention, a long-felt need for
`
`the invention, the failure of others, copying of the invention, and industry
`
`recognition/praise by others.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`34.
`It is my opinion that the term “transmitter beamforming
`
`information” would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`
`
`10
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 11 of 38
`
`
`
`time of the invention, and that no construction would be necessary. To the
`
`extent that the Board believes construction would be necessary or helpful, a
`
`person of skill in the art would understand that “transmitter beamforming
`
`information” means “a reduced set of angles or coefficients derived from the
`
`estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix V.”
`
`35.
`
`I understand the specification is relevant to understanding the
`
`meaning of a claim term. The specification describes that the goal of the
`
`invention is to reduce the size of the feedback required. See Ex. 1001, 13:25-36.
`
`For example, the specification discusses the option of simply using
`
`“information relating only to a calculated value of the transmitter’s
`
`beamforming matrix (V) as the feedback information” where V was
`
`decomposed using SVD. Id. 3:26–30. The Specification points out that this
`
`level of reduction is not enough: “[w]hile this approach reduces the size of
`
`feedback information, its size is still an issue for MIMO wireless
`
`communication.” Id. 3:30–35. “Therefore, a need exists for a method and
`
`apparatus for reducing beamforming feedback information for wireless
`
`communication.” See id. 3:35–51. This makes clear that the beamforming
`
`feedback information is less than the coefficients or angles of the transmitter
`
`beamforming matrix (V).
`
`
`
`11
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 12 of 38
`
`
`
`36. Noting one way of reducing the size of feedback, the ’862
`
`patent states that one may reduce the size of feedback by decomposing “the
`
`channel using [SVD] and send[ing] information relating only to a calculated
`
`value of the transmitter’s beamforming matrix (V) as the feedback
`
`information.” Id. 3:26–30. However, “[w]hile this approach reduces the size of
`
`feedback information, its size is still an issue for MIMO wireless
`
`communication.” (Id. 3:30–35.) “Therefore, a need exists for a method and
`
`apparatus for reducing beamforming feedback information for wireless
`
`communication,” which demonstrates that the beamforming feedback
`
`information must be less than the coefficients of the transmitter beamforming
`
`matrix (V), as a contrary reading would ignore the aim of the invention. (See id.
`
`3:35–51.
`
`37. Citing one example of the decomposition that may be done, the
`
`patent states that “with the condition of V*V=VV*=I, some of angles of the
`
`Givens Rotation are redundant. With a decomposed matrix form for the
`
`estimated transmitter beamforming matrix (V), the set of angles fed back to the
`
`transmitting wireless device are reduced.” Ex. 1001, 13:64-14:3.
`
`38. Further, the “coefficients of Givens Rotation and the phase
`
`matrix coefficients serve as the transmitter beamforming information that is
`
`sent from the receiving wireless communication device to the transmitting
`
`
`
`12
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 13 of 38
`
`
`
`wireless communication device.” See Ex. 1001, 15:34-39. In the example at the
`
`top of column 15, one can see an example of the decomposition, which shows
`
`how the reduction can reduce the number of elements within a matrix but
`
`importantly also retain the dimension of the matrix. The Givens rotation
`
`operates to reduce the set of coefficients of the estimated transmitter
`
`beamforming matrix (V). See Ex. 1001, 14:48-15:8. This reduction permits
`
`transmitting fewer coefficients back.
`
`39. Thus, it is my opinion that a person of skill in the art would
`
`understand that the plain and ordinary meaning of “transmitter beamforming
`
`information” is “a reduced set of angles or coefficients derived from the
`
`estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix V.”
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’862 PATENT
`
`40. The ’862 Patent is entitled “Efficient Feedback of Channel
`
`Information in a Closed Loop Beamforming Wireless Communication System”
`
`and claims priority to an application filed on April 21, 2005. It is directed to
`
`transmitting beamforming feedback information back to a receiver in efficient
`
`way. EX1001, Abstract.
`
`41. Beamforming is a way to improve wireless communications
`
`and, in the ’862 Patent, refers to a “technique to create a focused antenna beam
`
`by shifting a signal in time or in phase to provide gain of the signal in the
`
`
`
`13
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 14 of 38
`
`
`
`desired direction and attenuate the signal in other directions.” EX1001, 2:66–
`
`3:4.
`
`42. According to Figure 3 of the ’862 patent, one can see an
`
`example of the claimed wireless communication device:
`
`
`
`43. EX1001, Fig. 3. In reviewing Figure 3 (as well as other
`
`figures), and the disclosures of the specification regarding a plurality of symbol
`
`streams from the RF receivers to the baseband processing modules, the
`
`disclosed modes of modulation (BPSK, QPSK, CCK, 16 QAM and/or 64
`
`QAM), the multiple tone or channel of the frequency (here divided up at 20 or
`
`22 MHz, the specific reference to 802.11 standard and specific reference to
`
`OFDM confirm that the ’862 patent discloses its invention in context of an
`
`ODFM modulation scheme with digital baseband signals. EX1001, 8:21–67.
`14
`
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 15 of 38
`
`
`
`44. The ‘862 Patent (EX1001) uses SVD to enable a multi-tone
`
`system with OFDM that can operate using different modulation techniques that
`
`can be me mapped to a particular constellation.
`
`45. Since, many system use a particular carrier frequency, the ‘862
`
`patent focuses in particular to OFDM. (EX1001, 8:25-27). In these systems
`
`each carrier is divided orthogonally and hence each tone will carry parts of the
`
`digital input and will be further decoded at the receiver with the same
`
`technique.
`
`46.
`
`In digital systems, like that of the ’862 patent, the sequence of
`
`bits can be converted to a sequence of symbols. This represents the baseband
`
`signal. Id. The symbols can then be modulated using differing techniques or
`
`“modes”, ranging from BPSK (“Binary Phase Shifting Keying”) to QAM
`
`(“Quadrature Amplitude Modulation”). EX1001, 8:34-37.
`
`47. To explain further, QAM for example, uses the concept of
`
`constellation mapping, whereby symbols (shown below as four bit-size words)
`
`
`
`15
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 16 of 38
`
`
`
`are mapped on a polar coordinate plane as shown in the demonstrative below:
`
`1
`
`48. So, for example, if bits (say 0101) were to be passed, the
`
`constellation mapper would represent those bits by mapping in angle (radian)
`
`and amplitude and this process is converting the data into a condition ready for
`
`beamforming adjustment and conversion to symbols. Figure 4 of the ’862
`
`patent shows the constellation mapper (128, 130) within the transmit portion of
`
`the baseband processing module (100-TX):
`
`
`1 This image is meant as a demonstrative and I use it to explain the concept of QAM.
`It is consistent with the knowledge of QAM by a POSA at the time of the invention.
`16
`
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 17 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1001, Fig. 4, 9:31–48 (describing Fig. 4 and the identified components).
`
`After constellation mapping, the baseband signal is passed through the
`
`beamforming module before being converted outbound data into outbound
`
`symbol streams through the IFFT modules. EX1001, Fig. 4, 9:31–48.
`
`49.
`
`In order for a transmitter to properly implement beamforming,
`
`it needs to know properties of the channel over which the wireless
`
`communication is conveyed. EX1001, 3:14–17. The transmitter derives that
`
`knowledge through feedback information sent from the receiver. Id. at 3:17–23.
`
`A straight-forward approach to sending this feedback information could be to
`
`determine the channel response (H) and feedback the entire response as
`
`feedback information to the transmitter. Id. at 3:19–25. But due to the size of
`
`that information, by the time the entire channel response (H) is fed back, the
`
`response of the channel has changed. Id. at 3:20–25. Thus, it is important to
`
`find ways to reduce the size of the feedback.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 18 of 38
`
`
`
`50. One way to reduce the feedback size is to decompose the
`
`channel using singular value decomposition (SVD) to send back only
`
`information related to a calculated value of the transmitter’s beamforming
`
`matrix (V). EX1001, 3:26–30. This requires computing (V) based on the matrix
`
`equation H=UDV* (where H represents the channel response, D is a diagonal
`
`matrix, and U is a receiver unitary matrix. Id. at 3:30–34. Yet this approach still
`
`prevents challenges for feedback in multiple-input-multiple-output (“MIMO;”
`
`where the transmitter and receiver each include multiple paths) wireless
`
`communications, requiring 1728 bits per tone (or subchannel) for a 2x2 MIMO
`
`OFDM wireless communication. Id. at 3:35–49.
`
`51. Despite reducing the feedback from sending the entire channel
`
`responses H, this solution still presents a significant amount of feedback data
`
`that is not efficient enough. See id. at 3:35–49; 12:47–13:24; This is due to the
`
`resulting feedback requiring four elements, which are all complex Cartesian
`
`coordinate values fitting the equation Vik=aik+j*bik (where aik and bik are
`
`values between [-1, 1]). EX1001, 3:35–41. It is in this context that the ’862
`
`Patent identifies a need for further reducing beamforming feedback information
`
`for wireless communications for more efficient transmission. Id. at 49–51.
`
`52. The ’862 Patent discloses and claims systems and methods that
`
`are directed to improved efficiencies in transmitting feedback of transmitter
`
`
`
`18
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 19 of 38
`
`
`
`beamforming information, including through the use of polar coordinates. Id. at
`
`15:34–16:6. For example, the ’862 Patent discloses cartesian to polar
`
`conversion for singular value decomposition (“SVD”), an even more significant
`
`reduction in feedback than the prior art. See id. at 12:54–64. The ’862 Patent
`
`also discloses the use of Givens rotations to further reduce (through
`
`decomposition) the numbers of angles that must be fed back to the transmitter.
`
`See id. at 14:27–15:9. These angles, which are quantized before being fed back
`
`as the transmitter beamforming information, result in a drastic reduction in the
`
`amount of data that must be sent to the transmitter. Id. at 15:10–67. By reducing
`
`the elements that must be sent back (through, e.g., Givens rotation) and
`
`quantization of those angles, the ’862 Patent elegantly solves the problems
`
`associated with inefficient feedback in a MIMO system.
`
`VI. PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`53.
`I have reviewed the arguments and prior art references included
`
`in the IPR2020-00611 Petition to support Grounds 1-4 and the arguments and
`
`prior art references in the IPR2020-00613 Petition to support Grounds 1-2. In
`
`the Paragraphs below, I offer limited opinions and observations about those
`
`references. If required or asked to do so, I will offer additional opinions
`
`regarding the grounds asserted in the Petition at a later time.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 20 of 38
`
`
`
`A.
`
`611 Petition2—Ground 1: Claims 9, 11, 12 (Roh in view of
`Maltsev and Haykin).
`54.
`I disagree with Dr. Cimini and Petitioner that Roh in view of
`
`Maltsev and Haykin disclose the limitations of Claims 9, 11, and 12 for the
`
`reasons discussed below.
`
`1.
`
`A POSA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine Roh With
`Maltsev and Haykin.
`55. Roh (EX1008) is a paper entitled An Efficient Feedback Method
`
`for MIMO Systems with Slowly Time-Varying Channels, written by the authors
`
`June Chul Roh and Bhaskar D. Rao.
`
`56. Roh relates to the condition of “slowly time-varying channels”
`
`in contrast with fast-varying channels. Roh describes slowly time-varying
`
`channels as one where, for example, feedback parameters are smoothly
`
`changing in accordance with the observed channel. EX 1008, 760.
`
`57. Roh describes the use of ADM or Adaptive Delta Modulation
`
`as a modulation scheme because of the above, identified properties of
`
`parameters in slowly time-varying channels:
`
`
`2 All references within a given section that relate to a particular petition are references
`the related document in that petition (e.g. a citation to Pet. is to Petition in the as-
`discussed Grounds and a citation to Dr. Cimini’s declaration (EX1002) is a citation to
`the version of his declaration (both labeled EX1002) in the respective IPR. Because
`Petitioner has otherwise labeled all other exhibits the same between both IPRs,
`citations to Petitioner’s exhibits after EX1002 are interchangeable.
`20
`
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 21 of 38
`
`
`
`“More specifically, adaptive Delta modulation (ADM)
`[6] is employed from an observation that, in slowly
`time-varying channels, the extracted parameters
`are also smoothly changing.”
`
`EX1008, 760.
`
`58.
`
` One of those channels could be video or audio, as reference [6]
`
`indicates in EX1008 “N. S. Jayant and P. Noll, Digital Coding for Waveforms:
`
`Principles and Applications to Speech and Video.” EX 1008, 764.
`
`59. ADM is used for low-bit rate signals and is based on the use of
`
`pulses delayed by certain amount of time. “ADM encodes each parameter into
`
`one bit at each feedback instant.” (EX1008, 763.). Thus, as Roh states, “it is a
`
`low-rate scalar quantization scheme (as low as one bit per parameter).”
`
`(EX1008, 763.)
`
`60. Specifically, Roh discloses that its solution permits a feedback
`
`bit-rate between 5.5kbps and 5kbps. EX 1008, 763.
`
`61. On the other hand, the combination asserted by Petitioner,
`
`Maltsev–Haykin relates to an OFDM and at least multicarrier-type modulation
`
`(e.g. including modulation schemes such as QPSK, QAM, or BPSK). EX1009,
`
`5:66–6:21, 6:32-33) (disclosing QPSK and QAM modulation methods and that
`
`Maltsev has a multicarrier receiver). This is consistent with Petitioner’s
`
`argument that Maltsev discloses supposed compliance with IEEE 802.11
`
`
`
`21
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 22 of 38
`
`
`
`standards. EX1009, 6:32-33. Using OFDM or related multicarrier modulation
`
`requires significant bit-rate to transmit feedback.
`
`62.
`
`In reviewing the Petition and Dr. Cimini’s declaration, I was
`
`not able to identify anywhere that either Petitioner or Dr. Cimini articulated
`
`why a POSA would modify Roh to work with baseband signals under its ADM
`
`scheme.
`
`63. This is inconsistent with what Roh teaches, which is that it
`
`“provide[s] a general framework for quantization of MIMO channel
`
`information and to develop a practical method for slowly time-varying
`
`channels.” (EX1008, 760.) Instead, Roh discloses that “ADM has considerably
`
`lower complexity,” it is a “low-rate scalar quantization scheme (as low as one
`
`bit per parameter” and that “adaptive Delta modulation is a simple and practical
`
`quantization method that has a channel tracking feature for slowly time-varying
`
`channel.” EX1008, 763, 764.
`
`64. This type of modulation is likely inappropriate for high-bit rate
`
`systems with symbols that are based on phase and amplitude (e.g. QPSK,
`
`BPSK, and QAM). Hence, ADM maps at most one bit per delay, and will not
`
`be combinable with any of the other references that assume the use of these
`
`type of modulation.
`
`
`
`22
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 23 of 38
`
`
`
`65. Besides those technical difficulties, all assumptions and
`
`teachings found on Roh are dedicated to slowly-time varying systems at low bit
`
`rates (4Kbps), and Maltsev refers to 802.11 or other faster bit-rate (Mbps)
`
`modulation schemes such as OFDM (e.g. used with 802.11), for example. Dr.
`
`Cimini and the Petitioner have not explained how at all Roh’s feedback bit-rate
`
`of roughly 5Kbps would be able to handle the greater feedback bit-rate (and
`
`capability of an 802.11-complaint Maltsev modification. a POSA will not be
`
`motivated to execute such combination as that will require experimentation and
`
`is unlikely to succeed.
`
`66. Contrary to what Dr. Cimini states in ¶137, a baseband signal
`
`from Maltsev will be sequence of symbols, whereas the baseband signal for
`
`Roh is a set of pulses with different delays from Adaptive Delta Modulation (as
`
`discussed above). For instance, Maltsev will use OFDM (with e.g. QPSK or
`
`QAM) and technically you cannot use the teachings from Roh with Maltsev as
`
`the feedback from both systems will be distinct and will require some
`
`experimentation. More importantly, I have seen no evidence and do not believe
`
`that a POSA would be motivated to make this combination.
`
`67. Further, Dr. Cimini states in EX1002, ¶¶146-147 that “A person
`
`of ordinary skill would have found the above modification to be
`
`straightforward,.. ” in light of the conversion of a signal to its baseband. A
`
`
`
`23
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 24 of 38
`
`
`
`POSA will be confused on what baseband processing could occur, for Maltsev a
`
`set of symbols mapping binary streams is created (e.g. QPSK), which in turn
`
`generates series of bits (1’s and 0’s), whereas Roh’s baseband is a series of
`
`pulses with different delays that are then converted from delays to (1’s and 0’s)
`
`that are accumulated to generate the original signal. Those teachings are clearly
`
`incompatible and, a POSA will not be able to combine Roh and Maltsev in any
`
`conceivable way.
`
`2.
`
`The Roh-Maltsev-Haykin Combination Fails to Disclose the
`“Estimated” Channel Response and “Estimated Transmitter
`Beamforming Unitary Matrix (V)”
`68. Petition and Dr. Cimini argue that Roh teaches an estimated
`
`channel response and an estimated transmitter beamforming unitary matrix. I
`
`disagree.
`
`69. First, as a reminder, Claim 9 relates to a wireless receiver, one
`
`that is “feeding back transmitter beamforming information from a receiving
`
`wireless communication device to a transmitting wireless communication
`
`device receiving a preamble sequence from the transmitting wireless device.”
`
`EX1001, Abstract.
`
`70.
`
` As shown by Dr. Cimini in ¶¶132-133, Roh discloses a
`
`feedback channel with “Channel State Information,” (“CSI”) and “assume[s]
`
`
`
`24
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2001, Page 25 of 38
`
`
`
`that in all cases perfect CSI is known to the rece
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
