`
`
`
`
`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