UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,265,096 B2
`PTAB Case No. IPR2020-01576
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ROBERT AKL, D.Sc.
`Ex. 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 3 
`II. 
`III.  MATERIALS RELIED UPON ....................................................................... 8 
`IV.  SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ......................................................................... 10 
`V. 
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 11 
`A. 
`Legal Standards for Prior Art .............................................................. 11 
`B. 
`Legal Standard for Priority Date ......................................................... 13 
`C. 
`Legal Standard for Anticipation .......................................................... 13 
`D. 
`Legal Standard of Obviousness ........................................................... 15 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 20 
`VII.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 22 
`VIII.  BACKGROUND ON THE STATE OF THE ART ...................................... 23 
`A.  Overview of Cellular Communication Systems .................................. 23 
`B. 
`Overview of Broadband Wireless Communication Systems .............. 26 
`1. 
`First-Generation Broadband Systems ....................................... 27 
`2. 
`Second-Generation Broadband Systems and OFDM ............... 28 
`Overview of 802.16/WiMAX ............................................................. 29 
`1. 
`History of 802.16 ...................................................................... 30 
`2. 
`Frame Structure of 802.16 ........................................................ 33 
`3. 
`OFDM in 802.16 ....................................................................... 37 
`4. 
`OFDMA in 802.16 .................................................................... 40 
`802.16/WiMAX and Mobility ............................................................. 41 
`D. 
`IX.  THE CHALLENGED ’096 PATENT ........................................................... 45 
`A. 
`Background and ’096 Patent Specification ......................................... 45 
`B. 
`Overview of the ’096 Patent Prosecution History .............................. 46 
`X.  OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES ................................... 48 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`b) 
`
`c) 
`
`A.  Overview of “Talukdar” (Ex. 1012) .................................................... 48 
`B. 
`Overview of “Li” (Ex. 1016) ............................................................... 51 
`C. 
`Overview of Nystrom (Ex. 1017) ........................................................ 53 
`XI.  SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE ................................................... 55 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1-4 and 6-7 were rendered obvious by
`Talukdar in View of Li ........................................................................ 56 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 56 
`a) 
`1[pre]: “A method of constructing a frame
`structure for data transmission, the method
`comprising” ..................................................................... 56 
`1[a]: “generating a first section comprising data
`configured in a first format compatible with a first
`communication system using symbols” ......................... 59 
`1[b]: “generating a second section following the
`first section, the second section comprising data
`configured in a second format compatible with a
`second communication system using symbols,
`wherein the first communication system’s symbols
`and the second communication system’s symbols
`co-exist in one transmission scheme” ............................. 66 
`1[c]: “and wherein: the second format is
`compatible with the second communication system
`configured to support higher mobility than the first
`communication system, wherein each symbol in
`the second communication system has a shorter
`symbol period than that in the first communication
`system” ........................................................................... 73 
`
`d) 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`e) 
`
`f) 
`
`1[d]: “generating at least one non-data section
`containing information describing an aspect of data
`in at least one of the first section and the second
`section” ........................................................................... 88 
`1[e]: “combining the first section, the second
`section and the at least one non-data section to
`form the frame structure” ............................................... 93 
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 94 
`2. 
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 96 
`3. 
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 98 
`4. 
`Claim 6 ....................................................................................100 
`5. 
`Claim 7 ....................................................................................101 
`6. 
`Ground 2: Talukdar and Nystrom Rendered Claim 8 Obvious ........103 
`1. 
`8[c]: “and wherein the second communication system has
`pilot symbols that are denser than those in the first
`communication system” ..........................................................103 
`XII.  SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS .........................................................112 
`XIII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................112 
`
`APPENDIX A (Curriculum Vitae)
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Robert Akl, and I have been retained by counsel for
`
`Petitioner Intel Corporation (“Intel” or “Petitioner”) as an expert witness to provide
`
`assistance regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,265,096 (“the ’096 Patent”). Specifically, I
`
`have been asked to consider the validity of claims 1-4 and 6-8 of the ’096 Patent (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) in view of prior art, anticipation and obviousness
`
`considerations, and understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`as it relates to the ’096 Patent. I have personal knowledge of the facts and opinions
`
`set forth in this declaration, and believe them to be true. If called upon to do so, I
`
`would testify competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at my standard consulting rate of
`
`$695 per hour. I am also being reimbursed for expenses that I incur during the course
`
`of this work. My compensation is not contingent upon the results of my study, the
`
`substance of my opinions, or the outcome of any proceeding involving the
`
`challenged claims. I have no financial interest in the outcome of this matter or on the
`
`pending litigation between Petitioner and Patent Owner.
`
`3. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials, including
`
`those cited herein.
`
`4.
`
`I may rely upon these materials, my knowledge and experience, and/or
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 5 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`additional materials to rebut arguments raised by the Patent Owner. Further, I may
`
`also consider additional documents and information in forming any necessary
`
`opinions, including testimony of other expert witnesses or documents that may not
`
`yet have been provided to me.
`
`5.
`
`I have been informed that Patent Owner UNM Rainforest Innovations
`
`(formerly STC.UNM) has asserted the patent in the following lawsuits: UNM
`
`Rainforest Innovations v. ZyXEL Commc’ns Corp., 6:20-cv-00522 (W.D. Tex.);
`
`UNM Rainforest Innovations v. Dell Techs., Inc., 6:20-cv-00468 (W.D. Tex.); UNM
`
`Rainforest Innovations v. ASUSTek Comput., Inc., 6:20-cv-00142 (W.D. Tex.);
`
`UNM Rainforest Innovations v. D-Link Corp., 6:20-cv-00143 (W.D. Tex.); UNM
`
`Rainforest Innovations v. Apple Inc., 1:20-cv-00351 (W.D. Tex.); UNM Rainforest
`
`Innovations v. TP-Link Techs. Co., Ltd., 6:19-cv-00262 (W.D. Tex.).
`
`6.
`
`In this declaration, I will discuss my qualifications and background, the
`
`technology background related to the ’096 Patent and then provide my analyses and
`
`opinions on claims 1-4 and 6-8 of the ’096 Patent. This overview provides bases for
`
`my opinions with respect to the ’096 Patent.
`
`7. My analysis of the materials produced in this proceeding is ongoing and
`
`I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information and
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 6 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`8.
`I am an expert in the field of wireless communication systems. I have
`
`studied, taught, practiced, and researched this field for over twenty-five years. I have
`
`summarized in this section my educational background, work experience, and other
`
`relevant qualifications. Attached hereto as Appendix A, is a true and correct copy of
`
`my curriculum vitae describing my background and experience.
`
`9.
`
`I earned my Bachelor of Science degrees in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science summa cum laude with a grade point average of 4.0/4.0 and a
`
`ranking of first in my undergraduate class from Washington University in St. Louis
`
`in 1994. In 1996, I earned my Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from Washington University in St. Louis with a grade point average of 4.0/4.0. I
`
`earned my Doctor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Washington University
`
`in St. Louis in 2000, again with a grade point average of 4.0/4.0, with my dissertation
`
`being on “Cell Design to Maximize Capacity in Cellular Code Division Multiple
`
`Access (CDMA) Networks.”
`
`10. While a graduate student, from 1996 through 2000, I worked at
`
`MinMax Corporation in St. Louis, where I designed software packages that provided
`
`tools to flexibly allocate capacity in a CDMA communications network and
`
`maximize the number of subscribers. I also analyzed and simulated different audio
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 7 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`compression schemes. I also validated
`
`the hardware architecture for an
`
`Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) switch capable of channel group switching, as
`
`well as performed logical and timing simulations, and developed the hardware
`
`architecture for the ATM switch. I also worked with Teleware Corporation in Seoul,
`
`South Korea, where I designed and developed algorithms that were commercially
`
`deployed in a software package suite for analyzing the capacity in a CDMA network
`
`implementing the IS-95 standard to maximize the number of subscribers.
`
`11. After obtaining my Doctor of Science degree, I worked as a Senior
`
`Systems Engineer at Comspace Corporation from October of 2000 to December of
`
`2001. At Comspace, I designed and developed advanced data coding and modulation
`
`methods for improving the reliability and increasing the available data rates for
`
`cellular communications. I coded and simulated different encoding schemes
`
`(including Turbo coding, Viterbi decoding, trellis coded modulation, and Reed-
`
`Muller codes) and modulation techniques using amplitude and phase characteristics
`
`and multi-level star constellations. This work further entailed the optimization of
`
`soft decision parameters and interleavers for additive white Gaussian and Rayleigh
`
`faded channels. In addition, I also extended the control and trunking of Logic
`
`Trunked Radio (LTR) to include one-to-one and one-to-many voice and data
`
`messaging.
`
`12.
`
`In January of 2002, I joined the faculty of the University of New
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 8 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Orleans in Louisiana as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical
`
`Engineering. While in this position, I designed and taught two new courses called
`
`“Computer Systems Design I and II.” I also developed a Computer Engineering
`
`Curriculum with a strong hardware-design emphasis, formed a wireless research
`
`group, and advised graduate and undergraduate students.
`
`13.
`
`In September of 2002, I received an appointment as an Assistant
`
`Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University
`
`of North Texas (UNT), in Denton, Texas. In May of 2008, I became a tenured
`
`Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering. As a
`
`faculty member, I have taught courses and directed research in networking and
`
`telecommunications, including 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, CDMA/WCDMA, GPS, GSM,
`
`UMTS, LTE, ad-hoc networks, Bluetooth, call admission control, channel coding,
`
`communication interfaces and standards, compression, computer architecture,
`
`MIMO systems, multi-cell network optimization, network security, packet-
`
`networks,
`
`telephony, VoIP, Wi-Fi
`
`(802.11), 802.15.4, Zigbee, wireless
`
`communication, and wireless sensors. I am also the director of the Wireless Sensor
`
`Lab (“WiSL”) at UNT. I am a member of the Center for Information and Cyber
`
`Security (CICS). It is the only program in the U.S. to be federally certified by the
`
`National Security Agency as a Center of Academic Excellence in Information
`
`Assurance Education and Research and Cyber Defense Research. I am also a
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 9 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`member of the NSF Net-Centric & Cloud Software & Systems: Industry-University
`
`Cooperative Research Center (I/UCRC). Several of my research projects are funded
`
`by industry. In January of 2015, I was promoted to Associate Chair of Graduate
`
`Studies in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering.
`
`14.
`
`I have knowledge and experience through my studies and academic
`
`career in technologies used in games, both from the client-server and networking
`
`end and also related to game design and game play. Since 2005, I have received over
`
`a million dollars in funding from the State of Texas, Texas Higher Education
`
`Coordination Board, the National Science Foundation, and industry to design and
`
`conduct robotics, video, and mobile gaming (e.g., Xbox, PC, mobile device)
`
`programming summer camps for middle and high school students at UNT. By using
`
`video and mobile gaming as the backdrop, participants have learned coding and
`
`programming principles and developed an understanding of the role of physics and
`
`mathematics in video game design.
`
`15.
`
`In addition to advising and mentoring students at UNT, I was asked to
`
`join the faculty of the University of Arkansas in Little Rock as an Adjunct Assistant
`
`Professor from 2004 to 2008 in order to supervise the research of two Ph.D. graduate
`
`students who were doing research in wireless communications. At UNT, I have
`
`advised and supervised more than 250 undergraduate and graduate students, several
`
`of whom received a master’s or doctorate degree under my guidance.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 10 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`16.
`
`In addition to my academic work, I have remained active in the
`
`communication industry through my consulting work. In 2002, I consulted for
`
`Input/Output Inc. and designed and implemented algorithms for optimizing the
`
`frequency selection process used by sonar for scanning the bottom of the ocean. In
`
`2004, I worked with Allegiant Integrated Solutions in Ft. Worth, Texas to design
`
`and develop an integrated set of tools for fast deployment of wireless networks, using
`
`the 802.11 standard. Among other features, these tools optimize the placement of
`
`Access Points and determine their respective channel allocations to minimize
`
`interference and maximize capacity. I also assisted the Collin County Sheriff’s
`
`Office (Texas) in a double homicide investigation, analyzing cellular record data to
`
`determine user location.
`
`17.
`
`I have authored and co-authored over 90 journal publications,
`
`conference proceedings, technical papers, book chapters, and technical presentations
`
`in a broad array of communications-related technologies, including networking and
`
`wireless communication. I have also developed and taught over 100 courses related
`
`to communications and computer systems, including several courses on signals and
`
`systems, LTE, OFDM, VoIP, Wi-Fi (802.11), 802.15.4, Zigbee, wireless
`
`communication, communications systems, communication interfaces and standards,
`
`sensor networks, source coding and compression, network security, computer
`
`systems design, game and app design, and computer architecture. These courses
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 11 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`have included introductory courses on communication networks and signals and
`
`systems, as well as more advanced courses on wireless communications. A complete
`
`list of my publications and the courses I have developed and/or taught is also
`
`contained in my curriculum vitae.
`
`18. My professional affiliations include services in various professional
`
`organizations and serving as a reviewer for a number of technical publications,
`
`journals, and conferences. I have also received a number of awards and recognitions,
`
`including the IEEE Professionalism Award (2008), UNT College of Engineering
`
`Outstanding Teacher Award (2008), and Tech Titan of the Future (2010) among
`
`others, which are listed in my curriculum vitae.
`
`19.
`
`I have also served as an expert in certain legal proceedings. A list of
`
`cases in which I have testified at trial, hearing, or by deposition (including those
`
`during the past five years) is provided in my curriculum vitae. Over the years, I have
`
`been retained by both patent owners as well as petitioners.
`
`III. MATERIALS RELIED UPON
`20.
`In reaching the conclusions described in this declaration, I have relied
`
`on the documents and materials cited herein as well as those identified in this
`
`declaration, including the ’096 Patent (Ex. 1001)1, the prosecution history of the ’096
`
`
`
` 1
`
` The citations in this declaration to an “Exhibit” or “Ex.” Refer to the Exhibits to
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 12 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent, the prior art references, and information discussed and any other references
`
`specifically identified in this declaration, including the materials identified in the
`
`chart below.
`
`21.
`
`I have considered information from various other sources in forming
`
`my opinions. I have also drawn on almost three decades of research and development
`
`in the field of wireless communication systems.
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,265,096 (“the ’096 Patent”)
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal
`Group-Trucking LLC, Paper 24, IPR2019-01393 (PTAB June 16,
`2020)
`Seventh Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the Covid 19 Pandemic (W.D.
`Tex. Aug. 6, 2020)
`Excerpts from JEFFREY G. ANDREWS ET AL.,
`FUNDAMENTALS OF WIMAX (2007) (“Fund. of WiMAX”)
`Five Criteria Statement for P802.16m PAR Proposal,
`IEEE 802.16-06/055r3 (Nov. 15, 2006)
`IEEE 802.16m System Requirements,
`IEEE 802.16m-07/002r4 (Oct. 19, 2007)
`Listing of Challenged ’096 Patent Claims
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/929,
`Excerpts from ’096 Patent File History
`Claim Construction Order in STC.UNM v. Apple Inc., No. 1-20-
`
`
`
`the Petition.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 13 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex.1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`Ex. 1017
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Ex. 1020
`Ex. 1021
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`
`
`
`
`Description
`cv-00351 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2020), ECF No. 69
`U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0067377 A1 (“Talukdar”)
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/956,031
`(“Talukdar Provisional”)
`Canadian Patent Application No. 2 581 166 A1 (“Wang”)
`WIPO Handbook on Industrial Property Information and
`Documentation, “Examples and Kinds of Patent Documents”
`(May 2016)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0155387 A1 (“Li”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0104174 A1 (“Nystrom”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0095195 (“Ahmadi”)
`Excerpts from WILLIAM STALLINGS, WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
`AND NETWORKS (2D ED. 2005)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,460,466 B2 (“Lee”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,462,611 B2 (“Ma”)
`Fixed, nomadic, portable and mobile applications for 802.16-2004
`and 802.16e WiMAX networks (Nov. 2005)
`Mohammad Azizul Hasan, Performance Evaluation of
`WiMAX/IEEE 802.16 OFDM Physical Layer (June 2007)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,710,910 B2 (“Ode”)
`IEEE 802.16m System Requirements,
`IEEE 802.16m-07/002r4 (Jan. 12, 2007)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0037215 A1 (“Hwang”)
`Yasamin Mostofi, ICI Mitigation for Pilot-Aided OFDM Mobile
`Systems (Mar. 2005)
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`22. Claims 1-4 and 6-7 of the ’096 Patent are unpatentable as obvious in
`
`light of Talukdar in combination with Li.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 14 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`23. Claim 8 of the ’096 Patent is unpatentable as obvious in light of
`
`Talukdar in combination with Nystrom.
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS
`24.
`I am not a lawyer. My understanding of legal principles comes from
`
`counsel. I have applied the following legal principles in arriving at the opinions set
`
`forth in this declaration.
`
`A.
`25.
`
`Legal Standards for Prior Art
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as prior
`
`art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to a patent
`
`if the date of issuance of the U.S. or foreign patent is prior to the invention of the
`
`patent. I further understand that a printed publication, such as an article published in
`
`a magazine or trade publication or a patent application, qualifies as prior art to a
`
`patent if the date of publication is prior to the invention of the patent. My
`
`understanding is that, for such prior art references, a patentee may attempt to show
`
`that the claimed invention was conceived prior to the issuance of the U.S. foreign
`
`patent or publication of the printed materials. To do so, it is my understanding that
`
`patentee must prove with corroborating evidence that the named inventors conceived
`
`of the complete claimed invention before the prior art, and were diligent in reducing
`
`the claimed inventions to practice.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 15 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`27.
`
`I understand that, regardless of the date of invention of the patent, a
`
`U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to a patent if the date of issuance of the
`
`U.S. or foreign patent is more than one year before the earliest effective filing date
`
`of the patent. I further understand that a printed publication, such as an article
`
`published in a magazine or trade publication or a patent application, constitutes prior
`
`art to a patent if the publication occurs more than one year before the earliest
`
`effective filing date of the patent, again regardless of the date of invention of the
`
`patent.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a U.S. patent or published U.S. application qualifies
`
`as prior art to a patent if the application for that patent was filed in the United States
`
`before the invention of the patent. My understanding is that, for such prior art
`
`references, a patentee may attempt to show that the claimed invention was conceived
`
`prior to the filing in the United States of the purported prior art U.S. patent or
`
`application. To do so, it is my understanding that patentee must prove with
`
`corroborating evidence that the named inventors conceived of the complete claimed
`
`invention before the prior art, and were diligent in reducing the claimed inventions
`
`to practice.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that to qualify as prior art, a reference must contain an
`
`enabling disclosure that allows one of ordinary skill to practice the claims without
`
`undue experimentation.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 16 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`30.
`
`I understand that documents and materials that qualify as prior art can
`
`be used to invalidate a patent claim as anticipated or as obvious.
`
`B.
`31.
`
`Legal Standard for Priority Date
`I understand that the “priority date” or “earliest effective filing date” of
`
`a patent is the date on which it is filed, or the date on which an earlier-filed U.S. or
`
`international patent application was filed if the patentee claims the benefit of priority
`
`to that earlier-filed U.S. or international patent application. I further understand that
`
`although a foreign priority document may be used to try to overcome certain prior
`
`art references, the effective filing date Is not the filing date of a foreign priority
`
`document.
`
`C.
`32.
`
`Legal Standard for Anticipation
`I have been informed that if each and every element or step of a claim
`
`is disclosed within the “four corners” of a prior art reference, that claim is said to be
`
`“anticipated” by that single prior art reference and is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`because the claimed invention is not, in fact, new or novel. I have been informed
`
`that the standard for anticipation in an Inter Partes Review proceeding is by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence.
`
`33.
`
`I have also been informed that a prior art reference can disclose a claim
`
`feature if that feature is expressly described by that reference or inherent from its
`
`disclosure. I have been informed that something is inherent from a prior art
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 17 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`reference, if the missing descriptive matter must necessarily be present, and it would
`
`be so recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). I have also
`
`been informed that inherency cannot be established by probabilities or possibilities,
`
`and that the mere fact that something may result from a given set of circumstances
`
`is not sufficient to show inherency.
`
`34.
`
`I have further been informed that where a reference discloses multiple
`
`embodiments, the reference should not be limited to a preferred embodiment.
`
`Instead, each disclosed embodiment may anticipate.
`
`35. Moreover, I have been informed that as part of an anticipation analysis,
`
`it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference, but also
`
`the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
`
`therefrom. A reference can anticipate a claim even if it does not expressly spell out
`
`all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art,
`
`reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed arrangement or
`
`combination.
`
`36.
`
`I have been informed that a prior art document can disclose a claim
`
`feature, and anticipate a claimed invention, if that feature is described in another
`
`document that has been incorporated by reference. I have also been informed that,
`
`to incorporate by reference, the host document must identify with detailed
`
`particularity what specific material it incorporates, and clearly indicate where that
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 18 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`material is found in the incorporated document.
`
`37.
`
`I have also been informed that, in making the determination of the
`
`extent to which material is incorporated into a host document, the standard of a
`
`POSITA should be used to determine whether the host document describes the
`
`material to be incorporated by reference with sufficient particularity.
`
`D.
`38.
`
`Legal Standard of Obviousness
`I have been informed that a claim may be invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) if the subject matter described by the claim as a whole would have been
`
`obvious to a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art in view of a prior art
`
`reference or in view of a combination of references at the time the claimed invention
`
`was made.
`
`39.
`
`I have been informed that obviousness is determined from the
`
`perspective of a hypothetical POSITA and that the asserted claims of the patent
`
`should be read from the point of view of such a person at the time the claimed
`
`invention was made. I have been informed that a hypothetical POSITA is assumed
`
`to know and to have all relevant prior art in the field of endeavor covered by the
`
`patent in suit.
`
`40.
`
`I have been informed that there are two criteria for determining whether
`
`prior art is analogous and thus can be considered prior art: (1) whether the art is from
`
`the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 19 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`reference is not within the field of the patentee’s endeavor, whether the reference
`
`still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the patentee is
`
`involved. I have also been informed that the field of endeavor of a patent is not
`
`limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the
`
`field, or the particular focus within a given field. I have also been informed that a
`
`reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from
`
`that of the patentee’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it
`
`deals, logically would have commended itself to a patentee’s attention in considering
`
`his problem.
`
`41.
`
`I have also been informed that an analysis of whether a claimed
`
`invention would have been obvious should be considered in light of the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, the differences (if any) between the prior art and the claimed
`
`invention, and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art involved. I have been
`
`informed as well that a prior art reference should be viewed as a whole.
`
`42.
`
`I have also been informed that in considering whether an invention for
`
`a claimed combination would have been obvious, I may assess whether there are
`
`apparent reasons to combine known elements in the prior art in the manner claimed
`
`in view of interrelated teachings of multiple prior art references, the effects of
`
`demands known to the design community or present in the market place, and/or the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. I have
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 20 of 160
`Intel Corporation Ex. 1002
`Intel Corp v. UNM Rainforest Innovations - IPR2020-01576
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`been informed that other principles may be relied on in evaluating whether a claimed
`
`invention would have been obvious, and that these principles include the following:
`
`
`
`A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results;
`
` When a device or technology is available in one field of endeavor,
`
`design incentives and other market forces can promp