`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,509,440
`
`Case IPR2021-TBD
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. APOSTOLOS K. KAKAES, PH.D.
` IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 9,509,440
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. MATERIALS AND OTHER INFORMATION CONSIDERED ................. 8
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW .................................................... 9
`V.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ......................................................................12
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY .....................................................12
`
`Transport Block (TB) and Transport Block Size (TBS) ....................16
`A.
`Coding ..............................................................................................16
`B.
`C. Modulation .......................................................................................17
`D. Modulation and Coding Schemes (MCS) ..........................................19
`E.
`Channel Quality ................................................................................20
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’440 PATENT ........................................................23
`A.
`Claims...............................................................................................25
`B.
`Summary of the Specification ...........................................................25
`C.
`Summary of the Prosecution History.................................................26
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .........................................28
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES ..................................29
`A. Overview of Lahetkangas (Ex. 1005) ................................................29
`B.
`Overview of Wang (Ex. 1006) ..........................................................32
`
`TS 36.213 (Ex. 1009) ........................................................................34
`C.
`X. ANALYSIS ................................................................................................34
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 Are
`Obvious In View of Lahetkangas, or in the alternative,
`Lahetkangas in view of TS 36.213 ....................................................34
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ...............................................................35
`2.
`Dependent Claim 2 .................................................................53
`3.
`Dependent Claim 3 .................................................................56
`4.
`Dependent Claim 4 .................................................................56
`5.
`Dependent Claim 5 .................................................................58
`6.
`Dependent Claim 6 .................................................................59
`7.
`Dependent Claim 7 .................................................................62
`8.
`Dependent Claim 9 .................................................................63
`9.
`Independent Claim 11 .............................................................66
`10. Dependent Claim 12 ...............................................................70
`11. Dependent Claim 13 ...............................................................70
`12. Dependent Claim 14 ...............................................................70
`13. Dependent Claim 15 ...............................................................70
`14. Dependent Claim 16 ...............................................................71
`15. Dependent Claim 17 ...............................................................71
`16. Dependent Claim 19 ...............................................................71
`17.
`Independent Claim 21 .............................................................72
`18.
`Independent Claim 23 .............................................................75
`19.
`Independent Claim 25 .............................................................78
`20.
`Independent Claim 27 .............................................................81
`Ground II: Claims 8 and 18 Are Obvious in View of
`Lahetkangas In Combination With Wang, or in the Alternative,
`Lahetkangas in View of Wang and LTE TS 36.213 ..........................83
`1.
`Dependent Claim 8 .................................................................84
`2.
`Dependent Claim 18 ...............................................................91
`XI. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS .........................................................92
`XII. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................92
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`i
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS TO THE ’440 PETITION
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`m US. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`Certified File History of US. Patent No. 9,509,440 (“the ’904
`A o o lication”
`
`1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Apostolos Kakaes for Inter Partes Review of US.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`m Curriculum Vitae ofDr. Apostolos Kakaes
`w US. Patent No. 9,642,] 18 (“Lahetkangas”)
`m US. Patent No. 9,648,601 (“Wang”)
`
`Arunabha Ghosh, et. al., Fundamentals ofLTE (Pub. 2011)
`“Ghosh”
`
`Stefania Sesia, et. al., LTE - The UMTS Long Term Evolution: From
`to Practice
`2nd ed., 2011
`“
`' ”
`
`3GPP TS 36.213, Technical Specification Group Radio Access
`Network, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA);
`Ph sical La er Procedures (Release 10). Version 10.3.0
`Declaration of James Mullins in Support of the Public Availability of
`Fundamentals ofLTE, Arunabha Ghosh, et. al., (Pub. 201 1); LTE -
`The UMTS Long Term Evolution: From Theory to Practice, Stefania
`Sesia, et. al., (2nd ed., 2011); and LTEfor UMTS, Evolution to LTE-
`Advanced, Harri Holma & Antti Toskala 2nd ed., 2011
`
`
`
`W International Publication Number wo 2013/123961 A1
`W International Publication Number WO 2014/029108 A1
`
`1013
`
`1015
`
`Holma, Harri & Toskala, Antti, LTEfor UMTS Evolution to LTE-
`Advanced, Second Edition, Pub. 2011
`
`Erik Dahlman et. al., 4G LTE / LTEAdvancedf0! Mobile Broadband
`Pub- 2011
`“Dahlman”
`
`ii
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
` Declaration of Friedhelm Rodermund in Support of the Public
`
`Availabili of 3GPP TS 36-213 V103
`
`iii
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Apostolos K. “Paul” Kakaes, declare as follows:
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Samsung
`1.
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung” or “Petitioner”) to offer technical opinions related
`
`to U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440 (Ex. 1001, “the ’440 Patent”). I understand that
`
`Petitioner requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”)
`
`institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding of the ’440 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent analysis of the ʼ440 Patent
`
`in light of the prior art patents and publications cited below.
`
`3.
`
`Specifically, I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding
`
`whether or not claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21,
`
`23, 25, and 27 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’440 Patent are invalid as being
`
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (a POSITA) at the time of the
`
`alleged invention.
`
`4.
`
`The ʼ440 Patent is entitled “METHOD AND RADIO NODE FOR
`
`ENABLING USE OF HIGH ORDER MODULATION
`
`IN A RADIO
`
`COMMUNICATION WITH A USER EQUIPMENT”. The named inventors are
`
`David Hammarwall and Meng Wang. The named assignee of the ʼ440 Patent is
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (henceforth “Ericsson”).
`
`1
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`The ’440 Patent issued on November 29, 2016, from U.S. Application
`
`No. 14/390,904 (Ex. 1001, Cover page) filed on October 6, 2014. The ’440 patent
`
`claims priority to the Provisional Application No. 61/863,935 (the ’935 Provisional
`
`Application) filed on August 9, 2013.
`
`6.
`
`For the purposes of my Declaration, I have been asked to assume that
`
`the priority date of the alleged invention recited in the Ericsson ’440 Patent is August
`
`9, 2013 (hereinafter the “Priority Date”).
`
`7.
`
`I am not currently, and never have been, an employee of Samsung. I
`
`received no compensation for this Declaration beyond my normal hourly
`
`compensation based on my time actually spent analyzing the ’440 Patent, the prior
`
`art patents and publications cited below, and issues related thereto, and my
`
`compensation is not dependent on my opinions or or the result of this proceeding. I
`
`have no financial interest in Samsung.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`I am over the age of 18 and am competent to write this Declaration. I
`8.
`
`have personal knowledge, or have developed knowledge of these technologies based
`
`upon education, training, or experience, of the matters set forth herein. My relevant
`
`experience includes a deep understanding of the systems that we broadly refer to as
`
`“1G,” “2G,” ‘‘3G,” “4G,” and “5G” communications systems.
`
`2
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`9. My CV, which includes my complete education and work experience,
`
`is included as Ex. 1004. I describe several relevant aspects of my experience below.
`
`10.
`
`I am an expert in the field of communication engineering and
`
`specifically, among others, the field of wireless communications. I have almost 40
`
`years of experience in electrical engineering and computer science and in fixed and
`
`mobile communications networks. I attended the University of Colorado from 1974
`
`to 1980, during which I earned a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) and a Master of Science
`
`(M.S.) in applied mathematics with a minor in electrical engineering. I attended the
`
`Polytechnic Institute of New York between 1982 and 1988, during which I earned a
`
`Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in electrical engineering, with a thesis titled
`
`“Topological Properties and Design of Multihop Packet Radio Networks.” While
`
`pursuing the Ph.D. degree, I held a joint appointment as Special Research Fellow
`
`and Adjunct Instructor at the Polytechnic Institute of New York between 1985 and
`
`1986.
`
`11. Between 1982 and 1987, I worked at AT&T Bell Laboratories in
`
`Holmdel, New Jersey. While at AT&T Bell Laboratories, I worked on modeling,
`
`analysis, design, and performance evaluation of voice and data networks. I
`
`developed algorithms for DNHR (Dynamic, Non-Hierarchical Routing) used in the
`
`telephone network. I also analyzed advanced data services and formulation of long-
`
`3
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`term plans for development of enhanced data services and network design tools to
`
`support such services.
`
`12.
`
`I was an Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science at The George Washington University (GWU), Washington, D.C., between
`
`1987 and 1994. During my association with GWU, I taught graduate courses in the
`
`area of communication engineering, including communication theory, coding
`
`theory, voice and data networking, and mobile communications. In the early 1990s
`
`I developed and taught the first course on Mobile Communications taught at GWU
`
`to Electrical Engineering graduate students. I also received several research
`
`awards/grants, including the prestigious NSF Research Initiation Award.
`
`13.
`
`In 1988, I founded Cosmos Communications Consulting Corporation
`
`(“Cosmos”), which is a private communications engineering consulting firm
`
`specializing in mobile communications, and I have been the President of the
`
`company since its founding. Since 1994, I have worked full-time at Cosmos. At
`
`Cosmos, among various activities, I have consulted on high level technology-related
`
`issues and trends to corporate entities, governmental agencies, and international
`
`organizations, such as the United Nations. I have provided technical consultancy to
`
`engineering firms, operators, and equipment vendors on issues related to existing or
`
`evolving technologies for mobile communications, and to the
`
`investment
`
`community on issues related to both fixed and wireless communications
`
`4
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`technologies. I developed and taught hundreds of courses to thousands of engineers
`
`around the world in the area of communication engineering, mostly in the area of
`
`mobile, wireless communications. I have served as consultant on both civil and
`
`criminal legal cases, including several patent infringement cases both at the ITC and
`
`in district court as well as in support of IPRs such as the one in this case. I also
`
`participated as a technical consultant in the analysis of large patent portfolios for the
`
`purposes of due diligence, sales, and merger and acquisition activities for some of
`
`the largest companies in the mobile communications space. These projects spanned
`
`a multidimensional spectrum of
`
`technologies
`
`in both fixed and mobile
`
`communications as they have evolved over the past more than 30 years.
`
`14. Over the course of my career, I have authored and co-authored some
`
`thirty (30) publications on various aspects of fixed and mobile communications, as
`
`noted in my curriculum vitae. I am a life member of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE) and have been actively
`
`involved
`
`in
`
`the
`
`Communications Society and the Information Theory Society of the IEEE. Between
`
`1991 and 1992, I served as the Secretary of IEEE Communications Society National
`
`Capital Area Chapter. Between 1992 and 1993, I was the Vice-Chair of IEEE
`
`Communications Society National Capital Area Chapter. I was the Vice-Chair of
`
`the Communication Theory Technical Committee of the Communications Society
`
`of the IEEE for the 1993-1996 term, and Treasurer of the Communication Theory
`
`5
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`Technical Committee of the Communications Society of the IEEE for the 1996-1999
`
`term.
`
`15.
`
`I have served as a reviewer for the IEEE, book editors, other technical
`
`publications, and various National Science Foundation (NSF) Panels. I have
`
`organized technical sessions in technical conferences, including the IEEE
`
`International Conference on Communications
`
`(ICC) and
`
`IEEE Global
`
`Communications Conference (Globecom). I served as the Technical Program Chair
`
`for the Communication Theory Mini-Conference in 1992.
`
`16. During the past 35+ years, I have been lucky enough to be part of the
`
`community of engineers that have contributed to the astounding growth of the
`
`mobile communications industry. It started from a niche industry that was thought
`
`of as being something for the “rich and the famous” to becoming one of the most
`
`wide-spread household concepts, providing useful tools to all segments of the global
`
`society, from the wealthy suburbs of New York to the poorest neighborhoods in
`
`Africa and everywhere in between.
`
`17. My involvement in this industry included providing consulting services
`
`to company executives who needed to make deployment plans, taking into
`
`consideration the strengths and weaknesses of the technology, economics, user
`
`value, etc. As such, I have developed a deep understanding of all aspects of a given
`
`technology, its features, added value, and the like. In addition, my consulting
`
`6
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`services included developing courses for the companies that were at the forefront of
`
`this developing technology. By definition, this new, previously non-existent
`
`technology was not taught in university courses, as it was too new. Having
`
`developed hundreds of courses over the years and taught thousands of engineers (and
`
`non-engineers alike), I have a solid understanding and knowledge of the technical
`
`developments and how their importance fits in the larger puzzle of a fast-developing
`
`technology.
`
`18. My consulting included providing training to engineers in the field that
`
`were deploying the various networks. For example, I developed courses and provided
`
`training and consulting to the engineers deploying some of the earliest GSM networks
`
`in Germany and France, to be followed by many countries in Europe and around the
`
`world, including the USA when it was decided that GSM would be used in the USA.
`
`Successful deployments of the initial GSM systems were followed by deployments of
`
`GPRS and EDGE, which was then followed by deployments of 3G UMTS systems
`
`world-wide. Of course, the 3G systems were followed by the currently most wide-
`
`spread deployments of 4G systems, also referred to as LTE, world-wide and most
`
`recently deployments of 5G networks. Thus, my experience includes a deep
`
`understanding of the entirety of each system that we broadly refer to as “1G,” “2G,”
`
`‘‘3G,” “4G”, and “5G.”
`
`7
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`III. MATERIALS AND OTHER INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`
`19.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon my
`
`education and many years of experience in the relevant field of the art and have
`
`considered the viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the art (a POSITA) as
`
`of the Priority Date of the ’440 Patent.
`
`I have also considered the materials
`
`referenced in this Declaration, including the ’440 Patent, its file history, and other
`
`documents listed in the Exhibit List to the ’440 Petition.
`
`In particular, I have
`
`considered the prior art references listed in the Table below.
`
`US. Patent No. 9,642,] 18 (“Lahetkangas”) (Ex.
`1005)
`
`Priority date of February 20,
`2012
`
`US. Patent No. 9,648,601 (“Wang”) 03x. 1006)
`
`Priority date of August 24,
`201 2
`
`Layer Procedures (Release 10). Version 10.3.0
`
`3GPP TS 36.213, Technical Specification Group Published in September 2011
`Radio Access Network, Evolved Universal
`
`Terrestrial Radio Access (E— UTRA); Physical
`
`20.
`
`The references listed in the Table above are prior art to the ’440 patent.
`
`The ’ 1 18 patent (Lahetkangas) has a priority date of February 20, 2012, thus before
`
`August 9, 2013, i.e., the alleged Priority Date of the ’440 patent.
`
`21.
`
`The ’601 patent (Wang) has a priority date of August 24, 2012, thus
`
`before August 9, 2013, i. e., the alleged Priority Date of the ’440 patent.
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`22.
`
`I have also considered the following publications, which illustrate the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA as of at least August 9, 2013.
`
`Publication
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Sesia et aI., LTE - The UMTS Long Term
`
`Published NLT 2012
`
`(“Holma”) (Ex. 1013)
`
`Published NLT 2012
`
`(copyright date: 201 l)
`
`Holma et aI., LTE for UMTS OFDMA and SC—
`FDMA Based Radio Access (2nd Edition)
`
`Published NLT 2012
`(copyright date: 2011)
`
`23. With respect to the Ghosh, the Sesia, the Dahlman and the Holma
`
`textbooks, I am personally familiar with and have used them during my career. They
`
`supplement information typically found in the 3GPP standards and often provide
`
`additional insight as to why certain things are done the way they are done, i.e., often
`
`provide an explanation of the problem and how the standards address it.
`
`24.
`
`I have found Ghosh, Sesia, Dahlman and Holma to be representative of
`
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of their publication.
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`
`25.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’440 patent includes patents and printed
`
`publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the ’440 patent.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that claims in an IPR are given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in View of the
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`specification and prosecution history, unless those sources show an intent to depart
`
`from such meaning.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious.
`
`Anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim be disclosed expressly
`
`or inherently in a single prior art reference, arranged in the prior art reference as
`
`arranged in the claim. Obviousness of a claim requires that the claim be obvious
`
`from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time
`
`of the alleged invention. I understand that a claim may be obvious in view of a
`
`combination of two or more prior art references.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged invention
`
`and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the pertinent art.
`
`29.
`
`I understand
`
`that certain
`
`factors—often called “secondary
`
`considerations”—may support or rebut an assertion of obviousness of a claim. I
`
`understand that such secondary considerations include, among other things,
`
`commercial success of the alleged invention, skepticism of those having ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, unexpected results of the alleged
`
`invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the alleged
`
`invention, the failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the alleged
`
`invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the alleged
`
`10
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`invention by others in the field. I further understand that there must be a nexus—a
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the alleged invention.
`
`I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a
`
`secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`30.
`
`I further understand that a claim can be found obvious if it unites old
`
`elements with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by mere
`
`substitution of one element for another known in the field, with that combination
`
`yielding predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this
`
`combination, there is no rigid requirement for a teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`to combine. When a product is available, design incentives and other market forces
`
`can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or different one. If a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement a predictable variation,
`
`obviousness likely bars patentability. Similarly, if a technique has been used to
`
`improve one device, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize
`
`that the technique would improve similar devices in the same way, use of the
`
`technique is obvious.
`
`31.
`
`I also understand that the following rationales may support a finding of
`
`obviousness:
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`
`11
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
`
`• Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`
`• Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified,
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`• Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use
`in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or
`other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary
`skill in the art;
`
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have
`led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`It is my opinion that claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 of the ’440
`
`V.
`32.
`
`Patent are rendered obvious by Lahetkangas and claims 8 and 18 are rendered
`
`obvious by Lahetkangas in view of Wang.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`33. The ʼ440 Patent is directed to enabling higher order modulation in a
`
`radio communication system, also referred to as a cellular network, or a wireless
`
`communication system, or wireless communications network. Such a network
`
`typically consists of (a) user equipment or UEs, such as cell phones, and (b)
`
`12
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`infrastructure equipment which may be a base station (“BS”) as shown in Fig. 1 of
`
`the ʼ440 Patent (Ex. 1001, Fig. 1) shown below:
`
`
`
`34. The same concept is illustrated below in Fig. 1. Ex. 1005, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1.
`
`35. These types of wireless communication systems are implemented in
`
`accordance with technical standards. The technical standards are typically
`
`promulgated by standard setting organizations (SSOs) like the 3rd Generation
`
`Partnership Project (3GPP), including in large part the Technical Specifications (TS)
`
`developed by 3GPP for 4G-LTE and 5G systems, which have been adopted as
`
`technical standards in virtually all countries in the world. Such technical standards
`
`include detailed descriptions that a POSITA would use as part of wireless product
`
`design and development. Technical standards control the application of specific
`
`techniques to a plethora of aspects, including modulation, coding, modulation and
`
`coding schemes, and channel quality, per my below description.
`
`36. A BS may also be referred to by different terminology such as a NodeB
`
`or enodeB, or eNB. Ex. 1005, 2:59-60; Ex. 1001, 1:23-25. A BS and one or more
`
`UEs communicate by sending information using radio waves as shown in Figure 5.4
`
`below. Ex. 1013 (Holma), Figure 5.4.
`
`14
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1013 (Holma), Fig. 5.4.
`
`37. Transmission from the base station to the UE is referred to as downlink
`
`(DL) communication, and transmission from the UE to the base station is referred to
`
`as uplink (UL) communication. For example, a Physical Downlink Control Channel
`
`(PDCCH) can be used for the base station to transmit control information to a UE
`
`which informs the UE of what resources have been allocated (by the base station) to
`
`the UE for it to use. Ex. 1013 (Holma), 5.8.
`
`38.
`
`In addition, the base station informs the UE of what Modulation and
`
`Coding (“MCS”) scheme is used. Ex. 1013 (Holma), 8.5.2; Ex. 1008 (Sesia), 9.3.5;
`
`Ex. 1015 (Dahlman), 10.4.4; Ex. 1007 (Ghosh), 9.2.
`
`15
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Transport Block (TB) and Transport Block Size (TBS)
`39. Taking a downlink transmission as an example, to transmit data to a
`
`UE, the base station must first organize the user data bitstream into basic units called,
`
`at least in the relevant LTE system, Transport Blocks (TB) consisting of a certain
`
`number of bits. This is referred to as the Transport Block Size (TBS), which is
`
`simply the number of bits in a TB. See, e.g., Ex. 1015, 116 (“Data on a transport
`
`channel is organized into transport blocks.”) (emphasis in the original).
`
`40. The transmission of a TB is performed according to a Transport Format,
`
`which includes the TBS as well as the type of modulation and coding to be performed
`
`on the TB before transmission. Id. Thus, at the most basic level, each TB is channel
`
`coded and then modulated into waveform symbols that are transmitted over the air.
`
`B. Coding
`41. Channel coding is performed to protect against errors (e.g., inadvertent
`
`bit flipping at the receiver relative to the value of the bit when it was transmitted)
`
`due to poor channel conditions. The choice of channel coding includes choosing a
`
`code rate (r, also called coding rate), which can be determined by the base station
`
`based on channel conditions. The base station communicates the code rate to the
`
`UE through a modulation and coding scheme index value, IMCS (which I describe
`
`further below). A lower code rate means more bits (also called “channel bits”) are
`
`used to transmit the same amount of user data (also called “information bits”). This
`
`16
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`is done in poor channel conditions to increase the probability that the UE can
`
`correctly receive the data, but at the expense of “wasted” communication bandwidth.
`
`Conversely, higher code rates mean that fewer channel bits are used to transmit the
`
`same amount of information bits; this is done in good channel conditions. The code
`
`rate r is simply the ratio of information bits (indicated by “I” herein) to channel bits
`
`(indicated by “C” herein), i.e., r = I/C.
`
`C. Modulation
`42. Modulation is the process of assigning a number (Qm) of channel bits
`
`to one of a number of waveforms (or modulation symbols) for transmission, which
`
`modifies features of a carrier wave to indicate the value of the channel bit(s) being
`
`transmitted. Qm is referred to as the modulation order. Thus, for example, QPSK
`
`(Quadrature Phase Shift Keying) refers to the modulation scheme in which two
`
`channel bits (Qm=2) are assigned to one of four modulation symbols, for example 00
`
`is assigned to modulation symbol “1”, 01 to modulation symbol “2”, 10 to
`
`modulation symbol “3” and 11 to modulation symbol “4”. Similarly, in 16QAM
`
`each set of 4 channel bits (Qm=4) is assigned to one of 16 different waveforms or
`
`modulation symbols. Following the same principle, in 64QAM, each set of 6
`
`channel bits (Qm=6) is assigned to one of 64 waveforms, and in 256QAM each set
`
`of 8 channel bits (Qm=8) is assigned to one of 256 waveforms. The modulation
`
`17
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`orders of QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM and 256QAM are thus 2, 4, 6 and 8 respectively.
`
`Ex. 1005, 9:19-21; Ex. 1013, 88.
`
`43. The choice of modulation scheme (e.g., QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM,
`
`256QAM) is determined by the base station and its modulation order Qm is
`
`communicated to the UE through the IMCS index, taking into account channel
`
`conditions. Ex. 1007 (Ghosh), 9.6. A higher modulation order means more channel
`
`bits can be represented by a single modulation symbol for transmission. Thus, a
`
`higher order modulation provides for more efficient usage of the transmission
`
`resources. However, by virtue of the fact that there are more symbols to be
`
`distinguished from each other, it is more susceptible to errors, thus it is typically
`
`used in good channel conditions.
`
`44. Taken together, a high code rate r and a high modulation order Qm
`
`means a high efficiency transmission because the same amount of user data
`
`(information bits) can be efficiently transmitted using fewer modulation symbols.
`
`This benefit must be weighed against the higher probability of erroneous reception,
`
`which, in turn, depends on the prevailing channel conditions. Thus, the coding
`
`scheme and modulation scheme to be used in a given transmission can, and does,
`
`vary.
`
`18
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Modulation and Coding Schemes (MCS)
`45. A BS may instruct a UE to use a particular modulation and coding
`
`scheme (or “MCS”) for a message sent to and from that BS based on predicted
`
`channel conditions. Ex. 1008, 10.1, 10.2. A particular MCS is comprised of an
`
`associated modulation order (Qm) and coding rate. Ex. 1008, 10.2; Ex. 1009 (TS
`
`36.213), 7.1.7. Once the TBS is selected based on channel signal quality, the
`
`information is encoded and then modulated accordingly before transmission. Ex.
`
`1008, 10.2. Upon receiving the transmitted signal (or more accurately, the distorted
`
`version of the transmitted signal, as the channel will invariably cause some
`
`distortion), the UE demodulates and decodes the received signal using the MCS
`
`(e.g., reading the 5-bit MCS field) in order to derive the original message. Ex. 1009
`
`(TS 36.213), 7.1.7. The MCS table contains a corresponding column called “TBS
`
`Index” (ITBS), which is an index value to a separate lookup table called transport
`
`block size. Thus, code rate may be determined using the IMCS value and the resource
`
`block allocation. Ex. 1008, 10.2. I have included the below table to show a well-
`
`known correlation of MCS using an MCS index value IMCS, modulation order Qm
`
`and the transport block size denoted by a TBS index value ITBS. Ex. 1009, Table
`
`7.1.7.1-1.
`
`19
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1009, Table 7.1.7.1-1.
`
`46. One of the factors that a BS may, and in my experience typically does,
`
`consider in its determination of which MCS to apply is an indication of actual
`
`channel quality between the BS and the UE. Ex. 1008, 10.1, 10.2.
`
`E. Channel Quality
`47. Channel quality is an important component of wireless communication
`
`system performance because better channel quality enables more data to be
`
`transmitted and received per unit of time. Ex. 1006, 7:4-8. It is important to keep
`
`in