Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 8,798,658
`
`Case IPR2021-TBD
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MATTHEW C. VALENTI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 2
`II.
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW ...................................................... 6
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................12
`V.
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .........................................................................13
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY .......................................................14
`VII. SUMMARY OF THE ’658 PATENT ...........................................................18
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................................21
`A. Overview of Zhou ...............................................................................21
`B.
`Overview of Wu ..................................................................................24
`IX. DETAILED ANALYSIS ...............................................................................33
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-5, 12-16, 22, 26, and 30 Are Rendered
`Obvious by Zhou .................................................................................33
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................34
`1.
`
`Dependent Claim 2....................................................................45
`2.
`
`Dependent Claim 3....................................................................48
`3.
`
`Dependent Claim 4....................................................................49
`4.
`
`Dependent Claim 5....................................................................51
`5.
`
`Independent Claim 12 ...............................................................53
`6.
`
`Dependent Claim 13 .................................................................53
`7.
`
`Dependent Claim 14 .................................................................54
`8.
`
`Dependent Claim 15 .................................................................54
`9.
`
` Dependent Claim 16 .................................................................55
`10.
`Independent Claim 22 ...............................................................55
`11.
`
`Independent Claim 26 ...............................................................62
`12.
`
` Dependent Claim 30 .................................................................63
`13.
`Ground II: Claims 1-5, 12-16, 22-24, 26-28, and 30 Are
`Rendered Obvious by Zhou In View of Wu .......................................64
`
`B.
`
`
`
`i
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`C.
`
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................65
`1.
`
`Dependent Claim 2....................................................................69
`2.
`
`Dependent Claim 3....................................................................70
`3.
`
`Dependent Claim 4....................................................................70
`4.
`
`Dependent Claim 5....................................................................71
`5.
`
`Independent Claim 12 ...............................................................71
`6.
`
`Dependent Claim 13 .................................................................72
`7.
`
`Dependent Claim 14 .................................................................72
`8.
`
`Dependent Claim 15 .................................................................73
`9.
`
` Dependent Claim 16 .................................................................73
`10.
`Independent Claim 22 ...............................................................74
`11.
`
` Dependent Claim 23 .................................................................75
`12.
` Dependent Claim 24 .................................................................76
`13.
`Independent Claim 26 ...............................................................77
`14.
`
` Dependent Claim 27 .................................................................78
`15.
` Dependent Claim 28 .................................................................78
`16.
` Dependent Claim 30 .................................................................79
`17.
`Ground III: Claims 1-5, 12-16, 22-24, 26-28, and 30 Are
`Rendered Obvious by Wu ...................................................................79
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................79
`1.
`
`Dependent Claim 2....................................................................86
`2.
`
`Dependent Claim 3....................................................................87
`3.
`
`Dependent Claim 4....................................................................88
`4.
`
`Dependent Claim 5....................................................................88
`5.
`
`Independent Claim 12 ...............................................................90
`6.
`
`Dependent Claim 13 .................................................................90
`7.
`
`Dependent Claim 14 .................................................................91
`8.
`
`Dependent Claim 15 .................................................................91
`9.
`
` Dependent Claim 16 .................................................................92
`10.
`Independent Claim 22 ...............................................................92
`11.
`
` Dependent Claim 23 .................................................................94
`12.
` Dependent Claim 24 .................................................................94
`13.
`Independent Claim 26 ...............................................................95
`14.
`
` Dependent Claim 27 .................................................................96
`15.
` Dependent Claim 28 .................................................................96
`16.
` Dependent Claim 30 .................................................................97
`17.
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ...........................................................97
`
`ii
`
`X.
`
`
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................98
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`Declaration of Dr. Matthew C. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658 ("Valenti Declaration")
`Curriculum Vitae of Matthew Valenti
`
`PCT Application PCT/CN2010/074128 / WO 2011/160274 ("Zhou")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,594,657 ("Wu")
`
`U.S. Provision Patent Application No. 61/378,400 ("Wu
`Provisional")
`"Minimization of Drive Tests Solution in 3GPP, " Wuri A. Hapsari et
`al. (June 2012) ("Hapsari")
`"3GPP TR 36.805 v.9.0.0," 3rd Generation Partnership Project (Dec.
`2009) ("3GPP TR 36.805")
`"3GPP TS 37.320 vl.0.0, " 3rd Generation Partnership Project (Aug.
`2010) (" 3GPP TS 37.320 vl.0.0")
`"3GPP TS 37.320 v.10.0.0,) 3rd Generation Partnership Project
`(Dec. 2010) (" 3GPP TS 37.320 v l 0.0.0")
`Declaration of Friedhelm Rodermund in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`l V
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`I, Matthew Valenti, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I have been retained as an expert witness by Samsung Electronics Co.,
`1.
`
`Ltd. in connection with the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,798,658 (“’658 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to prepare this Declaration to provide my opinions
`
`regarding whether or not claims 1-5, 12-16, 22-24, 26-28, and 30 (“the Challenged
`
`Claims”) of the ’658 Patent would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. I have been asked to assume that
`
`the priority date of the alleged invention recited in the ’658 Patent is October 4, 2010
`
`(hereinafter “Priority Date”).
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I reviewed the ’658 Patent, its file history
`
`and related applications, the prior art references discussed herein, the exhibits to the
`
`Petition, and the other documents discussed herein. I also relied upon my education
`
`and experience, and I considered the viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill the
`
`art (“POSITA”) as of the Priority Date.
`
`4.
`
`It is my opinion that the Challenged Claims of the ’658 Patent are
`
`invalid as obvious to a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention in view of the
`
`prior art references discussed herein.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at my standard consulting rate of
`
`$500 per hour. I am being separately reimbursed for any out-of-pocket expenses.
`
`My compensation is not affected by or dependent in any way upon my opinions or
`
`the outcome of this matter. I am not currently, and have not at any time in the past
`
`been, an employee of Samsung. I have no financial interest in Samsung.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`I am currently a Professor of Computer Science and Electrical
`6.
`
`Engineering at West Virginia University in Morgantown, West Virginia. I hold the
`
`position of Raymond J. Lane Chair in Computer Science and Electrical Engineering,
`
`and serve as the Chair of the Lane Department of Computer Science and Electrical
`
`Engineering. I have over 25 years of experience in telecommunications and
`
`communication technology, with an emphasis on wireless and cellular networks.
`
`My full qualifications and experience are set out in my Curriculum Vitae (“CV”),
`
`attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 1004.
`
`7.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from
`
`Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 1992, and a Master of Science
`
`in Electrical Engineering at Johns Hopkins University in 1995. I subsequently
`
`completed a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
`
`State University in 1999.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`8.
`
`In 1992, I started as a full-time Electronics Engineer at the U.S. Naval
`
`Research Laboratory in Washington D.C. I subsequently became a Graduate
`
`Research Assistant and Instructor as the Bradley Fellow at Bradley Department of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering from August 1995 to July 1999.
`
`9.
`
`Following this, in August 1999, I joined West Virginia University first
`
`as an Assistant Professor. I was promoted to Associate Professor in August 2005
`
`and to Professor in August 2010, a position I still hold today.
`
`10.
`
`I acted as Interim Department Chair from July 2019 to June 2020, and
`
`in July 2020, I was appointed as the Raymond Lane Department Chair.
`
`11.
`
`I am a registered Professional Engineer in the State of West Virginia
`
`and have held that license since 2011.
`
`12.
`
`I have published 35 journal papers and technical magazine articles and
`
`over 100 conference papers in the telecommunications field, focusing on wireless
`
`technologies, including ten papers in the journal IEEE Transactions on Wireless
`
`Communications. My CV contains a complete list of my publications. I have also
`
`served as Editor-in-Chief of IEEE Communications Society Best Readings since
`
`2015, which curates collections of papers focusing on technology including Device-
`
`to-Device Communication and Cloud Communication and Networking. I was also
`
`Chair, between 2016 and 2017, and a Member from 2014 to 2017, of the Executive
`
`Editorial Committee of IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications. I have
`
`
`
`3
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`also acted as a Reviewer of a multitude of Journals since 2000, including for IEEE
`
`Transactions on Communications. I am also currently Chair of the IEEE
`
`Globecom/ICC Technical Content (GITC) committee, which is the technical
`
`steering committee for IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM)
`
`and IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), the flagship global
`
`conferences on communication technology, and I have been a member of this
`
`committee since 2015. I have also been a member of the IEEE Military
`
`Communications Conference (MILCOM) Board since 2014 and have held the Chair
`
`position for a significant number of IEEE International Conferences around the
`
`world since 2007, including those on Wireless Communications and Next
`
`Generation Networks.
`
`13.
`
`I have received a number of academic awards and honors over the
`
`years, including awards for Outstanding Researcher in the Statler College of
`
`Engineering and Mineral Resources of West Virginia University in 2000, 2001 and
`
`2008. In 2019, I received the MILCOM Award for Sustained Technical
`
`Achievement.
`
`14.
`
`In my academic role, I am responsible for the design and delivery of
`
`academic courses in communication technologies at the undergraduate and graduate
`
`level. I have taught courses on Digital Signal Processing, Communication Theory
`
`and Communications Systems at West Virginia University, and also been
`
`
`
`4
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`instrumental in developing and creating resource workbooks for new courses in
`
`Wireless Networking, Wireless Communications, and Coding Theory.
`
`15.
`
`I run an active research program focused on the development and
`
`evaluation of advanced communication
`
`transmission
`
`technology,
`
`including
`
`physical-layer
`
`technologies such as error control coding, hybrid ARQ,
`
`synchronization, and channel estimation. I have secured external competitive
`
`funding from agencies including the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the
`
`Office of Naval Research (ONR) to support my work. My duties include the
`
`mentoring of graduate students, many of whom support my research activities as
`
`research assistants. To date, I have supervised the research of 48 students
`
`successfully graduating with advanced degrees, 8 at the Ph.D. level and 40 at the
`
`M.S. level.
`
`16. My work in the area of channel estimation includes a well-cited paper
`
`“Iterative channel estimation and decoding of pilot symbol assisted turbo codes over
`
`flat-fading channels,” published in 2001 in IEEE Journal on Selected Areas of
`
`Communication, where I consider the reception and processing of pilot symbols in
`
`a wireless receiver for the purposes of estimating the channel. I also consider the
`
`estimation of the signal-to-noise ratio (a kind of channel quality measurement) in a
`
`paper “Joint synchronization and SNR estimation for turbo codes in AWGN
`
`channels,” published in 2005 in IEEE Transactions on Communications.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`17.
`
`I have extensive experience in developing software for the simulation
`
`and implementation of various aspects of wireless communication systems,
`
`including key portions of the LTE, UMTS, HSDPA, WiMAX, and DVB-S2
`
`standards. My software is available to the public in a package called the Coded
`
`Modulation Library (CML).1 The code has been incorporated into several
`
`commercial products.
`
`18.
`
`I previously have been retained as an expert witness in numerous
`
`proceedings in different jurisdictions, including the United States District Courts,
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the International Trade
`
`Commission (ITC). This has included acting as an expert witness for major
`
`technology companies and wireless carriers in patent disputes and investigations
`
`involving telephone modems, mobile phone handsets, LTE, WCDMA/UMTS and
`
`other core wireless technologies.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`I am not an attorney. For purposes of this declaration, I have been
`19.
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law is as listed below.
`
`
`1 http://www.iterativesolutions.com.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`20.
`
`I understand that claims in an IPR are construed under the case Phillips
`
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), decided by the Federal Circuit in
`
`2005. I further understand that under the rule in Phillips, words of claims are given
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in view of the specification and prosecution history, unless those sources show
`
`an intent to depart from such meaning. In this declaration, I have applied plain and
`
`ordinary meaning to the claims of the ‘658 patent.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a patent cannot be properly granted for subject matter
`
`that would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the claimed invention, and
`
`that a patent claim directed to such obvious subject matter is invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that obviousness of a claim requires that the claim be
`
`obvious from the perspective of a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention. I
`
`understand that a claim may be obvious in view of a single prior art reference, or a
`
`combination of two or more prior art references. I understand that prior art to the
`
`’658 Patent includes patents and printed publications in the relevant art that predate
`
`the Priority Date of the ’658 Patent.
`
`23.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`24.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`25.
`
`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, common sense should guide, and 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`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. I further understand that a claim may
`
`be obvious if common sense directs one to combine multiple prior art references or
`
`add missing features to reproduce the alleged invention recited in the claims.
`
`26.
`
`I also understand that the following rationales may support a finding of
`
`obviousness:
`
`a) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`b) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
`c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`d) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`e) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified,
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to
`one of ordinary skill in the art;
`g) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`invention.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`27.
`
`It is also my understanding that to determine whether it would have
`
`been obvious to combine known elements in a manner claimed in a patent, one may
`
`consider such things as the interrelated teachings of multiple pieces of prior art, the
`
`effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace,
`
`and the background knowledge of an individual having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`28.
`
`It is further my understanding that determining obviousness is
`
`expansive and flexible. I understand that there is no requirement for an obviousness
`
`analysis to find precise teachings that are directed to specific subject matter of a
`
`claim; rather, the common sense, inferences, and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ should be taken into account.
`
`29.
`
`It is also my understanding that a need or problem known in the field at
`
`the time of an invention can provide an obvious reason to combine elements in the
`
`manner claimed. A patent’s subject matter would have been obvious, for example,
`
`if at the time of the invention, there was a known problem for which the patent claims
`
`encompassed an obvious solution. Further, if a patent claims a structure known in
`
`the prior art that only substitutes one element for another that is known in the field.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the combination would have been obvious unless the
`
`result is unexpected and fruitful. Therefore, a predictable variation of prior art is
`
`obvious. It is also my understanding that when there are a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions to a known problem, the combination was obvious
`
`
`
`10
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`to try and thus might be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. It is my additional
`
`understanding that items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I
`
`understand that neither a particular motivation nor an avowed purpose of a patentee
`
`controls how a piece of prior art may be used. It is also common sense that familiar
`
`items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and that a person of
`
`ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
`
`pieces of a puzzle. It is my understanding that this list of rationales is not exclusive
`
`and that other rationales may support a conclusion of obviousness.
`
`31.
`
`It is further my understanding that multiple prior art references can be
`
`combined to show that a claim is obvious. Any need or problem known in the field
`
`and addressed by a patent claim can provide a reason for combining multiple
`
`references in the manner claimed. I understand that a claim can be obvious in light
`
`of a single reference, without the need to combine references, if the elements of the
`
`claim that are not found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by
`
`the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan.
`
`32. As informed by Samsung’s counsel, I understand that the obviousness
`
`analysis requires a comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior
`
`art on a limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`It is my understanding that the level of ordinary skill in the art is based
`33.
`
`on a study of the patents at issue and their file histories, a study of the prior art cited
`
`therein, and knowledge of the following:
`
`a) The level of education and experience of persons actively working in
`the field at the time the subject matter at issue was developed;
`b) The types of problems encountered in the art at the time the subject
`matter was developed;
`c) The prior art patents and publications;
`d) The activities of others working in that field;
`e) Prior art solutions to those problems; and
`f) The sophistication of the technology at issue in this case.
`It is also my understanding that for determining the level of ordinary
`34.
`
`skill in the art, consideration should also be given to factors such as: (1) the
`
`sophistication of the relevant technology; (2) the rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made in that field; (3) the educational level of active workers in that field; and (4)
`
`the education and experience of the alleged inventors. It is further my understanding
`
`that these factors are not exhaustive and are merely a useful guide to determine the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`35. Taking all of these consideration into account, it is my opinion that a
`
`POSITA at the time of the ’658 Patent would have had a Master’s degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Physics, Applied Mathematics, or
`
`
`
`12
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`equivalent and three to five years of experience working with wireless digital
`
`communication systems and cellular networks, including working with LTE or its
`
`predecessor UMTS. That person might be working on developing a standard or on
`
`implementing it. Additional education might compensate for less experience, and
`
`vice-versa. Such a person would possess sufficient knowledge and experience to
`
`understand the types of problems and subject matter technology at issue here, in
`
`view of the relevant technology as described in the ’658 Patent and the prior art
`
`discussed herein.
`
`36. Based on that level of ordinary skill, I have been a POSITA since a least
`
`1998. The opinions I am offering are from the perspective of a POSITA at the time
`
`of the alleged invention, which for purposes of this Declaration I assume is October
`
`4, 2010.
`
`37.
`
`I also note that my opinions provided in this Declaration would not
`
`change in view of any minor modifications to this level of skill.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`It is my opinion that claims 1-5, 12-16, 22, 26, and 30 of the ’658 Patent
`38.
`
`are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Zhou (Ground I below).
`
`39.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1-5, 12-16, 22-24, 26-28, and 30 of the ’658
`
`Patent are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Zhou in view of Wu (Ground
`
`II below).
`
`
`
`13
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`40.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1-5, 12-16, 22-24, 26-28, and 30 of the ’658
`
`Patent are rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Wu (Ground III below).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`In the paragraphs that follow, I discuss technical principles that are
`41.
`
`pertinent to the ’658 Patent and the related prior art.
`
`42. The ’658 patent is generally directed to methods and apparatuses for
`
`network-based control of report messages in a wireless communications network,
`
`such as an LTE network. Ex. 1001 at Abstract.
`
`43. As is well known in the prior art, a wireless communication system,
`
`such as an LTE network, generally includes a wireless device referred to as a User
`
`Equipment (UE), such as a mobile, handset, cell phone, laptop, tablet, or the like,
`
`and a network node referred to as Base Station (BS). Ex. 1001 at 1:23-37.
`
`Depending on the particular implementation, a BS may be referred to by different
`
`terminology, including for example, “Base Transceiver Station (BTS),” “NodeB,”
`
`“eNodeB,” or the like. Ex. 1001 at 1:33-37.
`
`44. A BS typically covers a geographic area, called a “cell,” within a radio
`
`access network (“RAN”), and communicates wirelessly over the air with the UEs
`
`therein. Ex. 1001 at 1:33-38.
`
`45. Generally, wireless network operators monitor their networks to ensure
`
`that they are providing the best network coverage and quality of service for their
`
`
`
`14
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`customers. Ex. 1008 at 28. Prior to December 2010 when the 3rd Generation
`
`Partnership Project (3GPP) TS 37.320 v.10.0.0 standard was released, network
`
`operators traditionally sent network technicians or engineers into the field to collect
`
`radio measurements, to discover problems such as coverage holes in the network,
`
`and to determine whether certain parameter tuning was needed. Ex. 1008 at 28; Ex.
`
`1011. Network technicians performed these radio measurements by conducting
`
`“drive test[ing].” Ex. 1008 at 28; Ex. 1009, § 5.1. It is called drive testing because
`
`the engineers would drive a vehicle containing mobile radio network air interface
`
`measurement equipment to collect data about the network’s performance. Drive
`
`tests, however, required large Operational Expenditure (OPEX). Ex. 1008 at 28.
`
`46. The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) is an umbrella
`
`organization that facilities standard setting by seven telecommunications standard
`
`setting organizations, including the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry
`
`Solutions (USA) and ETSI (Europe). In an effort to reduce the OPEX expenditures
`
`associated with drive testing, 3GPP studied and specified solutions to reduce this
`
`OPEX for drive tests, under the work item named “Minimization of Drive Tests
`
`(MDT).” Id.; see e.g., Ex. 1010; Ex. 1011.
`
`47. The MDT solution resulting from 3GPP’s study is described in
`
`technical standards such as 3GPP TS 37.320 v.1.0.0 (2010-08), which provides the
`
`procedure for the MDT functionality in LTE networks. For example, TS 37.320
`
`
`
`15
`
`Samsung Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Valenti for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,658
`
`provides that “a UE configured to perform Logged MDT measurements in IDLE
`
`indicates the availability of MDT measurements, by means of a one bit indicator, in
`
`RRCConnectionSetupComplete message during connection establishment.” Ex.
`
`1010, § 5.1.1.3.1. “The network can decide to retrieve the logged measurements
`
`based on this indication.” Id. TS 37.320 further explains that “the measurement
`
`reporting is triggered by on-demand mechanism, i.e., the UE is asked by the network
`
`to send the collected measurement logs via RRC signalling.” Id., § 5.1.1.3.2. Thus,
`
`MDT has been known in the art since at least August 20