throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`TCT MOBILE (US) INC., TCT MOBILE (US) HOLDINGS INC., TCL
`COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LIMITED, TCT MOBILE
`INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, TCT MOBILE, INC., CRADLEPOINT, INC.,
`DELL INC., HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., SIERRA WIRELESS,
`INC., THALES DIS AIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ZTE CORPORATION, AND
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`SISVEL S.P.A.,
`
`Patent Owner
`__________
`U.S. Patent No. 7,319,718
`__________
`
`DECLARATION OF PAUL C. CLARK, D.SC. IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,319,718
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 1 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`I.
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I, Paul Clark, have been retained as an independent expert witness on behalf
`
`of Petitioners related to Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,319,718
`
`(“the ’718 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`In particular, I was requested to review the subject material of the ’718 Patent,
`
`along with certain of the claims therein, and opine as to whether a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”) would be motivated to modify the prior art and arrive at
`
`the claims of the ’718 Patent. The opinions and comments formulated during this
`
`assessment are based on observations and information available at the time of the
`
`investigation. The findings presented herein are made to a reasonable degree of
`
`scientific certainty. I have made every effort to accurately and completely investigate
`
`all areas of concern identified during our investigation.
`
`II. EXPERIENCE
`3. My qualifications for forming the opinions set forth in this Declaration are
`
`summarized here and explained in more detail in my curriculum vitae. My
`
`curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1023.
`
`4.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics from the University of
`
`California Irvine, a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science from the University of Southern California, and a Doctor of Science in
`
`Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from The George Washington
`
`University with concentrations in Computer and Network Security, Graphics and
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 2 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`Intellectual Property Law. My doctoral dissertation included advanced hardware
`
`solutions to computer and network security.
`
`5.
`
`From the late-1980’s to the mid-1990’s I was a Senior Security Engineer at
`
`Trusted Information Systems. In that role, I participated in the design and
`
`implementation of several networked systems providing integrity, authentication,
`
`and encryption services.
`
`6.
`
`Between January 1994 and July 1999, I was Chief Scientist for DynCorp
`
`Network Solutions. In that role, I designed and directed the implementation of
`
`several secure network systems including the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS’s)
`
`Secure Submission and Retrieval System. That secure system received three Al Gore
`
`Hammer Awards for improving Government.
`
`7.
`
`In the mid-1990’s I served as a member of the Federal Advisory Committee
`
`for Key Management Infrastructure and as Chairman of the Interoperability Working
`
`Group for Cryptographic Key Recovery.
`
`8.
`
`Also in the mid-1990’s I served as a Cooperative Research and Development
`
`Agreements partner in a joint effort between the National Institute of Standards and
`
`Technology and several companies to begin development of the elements of a public
`
`key infrastructure.
`
`9.
`
`Since 1999, I have been President and Chief Technology Officer of
`
`SecureMethods, Inc. and Paul C. Clark LLC. SecureMethods specializes in the
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 3 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`design, implementation, and deployment of advanced network applications for
`
`commercial and government clients, including the United States Department of
`
`Defense (“DoD”). SecureMethods provides a comprehensive scalable, COTS-based
`
`secure network architecture, implemented through the use of the SM Gateway. The
`
`SM Gateway is a next-generation security appliance developed by SecureMethods
`
`that is available on UNIX-based platforms using commercial, government, and Type
`
`I cryptography, implemented in both hardware and software. In my capacity as
`
`President and Chief Technology Officer of SecureMethods, I have technical and
`
`operational oversight of all projects and corporate technical operations. I provide
`
`guidance to senior technical personnel relating to design, implementation, and
`
`troubleshooting for a wide range of systems both internal and external. My work
`
`includes network systems and security, cryptographic applications, certification, key
`
`management, authentication, and integrity strategies for network applications. My
`
`firm specializes in complex software and hardware systems for commercial and DoD
`
`clients.
`
`10.
`
`I have published several articles on network security and encryption,
`
`including “BITS – A Smartcard Protected Operating System,” with Lance Hoffman,
`
`Communications of the ACM, November 1994; “Service Layering Promotes Secure
`
`Data Exchange in Diverse Environments,” Computer News, October 23, 1995; and
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 4 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`“Threats Posed to Cryptographic Applications by Random Numbers,” presented to
`
`the RSA Data Security Conference, January 1996.
`
`11.
`
`I have also given several presentations at technical conferences relating to
`
`security architecture including wireless access, and protocol topics concerning the
`
`subject matter of the ’718 Patent.
`
`12.
`
`I have also been called to provide expert testimony before Congress on issues
`
`related to encryption, authentication and secure cellular technology, and asked to
`
`speak at various conferences and consult on topics related to the ’718 Patent in the
`
`years surrounding its priority date.
`
`13. My academic and professional background are closely related to the subject
`
`matter of the ’718 Patent, and include extensive experience with methods of
`
`computer security and error detection/correction as well as their application in signal
`
`processing. I have served as an adjunct professor in the Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science Department at The George Washington University, teaching
`
`doctoral level cryptography and security courses. Since receiving my doctorate in
`
`1994, I have worked in the computer and networking field specializing in the design,
`
`implementation, and deployment of advanced secure network applications for
`
`commercial, Department of Defense, and government clients.
`
`14.
`
`I am the named inventor on four security related U.S. patents: 5,448,045;
`
`5,892,902; 8,695,066; and 10,129,214.
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 5 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`15. Materials I have considered in relation to this Declaration include the ’718
`
`Patent (Ex. 1001) and its associated prosecution history (Ex. 1003). The ’718 Patent
`
`states on its face that it claims priority to a foreign application filed in Korea on
`
`February 16, 2002. I have been informed by Counsel that the Patent Owner asserts,
`
`in district court, a priority date for this patent of February 16, 2002. However, the
`
`opinions I offer below regarding the prior art, the combinations set forth below, or
`
`the applicability of those combinations to certain claims of the ’718 Patent do not
`
`change in my mind whether the ’718 Patent is entitled to this priority date or a
`
`priority date of February 13, 2003. I have not been asked at this time to perform an
`
`analysis regarding the proper priority date of the ’718 Patent.
`
`16.
`
`I have reviewed and considered documentation related to relevant 3GPP
`
`standards activity surrounding the time of the claimed invention of the ’718 Patent.
`
`17.
`
`I have also reviewed the prior art reference relied upon within this
`
`Declaration, as well as other cited documents as indicated in footnotes.
`
`18.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have relied upon my education, knowledge of
`
`telecommunications and associated networking technology, and related experience.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`I am not an attorney. For purposes of this declaration, I have been informed
`19.
`
`about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my analysis and opinions, as set
`
`forth below.
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 6 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`20.
`
`I understand that claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, which is the meaning that the term would have to a POSITA in question
`
`at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the earliest priority date of the patent
`
`application. I further understand that the POSITA is deemed to read the claim term
`
`not only in the context of the particular claim in which a claim term appears, but in
`
`the context of the entire patent, including the specification and file history.
`
`21.
`
`I am informed by counsel that the patent specification, under the legal
`
`principles, has been described as the best guide to the meaning of a claim term, and
`
`is thus highly relevant to the interpretation of claim terms. And I understand for
`
`terms that do not have a customary meaning within the art, the specification usually
`
`supplies the best context of understanding the meaning of those terms. I also
`
`understand that claim terms should be understood in the context of the claim as a
`
`whole.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the prosecution history can further inform the meaning of
`
`the claim language by demonstrating how the inventors understood the invention
`
`and whether the inventors limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making
`
`the claim scope narrower than it otherwise would be. Extrinsic evidence may also
`
`be consulted in construing the claim terms, such as my experience and expert
`
`testimony.
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 7 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`23.
`
`I have not been asked to provide any specific definitions for any of the terms
`
`in the claims I have analyzed. If asked, I would undertake such an endeavor. None
`
`of the claim terms appear to require specific interpretation based on my
`
`understanding of the claims, the specification, and the state of the art. Accordingly,
`
`I have treated each claim term as it would be understood to have its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning to a POSITA, as outlined below.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that some claims are independent, and that these claims are
`
`complete by themselves. Other claims refer to these independent claims and are
`
`“dependent” from those independent claims. The dependent claims include all the
`
`limitations of the claims on which they depend.
`
`25.
`
`It is my understanding that a patent claim is invalid as obvious if it is
`
`determined that a POSITA would be motivated to modify a prior art reference to
`
`arrive at that claim, and would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
`
`Counsel has informed me that the petitioner has the burden in an IPR, such as this
`
`matter, to show invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence. Counsel has told me
`
`that a preponderance of the evidence means more likely than not.
`
`26. Counsel also instructed me that an invalidity inquiry may involve assessing
`
`the motivation of a POSITA to modify a prior art reference.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that I am to perform the task referenced in the preceding
`
`paragraph without using “hindsight” reasoning. Instead, I was asked to consider the
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 8 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`motivation to modify a particular prior art reference through the eyes of a POSITA
`
`as of around February 16, 2002.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that relevant considerations for a motivation to modify a prior art
`
`reference includes at least the following:
`
`(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 techniques 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,” which is 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 a POSITA; and
`
`(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have
`led a POSITA to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art
`reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 9 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`29.
`
`I have kept these considerations in mind when offering the opinions below
`
`regarding combinability, as well as when interpreting the scope and content of the
`
`references.
`
`30.
`
`I have kept these considerations in mind when offering the opinions below
`
`regarding combinability, as well as when interpreting the scope and content of the
`
`prior art.
`
`31.
`
`I have kept these considerations in mind when offering the opinions below
`
`regarding combinability, as well as when interpreting the scope and content of the
`
`prior art.
`
`IV. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`32. The subject matter of the ’718 Patent relates to error protection for
`
`telecommunications signals. In telecommunications of all varieties, information that
`
`is sent over distance from one machine to another is generally susceptible to
`
`degradation from random errors. These errors can cause a message received by the
`
`recipient of a transmission to be different from the message that the sender originally
`
`sent. These errors—typically caused by incidental problems such as interference,
`
`noise, or flipped bits—are generally undesirable, as the intent in telecommunications
`
`is for the recipient of a message to receive the original message that the sender
`
`intended, or at least a close approximation of the original message. In general,
`
`methods for reducing the incidents of such errors are known as error protection.
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 10 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`33. A common error protection technique is to send an encoding of the original
`
`message, rather than sending the original message itself. A message can be encoded
`
`to another form that is resilient to errors such that, even if errors do occur during the
`
`transmission, the encoded message will still have enough information that the
`
`recipient has a relatively high likelihood of recovering the sender’s original message,
`
`despite the presence of transmission errors.
`
`34. A coding method is a formula for taking an input signal and outputting an
`
`encoded “codeword,” which preserves the information in the original signal but
`
`reformulates it in a way that is more robust to transmission errors. This can be
`
`accomplished by, for example, repeating the input signal a predetermined number of
`
`times to ensure that if certain bits in a codeword are lost, the input signal can still be
`
`reconstructed.
`
`35. The alleged invention of the ’718 Patent relates to a coding method for a kind
`
`of information called a Channel Quality Indicator (CQI), which is used in the
`
`Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS), a third generation mobile
`
`communication system. (’718 Patent, at 1:11−12). In an effort to create standards for
`
`the third generation mobile communication system, the Third Generation
`
`Partnership Project (3GPP) was established from a group of organizations including
`
`ETSI of Europe, ARIB/TTC of Japan, T1 of the U.S., and TTA of Korea. (’718
`
`Patent, at 1:22−25). One of the Technical Specification Groups (TSGs) of 3GPP,
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 11 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`Working Group 1 (WG1) of the Radio Access Network (RAN) Group (TSG-RAN-
`
`WG1), was focused on developing interface specifications between the User
`
`Equipment (UE) and the UMTS terrestrial radio access network (UTRAN). (’718
`
`Patent, at 1:35−41).
`
`
`
`Reproduction of the ’718 Patent’s FIG. 1, illustrating
`“a structure of the UTRAN defined by 3GPP.” (’718 Patent, at FIG. 1).
`36. To communicate with the UTRAN, the UE transmits information from the
`
`physical layer of the UE to an access point (i.e., node B) via uplink and downlink
`
`channels. (’718 Patent, at 1:56−60, FIG. 1). In order to support High Speed Data
`
`Packet Access (HSDPA) more advanced technologies, such as Adaptive Modulation
`
`and Coding (AMC), were introduced. (’718 Patent, at 2:20−26). The process of
`
`modifying the transmission parameters to compensate for the variations in channel
`
`conditions is known as link adaptation (LA) and AMC is one of the link adaptation
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 12 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`techniques. (’718 Patent, at 2:29−34). The principle of AMC is to change the
`
`modulation and coding scheme according to variations in the channel conditions,
`
`subject to system restrictions. (’718 Patent, at 2:32−35).
`
`The main benefits of AMC are the higher data rate
`available for UEs in favorable positions which in turn
`increases the average throughput of the cell and the
`reduced interference variation due to link adaptation based
`on variations in the modulation/coding scheme instead of
`variations in transmit power. (’718 Patent, at 2:42−47).
`37. Thus, to support fast link adaptation, the UE is to provide node B with
`
`information about the downlink channel quality, i.e., CQI. (’718 Patent, at 3:36−39).
`
`38. Specifically, the CQI is a unit of control information sent from the UE to a
`
`node B (also referred to as a “base station”) regarding the quality of the downlink
`
`channel. The node B will then adapt transmission parameters (such as the amount of
`
`bandwidth allocated or the specific coding technique used) based on a UE’s current
`
`channel conditions.
`
`39. The CQI takes the form of an integer between 0 and 301, and is represented in
`
`five bits of binary data where each bit has a value “1” or “0.” If a UE receives a
`
`weak signal (indicative of poor channel conditions), then the UE reports a low CQI
`
`value (e.g., 0 or 1), and node B responds by assigning the UE a lower data rate. (’718
`
`Patent, at 3:37−4:9). By contrast, if the UE has a strong received signal (indicative
`
`1 A value of 31, which mathematically possible for 6 binary bits, is not used when
`representing CQI
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 13 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`of favorable channel conditions), then the UE reports a high CQI value (e.g., 29 or
`
`30). The node B (base station) responds by transmitting data using higher data rates
`
`to the UEs reporting a high CQI, and lower data rates to the UEs reporting a low
`
`CQI. By allocating to each UE the data rate that it can most effectively use, the node
`
`B optimizes the total throughput for the system.
`
`40.
`
`In the frame structure for uplink HS-DPCCH (FIG. 2), one radio frame (10
`
`ms of signal) can be broken down into HS-DPCCH subframes, where each 2 ms
`
`subframe (3 x 2560 chips) consists of three slots (2560 chips/slot). (’718 Patent, at
`
`3:26−32). The Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request-Acknowledgement/No
`
`Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK/NACK) is carried in the first slot, while the CQI
`
`is carried in the second and third slots. (’718 Patent, at 3:32−33, FIG. 2).
`
`
`
`Reproduction of the ’718 Patent’s FIG. 2, illustrating
`“a frame structure for the uplink HS-DPCCH associated with
`HS-DSCH transmission.” (’718 Patent, at FIG. 2).
`41. Various methods of CQI encoding have been proposed throughout the
`
`evolution of telecommunications. One known method is using a form of Transmit
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 14 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`Format Combination Indicator (TFCI) coding, which was disclosed in 3GPP
`
`specifications long before the ’718 Patent. (’718 Patent, at 3:39−44; see also, Ex.
`
`1004 (“R1-02-0046”); Ex. 1021 (“R1-02-0019”); and Ex. 1013 (“R1-01-1324”)).
`
`42. A given encoding method typically specifies two numbers with which the
`
`method will be used: (A,B), where the number of bits of the output codeword (A)
`
`and the number of bits of the input signal (B) are part of the name designation (A,B)
`
`and calculated by matrix algebra in the binary field. For example, one conventional
`
`TFCI method uses a (16,5) code, meaning it takes an input signal five bits long and
`
`outputs a 16-bit codeword.
`
`43. The TFCI method applies a mathematical formula to bits of an input message
`
`to produce the bits of the output messages. First, the conventional (16,5) TFCI
`
`encoder (FIG. 3a, reproduced below) generates 16-bit TFCI codewords from five
`
`TFCI information bits (a0, a1, a2, a3, a4) and Mi,n, a basis sequence for nth TFCI
`
`information bit. (’718 Patent, at 3:50−55).
`
`Reproduction of the ’718 patent’s FIG. 3a,
`“a schematic block diagram illustrating a (16,5) TFCI encoder.”
`(’718 Patent, at FIG. 3a).
`44. The output codeword bits (bi) are given by the following equation:
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 15 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`
`
`where i = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. (’718 Patent, at 3:51−62;
`
`Table 1a). Exemplary calculations for this 16-bit codeword are found below in
`
`Section VII.
`
`45.
`
`In Table 1a of the ’718 Patent (reproduced below), the five basis sequences,
`
`or 16-bit vectors, are depicted in a table form, collectively making up a 16 by 5
`
`matrix.
`
`Reproduction of the ’718 Patent’s Table 1a, illustrating
`“the basis sequences for the (16,5) TFCI code.” (’718 Patent, at Table 1a).
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 16 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`46. An explanation of how to calculate the output codeword from the above
`
`equation and basis sequences is provided below.
`
`47. To generate each bit of the code word using the equation above, the following
`
`procedure is followed:
`
`1. The five information bits are multiplied bit-by-bit with a row of the
`
`basis sequence table (the first information bit is multiplied by the first
`
`bit in the row, the second information bit is multiplied by the second
`
`bit in the row, etc.);
`
`2. The results of the multiplications are added together;
`
`3. The sum is divided by 2 and the remainder is determined;2
`
`4.
`
`If the remainder is 0, the resulting bit of the codeword is 0, and if the
`
`remainder is 1, the resulting bit of the codeword is 1.
`
`48. Since the CQI is encoded into a 20-bit codeword, the conventional (16,5)
`
`TFCI encoder cannot be used (without modifying the 16-bit codeword that would
`
`result from the 16-bit long basis sequences). However, it was known prior to the
`
` 2 This operation is referred to as “mod 2.” Specifically, if a number is even, mod 2
`
`returns 0 (there is no remainder when an even number is divided by 2); if a
`
`number if odd, mod 2 returns 1 (there is a remainder of 1 when an odd number is
`
`divided by 2).
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 17 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`’718 Patent that the conventional (16,5) TFCI encoder could be extended to produce
`
`a 20-bit codeword, and various alternatives to extend the (16,5) TFCI encoder into
`
`a (20,5) encoder had been proposed.
`
`49. The method of extending the (16,5) TFCI encoder can be selected in different
`
`ways depending on the particular error protection goal and the chosen method for
`
`achieving that goal. For example, one method takes the four least reliable
`
`information bits from the initial five information bits added to the 16-bit codeword
`
`to yield a 20-bit codeword. (’718 Patent, at 4:15−21, 5:66−6:34, FIG. 4, Table 2).
`
`This CQI coding scheme is designed for optimal minimal distance (discussed
`
`below). (’718 Patent, at 6:34−36).
`
`Reproduction of the ’718 Patent’s FIG. 4, showing “a schematic
`block diagram illustrating an encoder for generating a (20,5) CQI code
`based on the conventional (16,5) TFCI code.” (’718 Patent, at FIG. 4).
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 18 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`
`
`Reproduction of the ’718 Patent’s Table 2, illustrating
`“the (20,5) CQI coding scheme based on the extended (16,5) TFCI code or
`the punctured (32,5) expurgated TFCI code.” (’718 Patent, at Table 2).3
`
`50. Distance, often referred to as “Hamming distance” compares the difference
`
`between two resulting codewords. This “distance” helps describe the accuracy of the
`
`codeword insofar as it provides a measurement of how different two codewords are
`
`and thus how unlikely they are to be mistaken for each other. For example, the
`
`Hamming distance between the two 8-element codewords 00110100 and 10111101
`
`is three, because there are three bits that have different values in the 8-bit codeword.
`
`The “minimum distance” is the minimum value of the Hamming distance, over all
`
`possible pairs of codewords. It was known that the historical minimum distance
`
`desired was nine. (R1-02-0046, at 1).
`
`3 Table 2 erroneously includes 21 rows (starting with row 0 and ending with row
`
`20).
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 19 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`51. Alternatively, instead of simply adding four information bits to a 16-bit
`
`codeword (which would result in a 20-bit codeword), the basis sequences of a (16,5)
`
`TFCI basis sequence table could themselves be extended with four additional rows,
`
`which would result in 20-bit basis sequences that produce a 20-bit codeword. Such
`
`an approach had already been proposed by Philips. (R1-02-0046, at 1).
`
`52. Besides ensuring these codewords are as different as possible, it was known
`
`before the ’718 Patent that “it is also desirable that if possible the most significant
`
`bits of the data are better protected than the least significant bits.” (R1-02-0046, at
`
`1). Providing additional, unequal, protection to the more significant bits of a message
`
`was a well-known strategy for minimizing error in an encoding method. This is
`
`because, for the CQI, it is not only the number of errors but the size of the errors that
`
`occur that is important. If there is an error in transmission of the CQI, the
`
`consequence is that the base station has a wrong understanding of what CQI value
`
`the UE transmitted to it, and accordingly will assign that UE a suboptimal data rate,
`
`relative to its channel conditions (e.g., signal strength). If the received CQI is too
`
`low, the base station will assign an unnecessarily throttled data rate when the UE
`
`could in fact make use of a higher data rate; if it is too high, the base station will
`
`send more data than the UE can successfully receive and decode. A relatively big
`
`error in the CQI (i.e., a big difference in the value sent by the UE and received by
`
`the base station) causes a greater waste of data than a small CQI error, and thus has
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 20 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`a greater practical impact on effective functioning of the AMC system. The impact
`
`can be worse both for the individual UE, and for the efficiency of the system in
`
`aggregate.
`
`53. Thus, the “significance” of a bit in this context refers to the size of the error
`
`in the CQI value that would be caused by an error in that bit. An error in the most
`
`significant bit (“MSB”) would cause the largest error (compared to the other bits),
`
`and an error in the least significant bit (“LSB”) would cause the smallest error. Thus,
`
`providing unequal (greater) protection to the MSB(s) is one way to decrease errors
`
`by decreasing the size of errors, rather than just the number of errors. As shown in
`
`the example below, preventing one error in the MSB could have a greater practical
`
`impact than preventing ten errors in the LSB.
`
`54.
`
`In the ’718 Patent, the CQI is described as a 5-bit vector (a0, a1, a2, a3, a4). In
`
`the nomenclature of the ’718 Patent, the right-most bit (a4) is the position with the
`
`highest place value (i.e., the MSB),4 whereas the left-most bit (a0) is the position
`
`with the lowest place value (i.e., the LSB). (’718 Patent, at 7:33−35). For example,
`
`a0 has a place value of 20 = 1, whereas a4 has a place value of 24 = 16.
`
`4 The ’718 Patent refers to the most significant bit as “MOB.” (’718 Patent, at
`
`7:33).
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 21 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`55. Three examples of CQIs as conventional binary strings, are as follows: 6 is
`
`01100; 7 is 11100; and 22 is 01101.5 The MSB for each is the right-most bit (0, 0,
`
`and 1, respectively) and the LSB for each is the left-most bit (0, 1, and 0,
`
`respectively). If the base station misinterprets the LSB of the CQI, there is a
`
`relatively low impact (e.g., receiving a 7 [i.e., 11100] when the UE sent a 6 [i.e.,
`
`01100]). Conversely, if the base station misinterprets the MSB, the impact is much
`
`more pronounced (e.g., receiving a 6 [i.e., 01100] when the UE sent a 22 [i.e.,
`
`01101]).
`
`5 The convention used for expressing a binary number in the ’718 Patent, as well
`
`as in relevant prior art, is for the bits to increase in relative significance when the
`
`number is read from left to right. Thus, the bit position with the highest relative
`
`value (referred to as the “most significant bit”) is at the right-hand side of the
`
`binary number. (Notably, this is opposite to how numbers are generally written
`
`in decimal form, where the most significant digit is at the left side.) The
`
`’718 Patent describes the CQI information as a 5-bit vector (a0, a1, a2, a3, a4),
`
`where a4 (the right-most bit) is the position with the highest value (e.g., a0 has a
`
`place value of 20 = 1, whereas a4 has a place value of 24 = 16). For consistency,
`
`this Declaration uses the same convention as in the ’718 patent for expressing
`
`binary numbers.
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 22 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing S.A.)
`
`

`

`56. Providing unequal, additional protection of the MSB was a known goal, both
`
`in general and specifically in the context of CQI. (’718 Patent, at 7:33-34 (“this
`
`arrangement gives significant extra protection to the MOB”); Ex. 1004, at 1 (“This
`
`arrangement gives significant extra protection to the MSB”, “it is also desirable that
`
`if possible the most significant bits of the data are better protected than the least
`
`significant bits.”)). The magnitude of an error impacts system performance,
`
`meaning that an error in transmission of a more significant bit has a larger impact on
`
`system performance than an error in transmission of a lesser significant bit (e.g., a
`
`system misinterpreting “1005” as “1004” is of minimal significance, but the system
`
`confusing “2005” for “1005” is a large, serious error).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,391,2718
`57. The ’718 Patent is entitled “CQI Coding Method for HS-DPCCH,” and I have
`
`been informed by Counsel that this patent has a priority date of February 16, 2002.
`
`However, the opinions I offer below regarding the prior art, the combinations set
`
`forth below, or the applicability of those combinations to certain claims of the ’718
`
`Patent do not change in my mind whether the ’718 Patent is entitled to this priority
`
`date or a priority date of February 16, 2003 (the U.S. filing date). I have not been
`
`asked at this time to perform an analysis regarding the proper priority date of the
`
`’718 Patent.
`
`IPR2021-00908 Page 23 of 103 Honeywell Exh. 1002
`(Honeywell International, Inc.,

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket