IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Xiaodong Li et al.
`In re Patent of:
` Attorney Docket No.: 00035-0023IP1
`10,075,941
`U.S. Patent No.:
`September 11, 2018
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 15/082,878
`Filing Date:
`March 28, 2016
`Title:
`METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR MULTI-CARRIER
`COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS WITH ADAPTIVE
`TRANSMISSION AND FEEDBACK
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. DING
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`further, that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Digitally signed by Zhi Ding
`By: __________________________
`________________________________________________
`
`Date: 2021.08.24 12:29:31
`-07'00'
`
`Zhi Ding, Ph.D.
`
`(cid:36)(cid:88)(cid:74)(cid:88)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:20)
`Date: _________________________
`
`1
`
`DELL EX. 1003
`
`

`

`V.(cid:3)
`
`Contents
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................... 1(cid:3)
`I.(cid:3)
`OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED ............................................... 8(cid:3)
`II.(cid:3)
`III.(cid:3) LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 9(cid:3)
`IV.(cid:3) LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 10(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Terminology ............................................................................................ 10(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Legal Standards ....................................................................................... 11(cid:3)
`1. Anticipation......................................................................................... 11(cid:3)
`2. Obviousness ........................................................................................ 12(cid:3)
`THE ’941 PATENT ....................................................................................... 16(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Overview of the ’941 Patent ................................................................... 16(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Prosecution History of the ’941 Patent ................................................... 18(cid:3)
`VI.(cid:3) OVERVIEW AND COMBINATIONS OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES .. 20(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Walton ’269 ............................................................................................ 20(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Li….. ....................................................................................................... 23(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Combination of Walton ’269 and Li (“WLC”) ...................................... 29(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Gupta ....................................................................................................... 31(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Combination of Walton ’269, Li, and Gupta (“WLGC”) ....................... 32(cid:3)
`(cid:3) PCT819 ................................................................................................... 34(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Airy… ..................................................................................................... 37(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Combination of PCT819 and Airy (“WAC”) ......................................... 40(cid:3)
`VII.(cid:3) MANNER IN WHICH THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES RENDER THE
`’941 CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE ............................................................... 42(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Claim 1 .................................................................................................... 42(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Claim 2 .................................................................................................... 77(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Claim 3 .................................................................................................... 80(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Claim 4 .................................................................................................... 84(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Claim 5 .................................................................................................... 85(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Claim 6 .................................................................................................... 87(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Claim 7 .................................................................................................... 91(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Claim 8 .................................................................................................... 94(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Claim 9 .................................................................................................... 95(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Claim 10 .................................................................................................. 95(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Claim 11 .................................................................................................. 95(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Claim 12 .................................................................................................. 96(cid:3)
`(cid:3) Claim 13 .................................................................................................. 97(cid:3)
`
`i
`
`2
`
`

`

`(cid:3) Claim 14 ................................................................................................101(cid:3)
`VIII.(cid:3) CONCLUSION ............................................................................................104(cid:3)
`
`
`ii
`
`3
`
`

`

`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
`1. My education and experience are described more fully in the attached
`
`curriculum vitae (APPENDIX A). For ease of reference, I have highlighted certain
`
`information below.
`
`2.
`
`I presently hold the title of Distinguished Professor in the Department of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of California, Davis. Since
`
`my appointment on July 1, 2020, I have held the position of professor for over 20
`
`years. I have served full time as a faculty member at three major research
`
`universities in the United States over the past 30 years, including Auburn
`
`University from 1990 to 1998, University of Iowa from 1999 to 2000, and
`
`University of California, Davis, from 2000 to present. I have more than three
`
`decades of research experience on a wide range of topics related to data
`
`communications, networking, and signal processing. I also serve as a private
`
`technical consultant on various technologies related to information systems.
`
`3.
`
`I earned my Bachelor of Engineering degree in 1982 in wireless engineering
`
`from the Nanjing Institute of Technology (later renamed as Southeast University)
`
`in Nanjing, China. I earned my Master of Applied Science degree in 1987 in
`
`electrical engineering from the University of Toronto in Toronto, Canada. I earned
`
`my Ph.D. in 1990 in electrical engineering from Cornell University in Ithaca, New
`
`York.
`
`1
`
`4
`
`

`

`4. My responsibilities as a Professor at University of California, Davis, include
`
`classroom instruction on various topics of communication systems and signal
`
`analysis, as well as mentoring undergraduate students and supervising graduate
`
`students in their research and development efforts on various topics related to
`
`digital communications. I have directly supervised such research and development
`
`works ranging from signal detection to wireless networking. As the chief academic
`
`advisor, I have also directly supervised the completion of over 30 Masters degrees
`
`and 30 Ph.D. dissertations on various topics related to digital communications.
`
`5.
`
`Since 1990, I have been selected as the principal investigator of multiple
`
`highly competitive federal and local research grants, including more than two
`
`dozen major research projects supported by the National Science Foundation and
`
`other US government agencies. These competitive research projects focused on
`
`developing more efficient and effective digital communication transceivers,
`
`networks, and signal processing tools. I have also participated in several large-
`
`scale projects supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
`
`(DARPA) with teams of researchers. I have applied for, and received support from,
`
`other federal, state, and industry sponsors.
`
`6.
`
`I have published over 220 peer-reviewed research articles in premier
`
`international journals, in addition to over 240 refereed technical articles at top
`
`international conferences on communications and information technologies.
`
`2
`
`5
`
`

`

`According to Google Scholar, my published works have been cited by over 14,000
`
`times by peers in the technical field of communication systems and signal
`
`processing. I also authored two books on communications technologies. My most
`
`recent book, coauthored with B.P. Lathi, is entitled, "Modern Digital and Analog
`
`Communication Systems," 5th edition, and was published by the Oxford
`
`University Press in 2018. The 4th edition of this book (published in 2009) had
`
`been widely adopted as a foundational textbook to communication systems.
`
`7.
`
`In addition to the over 460 published technical papers that have been cited
`
`over 14,000 times according to Google Scholar, I am also co-inventor of 4 issued
`
`U.S. patents on communication technologies.
`
`8.
`
`I am a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE) and was elevated to the grade of Fellow in January 2003 for contributions
`
`made in signal processing for communication. The IEEE is the world's largest
`
`professional society of engineers, with over 400,000 members in more than 160
`
`countries. The IEEE has led the development of many standards for modern
`
`digital communications and networking, most notably, the IEEE 802 series of
`
`network standards. The IEEE Grade of Fellow is conferred by the Boards of
`
`Directors upon a person with an extraordinary record of accomplishments in any of
`
`the IEEE fields of interest. The total number selected in any one year does not
`
`exceed one-tenth of one percent of the total voting Institute membership.
`
`3
`
`6
`
`

`

`9.
`
`I have served the IEEE in the following capacities:
`
`10. Chief Information Officer of the IEEE Communications Society from Jan.
`
`2018 to present.
`
`11. Chief Marketing Officer of the IEEE Communications Society from Jan.
`
`2020 to present.
`
`12. General Chair of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics,
`
`Speech, and Signal Processing, the flagship conference of the IEEE Signal
`
`Processing Society.
`
`13. Chair of the Steering Committee for the IEEE Transactions on Wireless
`
`Communications from 2008 to 2010.
`
`14. Distinguished Lecturer of the IEEE Communications Society from January
`
`2008 to December 2009.
`
`15. Technical Program Chair of the 2006 IEEE Globecom, one of two flagship
`
`annual IEEE Communication Society conferences.
`
`16. Distinguished Lecturer of the IEEE Circuits and Systems Society from 2004
`
`to 2005.
`
`17. Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing from 1994
`
`to 1997 and from 2001 to 2004.
`
`18. Member of the IEEE Statistical Signal and Array Processing for
`
`Communications Technical Committee from 1993 to 1998.
`
`4
`
`7
`
`

`

`19. Member of the IEEE Signal Processing for Communications Technical
`
`Committee from 1998 to 2004.
`
`20.
`
`In 2012, I received the Wireless Communications Technical Committee
`
`Recognition Award from the IEEE Communications Society, an award given to a
`
`person with a high degree of visibility and contribution in the field of "Wireless
`
`and Mobile Communications Theory, Systems, and Networks." I received the
`
`2020 Education Award from the IEEE Communications Society. According to the
`
`Society, this award "recognizes distinguished and significant contributions to
`
`education within the Society's technical scope."
`
`21.
`
`I have also served as a technical consultant for the telecommunication
`
`industry. For example, in 1995 I consulted for Analog Devices, Inc., on the
`
`development of the first generation DOCSIS cable modem systems. I have also
`
`consulted for other companies, including Nortel Networks and NEC US
`
`Laboratories. I worked as a visiting faculty research fellow at NASA Glenn
`
`Research Center in 1992 and at U.S. Air Force Wright Laboratory in 1993. I have
`
`served on multiple review panels of the National Science Foundation to evaluate
`
`competitive research proposals in the field of communication. I have also
`
`reviewed a large number of research proposals at the request of the National
`
`Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada as an expert
`
`5
`
`8
`
`

`

`panelist from 2010 to 2013, and also at the request of the Research Grant Council
`
`(RGC) of Hong Kong as an external reviewer.
`
`22.
`
`I have served as an expert witness or consulting expert on a number of
`
`matters related to intellectual property, mostly in the arena of telecommunications,
`
`including cellular communications, Wi-Fi technologies, Bluetooth, and optical
`
`communications. For example, since 2007, I have been engaged to work on
`
`various litigations involving cellular, WiFi, Bluetooth, and optical communication
`
`networks.
`
`23. Further experience and a complete list of my publications are presented in
`
`my curriculum vitae, which is attached as Appendix D.
`
`24. Based on my above-described near three decades of experience in
`
`communications technologies, and the acceptance of my publications and
`
`professional recognition by societies in my field, I believe that I am qualified to be
`
`an expert in wireless communication systems, communication networks, and signal
`
`processing.
`
`25.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Petitioner to offer technical opinions
`
`relating to U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941 (“the ’941 Patent”) and prior art references
`
`relating to its subject matter. I have reviewed the ’941 Patent, and relevant
`
`excerpts of the prosecution history of the ’941 Patent. Among various textbooks,
`
`6
`
`9
`
`

`

`documents, and publications, I have also reviewed the following prior art
`
`references:
`
`Prior Art Reference
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,473,269 (“Walton ’269” or “EX-1006”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,947,748 (“Li” or “EX-1007”)
`
`U.S. Patent Apl. Pub No. 2004/0165683 (“Gupta” or “EX-1008”)
`
`PCT Patent Apl. Pub No. WO 02/093819 (“PCT819” or “EX-1009”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,400,699 (“Airy” or “EX-1010”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,110,783 (“Bahl” or “EX-1011”)
`
`U.S. Patent Apl. Pub No. 2002/0032030 (“Berglund” or “EX-1012”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,209,459 (“Kangas” or “EX-1013”)
`
`
`
`26. Counsel (Fish & Richardson) has informed me that I should consider these
`
`materials through the lens of one of ordinary skill in the art related to the ’941
`
`Patent at the time of the earliest possible priority date of the ’941 Patent, and I have
`
`done so during my review of these materials. The ’941 Patent claims priority to
`
`US Provisional Application Serial No. 60/544,521, filed on February 13, 2004. I
`
`have been informed by Counsel to use February 13, 2004 as the “Priority Date” in
`
`my analysis below.
`
`7
`
`10
`
`

`

`27.
`
`I have no financial interest in the outcome of this proceeding. I am being
`
`compensated for my time spent as an expert on an hourly basis. My compensation
`
`is not dependent on the outcome of these proceedings or the content of my
`
`opinions.
`
`28.
`
`In writing this declaration, I have considered the following: my own
`
`knowledge and experience, including my work experience in the fields of electrical
`
`engineering and wireless communication networks; my experience in teaching
`
`related subjects; and my experience in working with others involved in those
`
`fields. In addition, I have analyzed various publications and materials, in addition
`
`to other materials I cite in my declaration.
`
`29. My opinions, as explained below, are based on my education, experience,
`
`and expertise in the fields relating to the ’941 Patent. Unless otherwise stated, my
`
`testimony below refers to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as of the
`
`earliest possible priority date. Any figures that appear within this document have
`
`been prepared with the assistance of Counsel and reflect my understanding of the
`
`’941 Patent and the prior art discussed below.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED
`30. This declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed based on my
`
`analysis. To summarize those conclusions, based upon my knowledge and
`
`experience and my review of the prior art references listed above, I believe that:
`
`8
`
`11
`
`

`

`(cid:120) Claims 1-14 are obvious over Walton ’269 in view of Li.
`
`(cid:120) Claims 2 and 9 are obvious over Walton ’269 in view of Li and Gupta.
`
`(cid:120) Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-14 are obvious over PCT819 in view of Airy.
`
`31.
`
`In support of these conclusions, I provide an overview of the references in
`
`Section VI and more detailed comments regarding the obviousness of claims 1-14
`
`(“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’941 Patent in Section VII.
`
`
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`32. One of ordinary skill in the art relating to, and at the time of, the Priority
`
`Date would have been someone with at least a Bachelor’s degree in an academic
`
`area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline,
`
`plus at least two years of experience in the field working with, teaching, or
`
`researching wireless communication networks. More advanced degrees and
`
`additional education could compensate for shorter work experience, and vice-
`
`versa.
`
`33. Based on my experiences, I have a good understanding of the capabilities of
`
`a person of ordinary skills in the art (POSITA). Indeed, I have taught, mentored,
`
`participated in organizations, and worked closely with many such persons over the
`
`course of my career. Based on my knowledge, skill, and experience, I have an
`
`understanding of the capabilities of a POSITA. For example, from my industry
`
`9
`
`12
`
`

`

`consulting or conference interactions, I am familiar with what a POSITA would
`
`have known and found predictable in the art. From teaching and supervising my
`
`post-graduate students, I also have an understanding of the knowledge that a
`
`person with this academic experience possesses. Furthermore, I possess those
`
`capabilities myself.
`
`
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
` Terminology
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that the best indicator of
`
`34.
`
`claim meaning is its usage in the context of the patent specification as understood
`
`by one of ordinary skill. I further understand that the words of the claims should
`
`be given their plain meaning unless that meaning is inconsistent with the patent
`
`specification or the patent’s history of examination before the Patent Office.
`
`Counsel has also informed me, and I understand that, the words of the claims
`
`should be interpreted as they would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill
`
`at the time of the invention was made (not today). I have been informed by
`
`Counsel that I should use February 13, 2004 as the point in time for claim
`
`interpretation purposes with respect to this declaration.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`Legal Standards
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that documents and
`
`35.
`
`materials that qualify as prior art can render a patent claim unpatentable as being
`
`anticipated or obvious.
`
`36.
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that all prior art references are to
`
`be looked at from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention, and that this viewpoint prevents one from using his or her own
`
`insight or hindsight in deciding whether a claim is anticipated or rendered obvious.
`
`1. Anticipation
`
`37.
`
`I understand that patents or printed publications that qualify as prior art can
`
`be used to invalidate a patent claim as anticipated or as obvious.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that, once the claims of a patent have been properly construed,
`
`the second step in determining anticipation of a patent claim requires a comparison
`
`of the properly construed claim language to the prior art on a limitation-by-
`
`limitation basis.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted claim, and
`
`thus renders the claim invalid, if all limitations of the claim are disclosed in that
`
`prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently (i.e., necessarily present).
`
`11
`
`14
`
`

`

`2. Obviousness
`
`40.
`
`I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a POSITA.
`
`41.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a claim is unpatentable
`
`for obviousness and that obviousness may be based upon a combination of prior art
`
`references. I am informed by Counsel and understand that the combination of
`
`familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
`
`no more than yield predictable results. However, I am informed by Counsel and
`
`understand that a patent claim composed of several elements is not proved obvious
`
`merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in
`
`the prior art.
`
`42.
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that when a patented invention is
`
`a combination of known elements, a court determines whether there was an
`
`apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the
`
`patent at issue by considering the teachings of prior art references, the effects of
`
`demands known to people working in the field or present in the marketplace, and
`
`the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`12
`
`15
`
`

`

`43.
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that a patent claim composed of
`
`several limitations is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its
`
`limitations was independently known in the prior art. I am informed by Counsel
`
`and understand that identifying a reason those elements would be combined can be
`
`important because inventions in many instances rely upon building blocks long
`
`since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations
`
`of what, in some sense, is already known. I am informed by Counsel and
`
`understand that it is improper to use hindsight in an obviousness analysis, and that
`
`a patent’s claims should not be used as a “roadmap.”
`
`44.
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that an obviousness inquiry
`
`requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, and (4) any so called “secondary considerations” of non-
`
`obviousness, which include: (i) “long felt need” for the claimed invention, (ii)
`
`commercial success attributable to the claimed invention, (iii) unexpected results
`
`of the claimed invention, and (iv) “copying” of the claimed invention by others.
`
`45.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that an obviousness
`
`evaluation can be based on a single reference or a combination of multiple prior art
`
`references. I understand that the prior art references themselves may provide a
`
`suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine, but that the nexus linking two or
`
`13
`
`16
`
`

`

`more prior art references is sometimes simple common sense. I have been
`
`informed by Counsel and understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace.
`
`46.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that if a technique has been
`
`used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill at the time of invention
`
`would have recognized that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
`
`using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her
`
`skill.
`
`47.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that practical and common
`
`sense considerations should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar
`
`items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I have been
`
`informed by Counsel and understand that a person of ordinary skill looking to
`
`overcome a problem will often be able to fit together the teachings of multiple
`
`prior art references. I have been informed by Counsel and understand that
`
`obviousness analysis therefore takes into account the inferences and creative steps
`
`that a person of ordinary skill would have employed at the time of invention.
`
`48.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a proper obviousness
`
`analysis focuses on what was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the
`
`14
`
`17
`
`

`

`time of invention, not just the patentee. Accordingly, I understand that any need or
`
`problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by
`
`the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`49.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and 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 common sense of one of skill in the art.
`
`50.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that there must be a
`
`relationship between any such secondary considerations and the invention, and that
`
`contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary consideration
`
`supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`51.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly combined
`
`where one of ordinary skill having the understanding and knowledge reflected in
`
`the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing the inventor, would have
`
`been led to make the combination of elements recited in the claims. Under this
`
`analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or problem known in the
`
`field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a reason for combining
`
`the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed manner.
`
`52.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that in an inter partes
`
`review (IPR), “the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of
`
`15
`
`18
`
`

`

`unpatentability,” including a proposition of obviousness, “by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`
`
`V. THE ’941 PATENT
` Overview of the ’941 Patent
`53. The ’941 Patent is directed to “[m]ethods and apparatus for adaptive
`
`transmission of wireless communication signals … where MCS (modulation and
`
`coding scheme), coding rates, training pilot patterns, TPC (transmission power
`
`control) levels, and subchannel configurations are jointly adjusted to adapt to the
`
`channel conditions.” EX-1001, 2:33-41, Abstract.
`
`54. The ’941 Patent’s FIG. 4 (reproduced below) illustrates an AMCTP
`
`(adaptive modulation, coding, training and power control) process. EX-1001, 4:5-
`
`24. FIG. 4 shows Device A communicating with Device B and is described as
`
`follows.
`
`The transmitter 401 of Device A transmits data 402 and associated
`control information 404 to Device B, based on an output of the
`adaptation process 406. After a receiver 408 of Device B receives the
`transmitted data 402 and control information 404, a measurement
`process 410 of Device B measures a channel conditions [sic] and feeds
`a channel quality information (CQI) 412 back to Device A.
`
`55. EX-1001, 4:13-24. The control information 404 is transmitted in a control
`
`message that can include an AMCTP indicator indicative of the type of AMCTP
`
`16
`
`19
`
`

`

`scheme to be implemented for data transmission 402. EX-1001, 7:25-38, 4:39-45,
`
`FIG. 6.
`
`EX-1001, FIG. 41
`
`
`
`56. The adaptation process 406 includes several different features such as
`
`“coding 502, modulation 504, training pilot pattern 506, and transmission power
`
`for a subchannel 508” as shown in FIG. 5 (reproduced below). EX-1001, 4:32-38.
`
`In general, “[t]he adaptation process adjusts the allocated modulation schemes,
`
`
`
`1 Annotations made by me to the figures are shown in color throughout my
`
`declaration.
`
`17
`
`20
`
`

`

`coding rates, pilot patterns, power levels, spatial processing schemes, subchannel
`
`configurations, etc. in accordance with the transmission channel state and
`
`condition.” EX-1001, 3:66-4:4.
`
`EX-1001, FIG. 5
`
`
`
`
`Prosecution History of the ’941 Patent
`57. The ’941 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 15/082,878 (“the
`
`’878 application”), which was filed on March 28, 2016. EX-1001, cover. The
`
`’941 Patent issued after one Office Action. See generally EX-1002. In a response
`
`to the Office Action, applicant/Patent Owner responded to a § 112, ¶ 2 rejection for
`
`recitation of the term “channel condition” in the claims by explaining that channel
`
`18
`
`21
`
`

`

`conditions are “‘referred to as one or more of the following, for a user or a
`
`subchannel signal level, noise level, interference level, SINR[], fading channel
`
`characteristics (Doppler frequency, delay spread, etc.), or channel profile in time or
`
`frequency domain.’ In other words, channel conditions refer to any of various
`
`characteristics about a telecommunications channel that can be measured or
`
`estimated.” EX-1002, 47-48. The term “channel condition” is recited in claims 4,
`
`5, 10, and 11. In this declaration, prior art references have been mapped to claims
`
`4, 5, 10, and 11 in a manner consistent with Patent Owner’s description of
`
`“channel condition.” See infra Sections VII.D, VII.E. VII.J, VII.K.
`
`58. The claims were allowed after the independent claims were amended to
`
`include limitations that the mobile-specific transmission parameters “indicate an
`
`antenna transmission scheme and a corresponding subchannel configuration, the
`
`antenna transmission scheme comprising a transmission diversity scheme or a
`
`multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) scheme and the corresponding subchannel
`
`configuration characterized by distributed subcarriers or localized subcarriers in
`
`the frequency domain.” MS-1002, 42-46. As I explain below in Sections VI and
`
`VII, these features were known and rendered obvious by prior art references.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`22
`
`

`

`VI. OVERVIEW AND COMBINATIONS OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES
` Walton ’2692
`59. Walton ’269 explains that in wireless communication systems, “a radio
`
`frequency (RF) modulated signal from a transmitter unit may reach a receiver unit
`
`via a number of propagation paths. The characteristics of the propagation paths
`
`typically vary over time due to a number of factors, such as fading and multipath.
`
`To provide diversity against deleterious path effects and improve performance,
`
`multiple transmit and receive antennas may be used.” EX-1006, 1:35-60.
`
`60. One example of a wireless communication system disclosed by Walton ’269
`
`is a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) Multiple-Input, Multiple-Output
`
`Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (MIMO-OFDM) communication
`
`systems that includes an access point/base station and user terminals, the base
`
`station is configured to support multiple user terminals and can allocate downlink
`
`and uplink resources based on factors such as user terminal requirements and
`
`channel conditions. EX-1006, 1:61-2:7, 1:25-35, 2:64-65; 3:24-58.
`
`
`
`2 The general descriptions I provided for the references and combinations
`
`discussed in Section VI are incorporated into each subsection addressing/applying
`
`those references, as are the discussions of combinations.
`
`20
`
`23
`
`

`

`61. For the downlink and uplink resources, a configurable channel structure can
`
`be used to signal system parameters and allocate resources (e.g., channel
`
`assignments) for the downlink and uplink. EX-1006, 2:8-36. Walton ’269’s
`
`method is directed to providing “more efficient control channel structure that is
`
`able to accommodate different users that may operate at different data rates”
`
`relative to earlier resource allocation methods, which tend to be inefficient by
`
`limiting the data rate for a forward control channel (FCCH) to the worst case user
`
`in the system even though other users could have operate at higher data rates. EX-
`
`1006, 2:8-41.
`
`62. Walton ’269’s FIG. 1 illustrates a MIMO-WLAN system with access
`
`points/base stations 110a, 110b in communication with user terminals (UTs) 120a-
`
`120k (“also referred