`
`
`
`I, Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., of Pleasanton, California, declare that:
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert by counsel on behalf of OnePlus
`
`Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (“OnePlus” or “Petitioner”). I understand that
`
`OnePlus is requesting that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or
`
`“Board”) institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,416,862 (the “’862 patent”) (EX1001).
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert by counsel on behalf of OnePlus to
`
`offer an independent analysis of the ’862 patent in light of the prior art submitted
`
`as part of this IPR, No. IPR2022-00048 (the “OnePlus Petition”). I have also been
`
`retained as a technical expert by counsel on behalf of Apple Inc. (“Apple”) to offer
`
`an independent analysis of the ’862 patent in light of the prior art submitted as part
`
`of IPR2021-01590 (the “Apple Petition”). A true and accurate copy of my
`
`declaration submitted in support of the Apple Petition is included below. I adopt
`
`the opinions and statements presented therein in support of the OnePlus Petition.
`
`I am not, and never have been, an employee of OnePlus. I received no
`
`compensation for this declaration beyond my normal hourly compensation based
`
`on my time actually spent analyzing the ’862 patent, the prior art publications
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0001
`IPR2022-00048
`
`
`
`cited, and the issues related thereto, and I will not receive any added compensation
`
`based on the outcome of any IPR or other proceeding involving the ’862 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 19, 2021
`
`
`
`Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0002
`IPR2022-00048
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Aldana et al.
`In re Patent of:
`8,416,862
`U.S. Pat. No.:
`April 9, 2013
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 11/237,341
`Filing Date:
`September 28, 2005
`Title:
`EFFICIENT FEEDBACK OF CHANNEL INFORMATION IN
`A CLOSED LOOP BEAMFORMING WIRELESS
`COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 50095-0050IP1
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN WELLS, Ph.D.
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0003
`IPR2022-00048
`
`1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`ASSIGNMENT .................................................................................................. 4
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS .......................................................................................... 4
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ....................................................................................... 9
`
`A. Anticipation ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`B. Obviousness ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`C. Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 11
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 14
`
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 15
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE ’862 PATENT ...................................................... 18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Subject Matter Overview ................................................................................. 18
`
`File History of the ’862 Patent ......................................................................... 28
`
`Priority Date of the ’862 Patent ....................................................................... 31
`
`D. Background Knowledge of Matrices and their Singular Value Decomposition
`(SVD) ............................................................................................................... 32
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED AND PRIOR ART
`REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 34
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF LI ’748 IN VIEW OF TONG AND MAO ........................... 35
`
`IX. ANALYSIS OF TONG IN VIEW OF MAO .................................................. 78
`
`X. ANALYSIS OF LI ’054 IN VIEW OF MAO ............................................... 103
`
`XI. ANALYSIS OF LI ’054 IN VIEW OF MAO AND YANG ......................... 135
`
`XII. ANALYSIS OF POON IN VIEW OF MAO ................................................ 141
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0004
`IPR2022-00048
`
`2
`
`
`
`XIII. SUPPORT FOR TONG IN EARLIER-FILED PROVISIONAL
`APPLICATION ............................................................................................. 166
`
`XIV. CONTINUED ANALYSIS OF LI '748 IN VIEW OF TONG AND MAO . 169
`
`XV. CONTINUED ANALYSIS OF TONG AND MAO ..................................... 170
`
`XVI. CONTINUED ANALYSIS OF LI ’054 AND MAO .................................... 171
`
`XVII. CONTINUED ANALYSIS OF POON AND MAO ................................ 172
`
`XVIII. ADDITIONAL REMARKS ..................................................................... 174
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0005
`IPR2022-00048
`
`3
`
`
`
`I, Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., of Pleasanton, California, declare that:
`
`I.
`
`ASSIGNMENT
`I have been retained as a technical expert by counsel on behalf of
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”). I understand that Apple is requesting that the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) institute an inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) proceeding of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862 (“the ’862 patent”)
`
`(EX1001).
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent analysis of the ’862
`
`patent in light of the prior art publications cited below.
`
`I am not, and never have been, an employee of Apple. I received no
`
`compensation for this declaration beyond my normal hourly compensation based
`
`on my time actually spent analyzing the ’862 patent, the prior art publications cited
`
`below, and the issues related thereto, and I will not receive any added
`
`compensation based on the outcome of any IPR or other proceeding involving
`
`the ’862 patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`I received a B.Sc. in Physics with Physical Electronics, awarded with
`
`first class honors, from the University of Bath in Bath, United Kingdom, in 1987.
`
`In 1991, I earned by Ph.D., also from the University of Bath. I earned my M.B.A.,
`
`awarded with distinction, from Massey University in New Zealand, in 1998.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0006
`IPR2022-00048
`
`4
`
`
`
`I have over 30 years of wireless communications experience in areas
`
`including cellular technologies, wireless devices, network infrastructure, and
`
`wireless rules and regulations. I have written a textbook and multiple industry
`
`reports and journal/conference papers which focus on wireless communications
`
`systems. For example, I am the author of “Multi-Gigabit Microwave and
`
`Millimeter-Wave Wireless Communications,” published by Artech House in 2010.
`
`I have also authored four comprehensive industry reports on cellular connectivity
`
`for Mobile Experts. I have lectured as part of undergraduate programs at
`
`University of California, Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon University, and University of
`
`Bath, and have given over two dozen lectures and conference presentations on
`
`topics germane to wireless communications. I am also a listed inventor of several
`
`patents, and am an author of over 40 academic and commercial publications and
`
`presentations. I have been a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
`
`Engineers (IEEE) since 1995 and was elected as a Senior Member in 1999. This
`
`year I was recognized by the IEEE Santa Clara Valley Section, one of the largest
`
`IEEE Sections in the world, as their 2019 “Outstanding Engineer.” This was
`
`awarded “For his acknowledged expertise in the field of wireless communications
`
`and wireless technology, for his willingness to mentor others in the field, and for
`
`his work in the development of the next generation of creative and innovative
`
`technical products.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0007
`IPR2022-00048
`
`5
`
`
`
`I began my career in 1985, as an Engineer for Plessey Research,
`
`Caswell, United Kingdom, developing high-speed fiber optic transmitter/receiver
`
`devices. In 1987, I worked at British Aerospace, Filton, Bristol, United Kingdom,
`
`designing and fabricating novel mixer devices, to support my Ph.D. research.
`
`From 1990 to 1992, I worked at the University of Bath as a Post-Doctoral
`
`Research Officer. During this time, I designed and fabricated novel quantum
`
`amplifiers in a clean room environment and developed computer models to
`
`predict semiconductor device performance.
`
`In 1993, I joined Matra Marconi Space, Portsmouth, United Kingdom,
`
`as a Senior Design Engineer and developed a GaAs MMIC mixer and MIC
`
`transmitter board for two satellite payloads and performed theoretical analysis and
`
`modeling of low noise VCOs.
`
`From 1994 to 1998, I worked for MAS Technology (now Aviat
`
`Networks), Wellington, New Zealand, first as Senior RF Design Engineer and later
`
`as RF Group Manager. I was responsible for RF hardware development for
`
`cellular and telecommunications applications; developed three generations of
`
`wireless transmission, switching, and multiplexing products; designed and
`
`sustained responsibility for satellite ground station terminals; and was responsible
`
`for company’s European regulatory approvals.
`
`In 1998, I joined Adaptive Broadband (now GE Digital Energy),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0008
`IPR2022-00048
`
`6
`
`
`
`Rochester, New York, first as Engineering Group Leader and later as Director
`
`Wideband Products. I was responsible for the Terrestrial Infrastructure Group,
`
`providing telecommunications products for cellular and private network
`
`applications; managed P&L responsibility for $4M wireless division; and was
`
`responsible for the development of a family of digital radios and associated
`
`switching/multiplexing equipment.
`
`From 2000 to 2004, I worked for Stratex Networks (now Aviat
`
`Networks), San Jose, California, as Director Product Development. I was
`
`responsible for global product development of high-end digital microwave radios
`
`primarily for cellular backhaul applications; led RF/microwave development team
`
`of 35 engineers based in two continents; performed technical leadership of flagship
`
`Eclipse product, shipping over 250,000 units; and was responsible for technical
`
`management of overseas manufacturing subcontractors.
`
`In 2005, I joined GigaBeam Corporation, Herndon, Virginia, as
`
`Director Product Management and Global Regulatory Affairs. I was responsible
`
`for product strategy for industry-transforming high data rate wireless product;
`
`initiated market development in over 40 countries including in Europe, Canada,
`
`Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia; and participated and drove
`
`standard development in FCC, CEPT, and ETSI technical meetings.
`
`Since 2007, I have been an independent consultant with AJIS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0009
`IPR2022-00048
`
`7
`
`
`
`Consulting, where I provide independent technical consulting on wireless
`
`communications and emerging wireless fields. The services I provide include:
`
`acting as a technical expert support of 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular and wireless
`
`patent litigation; providing analysis of cellular and mobile wireless patents and
`
`infringing equipment; providing cellular and wireless technology technical and
`
`industry analysis for companies, analysts, and investment institutions, and
`
`researching and publication of analyst reports; providing wireless product
`
`development and marketing strategies; providing specialized technical workshops
`
`on various wireless technologies, including cellular networks, mm-wave radios,
`
`security sensors, and short range radios; and providing specialized global
`
`regulatory tasks and product approvals.
`
`My curriculum vitae, attached to this declaration as Appendix A, sets
`
`forth details of my background and relevant experience. My CV includes a listing
`
`of cases for which I have provided expert testimony over the last four years and a
`
`complete list of publications I have authored.
`
`Based on my experience and education, I believe that I am qualified to
`
`opine as to the knowledge and level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention of the ’862 patent (which I further describe below)
`
`and what such a person would have understood at that time, and the state of the art
`
`during that time. Based on my experiences, I understand and know of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0010
`IPR2022-00048
`
`8
`
`
`
`capabilities of persons of ordinary skill in this field during the early-to-mid 2000s
`
`and specifically during the time before the time of the alleged invention of the ’862
`
`patent. Indeed, I taught, participated in organizations, and worked closely with
`
`many such persons in the field during that time frame.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`In forming my analysis and conclusions expressed in this declaration,
`
`I have applied the legal principles described in the following paragraphs, which
`
`were provided to me by counsel for the Petitioner.
`
`A. Anticipation
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated if
`
`each and every element of a claim, as properly construed, is found either explicitly
`
`or inherently in a single prior art reference. Under the principles of inherency, if
`
`the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes the claimed
`
`limitations, it anticipates.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid if the claimed invention
`
`was known or used by others in the U.S., or was patented or published anywhere,
`
`before the Applicant’s invention. I further have been informed that a claim is
`
`invalid if the invention was patented or published anywhere, or was in public use,
`
`on sale, or offered for sale in this country, more than one year prior to the filing
`
`date of the patent application (critical date). Further, I have been informed that a
`
`claim is invalid if an invention described by that claim was described in a U.S.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0011
`IPR2022-00048
`
`9
`
`
`
`patent granted on an application for a patent (or in a published application for a
`
`U.S. patent) that was filed by another in the U.S. before the date of invention for
`
`such a claim.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as “obvious” in
`
`light of one or more prior art references if it would have been obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (“POSITA”), taking
`
`into account (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.
`
`While I do not know the exact date that the alleged invention claimed
`
`in the ’862 patent was made, I do know that the ’862 patent claims priority to a
`
`number of other patent applications. In particular, the ’862 patent is a
`
`continuation-in-part of U.S. App. Serial No. 11/168,793 (“’793 application”,
`
`EX1014), and claims priority to U.S. Provisional App. Serial No. 60/673,451
`
`(“’451 provisional”, EX1010), filed April 21, 2005, and U.S. Provisional App.
`
`Serial No. 60/698,686 (“’686 provisional”, EX1011), filed July 13, 2005. Based
`
`on my analysis of the applications to which the ’862 patent claim priority
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0012
`IPR2022-00048
`
`10
`
`
`
`(explained below in Section VI.C), for purposes of my analysis here, I have
`
`applied a date of July 13, 2005, as the date of the alleged invention in my
`
`obviousness analysis, although in many cases the same analysis would hold true
`
`even if the date of the alleged invention occurred earlier than July 13, 2005
`
`(especially given the earlier publication or filing dates of the prior art in Exhibits
`
`1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, and 1009, as described below). See ¶24 (below).
`
`I have been informed that a claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`prior art reference or multiple prior art references. To be obvious in light of a
`
`single prior art reference or multiple prior art references, there must be a reason
`
`that would have prompted a POSITA to modify the single prior art reference, or
`
`combine two or more references, in a manner that provides the elements of the
`
`claimed invention. This reason may come from a teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine, or may come from the reference(s) themselves, the
`
`knowledge or “common sense” of a POSITA, or from the nature of the problem to
`
`be solved, and this reason may be explicit or implicit from the prior art as a whole.
`
`I have been informed that, under the law, the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
`
`yield predictable results. I also understand it is improper to rely on hindsight in
`
`making the obviousness determination.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`I understand that, for purposes of my analysis in this inter partes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0013
`IPR2022-00048
`
`11
`
`
`
`review proceeding, the terms appearing in the patent claims should be interpreted
`
`according to their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is often referred to as
`
`the Phillips standard. In determining the ordinary and customary meaning, I
`
`understand that the words of a claim are first given their plain meaning that those
`
`words would have had to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention. I also understand that the structure of the claims, the
`
`specification and file history also may be used to better construe a claim insofar as
`
`the plain meaning of the claims cannot be understood. Moreover, I understand that
`
`even treatises and dictionaries may be used, albeit under limited circumstances, to
`
`determine the meaning attributed by a person of ordinary skill in the art to a claim
`
`term at the time of filing. I have followed this approach in my analysis, and for all
`
`of the claim terms considered in this declaration, I have applied the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of those terms. To this end, I was informed that, in the
`
`concurrent litigation in which the same claim construction standard is applied, the
`
`district court has already indicated that no formal constructions for the ’862 patent
`
`claims were required under the Phillips standard because the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the claim language was recognizable without adoption of any formal
`
`construction. EX1020, 104:23-107:3-9 and 111:4-114:22. In particular, I was
`
`informed that the district court previously explained to the parties that the phrase
`
`“baseband processing module operable to…” is not a means-plus-function element
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0014
`IPR2022-00048
`
`12
`
`
`
`under §112, ¶6 because the district court agreed with Patent Owner that “a
`
`baseband processing module” was a known and recognizable structure. EX1020,
`
`111:4-114:22; 116:18-118:5 (“THE COURT: … I don’t see this as a 112, 6 issue.
`
`This is a known processing baseband processing module.”). Additionally, I was
`
`informed that the district court indicated there was no need for a formal
`
`construction of the phrase “decompose the estimated transmitter beamforming
`
`unitary matrix (V) to produce the transmitter beamforming information” under the
`
`Phillips standard because the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language
`
`was recognizable without adoption of any formal construction. EX1020, 104:23-
`
`105:2, 106:20-25, 107:3-9 (“Assume the Court will not construe that claim any
`
`further, that that language of ‘transmitter beamforming information’ is what it is
`
`and that a person of skill in the art would understand that is the result of the
`
`decomposition of the estimated transmitter beamforming matrix”).
`
`I also understand that the words of the claims should be interpreted as
`
`they would have been interpreted by a POSITA at the time the alleged invention
`
`was made (not today). Because I do not know at what date the alleged invention
`
`was made, I have used the date of July 13, 2005, for reasons explained in ¶19
`
`(above) and ¶¶47-49 (below). However, the plain meanings/interpretations that I
`
`employed in my analysis below would have also been correct if the date of
`
`invention was anywhere within the early to mid 2000s.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0015
`IPR2022-00048
`
`13
`
`
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`Based on my knowledge and experience in the field and my review of
`
`the ’862 patent and its file history, I believe that would have had Bachelor’s degree
`
`in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or a related
`
`field, and at least 2-4 years of experience in the field of wireless communication,
`
`or a person with equivalent education, work, or experience in this field. Additional
`
`education could substitute for some of the experience, and substantial experience
`
`could substitute for some of the educational background. My analysis and
`
`conclusions as expressed herein are thus based on the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art having this level of knowledge and skill at the time of the
`
`alleged invention of the ’862 patent.
`
`Because I do not know at what date the alleged invention as claimed
`
`was made, I have used the filing date of the earliest application to which the ’862
`
`patent claims priority that supports each element of the challenged claims 1-4, 7-
`
`12, and 15-18 as the point in time from which my analysis from the perspective of
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art is based. Again, as I explain in Section VI.C, that
`
`date was July 13, 2005. However, my analysis of the prior art and the conclusion
`
`herein would also apply even if the date of the alleged invention as claimed was
`
`anywhere within the early to mid 2000s (e.g., refer to the earlier publication or
`
`filing dates of Exhibits 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0016
`IPR2022-00048
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`My analyses set forth in this declaration are based on my experience
`
`in the field of wireless communication devices and associated technologies. Based
`
`on my above-described experience in the field of wireless communication devices,
`
`I believe that I am considered to be an expert in the field. Also, based on my
`
`experiences, I understand and know of the capabilities of persons of ordinary skill
`
`in this field during the early to mid 2000s and specifically during the time before
`
`the alleged priority date (July 13, 2005) for the ’862 patent, and I taught,
`
`participated in organizations, and worked closely with many such persons in the
`
`field during that time frame.
`
`As part of my independent analysis for this declaration, I have
`
`considered the following: the background knowledge/technologies that were
`
`commonly known to persons of ordinary skill in this field during the time before
`
`the alleged priority date for the ’862 patent; my own knowledge and experiences
`
`gained from my work experience in the fields of electrical engineering and
`
`wireless communication devices generally; my experience in teaching and advising
`
`others in those subjects; and my experience in working with others involved in
`
`those fields. In addition, I have analyzed the following publications and materials:
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862 to Aldana et al. (“the ’862 patent”) (EX1001)
` Prosecution History of the ’862 patent (Serial No. 11/237,341) (EX1002)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0017
`IPR2022-00048
`
`15
`
`
`
` U.S. Pat. No. 7,236,748 to Li et al. (“Li ’748”) (EX1004)
` U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0108310 to Tong et al. (“Tong”) (EX1005)
` U.S. Pat. No. 7,312,750 to Mao et al. (“Mao”) (EX1006)
` U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0092054 to Li et al. (“Li ’054”) (EX1007)
` Yang et al., Reducing the Computations of the Singular Value
`Decomposition Array Given by Brent and Luk, SIAM J. MATRIX ANAL.
`APPL., Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 713-725, Oct. 1991 (“Yang”) (EX1008)
` U.S. Pat. No. 7,710,925 to Poon (“Poon”) (EX1009)
` U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/673,451 (“the ’451
`provisional”) (EX1010)
` U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/698,686 (“the ’686
`provisional”) (EX1011)
` U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/614,621 (“the ’621
`provisional”) (EX1012)
` U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/619,461 (“the ’461
`provisional”) (EX1013)
` U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/168,793 (“the ’793 application”)
`(EX1014)
` Plaintiff Bell Northern Research, LLC’s Patent Rule 3-1 and 3-2
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions Against the
`Huawei Defendants in Bell Northern Research, LLC, v. Huawei Device
`(Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Huawei
`Device USA, Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-1784) (S.D.Cal.) (EX1015)
` Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions in Bell Northern Research, LLC, v.
`Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co.,
`Ltd., and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-1784) (S.D.Cal.)
`(EX1016)
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0018
`IPR2022-00048
`
`16
`
`
`
` Defendants’ Joint Opening Claim Construction Brief in Bell Northern
`Research, LLC, v. Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device
`(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-
`1784) (S.D.Cal.) (EX1017)
` Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in Bell Northern Re-search,
`LLC, v. Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device
`(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-
`1784) (S.D.Cal.) (EX1018)
` Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Their
`Joint Motion for Summary Judgement on Indefiniteness in Bell Northern
`Research, LLC, v. Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device
`(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-
`1784) (S.D.Cal.) (EX1019)
` Transcript of Claim Construction Hearing, Day Two, Volume Two,
`Pages 1-122 in Bell Northern Research, LLC, v. Huawei Technologies
`CO., LTD., Huawei Device (Hong Kong) CO., LTD., and Huawei
`Device USA, Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-1784) (S.D.Cal.) (EX1020)
` Declaration of Jacob Munford (EX1021)
`Although this declaration refers to selected portions of the cited
`
`references for the sake of brevity, it should be understood that these are examples,
`
`and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the references cited
`
`herein in their entirety and in combination with other references cited herein or
`
`cited within the references themselves. The references used in this declaration,
`
`therefore, should be viewed as being incorporated herein in their entireties.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0019
`IPR2022-00048
`
`17
`
`
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE ’862 PATENT
`A.
`Subject Matter Overview
`The’862 patent is titled “Efficient Feedback of Channel Information
`
`in a Closed Loop Beamforming Wireless Communication System,” and it is
`
`generally directed to a “receiving wireless device” that performs a “method for
`
`feeding back transmitter beamforming information … to a transmitting wireless
`
`communication device.” EX1001 at Abstract. The ’862 patent states that “[i]n
`
`order for a transmitter to properly implement beamforming (i.e., determine the
`
`beamforming matrix [V]), it needs to know properties of the channel over which
`
`the wireless communication is conveyed,” so “the receiver must provide
`
`feedback information for the transmitter to determine the properties of the
`
`channel.” Id. at 3:14-19. In order to send “feedback from the receiver to the
`
`transmitter,” the receiver may “determine[s] the channel response (h) and []
`
`provides it as the feedback information.” Id. at 3:19-22. However, “[a]n issue
`
`with this approach” was that “the size of the feedback packet [was] so large that,
`
`during the time it takes to send it to the transmitter, the response of the channel
`
`has changed.” Id. at 3:22-25. To try to “reduce the size of the feedback,” one
`
`conventional approach was for the receiver to “decompose the channel using
`
`singular value decomposition (SVD)” using the equation H=UDV* and to “send
`
`information relating only to a calculated value of the transmitter’s beamforming
`
`matrix (V) as the feedback information.” Id. at 3:26-33. However, feedback size
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0020
`IPR2022-00048
`
`18
`
`
`
`was still a problem for MIMO wireless communication. Id. at 3:33-35. The ’862
`
`patent conclude that “[t]herefore, a need exist[ed] … for reducing beamforming
`
`feedback information for wireless communications.” Id. at 3:49-51.
`
`FIG. 1 (reproduced below) shows “a communication system 10 that
`
`includes a plurality of base stations and/or access points 12, 16, a plurality of
`
`wireless communication devices 18-32 and a network hardware component 34.”
`
`Id. at 4:24-27.
`
`Id. at FIG. 1.
`
`FIG. 2 (reproduced below) is a block diagram of “a wireless
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0021
`IPR2022-00048
`
`19
`
`
`
`communication device that includes the host device 18-32 and an associated radio
`
`60.” Id. at 5:4-6.
`
`The ’862 patent explains that the “[w]ireless communication devices
`
`18-32 may be laptop computers 18 and 26, personal digital assistant hosts 20 and
`
`30, personal computer 24 and 32 and/or cellular telephone 22 and 28.” Id. at 4:29-
`
`34. In order to communicate with other devices, “each of the base stations or
`
`access points 12-16 has an associated antenna or antenna array.” Id. at 4:52-55.
`
`“Typically, base stations are used for cellular telephone systems and like-type
`
`systems, while access points are used for in-home or in-building wireless networks
`
`(e.g., IEEE 802.11 and versions thereof, Bluetooth, and/or any other type of radio
`
`frequency based network protocol).” Id. at 4:63-67. In any case, each device
`
`“includes a built-in radio and/or is coupled to a radio.” Id. at 5:67-5:3.
`
`FIG. 3 (reproduced below) is a block diagram of “a wireless
`
`communication device that includes [a] host device 18-32 and an associated radio
`
`60.” Id. at 7:21-27. As shown in FIG. 3, “the host device 18-32 includes a
`
`processing module 50, memory 52, radio interface 54, input interface 58 and
`
`output interface 56.” Id. at 7:28-30. According to the ’862 patent, “[t]he radio
`
`interface allows data to be received from and sent to the radio,” and “[f]or data
`
`received from the radio 60 (e.g., inbound data), the radio interface 54 provides the
`
`data to the processing module 50 for further processing and/or routing to the output
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0022
`IPR2022-00048
`
`20
`
`
`
`interface 56.” Id. at 7:36-40. The radio interface 54 then “provides data from the
`
`processing module 50 to the radio 60.” Id. at 7:43-44.
`
`
`
`Id. at FIG. 3.
`
`The radio 60 “includes a host interface 62, a baseband processing
`
`module 100, memory 65, a plurality of radio frequency (RF) transmitters 106-110,
`
`a transmit/receive (T/R) module 114, a plurality of antennas 81-85, a plurality of
`
`RF receivers 118-120, a channel bandwidth adjust module 87, and a local
`
`oscillation module 74.” Id. at 7:51-56. Using “operational instructions stored in
`
`memory 65,” the baseband processing module 100 “executes digital receiver
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OnePlus Ex. 1003.0023
`IPR2022-00048
`
`21
`
`
`
`functions and digital transmitter functions, respectively,” which include “but are
`
`not limited to, digital intermediate frequency to baseband conversion,
`
`demodulation, constellation demapping, decoding, de-interleaving, fast Fourier
`
`transform, cyclic prefix removal, space and time decoding, and/or descrambling.”
`
`Id. at 7:56-64. Digital transmitter functions include “encoding, scrambling,
`
`interleaving, constellation mapping, modulation, inverse fast Fourier transform,
`
`cyclic prefix addition, space and time encoding, and digital baseband to IF
`
`conversion.” Id. at 7:64-8:1. The baseband processing module is “implemented
`
`using one or more processing devices,” such as “a microprocessor, micro-
`
`controller, digital signal processor, microcomputer, central processing unit, field
`
`programmable gate array, programmable logic device, state machine, logic
`
`circuitry, analog circuitry, digital circuitry, and/or any device that manipulates
`
`signals (analog and/or digital) based on operational instructions.” Id. at 8:1-9.
`
`The “baseband processing module 100, based on the mode selection
`
`signal 102 produces one or more outbound symbol streams 104 from the outbound
`
`data 94.” Id. at 8:46-48. “Depending on the number of outbou