UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable David P. Shaw
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE TELEPHONES,
`TABLET COMPUTERS WITH
`CELLULAR CONNECTIVITY, AND
`SMART WATCHES WITH CELLULAR
`CONNECTIVITY, COMPONENTS
`THEREOF, AND PRODUCTS
`CONTAINING SAME
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1299
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONDENT APPLE INC.’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS
`OF IDENTIFIED CLAIM TERMS
`
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 6.C and Order No. 5 (Procedural Schedule), Respondent Apple
`
`Inc. submits the following proposed constructions for the claim terms identified by the parties for
`
`claim construction for U.S. Patent No. 8,102,805 (“’805 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,532,355
`
`(“’355 patent”), together with supporting intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.
`
`This disclosure is made without prejudice to Apple’s right to seek construction of terms
`
`not identified herein, including in response to any other party’s disclosure of its proposed claim
`
`terms and/or constructions. Apple reserves the right to object to any proposed claim term not
`
`identified in accordance with Order No. 5.
`
`The cited evidence is exemplary, and Apple reserves the right to cite additional evidence,
`
`including in response to arguments made by another party. Apple may rely on any part of the
`
`file history of the asserted patents and the file history of any application from which the asserted
`
`patents claim priority, including in response to arguments made by another party. Apple may
`
`1
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 1
`
`

`

`rely on the testimony of one or more of its disclosed experts regarding the proper construction of
`
`each term.
`
`Discovery is still ongoing in this Investigation. Depositions have not yet commenced and
`
`there are deficiencies in the discovery Complainants Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM
`
`Ericsson have provided to date. Accordingly, Apple reserves the right to supplement, amend, or
`
`modify this submission.
`
`Subject to the foregoing, Apple proposes the following constructions, attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Kate Saxton
`Kate Saxton (lead counsel)
`Joseph J. Mueller
`Timothy D. Syrett
`Annaleigh Curtis
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Telephone: (617) 526-6000
`Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
`
`Mark D. Selwyn
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Telephone: (650) 858-6000
`Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
`
`Michael D. Esch
`Heath A. Brooks
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 663-6000
`Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
`
`Counsel for Respondents Apple Inc.
`
`2
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 3
`
`

`

`Term
`
`System Information
`Radio Network
`Temporary Identifier
`(SI-RNTI)
`
`List of Claims in
`Which Term
`Appears
`All asserted claims
`for the ’355 patent
`
`Apple’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`An identifier
`indicating that the
`subframe contains a
`piece of system
`information but is not
`the last subframe in
`the time window that
`contains system
`information
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Declaration of Dr. J.
`Wells, attached
`hereto as Exhibit B
`
`’355 patent, 5:51-57: “If the
`current subframe is the last
`subframe, the RNTI
`of the L1/L2 control channel is set
`to ESI-RNTI for indicating to the
`UE 120 that the subframe is the
`last subframe in the window
`containing system information.
`(Step 406). Otherwise, the control
`channel RNTI is set to SI-RNTI for
`indicating to the UE 120 that the
`subframe contains system
`information, but is not the last
`subframe. (Step 408).”
`
`’355 patent, 4:37-42: “Also, for
`the last piece of system
`information to be transmitted
`within the window, the SI-RNTI is
`replaced with an End
`of-System-Information RNTI (ESI-
`RNTI). The reception of
`an ESI-RNTI informs the UE 120
`that no more system information is
`transmitted within the window.”
`
`
`’355 patent, 6:14-18: “The
`window detection and evaluation
`unit 150 then determines whether
`
`
`
`1
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 4
`
`

`

`the current subframe is the last
`subframe in the window or the last
`subframe containing system
`information, e.g., whether the
`RNTI of the control channel is
`ESI-RNTI (Step 508).”
`
`’355 patent, Figure 5:
`
`
`’355 patent, Figure 4:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 5
`
`

`

`Asserted claims 19,
`20, 22-25 for the
`’805 patent
`
`“a receiver subsystem
`in a spatial
`multiplexing Wireless
`communications
`system configured to
`… use the second
`disambiguation data to
`determine whether the
`re-transmitted
`transport block is
`scheduled for
`retransmission on the
`first data substream or
`the second data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Receiver subsystem 760 (also
`erroneously referenced as
`receiver subsystem 750) depicted
`in Figure 7, implementing the
`algorithms corresponding to block
`550 in Figure 5 or block 650 in
`Figure 6, and described below.
`
`’805 patent, 6:64-7:31:
`“Fortunately, the basic scheme
`discussed above may be extended
`in at least two ways to provide this
`disambiguation data. First, an
`additional bit may be sent to
`
`Means-plus-function
`term subject to 35
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`
`Function: using the
`second
`disambiguation data
`to determine whether
`the re-transmitted
`transport block is
`scheduled for re-
`transmission on the
`first data substream or
`the second data
`
`3
`
`Markman Order in
`ITC Inv. No. 337-
`TA-953 (October 23,
`2015)
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 6
`
`

`

`substream during the
`second transmission
`interval”
`
`substream during the
`second transmission
`interval.
`
`Structure: receiver
`subsystem 760 (also
`erroneously
`referenced as receiver
`subsystem 750)
`depicted in Figure 7,
`implementing the
`algorithms
`corresponding to
`block 550 in Figure 5
`or block 650 in Figure
`6, and described in
`cols. 6:64-7:31, 7:51-
`64, 10:63-11:13,
`11:46-54, and 13:2-
`24.
`
`indicate ‘orientation’ of the sub-
`processes relative to the
`substreams. For instance, a ‘0’
`value for this bit may indicate that
`sub-process ‘A’ is associated with
`the primary substream, while sub
`process ‘B’ is associated with the
`secondary substream. A ‘1’ value
`would indicate the opposite
`association, i.e. that sub-process
`‘B’ is associated with the primary
`substream, and sub-process ‘A’
`with the secondary. (Those skilled
`in the art will appreciate that the
`identification of sub-processes is
`completely arbitrary; any self-
`consistent Sub-process
`identification scheme will suffice.)
`With this approach, a receiver that
`fails to decode a given transport
`block 110 must save the process
`identifier (e.g., three bits for the
`example illustrated here) as well as
`this extra Substream mapping bit.
`The receiver must also ‘remember’
`whether the failed transport block
`110 was received on the primary or
`secondary substream. When the
`NACKed transport block 110 is re-
`transmitted (as indicated by the re-
`transmission of the corresponding
`process identifier on the HS-
`SCCH), the receiver simply
`
`
`
`4
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 7
`
`

`

`compares the current value of the
`Substream mapping bit to the
`previous value. If the value is the
`same, then the re-transmitted
`transport block 110 is scheduled
`for the same substream as before.
`If the value has changed, then the
`re-transmitted transport block 110
`is scheduled for the opposite
`substream.
`
`An alternative way of describing
`this scheme is as follows.
`When two transport blocks 110 are
`transmitted simultaneously, the
`relationship between the transport
`blocks 110 and their respective re-
`transmission process identifiers is
`such that when the transport block
`110 associated with process
`identifier HARQ ID is mapped to
`the primary substream, then the
`transport block 110 mapped to the
`secondary substream is associated
`with the re-transmission process
`identifier:”
`
`’805 patent, 7:51-64: “An
`alternative approach for sending
`the disambiguation data, i.e.,
`signaling the Sub-process-to-
`substream mapping, involves the
`use of implicit signaling. With this
`
`
`
`5
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 8
`
`

`

`approach, an explicit Substream
`mapping bit is not used. Rather,
`other signaling information that
`can be uniquely associated with
`the originally transmitted transport
`block 110 as well as with its re-
`transmissions can be used to
`determine whether the re-
`transmitted block is scheduled on
`the same or opposite data
`SubStream, compared to its
`original transmission. By
`comparing this other signaling
`information received at a re
`transmission interval with the
`corresponding information
`received at the original
`transmission interval, any
`ambiguity resulting from the re-
`mapping of the re-transmitted
`transport block 110 may be
`resolved.”
`
`’805 patent, 10:63-11:13: “In any
`event, once the receiver has
`determined that a re-transmitted
`transport block 110 is scheduled
`for the second interval, it must then
`determine whether the re-
`transmitted block 110 is scheduled
`for the primary or secondary sub
`stream. The Substream mapping bit
`corresponding to the second
`
`
`
`6
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 9
`
`

`

`transmission interval may differ
`from the mapping bit sent for the
`first interval. Accordingly, at block
`550, the earlier Substream mapping
`bit is compared to the newly-
`received mapping bit to determine
`whether the re-transmitted
`transport block 110 is scheduled
`for the same substream as it was
`earlier received on, or whether it
`has been scheduled for the other
`Substream. In an exemplary
`embodiment, if the map ping bits
`are identical for the first and
`second transmission
`intervals, then the re-transmitted
`transport block 110 will be
`transmitted on the same Substream
`as before. If the mapping bits
`differ, then the re-transmitted
`transport block 110 will appear on
`the opposite Substream, compared
`to the original transmission.”
`
`’805 patent, 11:46-54: “When the
`decoding of a transport block 110
`fails, the receiver saves
`information indicating which
`Substream the failed transport
`block 110 was received on. Thus,
`when the transport block 110 is re-
`transmitted in a later interval, the
`receiver can distinguish the re-
`
`
`
`7
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 10
`
`

`

`transmitted transport block 110
`from a simultaneously transmitted
`transport block 110 by comparing
`transport block size information for
`each of the newly-received
`transport blocks 110 to the saved
`information.”
`
`’805 patent, 11:65:
`“communicating with mobile
`terminal 750”
`
`’805 patent, 12:3-5: “Exemplary
`mobile terminal 750 comprises a
`receiver subsystem 760, a mobile
`transmitter section 770, and mobile
`terminal controller 775.”
`
`’805 patent, 12:48-13:38:
`“Receiver subsystem 750 is
`configured to carry out one or
`more of the methods described
`herein, or variants thereof, for
`processing scheduling information
`in a spatial multiplexing wireless
`communications system, such as
`wireless communications system
`700. In particular, receiver
`subsystem 750 may be configured
`to receive first and second
`transport blocks 110
`simultaneously transmitted during
`a first transmission interval on
`
`
`
`8
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 11
`
`

`

`primary and secondary data
`Substreams, after receiving
`scheduling information for the first
`transmission interval. The received
`scheduling information includes a
`single re-transmission process
`identifier and first disambiguation
`data. In some embodiments,
`receiver subsystem 750 is
`configured to generate and send a
`negative acknowledgement
`(NACK) to mobile controller 775,
`which relays the NACK to mobile
`transmitter 770 for transmission to
`base station 720. The NACK
`indicates that at least one of the
`first and second transport blocks
`110 transmitted during the first
`transmission interval was received
`with errors. In any event, receiver
`subsystem 750 subsequently
`receives second scheduling infor
`mation for a second transmission
`interval, the second scheduling
`information including the same re-
`transmission process identifier
`along with second disambiguation
`data. Finally, receiver subsystem
`750 is configured to use the first
`and second disambiguation data to
`determine whether a re-trans
`mitted transport block 110 is
`scheduled for re-transmission
`
`
`
`9
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 12
`
`

`

`on the primary data Substream or
`the secondary data Substream
`during the second transmission
`interval.
`
`In some embodiments, the
`disambiguation data comprises a
`first and second Substream
`mapping bit, corresponding to
`the first and second transmission
`intervals, and the receiver
`subsystem 750 is configured to
`compare the first and second
`Substream mapping bits to
`determine whether the re-
`transmitted transport block 110 is
`scheduled for re-transmission
`on the primary data Substream or
`the secondary data Substream
`during the second transmission
`interval. In other embodiments, the
`disambiguation data comprises
`transport block size information
`corresponding to the re-transmitted
`transport block, and the receiver
`subsystem 750 is configured to
`determine whether the re-
`transmitted transport block 110 is
`scheduled for re-transmission on
`the primary data Substream or the
`secondary data Substream during
`the second transmission interval by
`determining whether the transport
`
`
`
`10
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 13
`
`

`

`block size information corresponds
`to the primary or secondary data
`Substream during the second
`transmission interval. In some
`embodiments, receiver subsystem
`750 is configured to receive a third
`transport block 110 transmitted
`simultaneously with the re-
`transmitted transport block 110
`during the second transmission
`interval; in these embodiments the
`disambiguation data is used further
`to determine whether the third
`transport block 110 is scheduled
`for the primary or secondary
`Substream. The present invention
`may, of course, be carried out in
`other ways than those specifically
`set forth herein without departing
`from essential characteristics of the
`invention. The present
`embodiments are to be considered
`in all respects as illustrative and
`not restrictive, and all changes
`coming within the meaning and
`equivalency range of the appended
`claims are intended to be embraced
`therein.”
`
`’805 patent, 15:26-49: “19. A
`receiver subsystem in a spatial
`multiplexing wireless
`
`
`
`11
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 14
`
`

`

`communications system configured
`to:
`receive first and second transport
`blocks, the first and second
`transport blocks having been
`simultaneously transmitted during
`a first transmission interval on first
`and second data Substreams,
`respectively;
`receive a re-transmitted one of the
`first or second transport blocks
`during a second transmission
`interval;
`receive first scheduling
`information for the first transmis
`sion interval, the first scheduling
`information comprising a single re-
`transmission process identifier and
`first disambiguation data, wherein
`the first disambiguation data
`indicates whether the first transport
`block is associated with the first or
`second data substream, and
`whether the second transport block
`is associated with the first or
`second data Substream;
`receive second scheduling
`information for the second
`transmission interval, the second
`scheduling information comprising
`the re-transmission process
`identifier and second
`disambiguation data; and use the
`
`
`
`12
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 15
`
`

`

`second disambiguation data to
`determine whether the re-
`transmitted transport block is
`scheduled for retransmission on the
`first data Substream or the second
`data Substream during the second
`transmission interval.”
`
`’805 patent, Figure 5:
`
`’805 patent, Figure 6:
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`’805 patent, Figure 7:
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 18
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable David P. Shaw
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE TELEPHONES,
`TABLET COMPUTERS WITH
`CELLULAR CONNECTIVITY, AND
`SMART WATCHES WITH CELLULAR
`CONNECTIVITY, COMPONENTS
`THEREOF, AND PRODUCTS
`CONTAINING SAME
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1299
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JONATHAN ANDREW WELLS IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF “SYSTEM INFORMATION RADIO NETWORK
`TEMPORARY IDENTIFIER (SI-RNTI)”
`
`RESPONDENT
`
`Apple Inc.
`One Apple Park Way
`Cupertino, CA 95014
`Tel: 408-996-1010
`
`COUNSEL FOR APPLE INC.
`
`Mark D. Selwyn
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Telephone: (650) 858-6000
`WHApple-Ericsson1299servicelist@wilmerhale.com
`
`Joseph J. Mueller
`Timothy D. Syrett
`Kate M. Saxton
`Annaleigh E. Curtis
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Telephone: (617) 526-6000
`WHApple-Ericsson1299servicelist@wilmerhale.com
`
`Michael D. Esch
`Heath A. Brooks
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 663-6000
`WHApple-Ericsson1299servicelist@wilmerhale.com
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 19
`
`

`

`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Jonathan Andrew Wells
`
`2
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 20
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`My name is Dr. Jonathan Andrew Wells. Counsel for Apple Inc. (“Apple”) has retained me as
`
`an expert consultant in this litigation. I submit this Declaration to provide background regarding U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,532,355 (“’355 patent”), specifically the term “System Information Radio Network Temporary Identifier
`
`(SI-RNTI).” As I explain below, this term had no ordinary and customary meaning to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art before its use in the ’355 patent and its underlying provisional application.
`
`2.
`
`This Declaration sets forth the bases and reasons for the above opinion from the perspective of
`
`an expert in the field of wireless systems. This Declaration is based on the information available and known to
`
`me as of the date of this Declaration.
`
`3.
`
`It may be necessary for me to supplement this Declaration based on material or information
`
`that subsequently comes to light in this litigation (including any claim construction declarations submitted on
`
`behalf of Plaintiffs in this litigation), and I reserve the right to do so.
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`My educational background, career history, publications, and other relevant qualifications
`
`provided here are only a summary. My full curriculum vitae, including cases in which I have previously given
`
`testimony, is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Declaration.
`
`5.
`
`I received my B.Sc. degree in Physics with Physical Electronics, awarded with 1st Class
`
`Honours, from the University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom, in 1987. In 1991, I received my Ph.D., also
`
`from the University of Bath. I earned my M.B.A, awarded with distinction, from Massey University, New
`
`Zealand, in 1998.
`
`6.
`
`I have over 30 years of wireless communication experience in areas including cellular
`
`technologies, network infrastructure, and wireless standards, 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 research reports on
`
`cellular connectivity for Mobile Experts, a leading cellular industry analyst. I have lectured as part of
`
`3
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 21
`
`

`

`undergraduate programs at UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon University, and the University of Bath, and have
`
`given over two dozen lectures and conference presentations on topics germane to wireless communications. I
`
`am a listed inventor of several patents, and am an author of over 40 academic and commercial publications
`
`and presentations.
`
`7.
`
`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. In 2019, I was recognized as the “2019 IEEE Santa Clara Valley
`
`Section Outstanding Engineer.” The IEEE Santa Clara Valley Section encompasses Silicon Valley and is one
`
`of the largest IEEE Sections in the world. The award as Outstanding Engineer was “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.”
`
`8.
`
`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,
`
`Bristol, United Kingdom, designing and fabricating novel mixer devices to support my Ph.D. research. Later,
`
`in 1990, as a Post-Doctoral Research Officer at the University of Bath, I designed and fabricated novel
`
`quantum amplifiers, and developed computer models to predict the performance of these and other devices. I
`
`also taught undergraduate classes and ran laboratory sessions.
`
`9.
`
`In 1993, I joined Matra Marconi Space, Portsmouth, United Kingdom as a Senior Design
`
`Engineer, and developed integrated electronic components and space-qualified sub-systems for two satellite
`
`payloads.
`
`10.
`
`From 1994 to 1998, I worked at MAS Technology (now Aviat Networks), Wellington, New
`
`Zealand, first as a Senior Design Engineer and later as Engineering Group Manager. I was responsible for
`
`hardware development for cellular and telecommunication applications; developed three generations of
`
`wireless transmission, switching and multiplexing products; designed and had sustaining responsibility for
`
`satellite ground station terminals; and was responsible for the company’s European regulatory approvals.
`
`11.
`
`In 1998, I joined Adaptive Broadband (now GE Digital Energy), Rochester, New York, first as
`
`
`
`4
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 22
`
`

`

`Engineering Group Leader, and later as Director of Wideband Products. I was responsible for the Terrestrial
`
`Infrastructure Group, providing telecommunications products for cellular and private network applications. I
`
`had full profit and loss responsibility for a $4M wireless division, and was responsible for the development of
`
`a family of digital radios and associated switching/multiplexing equipment.
`
`12.
`
`From 2000 to 2004, I worked for Stratex Networks (now Aviat Networks), San Jose, California,
`
`as Director of Product Development. I was responsible for global product development of a portfolio of high-
`
`end digital microwave radios primarily for cellular applications; led a development team of 35 engineers based
`
`in two continents; performed technical leadership of Stratex’s flagship Eclipse product; and was responsible
`
`for technical management of overseas manufacturing subcontractors.
`
`13.
`
`In 2005, I joined GigaBeam Corporation in Herndon, Virginia, as Director of Product
`
`Management and Global Regulatory Affairs. I was responsible for product strategy for a novel, industry-
`
`transforming wireless communication product; initiated market development in over 40 countries including in
`
`Europe, Canada, the Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia; and participated in and drove
`
`standard development in ETSI, FCC, and CEPT technical meetings.
`
`14.
`
`Since 2007, I have been an independent consultant with AJIS Consulting, Pleasanton,
`
`California, where I provide technical consulting on cellular technologies, wireless devices, network
`
`infrastructure, and wireless rules and regulations. The services I provide include: acting as a technical expert
`
`supporting 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular and Wireless LAN patent litigation; providing analysis of cellular and
`
`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.
`
`15.
`
`A recent copy of my curriculum vitae is appended to the end of this Declaration as Exhibit 1.
`
`III.
`
`COMPENSATION
`
`16.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual consulting rate of $700 per hour for the time I spent
`5
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 23
`
`

`

`consulting in this litigation. This compensation is not contingent upon my performance, the outcome of this
`
`litigation, or any issues involved in or related to this litigation.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`17.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel on the law regarding claim construction. My understanding
`
`based on those instructions are as follows.
`
`A.
`
`18.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I understand a patent is to be interpreted from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“POSITA”) as of the patent’s priority date.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that a POSITA is a hypothetical person who has full knowledge of all the
`
`pertinent prior art, and that courts may consider the following factors in determining the level of skill in the
`
`art:
`
` Type of problems encountered in art;
`
` Prior art solutions to those problems;
`
` Rapidity with which innovations are made;
`
` Sophistication of the technology; and
`
` Educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`In determining the characteristics of a POSITA, I considered each of these factors.
`
`
`Additionally, I understand that the level of ordinary skill in the art must be assessed at the time of the invention,
`
`and I placed myself back at the purported priority date of the ’355 patent, June 18, 2007, to determine the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`B.
`
`21.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`I am not a lawyer, and I do not intend to offer any opinion on the correct interpretation of the
`
`law. However, for the purposes of this declaration, I have been informed about certain aspects of the law
`
`that are relevant to my opinions.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that claim terms are generally given their ordinary and accustomed
`
`meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`6
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 24
`
`

`

`23.
`
`I have been informed that, where a term has no prior, accepted meaning to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art, that term is construed only as broadly as provided for by the patent itself. In such
`
`cases, the applicant’s description of the term ordinarily cannot be construed broader than the disclosure in
`
`the specification.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed that the prosecution history should also be considered when interpreting
`
`the meaning of a patent’s claims. The prosecution history may contain evidence of how the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the applicant understood the patent and the meaning of the patent’s claim
`
`terms.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed that the claim language, specification, and prosecution history are all
`
`referred to as “intrinsic evidence.” I also have been informed that proceedings before the PTO regarding an
`
`issued patent such as inter partes reviews (IPRs) may also be considered as intrinsic evidence for the patent.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed that evidence from an expert in the field of the alleged invention can
`
`be relevant in determining how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claims. I have been
`
`informed that this evidence is a form of “extrinsic evidence,” and that it must be considered in the context
`
`of the intrinsic evidence and cannot be used to change the meaning of a claim term to be inconsistent with
`
`the intrinsic evidence.
`
`C.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,532,355
`
`A.
`
`27.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`For the ’355 patent, a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention would be someone with a
`
`working knowledge of wireless networking. The person would have gained this knowledge through an
`
`undergraduate Bachelor of Science degree in Electronic Engineering or a related field, and approximately
`
`two years of education, training or experience in the design, development, and/or testing of cellular
`
`networks. This description is approximate, and a higher level of education or skill might make up for less
`
`experience, and vice-versa.
`
`B.
`
`28.
`
`Background
`
`I understand that Ericsson alleges that the ’355 patent has a priority date of June 18, 2007.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2009
`Apple, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00338, Page 25
`
`

`

`29.
`
`The ’355 patent is directed toward the purported problem of transmitting to mobile devices
`
`system information needed to manage communications on a mobile network like LTE. The ’355 patent
`
`discloses using a defined “time window” comprising multiple radio subframes during which the
`
`mobile device monitors a channel for an indication of the system information. Within that time
`
`window, the network may send system information in one or more subframes with an
`
`accompanying Radio Network Temporary Identifier (RNTI) that indicates the presence of system
`
`information in those subframes.
`
`C.
`
`System Information Radio Network Temporary Identifier(SI-RNTI)
`
`30.
`
`The patent specification and its claims recite “System Information Radio Network
`
`Temporary Identifier (SI-RNTI).” Though the term “Radio Network Temporary Identifier” or
`
`“RNTI” was known prior to the ’355 patent and its underlying provisional application, the term
`
`“System Information Radio Network Temporary Identifier (SI-RNTI)" had no ordinary and
`
`customary meaning to a person having ordinary skill in the art before its use in the ’355 patent.
`
`31.
`
`For example, the term “Radio Network Temporary Identifier” or “RNTI” was used
`
`to refer to an identifier for a corresponding individual “user equipment” or “UE” to indicate that
`
`data was being delivered to that UE on the data channel. See, e.g., ’355 Patent, 1:50-58.
`
`32. Moreover, other RNTI terms had been used to indicate the presence of system
`
`information on the data channel. For example, months before the filing of the ’355 provisional
`
`application, others had used the term “BCCH-RNTI” to refer to an RNTI to indicate the presence
`
`of system information. See, e.g., APL-ERCSON-ITC_00606725 (R2-071204: a March, 2007
`
`technical proposal describing the use of “BCCH-RNTIs” to indicate the presence of system
`
`information); APL-ERCSON-ITC_00606708 (R2-071762: a May, 2007 3GPP describing the
`
`same); APL-ERCSON-ITC_00589223 (R2-072183: a May, 2007 3GPP describing the same).
`
`33. However, based on (i)