`In re Patent of: Marcus Da Silva et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No.:
`10,715,235 Attorney Docket No.: 50095-0047IP1
`Issue Date:
`July 14, 2020
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 15/495,539
`
`Filing Date:
`April 24, 2017
`
`Title:
`DIRECTED WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ROBERT AKL
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: __________________________
`
`
`
`Dr. Robert Akl, D.Sc.
`
`January 5, 2023
`Date: __________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE 1044
`Apple v. XR Commc'ns
`IPR2022-00367
`
`1
`
`
`
`I, Robert Akl, D.Sc., hereby state and declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of 18 and am competent to make this Declaration. I have
`
`personal knowledge, or have developed knowledge, of these technologies based upon my
`
`education, training, and/or experience, of the matters set forth herein. If called upon to do
`
`so, I would testify competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioners Apple Inc. and HP Inc.
`
`(collectively “Petitioners”), in the above matter. I am submitting this Declaration to
`
`support Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response. I had previously submitted a
`
`Declaration (EX1003 – dated January 7, 2022) in the IPRs for 10,715,235 (“the ’235
`
`Patent”).
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, in addition to the materials I reviewed for my
`
`prior Declaration (EX1003), I also reviewed the Patent Owner Response (Paper 14 or
`
`“POR”) and Dr. Vojcic’s declaration (EX2010) and his deposition transcript (EX1043),
`
`as well as the exhibits and other materials referenced herein.
`
`4.
`
`Patent Owner (“XR”) argues that: (1) it would have not been obvious to a
`
`POSITA to modify Burke’s receiver antenna to be an antenna array with multiple antenna
`
`elements; (2) Burke does not teach or suggest receiving first and second signal
`
`transmissions at the first and second antenna elements, respectively; and (3) Burke does
`
`not teach or suggest that the two signal transmissions are received simultaneously. POR,
`
`1, 2. I disagree.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Burke explicitly discloses the use of an antenna array at Burke’s receiver and
`
`also explicitly discloses that signal transmissions are configured so that they are received
`
`simultaneously. EX1006, 5:18-20, 25:58-61, 7:66-8:2, 6:30-42, 5:54-55, 8:42-51.
`
`6.
`
`In particular, Burke’s FIG. 2 (reproduced below) explicitly depicts two signal
`
`transmissions being transmitted by and received from a remote station (base station 104).
`
`EX1006, 4:6-18. Burke discloses that both the base station 104 and the mobile station
`
`106, which includes antenna 112, can use an array of antennas to communicate
`
`information with each other and other devices. EX1006, 25:58-61 (“antenna 112 (which
`
`may be a single antenna, or an array of diversity antennas for deploying diversity
`
`techniques known in the art)), 5:18-20 (“Alternative embodiments may deploy an array
`
`of antennas for antenna 360, or one or more antennas 110 may be shared for receive and
`
`transmit”); EX1003, ¶[84]. Like mobile station 106, base station 104 includes a receive
`
`antenna 360 that may be implemented as an array of antennas. EX1006, 25:58-61, 5:18-
`
`20. Moreover, Burke teaches that base station 104 “produces weights and delays that
`
`cause the signals received along the various M multipaths to arrive simultaneously and
`
`in-phase.” EX1006, 7:66-8:2, FIG. 3. It would have been obvious to a POSITA that when
`
`Burke’s disclosure is considered as a whole, Burke, by itself, renders claim feature [8a]
`
`(“receiving a first signal transmission from a remote station via the first antenna
`
`element and a second signal transmission from the remote station via the second
`
`antenna element simultaneously”) obvious.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`EX1006, FIG. 2
`
`
`
`7.
`
`To the extent that the use of two different antenna elements at the receiver is
`
`not explicitly described in Burke, in ¶¶[83]-[87] of my previous declaration (EX1003), I
`
`had explained that it would have been obvious, in Burke’s antenna array, two signals
`
`would have been received at different antenna elements, namely a first antenna element
`
`and a second antenna element. This was not a hindsight or “common sense”
`
`determination, as XR alleges. POR, 2, 3. Rather, in disclosing that receiver antenna 112
`
`can be implemented as “an array of diversity antennas for deploying diversity techniques”
`
`and similarly “one or more antennas 110 may be shared for receive,”1 Burke suggests to
`
`
`1 Although antenna 110 refers to the antenna of the base station 104, a POSITA would
`
`have readily understood that Burke’s disclosure that an array of antennas can be shared
`
`for receiving data similarly applies on the mobile station 106 when the mobile station 106
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`a POSITA that when an array of antenna elements is used to receive signals, two antenna
`
`elements in the array can be used for receiving two signal transmissions. EX1003, ¶¶[84]-
`
`[86].
`
`8.
`
`In my previous declaration, I had also explained that such an understanding
`
`would have been similar to other known systems in the art, such as Hottinen, Walton, and
`
`Goldsmith. Id.; EX1011, 22-29; EX1012, 2:8-40, 20:50-22:21, FIG. 5; EX1017, 191-192.
`
`For instance, Hottinen describes M transmitting antennas transmitting beams to N receive
`
`antennas using, in some cases, different parallel beams optimized for different receive
`
`antennas (here, N and M can both equal 2). EX1011, 24-26. Walton’s FIG. 5 (reproduced
`
`below) depicts two sets of receive antennas 552A and 552R in terminals 106A
`
`(highlighted in yellow) and 106B (highlighted in green), respectively, that are
`
`communicating with a base station 104 (highlighted in red). EX1012, 3:23-43, 21:42-
`
`22:20. For each terminal 106, a first receive antenna (e.g., 552A) receives at least a first
`
`
`uses an array of antennas to receive data. Indeed, space-time diversity (i.e., an example
`
`of a diversity technique) is one benefit of using diversity antennas, which are explicitly
`
`noted in Burke as being used by the mobile station 106. EX1006, 2:27-45, 25:56-67,
`
`Abstract. Space-time diversity allows for more robust communication between a base
`
`station and a mobile station by exploiting redundancy in multiple transmitted versions of
`
`a signal.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`signal transmission and a second receive antenna (e.g., 552R) receives at least a second
`
`signal transmission. Id.
`
`EX1012, FIG. 5.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Even though I had provided explanations of the understanding a POSITA
`
`would have had of Burke’s disclosure, XR argued that I had not explicitly shown how an
`
`array would have been implemented in Burke’s system. While I do not think such a figure
`
`is necessary, for XR’s benefit and consistent with the explanations I provided in my first
`
`declaration, I now provide the figure below that illustrates one example of a POSITA’s
`
`understanding of an antenna array implementation in Burke’s system. EX1003, ¶¶[84]-
`
`[86]. I created the figure below by combining Burke’s FIG. 2 and two replications of
`
`Burke’s FIG. 12. Burke’s FIG. 12 shows components of the mobile station 106 when a
`
`single antenna is used, and replaces the depiction of mobile station 106 and its antenna
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`112 in FIG. 2. When the single antenna is replaced by an array of antennas, one possible
`
`implementation is that a second set of components is added that is identical to the set of
`
`components shown in FIG. 12. In such a configuration, the antenna array includes two
`
`antennas 112. Realizing such a configuration is as simple and obvious as duplicating the
`
`components shown in FIG. 12 and adding them to Burke’s mobile station 106.
`
`
`10. As shown above, a first signal transmission from base station 104 is received
`
`by antenna element 1 at the mobile station and a second signal transmission from base
`
`station 104 is received by antenna element 2. For ease of illustration, I have drawn an
`
`arrow from the primary lobes 130A and 130B to the antenna element receiving the
`
`transmission associated with that lobe. This figure is just an example depiction, and in
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`actual implementation, the antenna elements of the array antennas may not be spaced apart
`
`in the illustrated manner.
`
`11. For comparison purposes, Walton’s FIG. 5 includes a very similar
`
`configuration in which the rows of the receiver antenna array have duplicate components
`
`(duplication is indicated by the “…” in Walton’s FIG. 5). In the combined figured I
`
`created above, each duplicate of FIG. 12 similarly can correspond to one row of the array
`
`of antennas and one RAKE receiver. The components of FIG. 12 can be duplicated based
`
`on the number of antenna elements in the array of antennas, e.g., 5 duplicates if 5 antenna
`
`elements). In fact, when describing a receiver 370 in the base station 104 that may use an
`
`antenna array for reception of signals, Burke explicitly teaches that various suitable
`
`components can be used in receiving antenna arrays including, for example, “RF
`
`downconverters, amplifiers, filters, analog-to-digital (AID) converters, demodulators,
`
`RAKE receivers, combiners, deinterleavers, decoders (Viterbi, turbo, block decoders such
`
`as those implementing Bode-Chaudhury-Hocquenghem (BCH) codes, etc.)” EX1006,
`
`5:13-32. Burke’s use of the plural form of the listed components is consistent with the
`
`duplication of components shown in FIG. 5 of Walton for an array of antennas, and is
`
`further corroboration that a POSITA would have known how to configure a receiver to
`
`accommodate an array of antennas. Unsurprisingly, the mobile station depicted in
`
`Burke’s FIG. 12 shares a similar set of components that also could have been duplicated.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`12. As I explained in my first declaration (“Hottinen, Walton, and Goldsmith are
`
`examples of the well-known understanding a POSITA would have had that different
`
`receiving antennas in an antenna array would have been used to receive two signal
`
`transmissions transmitted from two antennas in an antenna array of a transmitting device”)
`
`and reiterate again now, the configuration depicted above would have been readily
`
`understood by a POSITA (e.g., as evidenced by Walton’s FIG. 5). EX1003, ¶[85], see
`
`also ¶¶[84], [86]. However, a POSITA would have been able to implement several
`
`possible configurations to accommodate an array of antenna elements. Indeed, even XR’s
`
`expert conceded that “[i]t's possible to have different implementations.” EX1043, 76:1-
`
`19. For instance, in some cases, multiple receiver blocks 1210 can be used (one per
`
`antenna array element) and each of the receiver blocks 1210 can be connected to a
`
`multiplexor which then connects to a single set of despreaders 1220A-1220L shown in
`
`Burke’s FIG. 12. Indeed, the various possible implementations is further indicative that
`
`implementation of an array of antenna elements, such that two of the antenna elements
`
`simultaneously receive two signal transmissions, would have been obvious to a POSITA,
`
`which is likely why Burke did not depict and limit his teachings of an array of antenna
`
`elements to a particular implementation.
`
`13. The ability to receive two signals simultaneously would also not change
`
`whether a single antenna is used or an array of antennas is used. As I explained above,
`
`Burke’s base station 104 “produces weights and delays that cause the signals received
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`along the various M multipaths to arrive simultaneously and in-phase.” EX1006, 7:66-
`
`8:2, FIG. 3. Burke’s system has the ability to “distinguish the various paths, as well as
`
`the per-antenna components contributing to the signal on any path” and determine a code
`
`for each path/antenna pair.” EX1006, 8:1-9. The base station’s encoding “allows a mobile
`
`station 106 to estimate the channel characteristics for the various paths as well as the
`
`contributions to each path” and provide timing delay information back to the base station
`
`104, which a POSITA would have understood would have allowed signals to continue to
`
`be received simultaneously at the mobile station 106 even when using multiple antenna
`
`elements in an antenna array. EX1006, 8:24-28, 8:52-9:3.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`
`
`In my first declaration and in further describing why feature [8a] would have
`
`been obvious to a POSITA, I also explained that “receiving a first signal at a first antenna
`
`and a second signal at a second antenna of an antenna array at a receiver provides
`
`performance gain, for example, through an increase in the average received signal to
`
`noise ratio” and improved short term channel estimation at the mobile station. EX1017,
`
`191-192; EX1011, 25; Pet., 29, 28; EX1003, ¶¶[85]-[86]. While Dr. Vojcic disagreed
`
`with the latter benefit (improved short term channel estimation), he agreed that modifying
`
`Burke to incorporate an antenna array to simultaneously receiver two signals would have
`
`resulted in improved performance gain. EX1043, 68:1-2 (“the latter part is correct, yes,
`
`it could provide performance gain for the receiver”). Thus, XR’s contention that I did not
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`address how the alleged modification of Burke would impact Burke’s system is
`
`demonstrably incorrect.
`
`16. As shown above, Burke’s FIG. 12 is not substantively modified to implement
`
`an antenna array in Burke’s system. Rather, FIG. 12 would be replicated N number of
`
`times if the antenna array has N antenna elements. Thus, without substantially modifying
`
`the architecture shown in Burke’s FIG. 12, Burke’s system would have predictably and
`
`obviously “receiv[ed] a first signal transmission from a remote station via the first antenna
`
`element and a second signal transmission from the remote station via the second antenna
`
`element simultaneously.”
`
`17.
`
`In arguing against the obviousness of Burke’s disclosure, neither XR nor its
`
`expert, Dr. Vojcic identified any problems a POSITA would encounter in accommodating
`
`an antenna array in Burke. Rather, both relied on incorrect characterizations of Burke to
`
`argue that the Petition’s grounds were deficient. For instance, when asked during his
`
`deposition what he thought was missing from Burke and an obvious use of an antenna
`
`array in Burke’s receiver, Dr. Vojcic explained that “there was nothing in Burke that
`
`shows how multiple antennas could be used, and because Burke was focusing on RAKE
`
`receiver with a single antenna in Figure 2 embodiments, or in general in the whole patent
`
`for a mobile system that's receiving. All descriptions were based on a single antenna,
`
`and block diagram Figure 12 describes RAKE receiver with a single antenna.” EX1043,
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`66:7-14; see also POR, 16 (“Burke’s mobile station only possesses a single antenna
`
`element”), 2, 18; EX2010, ¶[37]. I disagree.
`
`18. As noted above, Burke explicitly discloses that a receiver, whether in the
`
`base station or mobile station can include an array of antenna elements. EX1006, 25:58-
`
`61, 5:18-20. Moreover, as explained above, Burke’s system depicted in FIG. 12 would
`
`have been predictably used with the array of antenna elements to simultaneously receive
`
`two signal transmissions (e.g., by replacing a single antenna 112 with an array of antenna
`
`elements as taught by Burke).
`
`19.
`
`In addition to mischaracterizing Burke, XR also turns to the ’235 Patent’s
`
`FIG. 3 in an attempt to distinguish Burke from the ’235 Patent. POR, 21. But even FIG.
`
`3 does not bother to show the various antenna elements and instead just illustrates a single
`
`box and labels it antenna array 302. EX1001, FIG. 3. This depiction reinforces my
`
`position that the details of using an antenna array would have been obvious to a POSITA.
`
`Even the ’235 Patent implicitly acknowledges that a POSITA would have understood how
`
`the system in FIG. 3 (reproduced below) works even if only a single block is used to
`
`represent an antenna array.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 3.
`EX1001, FIG.3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`13
`
`
`
`Claims features [8d] and [8e]
`20. XR’s reasons why Burke does not render obvious features [8D] and [8E] are
`
`substantively the same as XR’s arguments with respect to feature [8A]. POR, 30-33.
`
`Thus, for at least the reasons noted above, XR’s arguments fail.
`
`21.
`
`
`
`With respect to feature [8E], XR argues that “Dr. Akl fails to explain how the pre-
`
`correction processor 310 would be modified to accommodate an antenna 112 comprising
`
`multiple antenna elements.” POR, 32. However, like other aspects of Burke’s disclosure,
`
`Burke’s system including its pre-correction processor 310 does not have to be substantively
`
`modified to accommodate an array of antenna elements at a receiving device (mobile
`
`station 106). For example, Burke teaches that “various parameters for use in generating
`
`the M signals for transmission on the M-antenna array 110 are generated in pre-
`
`correction processor 310. The parameters are generated in response to information
`
`fed back from the mobile station 106 receiving the signals transmitted on antenna array
`
`110.” EX1006, 5:9-20. As noted above, Burke’s system has the ability to “distinguish the
`
`various paths, as well as the per-antenna components contributing to the signal on any
`
`path” and determine a code for each path/antenna pair.” EX1006, 8:1-9. The base station’s
`
`encoding “allows a mobile station 106 to estimate the channel characteristics for the
`
`various paths as well as the contributions to each path” and provide timing delay
`
`information back to the base station 104. EX1006, 8:24-28, 8:52-9:3. In addition, as I
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`previously explained, data including the weights (f1,1 … fL,M) and delays transmitted from
`
`the mobile station 106 to the base station 104 are used by the base station 104 to configure
`
`and construct beam-forming signals that are then sent out through respective transmitters
`
`350A-350M and antennas 110A-110M. EX1003, ¶[100]; EX1006, 27:23-31; 5:65-6:4,
`
`10:57-67, 7:49-8:9, FIGS. 5 (reproduced below), 6.
`
`22. A POSITA would have understood that the above-noted process would not
`
`be substantively different whether one antenna is receiving transmitted signals or multiple
`
`antenna elements of an antenna array are receiving signals. Burke’s system would have
`
`be able to provide feedback from one or more antenna elements in the manner described
`
`above so that the base station 104 can optimize its beam-formed signals for reception by
`
`multiple antenna elements instead of just one antenna. As such, software encoding would
`
`still be performed at the base station in the same manner to set values of the weights and
`
`other parameters for signal transmission, however, the values of the weights and other
`
`parameters may be different depending on the operating conditions and number of antenna
`
`elements. This difference in values, while substantively continuing the same or similar
`
`process (whether one antenna or multiple antenna elements are implemented) would have
`
`been obvious and understood to a POSITA. Thus, in contrast to XR’s assertions, no
`
`substantive modification of Burke’s pre-correction processor 310 is needed, and any slight
`
`changes would have been obvious to a POSITA.
`
`23. Accordingly, [8E] and [8F] are obvious for these additional reasons.
`
`
`
`15
`
`