throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`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
`
`

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket