UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`APPLE INC., AND HP INC.,
` Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, D/B/A VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00367
`Patent No. 10,715,235
`____________
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`1
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`APPLE INC., AND HP INC.,
` Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, D/B/A VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00367
`Patent No. 10,715,235
`____________
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`1
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Branimir Vojcic, declare as follows:
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called and
`
`sworn as a witness I could and would testify competently thereto.
`
`1.
`
`EXPERT BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`Included below is a summary of my educational background, career
`
`history, publications, and other relevant qualifications. In addition, I am attaching
`
`my Curriculum Vitae, which
`
`includes additional
`
`information about my
`
`qualifications and publications, as Appendix A to this Declaration.
`
`
`
`I am an expert
`
`in wireless
`
`technology and other areas of
`
`telecommunications, signal processing, and electrical engineering. I am presently a
`
`Professor Emeritus of Engineering and Applied Science at The George Washington
`
`University. I retired from the university in May 2015, where I was a member of the
`
`faculty since September 1, 1991. In addition, I have served as a consultant for a
`
`number of companies in the wireless communications industry in various technology
`
`areas. I have also served on numerous committees and as a reviewer and editor for
`
`several journals, conferences, and organizations.
`
`
`
`I am presently President of Xplore Wireless, LLC, a small
`
`telecommunication consulting company. I was also a co-founder, Director, CEO and
`
`CTO of LN2, a startup in the telecommunication space, until 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`Appendix A is a current copy of my CV. As can be seen in Appendix A,
`
`I received my Diploma of Engineering, Master of Science, and Doctor of Science
`
`degrees in Electrical Engineering from the University of Belgrade in Yugoslavia in
`
`1981, 1986, and 1989, respectively. The primary focus of my Doctor of Science
`
`studies was on Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and spread spectrum
`
`communications technologies.
`
`
`
`In 1991, I joined The George Washington University as an Assistant
`
`Professor and was promoted to Associate Professor and Professor in 1997 and 2000,
`
`respectively. From 2001 to 2004, I served as the Chairman of the Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering Department at The George Washington University. During
`
`my tenure at The George Washington University, until May 2015, I taught many
`
`different
`
`courses on
`
`communications
`
`theory
`
`and networks, wireless
`
`communications, CDMA, and I was a course director for a number of courses in
`
`communications. I have supervised students mostly in the areas of communications
`
`and coding theory, wireless communications/networks, CDMA (including IS-95,
`
`CDMA2000, WCDMA/HSDPA/HSUPA) and OFDM/LTE and have been a thesis
`
`director for a number of Doctor of Science candidates, who now have successful
`
`careers in academia, industry, and government.
`
` My research in the areas I just mentioned has been supported by the
`
`communications industry and various Government agencies, such as Advanced
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`Research Project Agency (ARPA), National Science Foundation (NSF), and
`
`National Security Agency (NSA). Much of this research concerns communications
`
`theory, performance evaluation, modeling wireless networks, multi-user detection,
`
`adaptive antenna arrays, and ad-hoc networks.
`
`
`
`I have authored or co-authored numerous journal and conference
`
`papers, contributed to various books, and co-authored a text book on CDMA,
`
`entitled “The cdma2000 System for Mobile Communications,” Prentice Hall, 2004.
`
`I also served as a co-editor of a book on wireless communications, entitled
`
`“Multiaccess, Mobility, and Teletraffic in Wireless Communications, Volume III,”
`
`Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts, 1998. My CV includes a
`
`detailed listing of my publications.
`
`
`
`I have also received awards for my work. In 1995, I received the
`
`prestigious National Science Foundation Faculty Early CAREER Development
`
`Award. The award is given annually by NSF to a select group of young professors
`
`nationwide to promote excellence in teaching and research.
`
`
`
`I have served as a consultant for numerous companies in the wireless
`
`communications industry in technology areas, in the areas of 2G/3G/4G mobile
`
`technologies, Wireless LANs, new generation broadcast systems, advanced mobile
`
`satellite systems and other aspects of modern communication systems. I have also
`
`taught academic courses as well as short courses for the industry and government on
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`various aspects of communications in the areas of 2G, 2.5G, 3G, and 4G cellular
`
`standards, such as CDMA2000 1xRTT, CDMA2000 Evolution Data Optimized
`
`(EVDO), Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA), and LTE.
`
`
`
`I am a Senior Member of the IEEE and was an Associate Editor for
`
`IEEE Communications Letters and Journal on Communications and Networks. I
`
`served as a member of technical program committees, as a session organizer for
`
`many technical conferences and workshops, and as a reviewer of technical papers
`
`for many journals and conferences.
`
`
`
`I am a co-inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,523,147, entitled “Method and
`
`Apparatus for Forward Error Correction Coding for an AM In-Band On-Channel
`
`Digital Audio Broadcasting System,” US Patent No. 8,595,590 B1, entitled
`
`“Systems and Methods for Encoding and Decoding Check-Irregular Non-Systematic
`
`IRA Codes,” and applications, “Joint Source-Channel Decoding with Source
`
`Sequence Augmentation”, US 20140153654 A1, Jun 5, 2014, “Systems and
`
`Methods for Advanced Iterative Decoding and Channel Estimation of Concatenated
`
`Coding Systems”, US 20140153625 A1, Jun 5, 2014, “Advanced Decoding of
`
`High/Medium/Low Density Parity Check Codes”, PCT/US13/72883, and
`
`International Application Number PCT/CA01/01488, entitled “Multi-User Detector
`
`For Direct Sequence - Code Division Multiple Access (DS/CDMA) Channels.”
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
` Over the last several years I have evaluated many (on the order of
`
`hundreds) patents that are essential or potentially essential to wireless standards for
`
`various clients. These evaluations typically include, for example, analyzing whether
`
`the patent claims read on the relevant standard, considering the importance of the
`
`technological inventions claimed, analyzing how such claimed inventions compare
`
`to other similar patents in the field, searching for and reviewing potential prior art,
`
`reviewing and analyzing the prosecution histories of patents relevant to potential
`
`claim construction, infringement, or other issues, reviewing and analyzing the
`
`working group documents related to the relevant standard in relation to the claimed
`
`invention, and considering whether there are available alternatives to the claimed
`
`inventions.
`
`
`
`I have provided expert reports, expert depositions, and testimony over
`
`the past 8 years in numerous cases involving many aspects of wireless
`
`communications.
`
`
`
`In forming my opinion, I have reviewed, considered, and had access to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235 (“’235 Patent”), including its specifications and claims,
`
`as well as its prosecution histories and provisional applications, and Petitioners’
`
`exhibits. I have also relied on my professional and academic experience in the field
`
`of wireless communication. I reserve the right to consider additional documents as I
`
`become aware of them and to revise my opinions accordingly.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`2.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`I am familiar with the concept of the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) and have reviewed Dr. Akl’s and Petitioner’s views on the definition
`
`and qualifications of the POSITA for in this IPR proceeding. For purposes of this
`
`proceeding, I will adopt Dr. Akl’s definition of the level of ordinary skill, namely a
`
`person with “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field, in
`
`combination with training or at least two years of related work experience in wireless
`
`communication systems, or the equivalent. Alternatively, the person could have also
`
`had a Master’s or Doctorate degree in electrical engineering with a year of related
`
`work experience in wireless communication systems.” EX-1003 at 15. I am at least
`
`a POSITA under this definition, and I was so as of November 3, 2003.
`
`3.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`I am not an attorney. I offer no opinions on the law. But counsel has
`
`informed me of the following legal standards relevant to my analysis here. I have
`
`applied these standards in arriving at my conclusions.
`
`A. Burden of Proof
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review the petitioner has the burden
`
`of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`I understand that the Board will apply the “plain and ordinary meaning”
`
`standard to claim construction in this proceeding. I understand that the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention when read in view
`
`of the patent claims and the specification.
`
`
`
`I understand that the Board does not construe claim terms unnecessary
`
`to resolving the controversy.
`
`C. Anticipation1
`
`It is my understanding that invalidation by “anticipation” only exists if
`
`a single alleged prior art reference discloses each and every limitation of the claim
`
`at issue, either expressly or inherently. In other words, every limitation of the claim
`
`must appear in a single prior art reference for the reference to anticipate that claim.
`
`I also understand that all limitations of the claim must be disclosed in the reference
`
`as they are arranged in the claim. I also understand that anticipation by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence requires a showing that a person could make and use
`
`the claimed invention by looking at one reference. A requirement of a claim that is
`
`missing from a prior art reference may be disclosed inherently if that missing
`
`
` I note that anticipation is not at issue in this IPR, but I nonetheless state my legal
`understanding of anticipation for the sake of completeness.
`
`8
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
` 1
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`requirement is necessarily present in the prior art. I also understand that to be
`
`considered anticipatory, the prior art reference must be enabling and must describe
`
`the patentee’s claimed invention sufficiently to have placed it in the possession of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the field of invention.
`
`D. Obviousness
`
`I understand that a claim of a patent may not be novel even though the
`
`invention is not identically disclosed or described in the prior art so long as the
`
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
`
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the relevant subject matter at the time the invention was
`
`made.
`
`
`
`I understand that, to demonstrate obviousness, it is not sufficient for a
`
`petition to merely show that all of the elements of the claims at issue are found in
`
`separate prior art references or even scattered across different embodiments and
`
`teachings of a single reference. The petition must thus go further, to explain how a
`
`person of ordinary skill would combine specific prior art references or teachings,
`
`which combinations of elements in specific references would yield a predictable
`
`result, and how any specific combination would operate or read on the claims.
`
`Similarly, it is not sufficient to allege that the prior art could be combined, but rather,
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`the petition must show why and how a person of ordinary skill would have combined
`
`them.
`
`
`
`I understand that, to demonstrate obviousness, a petition must
`
`accurately identify and analyze the differences between the claimed invention and
`
`the prior art.
`
`
`
`I understand that obviousness cannot be shown by conclusory
`
`statements, and that the petition must provide articulated reasoning with some
`
`rational underpinning to support its conclusion of obviousness.
`
`4.
`
`SUMMARY OF ’235 PATENT
` The
`’235 Patent
`(Ex. 1001)
`
`is entitled “Directed wireless
`
`communication” and relates to “a multi-beam directed signal system [] implemented
`
`to communicate over a wireless communication link via an antenna assembly with
`
`client devices.” ’235 patent at 3:11-15. The ’235 patent focuses on updating the
`
`spatial distribution of the beams based on feedback information. The systems
`
`disclosed in the ’235 Patent are in the field of wireless communications, including
`
`“WiFi” networks that operate in accordance with “IEEE 802.11” standards. The ’235
`
`Patent generally relates to “beam- forming,” which is depicted in several figures,
`
`including Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, and 15.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`
` As the patent explains, “beam- forming” refers to when the
`
`“electromagnetic waves are focused in a desired direction,” unlike a conventional
`
`omni-directional transmission that transmits in all directions. ’235 Patent, 5:22-55.
`
`For example, the system enables patterns of electromagnetic signals that provide “a
`
`first transmission peak” at a first device, “a second transmission peak” at a second
`
`device, and “a first transmission null” at a third device. In this example, the system
`
`advantageously improves communications with the first and second devices, while
`
`blocking interference from the third device.
`
` The ’235 Patent discloses a wireless communications apparatus that
`
`comprises an “antenna array 302” with a plurality of “antenna elements” to emanate
`
`an array of multiple directed communication beams 214(1), 214(2),…214(N). EX-
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`1001, FIGS. 2, 3. The ’235 Patent teaches that the apparatus receives signal
`
`transmissions simultaneously via directed communication beams. EX-1001, 3:38-52
`
`(“An increase in communication range is achieved by beamforming directed
`
`communication beams which simultaneously transmit directed signals and receive
`
`communication signals from different directions via receive and transmit beam-
`
`forming networks.”). In one embodiment, “antenna array 302 can include sixteen
`
`antenna elements…” from which “sixteen different communication beams 602(0),
`
`602(1),…,602(15) are formed,” each of which may have beam patterns that “differ
`
`in width, shape, number, angular coverage, azimuth, and so forth.” EX-1001, 9:12-
`
`34; see EX-1001, 6:61-7:5 (“directed communication beams 214 of antenna array
`
`302 can be directionally controllable”). In one embodiment, only thirteen of the
`
`beams are used for transmission and reception. EX-1001, 9:34-60.
`
` The ’235 Patent apparatus receives signal transmissions via the directed
`
`communication beams from other devices or “nodes within the wireless routing
`
`network.” EX-1001, 24:25-34. Further, the ’235 Patent apparatus determines a set
`
`of weighting values based on multiple received signals from each node. For example,
`
`as shown in Figure 12 below, “communication and/or data transfer signals are
`
`received from sources 1202 (e.g., sources A and B).” EX-1001, 24:25-34. These
`
`signals are provided to a “signal control and coordination logic 304” which includes
`
`a “scanning receiver 822 that is configured to update routing information 1206 with
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`regard to the received signals.” EX-1001, 24:35-25:30. More specifically, the
`
`routing information 1206 includes a routing table, and the “routing table includes
`
`stored weighting values (w) each associated with a particular signal source 1202
`
`(e.g., sources A and B)…[a] description of the received signal(s) can be stored in the
`
`routing table in the form of the pattern of weighting of the signal(s). In this example,
`
`a polynomial expansion in z, w(z)=w0+w1z+w2z2+w3z3+w4z4+ … +wizi can be
`
`utilized to establish the values of the weights (wi) to be applied to a weight vector.”
`
`Id. This is depicted in Figure 12 below:
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`
` After determining a set of weighting values based on the received
`
`signals, the “stored weighting values associated with each connection, data signal,
`
`and/or source are utilized in a weighting matrix 1210 which operates to apply the
`
`latest weighting values to the received signals and also to transmitted signals.” EX-
`
`1001, 25:1-29.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
` Figure 12 depicts determining weighting values from received signals
`
`from a particular node in the network and “apply[ing] the latest weighting values…to
`
`transmitted signals” to that same node. EX-1001, FIG. 12. In Figure 12, the
`
`apparatus receives signals via antenna array 302 from a particular node (e.g., 1202
`
`A), determines and stores weighting values for that node (e.g., w(A) in routing table
`
`1206), and then applies the weighting values that are particular to that node when
`
`transmitting signals to that node (e.g., transmissions to 1202 A via transceiver
`
`824(0)). Id.
`
`5.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`I understand that Dr. Akl did not opine on claim construction, and that
`
`Petitioner has asserted that claim construction is not necessary in this proceeding.
`
`Petition at 3.
`
`
`
`I also understand that a claim construction order has been entered in a
`
`related district court action, determining that all contested terms have their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. XR Comm'ns LLC v. Cisco Sys., No. 6:21-cv-00623-ADA, Dkt.
`
`No. 56 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2022). In particular, the court in that action adopted the
`
`following constructions relevant to the claims at issue here:
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 15 of 23
`
`
`
`Term
`“transmission nulls”
`30, 32; U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235,
`Cls. 2, 4, 8, 12, 16
`
`“transmission peaks”
`U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235, Cls. 2, 4,
`8, 12, 16
`
`“third signal comprising content based
`on the set of weighting values”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235, Cls. 1, 8
`and 15
`“the set of weighting values is
`configured to be used by the remote
`station to construct one or more beam-
`formed transmission signals”
`U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235, Cl. 8
`“remote station”
`U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235, Cls.
`1,4,8,9,12,15
`
`Court’s Final Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning wherein
`the plain-and-ordinary meaning is
`“portions of one or more spatially
`distributed patterns of electromagnetic
`signals where transmissions of no or
`insignificant energy are selectively
`directed.”
`Plain-and-ordinary meaning1
`1 – Note not for the jury: The plain-
`and-ordinary meaning of “transmission
`peaks” includes relative maxima.
`Plain-and-ordinary meaning wherein
`the plain-and-ordinary means that the
`“third signal’ is ‘based on the set of
`weighting values.”
`
`Not indefinite. Plain-and- ordinary
`meaning.
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`
` My opinions below would be the same either without claim
`
`
`
`construction or under the W.D. Tex. court’s construction order.
`
`6.
`
`RESPONSE TO DR. AKL’S OPINIONS
`
`I have reviewed the expert declaration of Dr. Robert Akl, Ex. 1003, as
`
`well as the transcript of Dr. Akl’s deposition. In my opinion, Dr. Akl has not shown
`
`that U.S. Patent No. 7,155,231 to Burke et al. (“Burke,” Ex. 1006) renders obvious
`
`any claim of the ’235 Patent. My decision to not rebut a particular opinion in the Akl
`
`declaration is not, and should not be interpreted as, agreement with that opinion.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 16 of 23
`
`
`
`Rather, I have set forth my opinions below sufficient to support my conclusion that
`
`Dr. Akl has not shown invalidity of any challenged claim.
`
` Each challenged claim of the ’235 patent requires “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” (Limitation [8a]), “determining second signal information for the
`
`second signal transmission, wherein the second signal information is different than
`
`the first signal information” (Limitation [8d]), and “determining a set of weighting
`
`values based on the first signal information and the second signal information,
`
`wherein the set of weighting values is configured to be used by the remote station to
`
`construct one or more beam-formed transmission signals” (Limitation [8e]).
`
` Dr. Akl concedes that Burke does not disclose all of these limitations.
`
`In Dr. Akl’s theory, the “first signal transmission” corresponds to Burke’s lobe 130A
`
`and signal path 150, and the “second signal transmission” corresponds to Burke’s
`
`lobe 132A and signal path 160. EX-1003 at 45-46. But Figures 2 and 12 in Burke
`
`show a single antenna element, in contrast to the ’235 Patent’s requirement of
`
`distinct first and second antenna elements. A POSITA would view Burke’s written
`
`description and figures and understand that Burke discloses a single antenna
`
`element.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 17 of 23
`
`
`
` Furthermore, the specific portions of Burke relied on by Dr. Akl require
`
`that the “first signal transmission” and “second signal transmission” must be
`
`received by the same antenna. For example, Dr. Akl relies on Figure 12 and
`
`associated discussion, which shows the output of the receiver connected to a
`
`plurality of PN despreaders and channel estimators. EX-1003 at 51-52. These
`
`structures, as disclosed in Burke, operate on signals received from a single antenna.
`
`Burke at Fig. 12. In particular, both of the multipaths (Dr. Akl’s “first signal
`
`transmission” and “second signal transmission”) are received by the same antenna
`
`and go into the same processing pipeline. Id. Thus, a POSITA would understand that
`
`these portions of Burke show a same, single antenna element receiving the “first
`
`signal transmission” and “second signal transmission.”
`
` Dr. Akl relies on a single sentence in Burke stating that antenna 112
`
`“may be a single antenna, or an array of diversity antennas for deploying diversity
`
`techniques known in the art.” EX-1006, 25:58-61. But this single sentence does not
`
`indicate to a POSITA that Burke’s mobile station, as disclosed, actually contains an
`
`antenna array, much less that it would operate correctly if the single antenna used
`
`everywhere else in Burke were to be replaced with an antenna array. Dr. Akl failed
`
`to explain how the receiver structure with despreaders and channel estimators in
`
`Figure 12 would simultaneously process the signals from additional antennas in “an
`
`array of diversity antennas.” A POSITA would understand, as indicated by Burke’s
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 18 of 23
`
`
`
`reference to “diversity techniques known in the art,” that substantial modifications
`
`and additions to the receiver would be required in order to make Burke’s system
`
`work with an antenna array and such modifications were not disclosed or indicated
`
`in Burke. EX-1006, 25:58-61. In my opinion, such a combination would not be
`
`obvious, and Burke does not imply or suggest that. Notably, Burke simply states that
`
`“an array of diversity antennas for deploying diversity techniques” were known in
`
`the art. Burke does not state or suggest that a purported modification of the receiver
`
`due to replacing a single antenna with an array of diversity antennas was known in
`
`the art.
`
`
`
`Indeed, neither Burke nor Dr. Akl identifies any specific combination
`
`or modification, much less explains how such a combination or modification would
`
`operate with an antenna array.
`
` Thus, as to Limitation [8a], Dr. Akl does not explain how to modify
`
`Burke’s Figure 12 to perform Limitation [8a], and further fails to prove that such a
`
`modification would be predictable. Instead, he argues in a conclusory manner that
`
`one specific modification to Burke would be obvious (i.e., replace Burke’s single
`
`antenna element with an array of antenna elements). But he does not go on to address
`
`how that modification would actually impact Burke’s Figure 12, or how the modified
`
`Figure 12 would practice Limitation [8a].
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 19 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`Instead of explaining a specific modification, Dr. Akl instead generally
`
`refers to Hottinen, Walton, and Goldsmith to “demonstrate that a POSITA would
`
`have been motivated to implement Burke’s disclosure (EX-1006, 25:58-61) for its
`
`technological benefits like improved short term channel estimation and receiver
`
`performance gain with a reasonable expectation of success because it was
`
`implemented in similar wireless communications systems.” EX-1003 (Akl. Decl.) ¶
`
`85. Notably, Hottinen, Walton, and Goldsmith represent different realization of
`
`multiantenna systems and deal with different problems in multi-antenna systems and
`
`Dr. Akl does not describe how to modify Burke’s mobile station, or Burke’s Figure
`
`12, in view of any of these three references, in the manner of Limitations [8a], [8d],
`
`or [8e]. Indeed, Dr. Akl merely asserts that these references illustrate that similar
`
`wireless communications systems had implemented mobile stations with multiple
`
`receive antennas. EX-1003, ¶ 85. This does not address how to modify Burke’s
`
`Figure 12 to accommodate the requirement in Limitation [8a] regarding
`
`simultaneous reception by multiple antennas, or the requirement in Limitation [8d]
`
`requiring that different signal information be determined from the signals that are
`
`each received with a different antenna element simultaneously.
`
` Notably, as to Limitation [8a], Dr. Akl does not assert that Hottinen,
`
`Walton, and Goldsmith disclose simultaneous reception with multiple receive
`
`antennas. His reliance on Hottinen, Walton, and Goldsmith is limited. Dr. Akl only
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 20 of 23
`
`
`
`relies on these references to show a motivation to implement multiple receive
`
`antennas and as “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.” EX-1003 (Akl Decl.) ¶85. This does not address the
`
`“simultaneous” requirement in Limitation [8a].
`
` As to Limitations [8d] and [8e], Dr. Akl states that these limitations
`
`would also be obvious in view of Figures 5, 6, and 12 of Burke and the
`
`accompanying text. But this argument has the same problem as before: he never
`
`addresses how the necessary modification for Limitation [8a] (replacing Burke’s
`
`single antenna element with an array of antenna elements) would impact Figure 12,
`
`and therefore he cannot show how a modified Figure 12 would render obvious
`
`Limitations [8d] and [8e]. For example, Dr. Akl does not explain how a modified
`
`Figure 12 with multiple antenna elements would perform Limitation [8d] or
`
`Limitation [8e]. Instead, Dr. Akl seems to assume that Figure 12 in its unmodified
`
`form would render these limitations obvious, which fails to account for the necessary
`
`modification required for the Petition’s theory as to Limitation [8a].
`
` As to Limitation [8d], Dr. Akl only relies on obviousness to show the
`
`“different signal information” requirement—but he never does so in the context of
`
`Burke’s modified Figure 12, comprising an antenna array with two or more antenna
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 21 of 23
`
`
`
`elements. His analysis of Limitation [8d] presupposes only one antenna element in
`
`the mobile station (as disclosed in Burke). Indeed, Dr. Akl’s analysis of Limitation
`
`[8d] does not even address the requirement in [8a] to receive two different signals
`
`with two different elements. He writes that “additional corroborating references, Ali,
`
`Banerjee, and Sriram, also explain that a that a single signal received by different
`
`antennas in an antenna array receiver, such as a RAKE receiver, would exhibit
`
`multipath components corresponding to delays introduced due to multipath effects
`
`and the signal would be processed accordingly,” but this clearly does not address
`
`two antenna elements that receive two signals. EX-1003, ¶ 96 (emphasis added).
`
` Moreover, Dr. Akl’s assertion that a RAKE receiver is antenna array
`
`receiver is plain incorrect. It is well known in the art that the RAKE receiver is a
`
`fading channel multipath diversity receiver, processing delayed multipath signal
`
`replicas, as explained in Goldsmith in Section 13.2.4, EX-1017 at 404-405, and as a
`
`POSITA would understand from the disclosures in Ali, Banerjee, and Sriram. Dr.
`
`Akl failed to point to anything in Ali, Banerjee, and Sriram to indicate that described
`
`systems operate with more than one receive antenna. Indeed, Ali, Banerjee, and
`
`Sriram all deal with RAKE receivers with single receive antenna.
`
` And as to Limitation [8e], Dr. Akl only relies on Burke’s disclosure of
`
`a pre-correction processor implemented in the mobile station. EX-1003, ¶¶ 98-99.
`
`But Dr. Akl fails to explain how the pre-correction processor 310 would be modified
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 22 of 23
`
`
`
`to accommodate an antenna 112 comprising multiple antenna elements. /d. Indeed,
`
`the entirety of Dr. Akl’s analysis for Limitation [8e] assumes, withoutevidence,that
`
`Burke would operate in exactly the same mannerwith an antennaarray. /d. §{j 98-
`
`100. This does not account for Dr. Akl’s proposed modification in Limitation [8a]
`
`and is therefore insufficient to show obviousness.
`
`48.
`
`Therefore, my opinion is that Dr. Akl has not shown that any of
`
`Limitations [8a], [8d], or [8e], much less the combination of those elements as
`
`claimed,is disclosed or rendered obvious by Burke. Dr. Akl’s failure to identify any
`
`specific modification to Burke in order to meet these limitations, presumably by
`
`adding additional antennas and somehow incorporating those antennas into the
`
`system such thatall of the limitations are met, renders his analysis incomplete, and
`
`fail to show invalidity by a preponderanceofthe evidence. For the samereasons,Dr.
`
`Akl fails to show that a POSITA would be motivated to make the purported
`
`modification or combination, and to do so with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States
`that the foregoingis true and correct.
`
`Executed this 20th day of October, 2022.
`
`Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`SoresutadAti~
`
`
`
`23
`
`Declaration of Branimir Vojcic, D.Sc.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 23 of 23
`
`Exhibit 2010
`IPR2022-0367
`Page 23 of 23
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
