Declaration of Dr. Apostolos K. Kakaes
`U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2022-00457
`U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. APOSTOLOS K. KAKAES, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,509,440
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 6
`
`I.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 7
`
`III. MATERIALS AND OTHER INFORMATION CONSIDERED ............. 12
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW .................................................. 14
`
`V. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ...................................................................... 17
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY ................................................... 17
`
`A. TRANSPORT BLOCK (TB) AND TRANSPORT BLOCK SIZE (TBS) ................... 20
`
`B. CODING ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`C. MODULATION ............................................................................................ 21
`
`D. MODULATION AND CODING SCHEMES (MCS) ............................................. 23
`
`E. CHANNEL QUALITY .................................................................................... 24
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’440 PATENT ....................................................... 27
`
`A. CLAIMS ...................................................................................................... 29
`
`B. SUMMARY OF THE SPECIFICATION .............................................................. 29
`
`C. SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY ................................................. 30
`
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................... 31
`
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES .............................. 33
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 2
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`A. OVERVIEW OF LAHETKANGAS (EX. 1011) ................................................... 33
`
`B. OVERVIEW OF WANG (EX. 1006) ................................................................ 36
`
`C. OVERVIEW OF TS 36.213 (EX. 1009) .......................................................... 38
`
`X. ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 38
`
`A. GROUNDS 1-2: CLAIMS 1-7, 9, 11-17, 19, 21, 23, 25, AND 27 ARE
`
`OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF LAHETKANGAS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
`
`LAHETKANGAS IN VIEW OF TS 36.213 ................................................................ 38
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ............................................................................. 39
`
`2. Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................................ 60
`
`3. Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................................ 63
`
`4. Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................................ 63
`
`5. Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................................ 65
`
`6. Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................................ 66
`
`7. Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................................ 69
`
`8. Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................................ 70
`
`9.
`
`Independent Claim 11 ........................................................................... 73
`
`10. Dependent Claim 12 .............................................................................. 78
`
`11. Dependent Claim 13 .............................................................................. 79
`
`12. Dependent Claim 14 .............................................................................. 79
`
`13. Dependent Claim 15 .............................................................................. 79
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 3
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`14. Dependent Claim 16 .............................................................................. 79
`
`15. Dependent Claim 17 .............................................................................. 80
`
`16. Dependent Claim 19 .............................................................................. 80
`
`17. Independent Claim 21 ........................................................................... 80
`
`18. Independent Claim 23 ........................................................................... 84
`
`19. Independent Claim 25 ........................................................................... 87
`
`20. Independent Claim 27 ........................................................................... 90
`
`B. GROUNDS 3-4: CLAIMS 8 AND 18 ARE OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF
`
`LAHETKANGAS IN COMBINATION WITH WANG, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
`
`LAHETKANGAS IN VIEW OF WANG AND LTE TS 36.213 ..................................... 92
`
`1. Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................................ 92
`
`2. Dependent Claim 18 ............................................................................ 100
`
`XI. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................... 101
`
`XII. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 101
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS FOR THE PETITION
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440
`Certified File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,509,440 (“the ’904
`Application”)
`Declaration of Dr. Apostolos Kakaes for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Apostolos Kakaes
`Intentionally Omitted
`U.S. Patent No. 9,648,601 (“Wang”)
`Arunabha Ghosh, et al., Fundamentals of LTE (Pub. 2011)
`(“Ghosh”)
`Stefania Sesia, et al., LTE - The UMTS Long Term Evolution: From
`Theory to Practice (2nd ed., 2011) (“Sesia”)
`3GPP TS 36.213, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access
`(EULTRA), Physical Layer Procedures, Version 10.3 (Release 10)
`Declaration of James Mullins in Support of the Public Availability
`of Fundamentals of LTE, Arunabha Ghosh, et. al., (Pub. 2011); LTE
`-The UMTS Long Term Evolution: From Theory to Practice,
`Stefania Sesia, et al., (2nd ed., 2011); and LTE for UMTS, Evolution
`to LTE Advanced, Harri Holma & Antti Toskala (2nd ed., 2011)
`International Publication Number WO 2013/123961 A1
`Lahetkangas et al. (“Lahetkangas”)
`International Publication Number WO 2014/029108 A1
`Holma, Harri & Toskala, Antti, LTE for UMTS: Evolution to
`LTEAdvanced, Second Edition, (Pub. 2011) (“Holma”)
`RESERVED
`Erik Dahlman et al., 4G LTE / LTE-Advanced for Mobile
`Broadband (Pub. 2011) (“Dahlman”)
`Declaration of Friedhelm Rodermund in Support of the Public
`Availability of 3GPP TS 36.213 V10.3
`
`to
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 5
`
`

`

`I, Dr. Apostolos K. “Paul” Kakaes, declare as follows:
`
`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple” or “Petitioner”) to offer technical opinions related to U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,509,440 (Ex. 1001, “the ’440 Patent”). I understand that Petitioner requests that
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) institute an inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) proceeding of the ’440 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent analysis of the ʼ440 Patent
`
`in light of the prior art patents and publications cited below.
`
`3.
`
`Specifically, I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding
`
`whether or not claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21,
`
`23, 25, and 27 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’440 Patent are invalid as being
`
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (a POSITA) at the time of the
`
`alleged invention.
`
`4.
`
`The ʼ440 Patent is entitled “METHOD AND RADIO NODE FOR
`
`ENABLING USE OF HIGH ORDER MODULATION
`
`IN A RADIO
`
`COMMUNICATION WITH A USER EQUIPMENT.” The named inventors are
`
`David Hammarwall and Meng Wang. The named assignee of the ʼ440 Patent is
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (henceforth “Ericsson”).
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`The ’440 Patent issued on November 29, 2016, from U.S. Application
`
`5.
`
`No. 14/390,904 (Ex. 1001, Cover page) filed on October 6, 2014. The ’440 patent
`
`claims priority to the Provisional Application No. 61/863,935 (the ’935 Provisional
`
`Application) filed on August 9, 2013.
`
`6.
`
`For the purposes of my Declaration, I have been asked to assume that
`
`the priority date of the alleged invention recited in the Ericsson ’440 Patent is August
`
`9, 2013 (hereinafter the “Priority Date”).
`
`7.
`
`I am not currently, and never have been, an employee of Apple. I
`
`received no compensation for this Declaration beyond my normal hourly
`
`compensation based on my time actually spent analyzing the ’440 Patent, the prior
`
`art patents and publications cited below, and issues related thereto, and my
`
`compensation is not dependent on my opinions or the result of this proceeding.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`8.
`I am over the age of 18 and am competent to write this Declaration. I
`
`have personal knowledge, or have developed knowledge of these technologies based
`
`upon education, training, or experience, of the matters set forth herein. My relevant
`
`experience includes a deep understanding of the systems that we broadly refer to as
`
`“1G,” “2G,” ‘‘3G,” “4G,” and “5G” communications systems.
`
`9. My CV, which includes my complete education and work experience,
`
`is included as Ex. 1004. I describe several relevant aspects of my experience below.
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`I am an expert in the field of communication engineering and
`
`10.
`
`specifically, among others, the field of wireless communications. I have almost 40
`
`years of experience in electrical engineering and computer science and in fixed and
`
`mobile communications networks. I attended the University of Colorado from 1974
`
`to 1980, during which I earned a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) and a Master of Science
`
`(M.S.) in applied mathematics with a minor in electrical engineering. I attended the
`
`Polytechnic Institute of New York between 1982 and 1988, during which I earned a
`
`Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in electrical engineering, with a thesis titled
`
`“Topological Properties and Design of Multihop Packet Radio Networks.” While
`
`pursuing the Ph.D. degree, I held a joint appointment as Special Research Fellow
`
`and Adjunct Instructor at the Polytechnic Institute of New York between 1985 and
`
`1986.
`
`11. Between 1982 and 1987, I worked at AT&T Bell Laboratories in
`
`Holmdel, New Jersey. While at AT&T Bell Laboratories, I worked on modeling,
`
`analysis, design, and performance evaluation of voice and data networks. I
`
`developed algorithms for DNHR (Dynamic, Non-Hierarchical Routing) used in the
`
`telephone network. I also analyzed advanced data services and formulation of long-
`
`term plans for development of enhanced data services and network design tools to
`
`support such services.
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`I was an Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`12.
`
`Science at The George Washington University (GWU), Washington, D.C., between
`
`1987 and 1994. During my association with GWU, I taught graduate courses in the
`
`area of communication engineering, including communication theory, coding
`
`theory, voice and data networking, and mobile communications. In the early 1990s
`
`I developed and taught the first course on Mobile Communications taught at GWU
`
`to Electrical Engineering graduate students. I also received several research
`
`awards/grants, including the prestigious NSF Research Initiation Award.
`
`13.
`
`In 1988, I founded Cosmos Communications Consulting Corporation
`
`(“Cosmos”), which is a private communications engineering consulting firm
`
`specializing in mobile communications, and I have been the President of the
`
`company since its founding. Since 1994, I have worked full-time at Cosmos. At
`
`Cosmos, among various activities, I have consulted on high level technology-related
`
`issues and trends to corporate entities, governmental agencies, and international
`
`organizations, such as the United Nations. I have provided technical consultancy to
`
`engineering firms, operators, and equipment vendors on issues related to existing or
`
`evolving technologies for mobile communications, and to the investment
`
`community on issues related to both fixed and wireless communications
`
`technologies. I developed and taught hundreds of courses to thousands of engineers
`
`around the world in the area of communication engineering, mostly in the area of
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`mobile, wireless communications. I have served as consultant on both civil and
`
`criminal legal cases, including several patent infringement cases both at the ITC and
`
`in district court as well as in support of IPRs such as the one in this case. I also
`
`participated as a technical consultant in the analysis of large patent portfolios for the
`
`purposes of due diligence, sales, and merger and acquisition activities for some of
`
`the largest companies in the mobile communications space. These projects spanned
`
`a multidimensional spectrum of
`
`technologies
`
`in both fixed and mobile
`
`communications as they have evolved over the past more than 30 years.
`
`14. Over the course of my career, I have authored and co-authored some
`
`thirty (30) publications on various aspects of fixed and mobile communications, as
`
`noted in my curriculum vitae. I am a life member of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE) and have been actively
`
`involved
`
`in
`
`the
`
`Communications Society and the Information Theory Society of the IEEE. Between
`
`1991 and 1992, I served as the Secretary of IEEE Communications Society National
`
`Capital Area Chapter. Between 1992 and 1993, I was the Vice-Chair of IEEE
`
`Communications Society National Capital Area Chapter. I was the Vice-Chair of the
`
`Communication Theory Technical Committee of the Communications Society of the
`
`IEEE for the 1993-1996 term, and Treasurer of the Communication Theory
`
`Technical Committee of the Communications Society of the IEEE for the 1996-1999
`
`term.
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`I have served as a reviewer for the IEEE, book editors, other technical
`
`15.
`
`publications, and various National Science Foundation (NSF) Panels. I have
`
`organized technical sessions in technical conferences, including the IEEE
`
`International Conference on Communications
`
`(ICC) and
`
`IEEE Global
`
`Communications Conference (Globecom). I served as the Technical Program Chair
`
`for the Communication Theory Mini-Conference in 1992.
`
`16. During the past 35+ years, I have been lucky enough to be part of the
`
`community of engineers that have contributed to the astounding growth of the
`
`mobile communications industry. It started from a niche industry that was thought
`
`of as being something for the “rich and the famous” to becoming one of the most
`
`wide-spread household concepts, providing useful tools to all segments of the global
`
`society, from the wealthy suburbs of New York to the poorest neighborhoods in
`
`Africa and everywhere in between.
`
`17. My involvement in this industry included providing consulting services
`
`to company executives who needed to make deployment plans, taking into
`
`consideration the strengths and weaknesses of the technology, economics, user
`
`value, etc. As such, I have developed a deep understanding of all aspects of a given
`
`technology, its features, added value, and the like. In addition, my consulting
`
`services included developing courses for the companies that were at the forefront of
`
`this developing technology. By definition, this new, previously non-existent
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`technology was not taught in university courses, as it was too new. Having
`
`developed hundreds of courses over the years and taught thousands of engineers (and
`
`non-engineers alike), I have a solid understanding and knowledge of the technical
`
`developments and how their importance fits in the larger puzzle of a fast-developing
`
`technology.
`
`18. My consulting included providing training to engineers in the field that
`
`were deploying the various networks. For example, I developed courses and
`
`provided training and consulting to the engineers deploying some of the earliest
`
`GSM networks in Germany and France, to be followed by many countries in Europe
`
`and around the world, including the USA when it was decided that GSM would be
`
`used in the USA. Successful deployments of the initial GSM systems were followed
`
`by deployments of GPRS and EDGE, which was then followed by deployments of
`
`3G UMTS systems world-wide. Of course, the 3G systems were followed by the
`
`currently most widespread deployments of 4G systems, also referred to as LTE,
`
`world-wide and most recently deployments of 5G networks. Thus, my experience
`
`includes a deep understanding of the entirety of each system that we broadly refer to
`
`as “1G,” “2G,” ‘‘3G,” “4G”, and “5G.”
`
`III. MATERIALS AND OTHER INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`19.
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon my
`
`education and many years of experience in the relevant field of the art and have
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`considered the viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the art (a POSITA) as
`
`of the Priority Date of the ’440 Patent. I have also considered the materials
`
`referenced in this Declaration, including the ’440 Patent, its file history, and other
`
`documents listed in the Exhibit List to the ’440 Petition. In particular, I have
`
`considered the prior art references listed in the Table below.
`
`Prior Art
`International Publication Number WO 2013/123961
`A1 to Lahetkangas et al. (“Lahetkangas”) (Ex. 1011)
`US. Patent No. 9,648,601 (“Wang”) (Ex. 1006)
`
`3GPP TS 36.213, Technical Specification Group
`Radio Access Network, Evolved Universal
`Terrestrial Radio Access (E—UTRA); Physical
`Layer Procedures (Release 10). Version 10.3.0 (Ex.
`1009)
`
`
`Date
`Priority date of February
`20, 2012
`Priority date of August 24,
`2012
`Published
`2011
`
`in September
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed by counsel the references listed in the Table above
`
`are prior art to the ’440 Patent. Lahetkangas has a priority date of February 20, 2012,
`
`thus before August 9, 2013, i.e., the alleged Priority Date of the ’440 Patent.
`
`21. The ’601 patent (Wang) has a priority date of August 24, 2012, thus
`
`before August 9, 2013, i.e., the alleged Priority Date of the ’440 Patent.
`
`22.
`
`I have also considered the following publications, which illustrate the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA as of at least August 9, 2013.
`
`Publication
`Ghosh et al., Fundamentals of LTE (“Ghosh”) (Ex.
`1007)
`
`Date
`Copyright date: 2011
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 13
`
`

`

`Sesia et al., LTE - The UMTS Long Term
`Evolution: From Theory to Practice (2nd Edition)
`(“Sesia”) (Ex. 1008)
`Dahlman et al., 4G LTE/LTE-Advanced for
`Mobile Broadband (“Dahlman”) (Ex. 1015)
`Holma et al., LTE for UMTS OFDMA and SC-
`FDMA Based Radio Access (2nd Edition)
`(“Holma”) (Ex. 1013)
`
`
`
`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`Published NLT 2012
`(copyright date: 2011)
`
`Published NLT 2012
`(copyright date: 2011)
`Published NLT 2012
`(copyright date: 2011)
`
`23. With respect to the Ghosh, the Sesia, the Dahlman and the Holma
`
`textbooks, I am personally familiar with and have used them during my career. They
`
`supplement information typically found in the 3GPP standards and often provide
`
`additional insight as to why certain things are done the way they are done, i.e., often
`
`provide an explanation of the problem and how the standards address it.
`
`24.
`
`I have found Ghosh, Sesia, Dahlman and Holma to be representative of
`
`the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of their publication.
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`25.
`I understand that prior art to the ’440 Patent includes patents and printed
`
`publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the ’440 Patent.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that claims in an IPR are given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
`
`specification and prosecution history, unless those sources show an intent to depart
`
`from such meaning.
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious.
`
`27.
`
`Anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim be disclosed expressly
`
`or inherently in a single prior art reference, arranged in the prior art reference as
`
`arranged in the claim. Obviousness of a claim requires that the claim be obvious
`
`from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time
`
`of the alleged invention. I understand that a claim may be obvious in view of a
`
`combination of two or more prior art references.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged invention
`
`and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the pertinent art.
`
`29.
`
`I understand
`
`that certain
`
`factors—often called “secondary
`
`considerations”—may support or rebut an assertion of obviousness of a claim. I
`
`understand that such secondary considerations include, among other things,
`
`commercial success of the alleged invention, skepticism of those having ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, unexpected results of the alleged
`
`invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the alleged
`
`invention, the failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the alleged
`
`invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the alleged
`
`invention by others in the field. I further understand that there must be a nexus—a
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the alleged invention.
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a
`
`secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`30.
`
`I further understand that a claim can be found obvious if it unites old
`
`elements with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by mere
`
`substitution of one element for another known in the field, with that combination
`
`yielding predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this
`
`combination, there is no rigid requirement for a teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`to combine. When a product is available, design incentives and other market forces
`
`can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or different one. If a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement a predictable variation,
`
`obviousness likely bars patentability. Similarly, if a technique has been used to
`
`improve one device, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize
`
`that the technique would improve similar devices in the same way, use of the
`
`technique is obvious.
`
`31.
`
`I also understand that the following rationales may support a finding of
`
`obviousness:
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`
`• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
`
`• Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`• Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified,
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`• Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives
`or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary
`skill in the art;
`
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`32.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 of the
`
`’440 Patent are rendered obvious by Lahetkangas and claims 8 and 18 are rendered
`
`obvious by Lahetkangas in view of Wang.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`33. The ʼ440 Patent is directed to enabling higher order modulation in a
`
`radio communication system, also referred to as a cellular network, or a wireless
`
`communication system, or wireless communications network. Such a network
`
`typically consists of (a) user equipment or UEs, such as cell phones, and (b)
`
`infrastructure equipment which may be a base station (“BS”) as shown in Fig. 1 of
`
`the ʼ440 Patent (Ex. 1001, Fig. 1) shown below:
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`34. The same concept is illustrated below in Fig. 1. Ex. 1011, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011, Fig. 1.
`
`35. These types of wireless communication systems are implemented in
`
`accordance with technical standards. The technical standards are typically
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`promulgated by standard setting organizations (SSOs) like the 3rd Generation
`
`Partnership Project (3GPP), including in large part the Technical Specifications (TS)
`
`developed by 3GPP for 4G-LTE and 5G systems, which have been adopted as
`
`technical standards in virtually all countries in the world. Such technical standards
`
`include detailed descriptions that a POSITA would use as part of wireless product
`
`design and development. Technical standards control the application of specific
`
`techniques to a plethora of aspects, including modulation, coding, modulation and
`
`coding schemes, and channel quality, per my below description.
`
`36. A BS may also be referred to by different terminology such as a NodeB
`
`or e-nodeB, or eNB. Ex. 1011, 3:32-33; Ex. 1001, 1:23-25. A BS and one or more
`
`UEs communicate by sending information using radio waves as shown in Figure 5.4
`
`below. Ex. 1013 (Holma), Figure 5.4.
`
`Ex. 1013 (Holma), Fig. 5.4.
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 19
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`37. Transmission from the base station to the UE is referred to as downlink
`
`(DL) communication, and transmission from the UE to the base station is referred to
`
`as uplink (UL) communication. For example, a Physical Downlink Control Channel
`
`(PDCCH) can be used for the base station to transmit control information to a UE
`
`which informs the UE of what resources have been allocated (by the base station) to
`
`the UE for it to use. Ex. 1013 (Holma), 5.8.
`
`38.
`
`In addition, the base station informs the UE of what Modulation and
`
`Coding (“MCS”) scheme is used. Ex. 1013 (Holma), 8.5.2; Ex. 1008 (Sesia), 9.3.5;
`
`Ex. 1015 (Dahlman), 10.4.4; Ex. 1007 (Ghosh), 9.2.
`
`A. Transport Block (TB) and Transport Block Size (TBS)
`39. Taking a downlink transmission as an example, to transmit data to a
`
`UE, the base station must first organize the user data bitstream into basic units called,
`
`at least in the relevant LTE system, Transport Blocks (TB) consisting of a certain
`
`number of bits. This is referred to as the Transport Block Size (TBS), which is simply
`
`the number of bits in a TB. See, e.g., Ex. 1015, 116 (“Data on a transport channel is
`
`organized into transport blocks.”) (emphasis in the original).
`
`40. The transmission of a TB is performed according to a Transport Format,
`
`which includes the TBS as well as the type of modulation and coding to be performed
`
`on the TB before transmission. Id. Thus, at the most basic level, each TB is channel
`
`coded and then modulated into waveform symbols that are transmitted over the air.
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 20
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`
`B. Coding
`41. Channel coding is performed to protect against errors (e.g., inadvertent
`
`bit flipping at the receiver relative to the value of the bit when it was transmitted)
`
`due to poor channel conditions. The choice of channel coding includes choosing a
`
`code rate (r, also called coding rate), which can be determined by the base station
`
`based on channel conditions. The base station communicates the code rate to the UE
`
`through a modulation and coding scheme index value, IMCS (which I describe further
`
`below). A lower code rate means more bits (also called “channel bits”) are used to
`
`transmit the same amount of user data (also called “information bits”). This is done
`
`in poor channel conditions to increase the probability that the UE can correctly
`
`receive the data, but at the expense of “wasted” communication bandwidth.
`
`Conversely, higher code rates mean that fewer channel bits are used to transmit the
`
`same amount of information bits; this is done in good channel conditions. The code
`
`rate r is simply the ratio of information bits (indicated by “I” herein) to channel bits
`
`(indicated by “C” herein), i.e., r = I/C.
`
`C. Modulation
`42. Modulation is the process of assigning a number (Qm) of channel bits
`
`to one of a number of waveforms (or modulation symbols) for transmission, which
`
`modifies features of a carrier wave to indicate the value of the channel bit(s) being
`
`transmitted. Qm is referred to as the modulation order. Thus, for example, QPSK
`
`IPR2022-00457
`Apple EX1003 Page 21
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes, Ph.D.
`Patent No. 9,509,440
`(Quadrature Phase Shift Keying) refers to the modulation scheme in which two
`
`channel bits (Qm=2) are assigned to one of four modulation symbols, for example 00
`
`is assigned to modulation symbol “1”, 01 to modulation symbol “2”, 10 to
`
`modulation symbol “3” and 11 to modulation symbol “4”. Similarly, in 16QAM each
`
`set of 4 channel bits (Qm=4) is assigned to one of 16 different waveforms or
`
`modulation symbols. Following the same principle, in 64QAM, each set of 6 channel
`
`bits (Qm=6) is assigned to one of 64 waveforms, and in 256QAM each set of 8
`
`channel bits (Qm=8) is assigned to one of 256 waveforms. The modulation orders of
`
`QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM and 256QAM are thus 2, 4, 6 and 8 respectively. Ex. 1011,
`
`13:20-22; Ex. 1013, 88.
`
`43. The choice of modulation scheme (e.g., QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM,
`
`256QAM) is determined by the base station and its modulation order Qm is
`
`communicated to the UE through the IMCS index, taking into account channel
`
`conditions. Ex. 1007 (Ghosh), 9.6. A higher modulation order means more channel
`
`bits can be represented by a single modulation symbol for transmission. Thus, a
`
`higher order modulation provides for more efficient usage of the transmission
`
`resources. However, by virtue of the fact that there are more symbols to be
`
`distinguished from each other, it is more susceptible to errors, thus it is t