Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00464
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. MURIEL MÉDARD, Sc.D
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00464
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. MURIEL MÉDARD, Sc.D
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 1
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 3
`Additional materials Considered ................................................................ 4
`Supplemental Opinions regarding the Petitioner’s Proposed
`Application of the Prior art to the Challenged Claims ............................. 5
`A. Novlan’s paragraph 54 does not teach rank-agnostic signaling. ............... 6
`B. Novlan and 36.213 do not teach “codebook subset restriction
`signaling that, for each of one or more groups of precoders, jointly
`restricts the precoders in the group by restricting a certain
`component that the precoders have in common.” .................................... 11
`a. Novlan’s Fourth Method of General CSR Does Not Disclose
`These Limitations. ............................................................................... 12
`b. Novlan’s Sampling Based Subset Restriction Is A Distinct
`Embodiment from Novlan’s Fourth Method of General CSR,
`and Does Not Cure Its Deficiencies. ................................................... 15
`C. The Petition’s Proposed Combination Requires Numerous
`Hindsight Modifications to Novlan Which Are Not Taught And
`Would Not Have Been Obvious to a POSITA. ....................................... 22
`IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 31
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Dr. Muriel Médard. I make this declaration based upon my
`
`own personal knowledge and, if called upon to testify, would testify competently to
`
`the matters contained herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide technical assistance in the inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 10,193,600, which I may abbreviate as “the ’600 Patent.”
`
`Ex. 1001. I previously provided a statement of my opinions related to the
`
`patentability of claims of the ‘600 Patent in a declaration dated May 9, 2022 (Ex.
`
`2001), which I incorporate by reference here. This supplemental declaration is a
`
`statement of certain additional opinions on issues related to the unpatentability of
`
`claims of the ’600 Patent. I am being compensated at my normal rate of $600 per
`
`hour for my analysis, plus reimbursement for expenses. My compensation does not
`
`depend on the content of my opinions or the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge. I am over the
`
`age of 18 and competent to make this declaration. The statements herein include my
`
`opinions and the bases for those opinions, which relate to at least the Petition and
`
`associated exhibits. I have reviewed the Board’s Institution Decision in detail, and
`
`I have also reviewed Patent Owner’s Response (POR). I agree with the analyses and
`
`conclusions set forth in the POR.
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`4.
`
`For the reasons set forth in Ex. 2003, and for the additional reasons set
`
`forth below, it is my opinion that the Petition fails to show that the challenged claims
`
`are unpatentable.
`
`II. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`5.
`
`In addition to the materials listed in Section IV of my May 9, 2022
`
`declaration (Ex. 2001), I have now additionally reviewed the Institution Decision as
`
`well as the deposition transcript of Dr. Apostolos K. Kakaes. A complete list of the
`
`materials I have considered is set forth below.
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 10,193,600 (“the ’600 Patent”)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`
`
`Certified File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,193,600
`
`Declaration of Dr. Apostolos K. Kakaes for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,193,600
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Apostolos K. Kakaes
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0016549 (“Novlan”)
`3GPP TS 36.213, v12.3.0 (“36.213”)
`3GPP TS 36.213, v10.1.0
`U.S. Patent No. 8,891,676
`Declaration of Friedhelm Rodermund in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,193,600
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/103,101 (“the ’600
`Patent Provisional”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0163687 (“Jing”)
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/670,936 (the “Novlan
`Provisional”)
`Dahlman et al., 4G – LTE / LTE-Advanced for Mobile Broadband
`(Academic Press 2011) (“Dahlman”)
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 4
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`Description
`Declaration of James L. Mullins in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,193,600
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0051091
`Sesia, et al., LTE - The UMTS Long Term Evolution From Theory
`to Practice (Wiley 2d. ed. 2011) (“Sesia”)
`Declaration of Jacob Robert Munford in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,193,600
`Declaration Of Dr. Muriel Médard, Sc.D In Support Of Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Muriel Médard
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Apostolos K. Kakaes (Nov. 11, 2022)
`
`Exhibit
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`
`
`III. SUPPLEMENTAL OPINIONS REGARDING THE PETITIONER’S
`PROPOSED APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`6.
`
`This supplemental declaration provides further support for my opinion
`
`that neither Novlan alone (Ex. 1005), nor Novlan taken in view of 36.213 (Ex. 1006)
`
`discloses, teaches, or suggests each and every limitation of the Challenged Claims.
`
`My May 22 declaration focused on Novlan’s failure to disclose “the codebook subset
`
`restriction signaling is rank-agnostic signaling that jointly restricts the precoders in
`
`a group without regard to the precoders’ transmission rank.” This supplemental
`
`declaration further addresses this argument, particularly regarding paragraph 54 of
`
`Novlan’s failure to teach “rank-agnostic signaling.” I also provide my opinions with
`
`respect to two additional flaws in the petition. These arguments are organized in my
`
`declaration as follows:
`
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 5
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`A) Novlan’s paragraph 54 does not teach rank-agnostic signaling;
`
`B) Novlan and 36.213 do not teach “codebook subset restriction signaling
`
`that, for each of one or more groups of precoders, jointly restricts the
`
`precoders in the group by restricting a certain component that the precoders
`
`have in common.”
`
`C) The Petition’s Proposed Combination Requires Numerous Hindsight
`
`Modifications to Novlan Which Would Not Have Been Obvious to a
`
`POSITA.
`
`A. NOVLAN’S PARAGRAPH 54 DOES NOT TEACH RANK-AGNOSTIC
`SIGNALING.
`
`7.
`
`Novlan’s paragraph 54 states the following:
`
`[0054] As shown in FIG. 7, angle θF , which represents the elevation
`angle range experienced by the outdoor UEs, is much smaller than
`θC,which represents the elevation angle range experienced by all the
`UEs. Codebooks may be designed to sample the entire spatial domain
`(based on a sampled DFT for example). Thus, one method for
`improving the efficiency of vertical PMI selection and reducing CQI
`computation complexity is to restrict the UE to searching through the
`codebook only over those precoders that correspond to relevant spatial
`domain.
`
`8.
`
`The POSITA would have understood this paragraph to be generally
`
`introducing the idea of codebook restriction, not describing an innovative way to
`
`signal codebook restrictions using “rank-agnostic signaling.” The first two
`
`sentences of this paragraph generally describe the concept that while the UE may
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`have access to a codebook that has precoders that collectively cover the entire spatial
`
`domain, there may be individual precoders not relevant to that UE’s spatial location.
`
`Figure 7 is illustrative of that idea, where the UE’s elevation angle may make certain
`
`precoders not relevant to that UE (i.e., particular UEs may be located at elevation
`
`angles (θF) that are much smaller than the possible elevation angles (θC) of all the
`
`UEs):
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Novlan’s selection of which precoders to restrict is based on the
`
`observation that certain UEs may be located at an elevation angle that makes certain
`
`precoders irrelevant. To restrict based on UE elevation (i.e., in the vertical direction)
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`Novlan teaches to restrict the UE to searching only over vertical PMIs that
`
`correspond to the UE’s relevant elevation angle (i.e., spatial domain).
`
`10. The concept of Novlan to “restrict the UE to searching through the
`
`codebook only over those precoders that correspond to relevant spatial domain” is
`
`hardly innovative. The POSITA would have understood that restricting precoders
`
`to a particular spatial domain was a conventional way to choose a subset of precoders
`
`for codebook restrictions. The POSITA would have understood Novlan’s merely
`
`proposing in this paragraph that one way to choose the relevant spatial domain is to
`
`restrict the vertical precoders to the relevant elevation angle, as discussed above.
`
`The mere silence of this paragraph on rank would not be assumed by the POSITA
`
`to suggest rank-agnostic signaling.
`
`11. Even if it were wrongly assumed that paragraph 54 teaches a “rank-
`
`agnostic restriction,” such a teaching is insufficient to disclose the invention claimed
`
`by the ’600 Patent because the claims of the ’600 Patent require more than a rank-
`
`agnostic restriction in the abstract. The Challenged Claims require “rank-agnostic
`
`signaling” and the mere disclosure of a “rank-agnostic restriction,” without more,
`
`fails to disclose “the codebook subset restriction signaling is rank-agnostic signaling
`
`that jointly restricts the precoders in a group without regard to the precoders’
`
`transmission rank.”
`
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 8
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`12. Paragraph 54 is not describing some non-conventional way to signal
`
`the restriction to the UE (other than extending the restriction to the vertical). The
`
`POSITA would have understood that this paragraph was not proposing to change
`
`how restrictions could be signaled, only to how vertical precoders could be selected
`
`for restriction based on elevation angle. Paragraph 54’s silence on rank would not
`
`have been understood by the POSITA to teach a rank-agnostic signaling; the
`
`paragraph merely suggests that the UE should be restricted to searching “only over
`
`those precoders that correspond to the relevant spatial domain.” Paragraph 54 does
`
`not teach how any restriction should be signaled to the UE.
`
`13. Choosing the appropriate vertical PMIs must be followed by
`
`appropriate CSR signaling to inform the UE of the restricted codebooks. Paragraph
`
`54 comes before the section of Novlan that specifically describes methods for
`
`signaling subset restrictions to the UE. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶[0055]-[0064]. To
`
`understand how to signal the restricted vertical PMIs, one must look to one or more
`
`of the various alternative embodiments disclosed by Novlan for doing so.
`
`14. And as I explained in my May 22 declaration, all of Novlan’s signaling
`
`methods for CSR expressly rely on precoder and rank-specific signaling. Ex. 2001,
`
`¶¶33-34. I also explained that the POSITA would have understood that Novlan’s
`
`disclosure of a restriction based on elevation angle does not necessarily mean that
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 9
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`its restriction is based solely on elevation angle to the exclusion of all else; the
`
`restriction signaling based on Novlan is also specific to rank. Ex. 2001, ¶¶33-34.
`
`All of the evidence I have seen shows that Novlan’s CSR signaling methods are
`
`specific to rank; there is no teaching of a rank-agnostic signaling method in Novlan.
`
`15. Novlan and TS 36.213, whether alone or in combination with one
`
`another, do not teach rank-agnostic signaling, and the codebook subset restrictions
`
`do not restrict precoders in a group without regard to the precoders’ transmission
`
`rank.
`
`16. Dr. Kakaes conceded at his deposition that there are methods of CSR
`
`taught by Novlan that are not rank-agnostic. Ex. 2003 at 96:2-97:14; 128:15-129:3
`
`(conceding the embodiments of [0077] and [0102] are not rank-agnostic). Paragraph
`
`77 is, of course, describing the same embodiment as [0078], which is relied on by
`
`Dr. Kakaes. Dr. Kakaes’ concession is important, because it shows that a CSR may
`
`restrict to the relevant spatial domain using signaling that is not rank-agnostic, which
`
`undercuts Dr. Kakaes’ view that [0054] necessarily teaches a rank-agnostic
`
`restriction. Indeed, he does not show any rank-agnostic method of CSR signaling
`
`taught by either Novlan or 36.213. Even assuming a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to extend the teachings of [0064] to Rank 2 V-PMIs, Table 1 at best
`
`teaches the POSITA to send higher level signaling that gives the UE the precise
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`mapping of PMI indication field bits to a group of specific desired precoders; it does
`
`not teach to signal a restriction of some common component between the Rank 1
`
`and Rank 2 V-PMI regardless of rank. Ex. 2003, at 117:17-118:19. Therefore, even
`
`if the POSITA were to try and extend Table 1 to Rank-2 PMIs, the POSITA would
`
`have done so using groups of specifically identified Rank-2 V-PMIs (which does not
`
`disclose a rank-agnostic signaling).
`
`B. NOVLAN AND 36.213 DO NOT TEACH “CODEBOOK SUBSET
`RESTRICTION SIGNALING THAT, FOR EACH OF ONE OR MORE GROUPS
`OF PRECODERS, JOINTLY RESTRICTS THE PRECODERS IN THE GROUP
`BY RESTRICTING A CERTAIN COMPONENT THAT THE PRECODERS
`HAVE IN COMMON.”
`
`17. Novlan and 36.213 only teach signaling restrictions that identify
`
`specific precoders (or groups of precoders) to restrict, which fails to teach any
`
`“codebook subset restriction signaling that, for each of one or more groups of
`
`precoders, jointly restricts the precoders in the group by restricting a certain
`
`component that the precoders have in common.” Novlan and 36.213 both signal
`
`restrictions using bitmaps of restricted precoders (or groups of precoders as
`
`suggested in Novlan’s Table 1), and contain no suggestion to use νm for CSR
`
`signaling.
`
`18. Dr. Kakaes’ rationale for this limitation based on the observation that
`
`each of 36.213’s restricted codebooks may have a common component (νm) across
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`Rank 1 and 2. Dr. Kakaes confuses νm as a component that has some common
`
`quantity or “value,” apparently based on a common nomenclature. As I will explain
`
`in Section III.C below, this is not correct at least because νm is a vector that takes on
`
`different values according to rank. In other words, the same PMI values do not index
`
`to the same νm vectors regardless of rank. Regardless, neither reference has any
`
`teaching, suggestion, or disclosure to use νm to signal a restriction. Rather, each
`
`embodiment of both references teaches to signal CSRs using a rank-specific bitmap
`
`to identify restricted precoder(s). The suggestion to signal restrictions of νm runs
`
`counter to the teachings of each reference to signal CSRs using rank-specific
`
`bitmaps. It is my opinion that Dr. Kakaes’ rationale is only made with the benefit
`
`of hindsight reasoning; the only evidence I’ve seen to restrict certain components of
`
`precoders, as opposed to the precoders themselves, comes from the teachings of the
`
`’600 Patent.
`
`a.
`
`Novlan’s Fourth Method of General CSR Does Not Disclose
`These Limitations.
`
`19. As teaching “jointly restricting the precoders in the group,” the Petition
`
`relies on ¶[0064] and Table 1 of Novlan. Pet. 25. But this embodiment does not
`
`restrict a group of precoders by restricting a certain component that the precoders
`
`have in common. This point was conceded by Dr. Kakaes, who explained that
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`Novlan’s fourth general CSR method is made “irrespective of what the structure of
`
`the precoders . . . is.” Ex. 2003, at 123:15-124:18.
`
`20.
`
`In Novlan’s fourth method of general CSR, the “M subset restricted
`
`matrices are configured by the eNB” using higher-level signaling. Ex. 1005 ¶[0064].
`
`The eNB sends a mapping of restricted PMIs shown in Table 1 using higher-level
`
`signaling, which provides a mapping of 2-bit values to groups of desired PMI
`
`indices.
`
`
`
`21. Ex. 1005 ¶[0064]. In this embodiment, once the UE has received the
`
`mapping, the eNB may restrict the UE to the desired PMI group using a single, two
`
`bit “PMI indication field.” See also Fig. 8. As shown in Figure 8, the UE is then
`
`restricted to 2-bit PMI reporting, which a POSITA would have understood would be
`
`used to identify one of the four desired PMIs (all others being restricted). This is
`
`consistent with Dr. Kakaes’s understanding of Table 1 and Figure 8. Ex. 2003, at
`
`119:18-123:7 (explaining Novlan’s fourth method of general CSR in the context of
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 13
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`Figure 8).
`
`
`
`22. For example, as shown above at step 804, the eNB might signal a PMI
`
`indication field of ‘00,’ restricting the UE to PMI indices “1, 5, 9, 13.” Ex. 2003
`
`(Kakaes Dep.) at 121:17-122:5. The UE is then restricted to reporting a 2-bit PMI
`
`(shown directly to the right of step 804), which identifies one of PMIs 1, 5, 9, or 13.
`
`While Table 1 does not require an individual bit for each precoder, each 2-bit value
`
`restricts precoders by identifying a specific group of desired precoders.
`
`23.
`
`In the example used for Table 1, there are N = 16 vertical matrices as
`
`described in ¶[0057], and each 2-bit PMI indicator refers to a group of four PMIs
`
`identified using a numerical value 1..16 in the PMI indices field of Table 1. ¶[0064].
`
`For example, a PMI indication of ‘00’ limits the desired PMIs to PMIs 1, 5, 9, or 13,
`
`as discussed above. This implicitly restricts the UE from reporting on PMIs 2-4, 6-
`
`8, 10-12, or 14-16. But this form of restriction is still restricting a specific set of
`
`precoders as identified in the PMI indices field, and it does not restrict any particular
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 14
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`component of the precoders. Novlan’s fourth method, therefore, does not restrict
`
`precoders in each group by restricting a “common component” to precoders in the
`
`group. To the contrary, it restricts using a bit field that identifies a specific group of
`
`desired precoders, thereby excluding undesired precoders from selection by the UE
`
`as discussed above.
`
`24. The Petition contends this embodiment discloses a “joint restriction”
`
`because “it restricts multiple precoders without requiring a bit associated with each
`
`individual precoder matrix.” Pet. 26. But, as conceded by Dr. Kakaes, the structure
`
`of the precoder is not relevant to this embodiment because the restriction is made
`
`irrespective of what the structure of the individual precoder is. Ex. 2003, at 123:15-
`
`124:18. Accordingly, the “joint restriction” taught by Novlan does not restrict “a
`
`group of precoders by restricting a certain component that the precoders have in
`
`common.”
`
`b.
`
`Novlan’s Sampling Based Subset Restriction Is A Distinct
`Embodiment from Novlan’s Fourth Method of General
`CSR, and Does Not Cure Its Deficiencies.
`
`25. While the Petition relies on Novlan’s fourth method of CSR as teaching
`
`a “joint restriction,” it leaps to a different embodiment as teaching “restricting a
`
`certain component that the precoders in the group have in common.” Pet. 27 (citing
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶[0078]). This embodiment of Novlan relates to methods for sampling-
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 15
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`based subset restriction. Ex. 1005 ¶[0074]-[0080]. Neither embodiment teaches
`
`“codebook subset restriction signaling that, for each of one or more groups of
`
`precoders, jointly restricts the precoders in the group by restricting a certain
`
`component that the precoders have in common.”
`
`26. The Petition relies on a portion of Novlan that reproduces Table 7.2.4-
`
`1 from 36.213. Ex. 1005 ¶[0078]. Dr. Kakaes concedes that Novlan’s Table 1 (relied
`
`on for “joint restriction” and this part of Novlan describe “different embodiments.”
`
`Ex. 2003, at 124:20-125:4. I agree, and I have seen no plausible explanation for how
`
`or why the POSITA would be motivated to combine these embodiments. Dr. Kakaes
`
`confirmed that these two embodiments use a different precoder indexing scheme,
`
`and one could not use the indexing scheme from Table 1 to index Table 7.2.4-1. Ex.
`
`2003, at 124:20-125:4. Moreover, Table 7.2.4-1 and -2 provide a mechanism for the
`
`UE to index and identify a particular codebook for CSI reporting purposes, it does
`
`not even describe a method for CSR restriction at all. Table 7.2.4-1 of Novlan (and
`
`36.213) does not disclose jointly restricting groups of precoders nor discloses doing
`
`so “by restricting a certain component that the precoders have in common” either.
`
`27. Novlan’s sampling-based subset restriction embodiment is based on
`
`Table 7.2.4-1 of 36.213, which is a “double codebook structure” that requires two
`
`prematrix indicators, i1 and i2, to index any particular codebook. ¶¶[0075],[0077]-
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 16
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`[0078]. Table 7.2.4-1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`28. The Petition relies on νm shown above as the “certain component that
`
`precoders in the group have in common.” Pet. 27. The Petition theorizes that a
`
`POSITA would have somehow recognized that the “precoders in the group identified
`
`above (those that do not ‘correspond to [the] relevant spatial domain’) would all
`
`have a certain component in common, νm., that is associated with a particular
`
`elevation angle that is outside of the relevant spatial domain.” Pet. 27. The Petition
`
`goes on to observe that 36.213 (Ex. 1006) includes Table 7.2.4-2, which is a Rank 2
`
`codebook also indexed by i1 and i2. Pet. 29. Table 7.2.4-2 is reproduced below.
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 17
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`
`
`29. The Petition theorizes that the νm “values” would be identical for the
`
`same elevation angle, citing only to paragraph 54 of Novlan and Dr. Kakaes’
`
`declaration at ¶90. Pet. 31. However, Dr. Kakaes conceded under oath that this is
`
`incorrect, and that the elevation angle of any particular νm will vary based on the
`
`base station’s antenna configuration. Ex. 2003, 58:12-59:25. The Petition goes on to
`
`theorize that it would have been obvious to signal a joint restriction using νm as a
`
`common component regardless of rank. Pet. at 31-33.
`
`30.
`
`I disagree with these theories and submit that the POSITA would not
`
`have been motivated to use νm as a common component to restrict across ranks.
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`31. First, the Petition’s assumption that there is a particular νm associated
`
`with an elevation angle (e.g. 80º) is wrong. As conceded by Dr. Kakaes, the vm is
`
`an array of four complex values that does not, by itself, resolve to any particular
`
`elevation angle. Ex. 2003, at 54:23-58:19; 61:25-62:5; 68:13-19. Dr. Kakaes was
`
`unable to calculate an elevation angle from a particular νm. Id. This is because the
`
`POSITA would need more formulas and information to perform such a calculation
`
`(none of which is taught by Novlan or 36.213 nor explained by the Petition). Id.
`
`32. A POSITA would understand that the elevation angle of any particular
`
`beam created by the 3GPP precoders would be dependent on the antenna
`
`configuration and could vary from base station to base station. The POSITA would
`
`be faced with the challenge of not only coming up with a new way to signal vm than
`
`is taught by the prior art, she would also need to figure a way to associate vms to
`
`elevation angle across varying antenna configurations. In my opinion, this would
`
`not have been an obvious problem for the POSITA to solve.
`
`33. But even assuming that the Petitioner could somehow show that
`
`particular νm “values” can be resolved to particular elevation angles, Novlan and
`
`36.213 still fail to disclose, teach, or suggest signaling νm “values” to restrict
`
`precoders that supposedly would have νm “values” in common. The portions of
`
`Novlan relied on by the Petition and Dr. Kakaes do not describe how to signal CSRs
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 19
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`at all. The 7.2.4 tables define what the precoders are and provide a mechanism for
`
`the UE to identify a precoder (using i1 and i2) in its CSI reporting. These tables do
`
`not describe how to signal a CSR. The POSITA would have been motivated to look
`
`elsewhere in the standard to determine how to signal a CSR according to 3GPP. Ex.
`
`2003, at 48:24-50:13.
`
`34. The section of 36.213 that discusses signaling CSRs does so by
`
`indicating whether particular precoders are restricted. Ex. 2003, at 53:7-54:8.
`
`Section 7.2 of 36.213 discusses the bitmap parameter used to communicate
`
`restrictions and states:
`
`Codebook subset restriction is supported for transmission modes 3, 4,
`5, 6 and for transmission modes 8, 9 and 10 with PMI/RI reporting. The
`resulting number of bits for each transmission mode is given in Table
`7.2-1b. The bitmap forms the bit
`where
`0a is the LSB
`,...,
` , , ,aaaa
`
`
`
`aA
`1
`3
`2
`1
`0
`is the MSB and where a bit value of zero indicates that the
`and
`1cAa
`PMI and RI reporting is not allowed to correspond to precoder(s)
`associated with the bit. Ex. 1006 at 62.
`
`c
`
`35.
`
`In all cases in 36.213, the bitmap yields separate bits that identify by i1
`
`and i2 the precoders that are restricted for each layer. There is no suggestion in
`
`36.213 or the cited portions of Novlan to use a common component to jointly restrict
`
`multiple precoders, rather, each precoder is signaled using the bitmap described
`
`above. Id. at 62-63.
`
`36. Novlan’s disclosure of how to signal CSRs is consistent with 36.213.
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 20
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`In the bitmap signaling for codebook subset restriction described by Novlan in
`
`conjunction with its Sampling Based Subset Restriction, each bit is specific to one
`
`and only one precoder. See Ex. 1005 ¶[0100]-¶[0103]. This is shown explicitly in
`
`paragraph 101, which states the following:
`
`[0101] Codebook subset restriction can be signaled to a UE by using a
`bitmap in a UE-specific manner. A bit value of zero in the bitmap
`indicates that the PMI reporting is not allowed to correspond to the
`precoder associated with the bit. The number of bits in the codebook
`subset restriction bitmap N is determined by the number of precoders
`allowed. The bitmap A forms the bit sequence aN-1, . . . , a3, a2, a2, a1,
`a0, where a0 is the least significant bit (LSB) and aN-1 is the most
`significant bit (MSB).
`
`37. Novlan explains that “codebook subset restriction can be signaled …
`
`using a bitmap,” but that each bit in the bitmap is “associated with the precoder for
`
`ν layers …,” where ν corresponds to rank. Id. ¶[0101]-¶[0102]; see also ¶[0077]
`
`(defining “ν” as “equal to the associated RI value”). Accordingly, Novlan teaches
`
`to use a bitmap to identify the restriction for each precoder for each rank (just like
`
`36.213). The POSITA would have understood that the restriction method of
`
`paragraph 101 does not identify a component of the precoder on which to restrict
`
`and therefore restricts regardless of the structure of any component of each precoder.
`
`The POSITA would have been motivated to use signaling like this to signal CSRs,
`
`not use νm as suggested by Dr. Kakaes. I have seen no teaching within Novlan to
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 21
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`restrict precoders by signaling νm as suggested by Dr. Kakaes.
`
`38. The teachings of paragraph 54 do not change this analysis. For
`
`example, paragraph 54 of Novlan contains no teachings of how to signal a CSR at
`
`all, let alone a suggestion to jointly restrict by restricting a certain component the
`
`precoders have in common. Nor would its vague reference to restricting based on
`
`elevation angle motivated the POSITA to make fundamental changes to the
`
`operation of Novlan or 36.213 of the kind suggested by the Petition and Dr. Kakaes.
`
`In short, the use of νm as a common component is not taught by either reference and
`
`runs counter to the methods for signaling CSR actually taught by both references.
`
`C. THE PETITION’S PROPOSED COMBINATION REQUIRES NUMEROUS
`HINDSIGHT MODIFICATIONS TO NOVLAN WHICH ARE NOT TAUGHT
`AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS TO A POSITA.
`
`39.
`
`It is my opinion that the teachings of Novlan and 36.213 would have
`
`motivated the POSITA to use the conventional, rank-specific CSR signaling
`
`techniques actually taught by Novlan and 36.213. The POSITA would not have
`
`attempted to modify Novlan’s teachings to signal CSR using νm across multiple
`
`ranks. The proposed combination of Novlan requires numerous hindsight
`
`modifications to Novlan that are not taught or suggested by the prior art. In essence,
`
`the Petition’s theory would require the POSITA to do the opposite of what is taught
`
`by these references. The only motivation I have located for making these
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 2004
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`IPR2022-00464, Page 22
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Muriel Médard
`
`modifications is using the teachings of the ’600 Patent. As such, it is my opinion
`
`that the invalidity grounds presented in the petition rely on the benefit of hindsight
`
`using the ’600 Patent as a roadmap. I am informed by Counsel that this is improper.
`
`40.
`
` The Petition’s proposed modification include combining aspects of
`
`Novlan’s method for “General Subset Restriction” (i.e., Table 1) with aspects of
`
`Novlan’s method for “Sampling Based Restriction,” (i.e., Table 7.2.4-1) and with
`
`aspects of 36.213 (i.e., Table 7.2.4-2), and then further modifying these methods to
`
`use νm.to restrict precoders across multiple ranks. These combinations are not taught
`
`or suggested
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
