Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`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. IPR2022-00464
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,193,600
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. APOSTOLOS K. KAKAES, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 10,193,600
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`ASSIGNMENT ..................................................................................................................... 4
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................................... 4
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ............................................................................................ 10
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW .......................................................................... 11
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .............................................................................................. 15
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................. 15
`
`VII. THE ‘600 PATENT ............................................................................................................ 28
`
`VIII. ORDINARY SKILL ........................................................................................................... 30
`
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ................................................................................... 32
`
`X. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF GROUND I .......................................................................... 37
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................................................. 38
`
`Dependent Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 51
`
`Dependent Claim 3 ..................................................................................................... 53
`
`Dependent Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 54
`
`Dependent Claim 5 ..................................................................................................... 57
`
`Dependent Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 58
`
`Dependent Claim 7 ..................................................................................................... 61
`
`Independent Claim 8 .................................................................................................. 64
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 2
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`Dependent Claim 9 ..................................................................................................... 67
`
`9.
`
`10. Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................................................... 67
`
`11. Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................................................... 68
`
`12. Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................................................... 68
`
`13. Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................................................... 69
`
`14. Dependent Claim 14 ................................................................................................... 69
`
`15.
`
`Independent Claim 15 ................................................................................................ 70
`
`16. Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................................................... 72
`
`17. Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................................................... 72
`
`18. Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................................................... 73
`
`19. Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................................................... 73
`
`20. Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................................................... 74
`
`21. Dependent Claim 21 ................................................................................................... 74
`
`22.
`
`Independent Claim 22 ................................................................................................ 75
`
`23. Dependent Claim 23 ................................................................................................... 77
`
`24. Dependent Claim 24 ................................................................................................... 77
`
`25. Dependent Claim 25 ................................................................................................... 78
`
`26. Dependent Claim 26 ................................................................................................... 78
`
`27. Dependent Claim 27 ................................................................................................... 79
`
`28. Dependent Claim 28 ................................................................................................... 79
`
`XI. THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS .............................. 80
`
`XII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 81
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 3
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`
`I, Apostolos K. Kakaes, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`ASSIGNMENT
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Petitioner Apple,
`
`Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) to offer technical opinions related to U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,193,600 (Ex. 1001, “the ʼ600 Patent”). I understand that Petitioner requests that
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board institute an inter partes review (proceeding of the
`
`ʼ600 Patent).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent analysis of the ʼ600 Patent
`
`in light of the prior art discussed below. Specifically, I have been asked to provide
`
`my opinion regarding whether claims 1–28 of the ʼ600 Patent are invalid as obvious
`
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`3.
`
`I am not currently, and never have been, an employee of Apple. I
`
`received no compensation for preparing this declaration beyond my normal hourly
`
`compensation based on my time actually spent in analyzing the issues and preparing
`
`this declaration. Nor will I receive any added compensation based on my opinions
`
`or the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`4.
`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
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 4
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`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” communication systems.
`
`5.
`
`My Curriculum Vitae, which includes my complete education and work
`
`experience, is included as Exhibit 1004. I describe several relevant aspects of my
`
`experience below.
`
`6.
`
`I am an expert in the field of communication engineering and
`
`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.
`
`7.
`
`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,
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`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.
`
`8.
`
`I was an Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`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.
`
`9.
`
`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
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 6
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`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
`
`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.
`
`10. 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
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`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.
`
`11.
`
`I have served as a reviewer for the IEEE, book editors, other technical
`
`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.
`
`12. 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.
`
`13. My involvement in this industry includes providing consulting services
`
`to company executives who needed to make deployment plans, taking into
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`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
`
`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.
`
`14. 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 wide-spread deployments of 4G systems, also referred to as LTE,
`
`world-wide and most recently deployments of 5G networks. Thus, my experience
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 9
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`includes a deep understanding of the entirety of each system that we broadly refer to
`
`as “1G,” “2G,” ‘‘3G,” “4G”, and “5G”.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`15.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this declaration, I relied upon my
`
`education and many years of experience in the relevant field of art. I have considered
`
`the materials referenced in this declaration, including the ’600 Patent, its file history,
`
`and other exhibits to the petition.
`
`16.
`
`I have considered these materials from the viewpoint of a POSITA as
`
`of the priority date of the ʼ600 Patent. For the purposes of this declaration, I have
`
`been asked to assume that the priority date of the ’600 Patent is January 14, 2015. I
`
`note that my opinions provided in this Declaration are made from the perspective of
`
`a POSITA as of this priority date of the ’600 Patent, unless expressly stated
`
`otherwise. To the extent that I use any verb tense in this Declaration that is present
`
`tense (e.g., “a POSITA would understand” instead of “a POSITA would have
`
`understood”), such verb tense should be understood to be my opinion as of the ’600
`
`Patent’s priority date (again, unless expressly stated otherwise). I merely use the
`
`present verb tense for ease of reading.
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 10
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`
`17.
`
`I am not an attorney. In forming my analysis and conclusions expressed
`
`in this declaration, I have applied the legal principles described in the following
`
`paragraphs, which were provided to me by counsel for Petitioner.
`
`A.
`
`18.
`
`Obviousness
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the differences between the
`
`claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time the alleged invention was made.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`claimed invention provides a reference point from which the prior art and claimed
`
`invention should be viewed. This reference point is applied instead of someone using
`
`his or her own insight or hindsight in deciding whether a claim is obvious.
`
`20.
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the
`
`consideration of various factors such as: (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`(2) the differences between the prior art and the asserted claims, (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) the existence of secondary considerations
`
`such as commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, and so
`
`forth.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that an obviousness evaluation can be based on a
`
`combination of multiple prior art references. I understand further that prior art
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 11
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`references themselves may provide a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine,
`
`but that at other times the linkage between two or more prior art references is simple
`
`common sense.
`
`22.
`
`I further understand that the obviousness analysis recognizes that
`
`market demand often drives innovation, and that a motivation to modify references
`
`may be supplied by the direction of the marketplace.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that if a technique has been used to improve one device,
`
`and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
`
`devices in the same way, using the technique would have been obvious unless its
`
`actual application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`24.
`
`I also understand that practical and common-sense considerations
`
`should guide a proper obviousness analysis, because familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes. I further understand that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art seeking to overcome a problem through invention will often
`
`be able to fit together the teachings of multiple publications or modify the teachings
`
`of a particular publication in accordance with the ordinary skill in the art. I
`
`understand that the obviousness analysis therefore considers the inferences and
`
`creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`I understand that a particular combination may be shown to be obvious
`
`25.
`
`to combine merely by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. For
`
`example, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there
`
`are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a POSITA has good reason
`
`to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp because the result is
`
`likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
`
`26.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis
`
`focuses on what was known or obvious to a POSITA, not just the patentee.
`
`Accordingly, I understand that any need or problem known to those of ordinary skill
`
`in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can
`
`provide a reason for combining or modifying the elements.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference,
`
`without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not
`
`found explicitly or inherently in the reference but can be supplied by the knowledge
`
`or common sense of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that secondary indicia of non-obviousness may include (1)
`
`a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the invention of the
`
`patent; (2) commercial success of processes covered by the patent; (3) unexpected
`
`results achieved by the invention; (4) praise of the invention by others skilled in the
`
`art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent by others; (6) deliberate copying of the
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`invention; (7) failure of others to find a solution to the long felt need; and (8)
`
`skepticism by experts. I understand that evidence of secondary indicia of non-
`
`obviousness, if available, should be considered as part of the obviousness analysis.
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that there must be a relationship between any such
`
`secondary considerations and
`
`the
`
`invention.
`
`I
`
`further understand
`
`that
`
`contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary consideration
`
`supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`30.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a person of ordinary skill in the art having the understanding and
`
`knowledge reflected in the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing the
`
`inventor, would have been led to make the combination of elements described in the
`
`claims. Under this analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or
`
`problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a
`
`reason for combining the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that obviousness in an IPR must be proven by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence.
`
`B.
`
`32.
`
`Claim Construction Standard
`
`I understand that terms appearing in the patent claims are to be
`
`interpreted according to their “ordinary and customary meaning” in an IPR
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`proceeding. In determining the ordinary and custom meaning, the words of a claim
`
`are first given their plain meaning as they would have been understood by a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the
`
`specification and file history. I have followed this approach in my analysis and have
`
`applied the ordinary and customary meaning of those terms throughout my analysis
`
`in this declaration.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`33.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1–28 of the ’600 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0016549 to Novlan et al. (“Novlan,”
`
`Ex. 1005) alone or alternatively in view of 3GPP TS 36.213 v12.3.0 (“36.213,” Ex.
`
`1006).
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`34.
`
`The ’600 Patent relates to a network node and a device in a wireless
`
`communication network and, in particular, to signaling which precoders in a
`
`codebook are restricted from being used. See Ex. 1001 at, e.g., 1:13–18. The ’600
`
`Patent can be applied to Long Term Evolution (LTE) and the usage of codebooks
`
`within LTE. LTE refers to the LTE wireless standard that companies use to provide
`
`interoperable fourth generation (4G) wireless communications. In the Third
`
`Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP,” which is effectively a standards setting
`
`organization
`
`that
`
`sets
`
`technical
`
`specifications associated with wireless
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 15
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`telecommunications), including the LTE cellular system that provides the
`
`background for the ’600 Patent, the terminal (such as a mobile phone) is referred to
`
`as the “User Equipment” or “UE,” and the base station as the “Evolved NodeB” also
`
`known as an “eNodeB” or “eNB.” The background on the technology provided
`
`below in this section is set forth in the context of the prior art 4G LTE standard.
`
`35. A base station usually comprises multiple antennas, which improves
`
`the performance and/or increases the amount of data that can be transmitted at any
`
`given time. See Ex. 1001 at 1:22–25 (“The use of multiple antennas at the transmitter
`
`… can significantly boost the capacity and coverage of a wireless communication
`
`system.”).
`
`36.
`
`For instance, as depicted below, a typical base station (represented by
`
`the tower on the right) has multiple antenna arrays and each array has a series of
`
`individual antennas (elements 402) arranged horizontally and/or vertically, as shown
`
`in the enlarged view on the left:
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`
`See Ex. 1005 at Fig. 4. The ’600 Patent also contemplates such an array, as shown
`
`in the figure below:
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 3, 5:49–51. One benefit of having multiple transmit antennas at the
`
`base station (eNB) is that the eNB can steer the transmitted signals in a particular
`
`direction and potentially transmit more than one stream of data using the same
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 17
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`resources. Steering of the transmitted signals is sometimes called “beamforming.”
`
`Two dimensional arrays, as shown in the figures above, have the ability to steer in
`
`both horizontal and vertical directions.
`
`37.
`
`Two or more elements of an antenna array may be grouped together and
`
`use the same “feed.” The signal that is used to “feed” elements of the same group is
`
`said to be provided to a corresponding “antenna port.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 9:30–
`
`32, 14:32–36; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 50, 77, 122, 127; Ex. 1008 at 7:18–26. While the number
`
`of physical antennas in any one implementation is fixed (for example a base station
`
`may have eight transmit antennas), the number of antenna ports is configurable and
`
`may change dynamically. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 122, 127.
`
`38.
`
`The direction of a beamformed signal can be switched dynamically and
`
`the base stations typically direct signals to the UEs it is attempting to serve in given
`
`time and frequency resources. When the signal is directed to the UE, the received
`
`strength of the signal at the UE can be increased. See Ex. 1001 at 1:25–26 (“Such
`
`MIMO systems can exploit the spatial dimension of the communication channel.”).
`
`For example, as shown below, when a UE is at a high elevation, for example on a
`
`high floor of a high-rise building, the signal may be stronger when the base station
`
`directs its antenna signal upwards (green arrow) but, when the UE is at a low
`
`elevation, for example on ground level, the signal may be stronger when the base
`
`station directs its antenna signal downwards (blue arrow):
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 18
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`
`See Ex. 1005 at Fig. 7. By controlling the beam directions, the base station may
`
`direct the signals to particular UEs (such as the blue UE or green UE in the above
`
`figure). The base station may transmit to multiple UEs in the same time and
`
`frequency resources to improve the utilization of the channel. This process is
`
`referred to as multi-user (MU) multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) or
`
`MU-MIMO. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3 (“One such improvement is the growing use of two-
`
`dimensional advanced antenna systems in multi-user (MU) multiple-input
`
`multiple-output (MIMO) communication systems.”1), 37; see also Ex. 1001 at 2:9-
`
`14.
`
`1 All emphasis is added unless indicated otherwise.
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 19
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`In my opinion, as a POSITA would recognize, there may be no reason
`
`39.
`
`for the base station to direct an antenna beam directly or substantially upwards
`
`towards the sky in this scenario because there are no paths to the UEs that are
`
`expected to be located there; this situation is conceptually illustrated by the red arrow
`
`below:
`
`See Ex. 1005 ¶ 50 (some directions “are infrequently selected or never selected”).
`
`40.
`
`The base station is not restricted to only sending one single stream
`
`aimed to one UE. In certain cases, the channel between the base station and UE can
`
`have multiple strong paths through reflections or diffractions. In this case, the base
`
`station may be able to simultaneously transmit multiple spatial streams (i.e.,
`
`independent data) to a single UE, a process called single user MIMO, or SU-MIMO.
`
`For example, in the situation illustrated below, the base station may be able to send
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 20
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`two independent streams of data to a UE on the high floor of the above example: one
`
`via a direct path (sometimes called the line-of-sight path) and a second with a ground
`
`reflection before reaching the building (green dashed arrow):
`
`The number of spatial streams that can be sent to a particular UE is called the “rank”
`
`of the channel. The ability to adjust the transmission in order for it to adapt to the
`
`prevailing number of available spatial streams is called “rank adaptation.” See Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:31–35 (“One form of adaption is to dynamically, from one TTI to another,
`
`adjust the number of simultaneously transmitted information streams carrying
`
`signals to what the channel can support. This is commonly referred to as
`
`(transmission) rank adaptation.”). In the figure above, transmission with only one
`
`beam, e.g., the line-of-sight beam (solid green arrow), would represent a “rank 1”
`
`transmission, while transmission with both beams (both solid and dashed green
`
`arrows) would represent a “rank 2” transmission. Note that independent of the rank,
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 21
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`the basic notion discussed above—that the base station would not direct any beams
`
`too high upwards towards the sky, outside of where any UEs are expected to be
`
`located—still applies, as illustrated below:
`
`41.
`
`The way that the base station's antennas are used to target the
`
`transmitted energy in a particular direction is through an operation known as
`
`“precoding,” which forms the antenna beams as desired, in a process known as
`
`“beamforming.” As an example, precoding can be used to provide beam “diversity,”
`
`which decreases the likelihood of fading when the signal strength is intermittently
`
`weak. In precoding, each spatial stream is sent to all the antenna ports, but modified
`
`in a port-dependent fashion, for example by using different phases and amplitudes
`
`that control the beam direction of that stream. See Ex. 1001 at 1:35-38 (“Precoding
`
`is another form of adaptation where the phases and amplitudes of the aforementioned
`
`IPR2022-00464
`Apple EX1003 Page 22
`
`

`

`Declaration of Apostolos K. Kakaes
`Patent No. 10,193,600
`signals are adjusted to better fit the current channel properties.”). Specifically, the
`
`signals, before being “fed” to each antenna port, are multiplied by an element of a
`
`“precoder matrix,” the result of which is that the beam is formed in the desired
`
`manner. The “precoder matrix,” sometimes referred to as simply a “precoder,”2 is an
`
`array of complex numbers with one row for each antenna port and one column for
`
`each spatial stream. In particular, the number of columns will equal the rank of the
`
`transmission. See Ex. 1001 at 1:38–40 (“The signals form a vector-valued signal and
`
`the adjustment can be thought of as multiplication by a precoder matrix.”). After
`
`assessing the channel quality across different options, the UE can tell the base station
`
`which precoder matrix it (the UE) deems to be best for the base station to use to form
`
`the base station’s antenna beam(s) for that UE. See Ex. 1001 at 1:46–48 (“A typical
`
`approach (c.f. LTE