`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NEO WIRELESS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2022-01539
`Patent 10,965,512
`
`EXHIBIT 2010
`SECOND DECLARATION OF WILLIAM P. ALBERTH JR.
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 3
`QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................................................... 4
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 6
`A.
`Priority Date Of Patent. ........................................................................ 6
`B.
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art. ..................................................... 6
`C.
`Claim Construction. ............................................................................ 10
`D.
`Obviousness Legal Standard. .............................................................. 10
`IV. CLAIMS-AT-ISSUE .................................................................................... 13
`V.
`OPINIONS .................................................................................................... 14
`A.
`Petitioner’s Ground 1. ......................................................................... 14
`1.
`Ground 1 Does Not Disclose “Cell-Specific Pilots” ................ 14
`2.
`Ground 1 Does Not Disclose Or Render Obvious “Beam-
`Forming” As Claimed. ............................................................. 27
`Petitioner’s Ground 2. ......................................................................... 36
`1.
`Ground 2 Does Not Disclose “Cell-Specific Pilots.” ............... 37
`2.
`Ground 2 Does Not Disclose That The Plurality Of First And
`Second Claimed Subcarriers Are Both Transmitted “In At Least
`One Of The Time Slots.” .......................................................... 49
`Obviousness Of Claim 5, 12, 21, And 29 (Ground 3). ....................... 59
`C.
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60
`
`B.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`My name is William P. Alberth Jr. I am an expert in mobile
`
`telecommunications and wireless technology. As further detailed below and
`
`exhibited in my attached curriculum vitae, I have over 25 years of experience in
`
`the design, development, implementation, and manufacturing of mobile
`
`telephones, smartphones, and other electronic equipment in addition to being an
`
`inventor on over 100 patents, including those related to telecommunications and
`
`wireless communications.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness to provide my independent
`
`opinion in regard to the matters at issue in inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,965,512 (“the ’512 patent”) in IPR2021-01539. I have been retained by Neo
`
`Wireless LLC (“Neo”), the Patent Owner in the above proceedings. The Petitioner
`
`is Volkswagen Group of American Inc. (“VW”).
`
`3.
`
`For my work on this case, I am being compensated for my time at my
`
`typical consulting rate of $200 per hour. I am also being reimbursed for expenses
`
`that I incur during the course of this work. My compensation does not depend on
`
`the substance of my opinions or the outcome of any issues in this case.
`
`4.
`
`My analysis of the materials produced in this matter is ongoing and I
`
`will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration
`
`3
`
`
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to amend
`
`or supplement my opinions based on additional documents or evidence I am
`
`presented, including without limitation any arguments or expert declarations
`
`advanced by VW in this case.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`I am qualified to be an expert witness in this matter as I possess the
`
`requisite knowledge, skill, experience, training and education relating to the
`
`subject matter covered by the asserted patents.
`
`6.
`
`In summary, I have over 25 years of experience in the design,
`
`development, implementation, and manufacturing of mobile telephones,
`
`smartphones, and other electronic equipment. The majority of my career was spent
`
`at Motorola where my final role was serving as the Chief Technology Officer for
`
`Motorola Mobile Devices. I held that position from 2007 until August 2012, and in
`
`that role, I led the development of differentiating technology that was integrated
`
`into Motorola’s commercial mobile telephone products.
`
`7.
`
`During the early stages of my career with Motorola (between 1987
`
`and 2006, covering the Priority Dates of the ’941 patent) I was employed as an
`
`engineer, working on developing cutting-edge chipsets to enable cellular devices,
`
`and in the development of many products that changed the way people
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`communicated, including the development of the Motorola MicroTAC, StarTAC
`
`and RAZR mobile telephones. I worked on or directed work on evaluating
`
`transmitter technologies and architectures to mitigate the effects of PAPR (Peak to
`
`Average Power Ratio) on the current drain of the devices. Some of the techniques
`
`evaluated include for example: pre-distortion; envelope following; EER (Envelope
`
`Elimination and Restoration); and Adaptive biasing.
`
`8. My educational background includes a B.S. in Electrical Engineering
`
`from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (1985), and a M.S. in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Illinois Institute of Technology (1992).
`
`9.
`
`I am inventor or co-inventor on over 100 patents issued or pending,
`
`including patents related to my work on transmitter architectures involved for
`
`wireless communications.
`
`10.
`
` In forming my opinions here, I am relying on my education and
`
`experience, including my over 25 years of experience in a variety of technologies
`
`and industries related to various wireless communications systems.
`
`11.
`
` Additional information concerning my background, qualifications,
`
`publications, conferences, honors, and awards are described in my Curriculum
`
`Vitae, a copy of which is attached with this Report as Exhibit 2002.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`12.
`
`I am not a lawyer, and I do not intend to offer any opinions as to the
`
`interpretation of the law. When considering the ’512 patent and stating my
`
`opinions, I rely on the following legal standards as described to me by the
`
`attorneys for Neo Wireless.
`
`A.
`
`13.
`
`Priority Date Of Patent.
`
`I understand that the analysis of alleged obviousness of the Patent
`
`should be performed from the perspective of a POSITA as of the priority date of
`
`the Patent. Through a series of continuations, the Patent claims priority to January
`
`29, 2004. My opinions in this matter are from the perspective of a POSITA as of
`
`that date; however, my opinions do not change if the priority date is slightly
`
`changed.
`
`B.
`
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art.
`
`14. My opinions in this declaration are based on the understandings of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the time of the invention. I understand that
`
`the person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to
`
`have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. By “relevant,” I mean
`
`relevant to the challenged claim of the ’512 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`15.
`
`I understand that various factors should be considered when
`
`determining the person of ordinary skill in the art in connection with a particular
`
`patent. I understand that these factors include, without limitation, the type of
`
`problems encountered in the art, the prior solutions to those problems found in the
`
`prior art references, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the
`
`sophistication of the technology, the level of education of active workers in the
`
`field, and my own experience working with those of skill in the art at the time of
`
`the invention.
`
`16.
`
`I am readily familiar with the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the
`
`priority date of the Patent. My qualifications at that time far exceeded that of a
`
`POSITA, and I had worked with, as well as supervised, many POSITA’s
`
`throughout my work in the field.
`
`17. Dr. Min opines that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”)
`
`would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`computer science, or an equivalent field, or an advanced degree in those fields, as
`
`well as [at] least 3-5 years of academic or industry experience in mobile wireless
`
`communications, or comparable industry experience.” Ex. 1003 [Min-Decl.] ¶ 65.
`
`18.
`
`I disagree with Dr. Min’s proposed definition of a POSITA.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the Board has found the level of ordinary skill in a
`
`series of patents with related technology to this Patent to be a “Bachelor’s degree
`
`in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering or a similar discipline,”
`
`and only “two years of experience in the field working with, teaching, or
`
`researching wireless communication networks.” See, e.g., Dell Inc. v. NEO
`
`Wireless, LLC, IPR2021-01468, Paper 12, 9 (March 14, 2022); Dell Inc. v. NEO
`
`Wireless, LLC, IPR2021-01480, Paper 11, 7 (March 16, 2022); Dell Inc. v. NEO
`
`Wireless, LLC, IPR2021-01486, Paper 10, 11-12 (March 16, 2022).
`
`20.
`
`I also understand that the Board has rejected a proposed level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art similar to what Dr. Min proposes here in another IPR
`
`between the same parties and in connection with a patent in a similar field, finding
`
`that it was unsupported and inconsistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in
`
`the prior art of record. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. NEO Wireless, LLC,
`
`IPR2023-00086, Paper 7, 10-12 (June 16, 2023).
`
`21.
`
`I agree with the Board’s findings in the proceedings cited above, that
`
`a POSITA as of the priority date of the Patent would have a “Bachelor’s degree in
`
`an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering or a similar discipline,” and
`
`only “two years of experience in the field working with, teaching, or researching
`
`wireless communication networks.”
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`22.
`
`In 2004 many of the professionals working in the wireless
`
`communications space had only a couple years of experience after having
`
`graduated with an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or a similar
`
`discipline. Mobile communications was a fast-growing field that necessarily
`
`attracted many newcomers to the field. Certainly it was uncommon for working
`
`professionals in the field to have doctorate degrees and such advanced education
`
`would be typical of someone with more than ordinary skill in the art.
`
`23. A POSITA in 2004 was typically involved in deploying and
`
`configuring wireless communication equipment to increase the reach of
`
`commercial wireless networks, increase their capacity to handle more users, and
`
`also allow for the deployment of new applications requiring more bandwidth. A
`
`POSITA would not have been required to design a wireless system from the
`
`ground up. This is because many important parameters and design choices had
`
`already been made by standards setting committees. Thus, a POSITA would have
`
`had enough knowledge of the technology to understand and deploy equipment
`
`adhering to these technical specifications but would have a very limited ability to
`
`change the fundamental specifications of the network.
`
`24. Based on my experience, education, and training, I met the definition
`
`of a POSITA in January of 2004, as of the priority date of the Patent. My
`
`9
`
`
`
`qualifications at that time far exceeded that of a POSITA, and I had worked with,
`
`as well as supervised, many POSITA’s throughout my work in the field. My
`
`opinions concerning the ’512 Patent claims and the prior art are from the
`
`perspective of a POSITA, as set forth above.
`
`25. As further discussed below, my opinions as stated in this declaration
`
`are valid even if the Board adopts Dr. Min’s proposed declaration.
`
`C.
`
`26.
`
`Claim Construction.
`
`I understand that claims in a patent-at-issue in an IPR are generally
`
`interpreted according to the district court-type claim construction.
`
`27.
`
`I further understand that claim terms are interpreted as they would
`
`have been interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention, in light of the specification and the patent’s prosecution history in the
`
`patent office.
`
`D.
`
`28.
`
`Obviousness Legal Standard.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if the claimed
`
`invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis involves comparing a claim
`
`to the prior art to determine whether the claimed invention would have been
`
`10
`
`
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view
`
`of the prior art and in light of the general knowledge in the art as a whole. I also
`
`understand that obviousness is ultimately a legal conclusion based on underlying
`
`facts of four general types, all of which must be considered: (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences
`
`between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) any objective indicia of
`
`non-obviousness, including any praise of the invention. Objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness may include, for example, commercial success of an embodiment, a
`
`long-felt need, skepticism, failure by others to find the solution provided by the
`
`claimed invention, copying by others of the subject matter of the claim
`
`invention, unexpected results of the claimed invention, acceptance of others and
`
`industry praise, and licensing of the patents.
`
`30.
`
`I also understand that obviousness may be established under certain
`
`circumstances by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art. However,
`
`I have been informed that a claim is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating
`
`that each of the elements was independently known in the prior art. I have been
`
`informed that many, if not all, inventions rely on building blocks already
`
`previously known, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will likely be
`
`combinations of what is already known. I have been informed that it is important
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`to identify whether a reason existed at the time of the invention that would have
`
`motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant field to combine the
`
`known elements in the way the claimed invention does. Specific teachings,
`
`suggestions, or motivations to combine any first prior art reference with a second
`
`prior art reference can be explicit or implicit, but must have existed before the date
`
`of purported invention. I understand that prior art references themselves may be
`
`one source of a specific teaching or suggestion to combine features of the prior art,
`
`but that such suggestions or motivations to combine art may come from the
`
`knowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a reference may be relied upon for all that it teaches,
`
`including uses beyond its primary purpose, but also including teachings that lead
`
`away from the invention. I understand that a reference may be said to teach away
`
`when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged
`
`from following the path set out in the reference, although the mere disclosure of
`
`alternative designs does not teach away.
`
`32.
`
`I further understand that whether there is a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in combining references in a particular way is also relevant to the analysis.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that it is improper to use hindsight to combine references
`
`or elements of references to reconstruct the invention using the claims as a guide.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`My analysis of the prior art is made from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`34.
`
`I am not offering any legal opinions in this declaration nor am I
`
`qualified to do so. I only consider such legal standards in framing my opinions and
`
`conclusions as well as placing assertions made by Petitioner in the Petition into the
`
`proper context. Additionally, from a subject matter perspective, I understand that
`
`the petitioner always has the burden of persuasion regarding a challenge of
`
`patentability of an invention under an inter partes review.
`
`IV. CLAIMS-AT-ISSUE
`
`35.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has challenged claims 1-30 of the ’512
`
`Patent under three grounds, as summarized below (see Pet., 6):
`
`36. Unless I expressly note otherwise, in this declaration, I will discuss
`
`the relevant patentability arguments with regards to independent Claim 1 only.
`
`Independent challenged Claims 8, 15 and 23 recite corresponding limitations, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`the arguments I discuss in connection with claim 1 equally apply to those other
`
`independent claims.
`
`V. OPINIONS
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s Ground 1.
`
`37. Petitioner’s Ground 1 relies on a combination of Kim and Tong to
`
`challenge the Claims. Pet., 6. As I will explain below, this Ground does not
`
`disclose the claims for at least two reasons.
`
`Ground 1 Does Not Disclose “Cell-Specific Pilots”
`1.
`38. The Claims recite a transmitter that is configured to “insert first pilots
`
`of a first type onto a first plurality of subcarriers, wherein the first pilots are cell-
`
`specific pilots.” Ex. 1001 [’512 Patent] cl. 1. Petitioner relies on Kim’s pilot
`
`patterns for the disclosure of the “first type” of pilots that are “cell-specific.” Pet.,
`
`26 (“The pilots include a first pilot pattern in common for each cell and a second
`
`pilot pattern that is ‘different for each cell.’”). As I will explain below, Kim
`
`discloses that the same pilot(s) are transmitted from each cell, and only the pattern
`
`of which subcarriers are selected to transmit those same pilot(s) are modified
`
`depending on the cell. The Patent’s specification and claim language both make
`
`clear that cell-specific pilot patterns, as opposed to cell-specific pilots, do not
`
`disclose this limitation.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`39. The Patent’s specification explains that transmitting cell-specific pilot
`
`patterns is prior art that is distinct from, and improved upon by, the claimed
`
`invention because this previous art approach had “not provided for a careful and
`
`systematic consideration of the unique requirements of the pilot subcarriers”::
`
`One approach to deal with the interference problem has been to have
`each cell transmit a particular pattern of pilot subcarriers based on a
`certain type of cell-dependent random process. This approach, to a
`certain degree, has mitigated the impact of the mutual interference
`between the pilot subcarriers from adjacent cells; however, it has not
`provided for a careful and systematic consideration of the unique
`requirements of the pilot subcarriers.
`
`Ex. 1001 [’512 Patent] 1:62-2:2.
`
`40. The Patent’s embodiments then explain how information can be
`
`transmitted through the cell-specific pilot symbols themselves, instead of through
`
`their pattern of placement on the frequency subcarriers. The Patent explains that
`
`the cell-specific information is “carried” by the cell-specific pilot symbol, and not
`
`its pattern of placement:
`
`If the ith subcarrier is used as a pilot subcarrier at the pth cell for the cell-
`specific purposes, the cell-specific information carried by ai,m(tk) and
`φi,m(tk) will be of interest to the receiver ….
`
`Ex. 1001 [’512 Patent] 5:16-19.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`41. Thus, the Patent makes clear that it is not the choice of the subcarrier
`
`(the ith subcarrier) that conveys the cell-specific information, but the parameters of
`
`the pilot symbol itself “carr[y]” the cell-specific information. In fact, the Patent
`
`teaches that all cell-specific pilots may be placed on the same frequency
`
`subcarriers across all cells—making clear that it is not the mere pattern of
`
`placement that conveys the cell-specific information. Ex. 1001 [’512 Patent] 5:38-
`
`40 (“The cell-specific pilot subcarriers for different cells are not necessarily
`
`aligned in frequency.”).
`
`42. The Patent provides detailed discussions of how the cell-specific
`
`information is carried by the pilot symbols. For example, the Patent explains that a
`
`receiver within the zone of the pth cell in a network arrangement of m cells receives
`
`a signal on subcarrier (i) at time (tk) that is of the general form:
`
`where “ai,m(tk) and φi,m(tk) denote the signal amplitude and phase, respectively,
`
`associated with the ith subcarrier from the base station of the mth cell.” Ex. 1001
`
`
`
`[’512 Patent] 5:1-15.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`43. This equation shows that a receiver within the zone of cell p receives
`
`a signal that comprises two parts: a first part that has the unique amplitude and
`
`phase of cell p, and a second part that is the sum of signals from other cells m with
`
`their unique amplitudes and phases. When the signal being transmitted by the pth
`
`cell is a cell-specific pilot, the cell-specific information used by the receiver is
`
`carried by the amplitude and phase, ai,p(tk) and φi,p(tk), “and other signals described
`
`by the second term on the right hand side of equation (1) [above] will be
`
`interference.” Ex. 1001 [’512 Patent] 5:17-22; see also id., 4:8-11.
`
`44. Furthermore, this embodiment is clear that the “cell-specific pilots”
`
`are not cell-specific pilot patterns because the pilot signal being analyzed for cell-
`
`specific information, si(tk), is the signal on the specific subcarrier i. Ex. 1001 [’512
`
`Pat.] 5:13-14 (“associated with the ith subcarrier from the base station of the mth
`
`cell.”). Had the Patent intended to analyze the pilot patterns, it would have needed
`
`to analyze the signal received on multiple subcarriers to identify a placement
`
`pattern of pilot symbols.
`
`45. Thus, the embodiments further make clear that the invention’s “cell-
`
`specific pilots” have cell-specific amplitude and/or phases carrying cell specific
`
`information, and are distinct from the prior art cell-specific pilot patterns, which
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`represent transmitting the same pilot symbol(s) but only varying the placement
`
`pattern of which subcarriers are selected to transmit them.
`
`46. The Patent’s discussion of “cell-specific pilot subcarriers” further
`
`explicitly makes clear that “cell-specific” does not refer to merely changing the
`
`placement pattern of the same set of pilot symbols used by all cells. The Patent
`
`explains:
`
`FIG. 1 depicts a basic multi-carrier wireless communication system
`consisting of a transmitter 102 and a receiver 104. A functional block
`106 at the transmitter, called Pilot generation and insertion, generates
`pilot subcarriers and inserts them into predetermined frequency
`locations. These pilot subcarriers are used by the receiver to carry out
`certain functions. In aspects of this invention, pilot subcarriers are
`divided into two different groups according to their functionalities, and
`hence their distinct requirements.
`
`Ex. 1001 [’512 Patent] 3:4-12.
`
`47. The portion of the Patent cited above explicitly confirms that the
`
`Patent’s use of “cell-specific” pilots does not mean merely the same pilots that
`
`have different patterns of placement in the frequency subcarriers. For example, the
`
`Patent explains that a functional block called “Pilot generation and insertion,
`
`generates pilot subcarriers.” Ex. 1001 [’512 Patent] 3:4-12. The Patent then
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`recites that it is the “pilot subcarriers,” not their placement pattern, that “are
`
`divided into two different groups.” Id., 3:10-12, 3:17-19, 3:25-27.
`
`48. Furthermore, a POSITA would understand that it is not the pattern of
`
`placement of the pilot symbols that is “cell-specific,” because the Patent explains
`
`that the pilot symbols, once generated, are placed at “predetermined frequency
`
`locations.” Id., 3:6-8. The Patent does not subsequently explain that the frequency
`
`locations or pattern of placement of the pilot symbols in those “predetermined
`
`frequency locations” is cell-specific, but that the pilots generated by functional
`
`block 106 are cell-specific. Id., 3:6-12.
`
`49.
`
`I also note that while the Patent uses the term “pilot subcarriers” in the
`
`portion of the Patent quoted above (Ex. 1001 [’512 Patent] 3:4-12), a POSITA
`
`would readily understand that “pilot subcarriers” are used in this portion to mean
`
`“pilot symbols.” This is readily verifiable when the Patent explains that the
`
`functional block 106 “called Pilot generation and insertion, generates pilot
`
`subcarriers and inserts them into predetermined frequency locations.” Ex. 1001
`
`[’512 Patent] 3:6-8. A POSITA would ready understand that it is only pilot
`
`symbols that can be “generated” and then placed into “predetermined frequency
`
`locations.” In any event, regardless of how the specific phrase “pilot subcarriers”
`
`is used by the Patent in this section, it does not change the POSITA’s
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`understanding that cell-specific pilots does not merely refer to the same set of
`
`pilots that have cell-specific placement patterns.
`
`50. That cell-specific pilot patterns is prior art that the invention improves
`
`upon is also reflected in the claims’ plain meaning, which informs the POSITA
`
`that it is the pilot symbols themselves that are “cell-specific,” not which subcarrier
`
`they are placed upon (i.e., their placement pattern). Claim 1 recites a transmitter
`
`that is configured to “insert first pilots of a first type onto a plurality of
`
`subcarriers,” and further recites that “the first pilots are cell-specific pilots”:
`
`
`
`51. A POSITA would understand that the claims’ recitation of “insert[ing]
`
`first pilots” refers to inserting “first pilot symbols.” A POSITA would further
`
`understand that the claim’s subsequent reference to “the first pilots” that are cell-
`
`specific refers back to the “fist pilot symbols” initially recited as being inserted on
`
`the subcarriers.
`
`52. Thus, the Claims’ plain and ordinary meaning requires that the
`
`“pilots” be cell-specific, not that the pattern by which the pilots are placed be “cell-
`
`specific.” Ex. 1001 [’512 Patent] cl. 1 (“wherein the first pilots are cell-specific
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`pilots”). This is even more apparent because the Claims specifically recite a
`
`limitation regarding placement of pilots by reciting “insert[ing]” the pilots “onto a
`
`first plurality of subcarriers.” Id. Yet, even though the Claims recite both pilots
`
`and placement of pilots, they deliberately recite only that the “pilots” are cell-
`
`specific, not that the pattern of insertion of the pilots, or the subcarriers upon
`
`which the pilots are placed, are cell-specific. Id. In contrast, a cell-specific pilot
`
`pattern would, at best, relate to cell-specific selection of the “plurality of
`
`subcarriers” upon which the pilots are placed.
`
`53. Petitioner’s ground 1 expressly and exclusively relies on the
`
`disclosure of cell-specific pilot patterns for the disclosure of this limitation. Pet.,
`
`26 (“The pilots include … a second pilot pattern that is different for each cell”); 26
`
`(“Each Q2 pattern is a specific pattern for each cell”); 26 (“Figure 10, reproduced
`
`and annotated below, shows three example pilot patterns”); 27 (“The symbols of
`
`each pilot pattern are inserted onto different subcarriers”); 27 (“As Dr. Min
`
`explains, patterns 1 and Q-1 represent different pilot patterns that are each specific
`
`to the particular cell”); 28 (“Thus, the Q2 (residual) cell-specific pilot patterns are
`
`inserted onto a first plurality of subcarriers”) (internal quotations and citations
`
`omitted).
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`54. However, as I explained above, the claimed invention requires cell-
`
`specific pilots, not cell-specific pilot patterns. Furthermore, as I will explain
`
`below, Kim does not disclose cell-specific pilots, but only transmitting the same
`
`pilots from different cells, using only different patterns of subcarriers to transmit
`
`those same pilots depending on the cell. Kim discusses, for example,
`
`characteristics of pilot symbols (e.g., interval), but chooses to use cell-specific pilot
`
`patterns, not cell-specific pilots, to identify each cell:
`
`Fig. 9 shows a case when the number of total subcarriers is N, a
`subcarrier interval of a pilot symbol is Nf, and a time interval of the
`pilot symbol is Nt. In this instance, the number of pilot symbols each
`of which is inserted for each group of Nf subcarriers at the s1th symbol
`910, and the pilot symbols respectively have a pattern ps1,c(i) where c is
`a cell number, i is the ith pilot subcarrier in the s1th OFDM symbol, and
`the pattern ps1,c(i) can be varied according to c and s. Therefore, the
`slot synchronization and the frame synchronization are estimated and
`the cells are searched by using a specific pilot pattern for each cell and
`finding a cross correlation on the available pattern.
`
`Ex. 1004 [Kim] 24:2-11.
`
`55. Kim consistently discloses only cell-specific pilot patterns, and not
`
`cell-specific pilots. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 [Kim] 3:22-23 (“the second preamble may
`
`have specific patterns for a plurality of cells for the purpose of cell search”); 4:9-
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`10 (similar); 5:6-7 (similar); 6:3-4 (similar); 4:20-21 (“a cell searcher for using a
`
`pattern specific to each cell”); 7:8-10 (“a pilot pattern of the pilot symbol in the
`
`second slot includes a first pattern in common for each cell and a second pattern
`
`different for each cell”); 21:22-22:1 (“specific patterns for respective cells”);
`
`24:10 (“using a specific pilot pattern for each cell”); 24:16 (“a specific pilot
`
`pattern is allocated to each cell”).
`
`56. Other disclosures in Kim are also consistent with a POSITA’s
`
`understanding that the same pilot(s) are transmitted from different cells, and only
`
`the pattern of transmission of those same pilots are varied depending on the cell.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1004 [Kim] 36:19 (“a specific pattern for each cell of the pilot is
`
`used”); 38:12 (same); 62:16-17 (“using a specific pattern for each cell of the pilot
`
`symbol”).
`
`57. That Kim utilizes the same pilot(s) for all cells is even more clear in
`
`its embodiments. For example, Kim explains that each cell C1, C2 in an exemplary
`
`embodiment has four antennas. Ex. 1004 [Kim] 31:10-16. Each antenna (not each
`
`cell) has an antenna-specific pilot symbol, AP0, AP1, AP2, AP3. Id.; see also id.,
`
`31:3-4 (“A pilot symbol AP0 of the antenna 0 and a pilot symbol AP1 of the
`
`antenna 1 are respectively inserted ….”). Thus, each cell has an identical set of
`
`pilot symbols, each corresponding to one of the four antennas in the cell: AP0,
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`AP1, AP2, AP3. The placement pattern of this identical set of pilot symbols is then
`
`modified depending on each cell, making the pilot patterns cell-specific. Id.,
`
`31:13-16 (“the patterns for changing the positions of the pilot symbols AP0, AP1,
`
`AP2, and AP3 according to the respective antennas are differently allocated for the
`
`respective cells C1 and C2.”).
`
`58. This is further shown in Kim’s annotated Fig. 14, where the same
`
`pilots AP0, AP1, AP2, and AP3 are transmitted from each cell, C1 (red) and C2
`
`(blue), but the pattern of transmission is different for each cell:
`
`
`
`59. Thus, unlike the ’512 Patent’s Claims which require cell-specific
`
`pilots, which the exemplary embodiments achieve by varying pilot signal
`
`amplitude and phase according to the cell specific information, Ex. 1001 [’512
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Patent] 5:5-15, Kim opts to transmit the same pilots but vary the pattern of the
`
`subcarriers selected to transmit those pilots to obtain cell specific pilot patterns.
`
`60.
`
`I understand that the Institution Decision preliminary found that
`
`“‘[t]he symbols of each pilot pattern are inserted onto different subcarriers,’ which
`
`would teach or suggest that each pilot symbol is unique because each is on a
`
`different subcarrier.” See Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1004, 12:6-10). I respectfully
`
`disagree.
`
`61. First, as I explained above, in the embodiments of Kim relied upon by
`
`Petitioner, it is precisely the same pilot symbols that are placed at different
`
`locations in the frequency spectrum. Furthermore, Kim’s pilot symbols do not
`
`become cell-specific because they may be placed at a particular frequency location.
`
`First, as the annotation of Kim’s Fig. 14 produced above and repro
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
