`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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