`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`NEO WIRELESS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2023-00079
`Patent 10,965,512
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2001
`DECLARATION OF WILLIAM P. ALBERTH JR.
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 1
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 4
`II.
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 6
`
`Priority Date Of Patent. ......................................................................... 6
`A.
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art. ...................................................... 6
`B.
`Claim Construction................................................................................ 8
`C.
`D. Obviousness Legal Standard. ................................................................ 9
`
`IV. CLAIMS-AT-ISSUE .....................................................................................11
`V. OPINIONS .....................................................................................................12
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s Ground 1. .........................................................................12
`
`1.
`2.
`
`Ground 1 Does Not Disclose “Cell-Specific Pilots” ................13
`Ground 1 Does Not Disclose Or Render Obvious “Beam-
`Forming” As Claimed. ..............................................................20
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Ground 2. .........................................................................26
`
`1.
`2.
`
`Ground 2 Does Not Disclose “Cell-Specific Pilots.” ...............26
`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.” ..........................................................33
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................41
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 2
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 3
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 4
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 5
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Priority Date Of Patent.
`
`13.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 6
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`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. McNair 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. 1038
`
`[McNair-Decl.] ¶ 65. For the purpose of this declaration, I will apply the same
`
`definition of the level of skill of a POSITA.
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 7
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`18. 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
`
`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 ’879 Patent claims and the prior art are from the
`
`perspective of a POSITA, as set forth above.
`
`19. As further discussed below, my opinions as stated in this declaration
`
`are valid even if the Board adopts a slightly different level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`C. Claim Construction.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that claims in a patent-at-issue in an IPR are generally
`
`interpreted according to the district court-type claim construction.
`
`21.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 8
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`D. Obviousness Legal Standard.
`
`22.
`
`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.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis involves comparing a claim
`
`to the prior art to determine whether the claimed invention would have been
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 9
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`24.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`25.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 10
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`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.
`
`26.
`
`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.
`
`27.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`28.
`
`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
`
`29.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has challenged claims 1-30 of the ’512
`
`Patent under three grounds, as summarized below (see Pet., 6):
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 11
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`30. Of the challenged claims, only claims 1, 8, 15 and 23 are independent.
`
`In this declaration, I have only been asked to address arguments relating to the
`
`independent claims and, therefore, I do not address ground 3 of the Petition, which
`
`exclusively challenges certain dependent claims.
`
`31. Furthermore, for the purposes of 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
`
`the arguments I discuss in connection with claim 1 equally apply to those other
`
`independent claims.
`
`V. OPINIONS
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s Ground 1.
`
`32. 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 12
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Ground 1 Does Not Disclose “Cell-Specific Pilots”
`
`33. 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.
`
`34. 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 fails to solve the problem of interference:
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 13
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`provided for a careful and systematic consideration of the unique
`
`requirements of the pilot subcarriers.
`
`Ex. 1001 [’512 Patent] 1:62-2:2.
`
`35. The Patent’s embodiments further confirm that the invention relates to
`
`cell-specific pilots, not pilot patterns. 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.
`
`36. 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
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 14
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`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 (“Pilot
`
`subcarriers, whose phases and amplitudes are predetermined and made known to
`
`all receivers and which are used for assisting system functions such as estimation
`
`of system parameters”). 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 cell-specific pilot patterns,
`
`which represent transmitting the same pilot symbol(s) but only varying the pattern
`
`of which subcarriers are selected to transmit them.
`
`37. The claim language further confirms the distinction between cell-
`
`specific pilots, and cell specific pilot patterns. 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 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 is
`
`cell-specific. Id. In contrast, a cell-specific pilot pattern would, at best, relate to
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 15
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`cell-specific selection of the “plurality of subcarriers” upon which the pilots are
`
`placed.
`
`38. 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. McNair
`
`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).
`
`39. 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:
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 16
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`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
`th symbol
`
`of which is inserted for each group of Nf subcarriers at the s1
`(i) where c
`910, and the pilot symbols respectively have a pattern ps1,c
`is a cell number, i is the ith pilot subcarrier in the s1
`th OFDM symbol,
`(i) can be varied according to c and s. Therefore,
`and the pattern ps1,c
`
`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.
`
`40. 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-
`
`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”).
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 17
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`41. 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”).
`
`42. 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,
`
`AP1, AP2, AP3. The 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.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 18
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`43. 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:
`
`
`
`44. 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
`
`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.
`
`45. For at least the reasons I explain above, Ground 1 does not disclose
`
`“cell-specific pilots.”
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 19
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Ground 1 Does Not Disclose Or Render Obvious “Beam-
`Forming” As Claimed.
`
`46. The Claims require that “at least some subcarriers of the first plurality
`
`of subcarriers or the second plurality of subcarriers are beam-formed.” Ex. 1001
`
`[’512 Patent] cl. 1.
`
`47. Petitioner relies on importing beam-forming from Tong into Kim to
`
`beam-form its Q1 and Q2 pilot patterns:
`
`Kim’s base-station inserts the Q1 and Q2 pilot patterns onto the first
`
`and second pluralities of subcarriers. However, Kim does not
`
`expressly disclose that at least some of these subcarriers are beam-
`
`formed. But Tong discloses this limitation.
`
`Pet., 33.
`
`48. However, as I will explain below, Kim’s algorithms, including its Q1
`
`and Q2 pilot patterns, are for initial cell search and synchronization, which cannot
`
`utilize adaptive beam-forming as taught in Tong—because the transmitter does not
`
`yet have an established connection with a known user to receive the necessary
`
`feedback such that it can then beam-form multiple antennas for that user.
`
`49. Tong defines beam-forming as a process where “a spare transmit
`
`antenna” is used to redundantly transmit data that is also being transmitted via
`
`another antenna in order to increase the quality of the signal received by the user:
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 20
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`In essence, a spare transmit antenna is used to redundantly transmit
`
`data being transmitted over another of the transmit antennas in a
`
`manner wherein the primary layer information transmitted from a first
`
`transmit antennas is effectively combined in the channel with the
`
`redundantly transmitted information from the spare transmit antennas
`
`to effectively reinforce transmission of a given layer. The data
`
`transmitted from the spare antenna is weighted to achieve a desired
`
`gain.
`
`Ex. 1005 [Tong] 8:53-61.
`
`50. Tong discloses a system that implements adaptive beam-forming,
`
`where it uses the determined channel conditions between the transmitter and
`
`receiver to determine which signals should be beam-formed and which antennas
`
`should be used to beam-form those selected signals. Ex. 1005 [Tong] 8:56-57 (“a
`
`first transmit antenna is effectively combined in the channel with the redundantly
`
`transmitted information”). A ‘channel’ is a specific pathway between the
`
`transmitter and a receiver”).
`
`51. Tong explains that “importantly, the channel conditions are used” to
`
`arrange the desired beam-forming:
`
`Importantly, the channel conditions are used to determine the transmit
`
`antennas from which the various layers should be transmitted, as well
`
`as identifying the redundant transmit antennas through which beam-
`
`forming is provided. Additionally, the channel conditions will also be
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 21
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`used to determine the respective weighting factors for the beam-
`
`forming layers as well as any weighting factor, if necessary or desired,
`
`for the primary layer.
`
`Ex. 1005 [Tong] 13:60-67. Tong teaches that an OFDM system implementing its
`
`beam-forming would operate the same way. Id., 14:58-15:2 (explaining that an
`
`OFDM system with beam-forming would operate “as described above.”).
`
`52. Channel characteristics cannot generally be known unless and until
`
`there is an established channel between the transmitter and the receiver, and the
`
`receiver provides feedback to the transmitter to enable channel estimation. For
`
`example, Tong explains that “channel estimates for each of the channels may
`
`simply be determined at the user element 16 and transmitted to the base station
`
`14.” Ex. 1005 [Tong] 14:5-7. Alternatively, Tong explains that a receiver may
`
`have knowledge of the base configuration, and itself utilize the channel estimation
`
`information to configure beam-forming at the transmitter. Id., 14:9-14. In either
`
`case, Tong is clear that receiver feedback based on channel conditions is a
`
`necessity for its beam-forming embodiments. See also Ex. 1005 [Tong] 8:56-57
`
`(“a first transmit antenna is effectively combined in the channel with the
`
`redundantly transmitted information”).
`
`53. As I will explain below, in Kim, because its pilot signals Q1 and Q2
`
`(and the overall method) are exclusively directed at initial synchronization and
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 22
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`cell-search, there is not yet a channel established and no feedback is provided from
`
`the receiver. Thus, adaptive beam-forming as disclosed in Tong is not feasible for
`
`these signals.
`
`54. Kim’s algorithm and pilots are exclusively for initial synchronization
`
`and cell-search. Kim explains that “[i]n general, a terminal is required to read
`
`signals of a base station and synchronize its time and frequency with the terminal
`
`for initial synchronization, and search cells in a cellular system.” Ex. 1004 [Kim]
`
`1:23-25. Kim then discloses a system that it states “provide[s] a structure of a
`
`preamble and a pilot for synchronizing downlinks and searching cells with a lesser
`
`amount of calculation in the OFDMA-based cellular system.” Id., 3:12-14.
`
`55. Kim’s embodiments, accordingly, disclose methods for initial
`
`synchronization and cell search. See, e.g., id., 12:11-13 (“Referring to FIGs. 2A to
`
`10, a synchronization and cell search method according to the first preferred
`
`embodiment of the present invention will be described”); 14:5-8 (“Referring to
`
`FIG. 3, a method for estimating synchronization of an initial symbol in the
`
`synchronization and cell search method according to the first preferred
`
`embodiment will be described in detail”).
`
`56. Kim further discloses that it utilizes its pilot patterns Q1 and Q2 for the
`
`same initial synchronization and cell search. Specifically, Kim discusses (and the
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless LLC, Exhibit 2001
`Page 2001 - 23
`IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless LLC
`
`
`
`Petition cites) its Q1 and Q2 pilot patterns in connection with its Fig 10. Ex. 1004
`
`[Kim] 24:20-25:5; Pet., 26-27. Kim explains that its discussion of Fig. 10, like its
`
`other discussions, is in connection with initial search and synchronization. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1004 [Kim] 12:11-13 (“Referring to FIGs. 2A to 10, a s