UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`CONSTELLATION DESIGNS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`US Patent No. 10,693,700
`Issue Date: June 23, 2020
`Title: Receivers Incorporating Non-Uniform Multidimensional Constellations and
`Code Rate Pairs
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2023-00228
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BERTRAND HOCHWALD
`
`1
`
`LGE 1003
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`CONSTELLATION DESIGNS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`US Patent No. 10,693,700
`Issue Date: June 23, 2020
`Title: Receivers Incorporating Non-Uniform Multidimensional Constellations and
`Code Rate Pairs
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2023-00228
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BERTRAND HOCHWALD
`
`1
`
`LGE 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................... 2
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED .......................................................................... 6
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED ................................................ 9
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 10
`
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 11
`
` ANTICIPATION ................................................................................................. 12
`
` OBVIOUSNESS .................................................................................................. 12
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................. 17
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF US PATENT NO. 10,693,700 ........................................ 17
`
` PATENT FAMILY OF THE ’700 PATENT ............................................................. 17
`
` BACKGROUND OF THE ’700 PATENT ................................................................ 19
`
` BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ’700 PATENT ........................................................ 20
`
` SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’700 PATENT .................... 28
`
`IX. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES AND COMBINATIONS 28
`
` OVERVIEW OF EROZ ......................................................................................... 28
`i
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
` OVERVIEW OF DVB-T ..................................................................................... 32
`
` COMBINATION OF EROZ AND DVB-T .............................................................. 37
`
` OVERVIEW OF SOMMER ................................................................................... 41
`
` COMBINATION OF EDC AND SOMMER ............................................................. 44
`
` OVERVIEW OF DEGAUDENZI ............................................................................ 46
`
` COMBINATION OF EDC AND DEGAUDENZI ..................................................... 54
`
` OVERVIEW OF DVB-S2 ................................................................................... 57
`
` COMBINATION OF EDC AND DVB-S2 ............................................................. 59
`
` OVERVIEW OF DVB-TS ................................................................................... 63
`
` COMBINATION OF EDC AND DVB-TS ............................................................. 64
`
`X. APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR ART TO THE REFERENCES ............ 66
`
`A. GROUND 1A: EROZ AND DVB-T RENDER CLAIMS 1, 8, 10-11, 18, 20-21, 28,
`
`AND 30 OBVIOUS ...................................................................................................... 66
`
`B. GROUND 1B: EROZ AND DVB-T AND DEGAUDENZI RENDER CLAIMS 1, 6, 8, 10-
`
`11, 16, 18, 20-21, 26, 28, AND 30 OBVIOUS .............................................................. 96
`
`C. GROUND 2A: EDC AND SOMMER RENDER CLAIMS 4, 14, AND 24 OBVIOUS ... 103
`
`D. GROUND 3A: EDC AND DVB-S2 RENDER CLAIMS 7, 17, AND 27 OBVIOUS ... 107
`
`E. GROUND 4A: EDC AND DVB-TS, RENDER CLAIMS 9, 19, AND 29 OBVIOUS .. 115
`
`F. GROUNDS 2B-4B ........................................................................................... 120
`
`
`
`ii
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 120
`XT. CONCLUSION......cccccccscsssscsssssssssssssecsscssssssssssesssssessssessssssssssesssessssssesssesseess 120
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`ill
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Bertrand Hochwald, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`[0001]
`
`I have been retained by LG Electronics, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “LG”) to
`
`serve as an independent expert consultant in the Inter Partes review (IPR)
`
`proceedings regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700 (the “’700 Patent” or
`
`LGE1001). I have been asked to consider the validity of claims 1, 4, 6-11, 14,
`
`16-21, 24, and 26-30 of the ’700 Patent (the “Challenged Claims”). My
`
`opinions are set forth below.
`
`[0002]
`
`I am being compensated at my normal rate of $675/hour for all services
`
`rendered. My compensation is not contingent upon the results of my study, the
`
`substance of my opinions, or the outcome of any proceeding involving the
`
`challenged claims. I have no financial interest in the outcome of this matter or
`
`on the pending litigation between Petitioner and Patent Owner.
`
`[0003] My analysis of the materials produced in this proceeding is ongoing and
`
`I will continue to review any new material that is provided. This declaration is
`
`indicative of only those opinions that I have formed to date. I reserve the right
`
`to amend, revise, and/or supplement my opinions stated herein based on any
`
`new information that may become available to me or my continuing analysis of
`
`the materials already provided.
`
`1
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`[0004] My qualifications for forming the opinions in this report are summarized
`
`here and also noted in my Curriculum Vitae (“CV”), which is submitted as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`[0005]
`
`In 1995, I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Yale
`
`University. My Ph.D. work involved the analysis and processing of
`
`electromagnetic and audio signals for the estimation of the location of
`
`electromagnetic and audio sources. In 1993, I received an M.A. in Statistics
`
`from Yale University. My primary area of study was Signal Processing and
`
`Communications. I received an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Duke
`
`University in 1986, and a B.S. in Engineering from Swarthmore College in
`
`1984.
`
`[0006]
`
`I have twenty-six years of combined industry and academic experience in
`
`the research and design of hardware, software, and systems for various
`
`technologies,
`
`including electronic devices, sensors, signal and
`
`image
`
`processing, networking and wireless communications. I have worked in various
`
`industry jobs, including at the Department of Defense, Bell Labs, and a start-up
`
`in California before joining the University of Notre Dame in 2011. As I explain
`
`below, much of my work has been in the general areas of audio/video signal
`
`
`
`2
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`processing and communications.
`
`[0007] My most recent appointment, starting in 2011, is with the University of
`
`Notre Dame, where I am currently a Freimann Chaired Professor of Electrical
`
`Engineering. I have taught both graduate and undergraduate classes in signal
`
`processing, information theory, communications, and in systems theory. I have
`
`also taught courses in electronics, analog and digital signal sensing, processing,
`
`computation, and electronic forms of wireline and wireless networking and
`
`communications. My primary areas of research include such systems, sensors,
`
`communication system design and signal processing. I advise graduate students
`
`who are attaining Ph.D. degrees through research and coursework. My research
`
`work now includes processing of high data rate signals (similar to those used to
`
`transmit and receive coded signals) in communication systems.
`
`[0008] An example of my current work at the University includes a project that
`
`I lead called RadioHound distributed spectrum sensor system for remote
`
`monitoring using radio signals (https://wireless.nd.edu/research/radiohound-
`
`distributed-spectrum-sensing/), which is a multi-year effort involving several
`
`students, faculty, and technicians. The RadioHound system captures data from
`
`hundreds of sensors and displays it in a real-time setting for human
`
`interpretation and assessment. This project, which is funded by government and
`
`
`
`3
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`industrial sponsors, involves the design of hardware sensors, and software
`
`communications transceivers. The project has become an educational and
`
`research tool used by laboratories inside and outside the University of Notre
`
`Dame.
`
`[0009] Prior
`
`to Notre Dame, I worked from 2005-2010 at Beceem
`
`Communications, a 4G WiMax and LTE cellular communication chipset start-
`
`up company in Santa Clara, California, where I was Chief Scientist and Vice
`
`President of Systems Engineering. I was an integral part of the chipset
`
`development team. Beceem was bought by Broadcom Corporation in 2010 and
`
`no longer exists as a separate company. Several aspects of channel coding and
`
`wireless communications for our products were developed within this team.
`
`[0010] From 1996-2005, I worked at Lucent Bell Laboratories in New Jersey,
`
`where I was a Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff doing research into
`
`various communication and networking systems. For example, my work in Bell
`
`Labs included wireless communications and multi-antenna signal processing
`
`and coding.
`
`[0011]
`
` Before Bell Laboratories, I was a Visiting Assistant Professor at the
`
`University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign during the 1995-1996 school year,
`
`where I worked on a broad range of research topics related to signal processing
`
`
`
`4
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`and wireless communications.
`
`[0012] Prior to completing my Ph.D., during 1986-1989, I worked at the
`
`Department of Defense as a system engineer for signal processing and wireless
`
`communication systems. In this role, I designed wireless communication
`
`equipment for audio and video signal monitoring and processing. Much of this
`
`work is classified for security reasons.
`
`[0013] As a result of my research, I have obtained 48 patents, and I have
`
`published more than one-hundred articles in scholarly journals, many of them
`
`within the journals of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
`
`(IEEE), one of the premier societies for electrical engineers. I have been an
`
`invited and plenary speaker at several international conferences throughout the
`
`world and have received awards and recognition for my research and
`
`publications. An example relevant publication includes A. Ashikhmin, A. van
`
`Wijngaarden, Z. Haibo, B. Hochwald, et al, “Design and development of a
`
`terrestrial digital video broadcast demodulation core: An international
`
`collaborative effort,” Bell Labs Technical Journal, vol. 12, pp. 97-118, 2007.
`
`[0014] Since 2012, I have engaged in consulting work as an expert in various
`
`litigation matters
`
`including acoustic echo cancelling, multi-antenna
`
`technologies, cellular and wireless local-area-net standards and technologies,
`
`
`
`5
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`and touch-screen technologies. I have served as an expert on behalf of both
`
`plaintiffs and defendants in patent cases. I have served as a technology expert
`
`in various aspects of the litigation process, including trade secret disputes, trial
`
`testimony, Markman hearings, and IPRs.
`
`[0015]
`
`I have had experience drafting and successfully prosecuting my own
`
`patents, and have worked with other technology experts as a co-inventor and co-
`
`author.
`
` Some of my patents deal with coding for multi-antenna
`
`communications. An example is US Patent No. 6,363,121, which designs
`
`multidimensional constellations with a unitary structure for transmission across
`
`multiple antennas.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`[0016] All of the opinions contained in this declaration are based on the
`
`documents I have reviewed and my professional judgment, as well as my
`
`education, experience, and professional knowledge. I am not an attorney and I
`
`am not offering any legal opinions in this declaration.
`
`[0017]
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I relied on the ’700
`
`Patent (LGE1001), the prosecution history of the ’700 Patent (LGE1002), the
`
`prior art references cited herein, and other exhibits I have cited in this
`
`declaration. Some of the additional prior art references I reviewed include:
`6
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Prior Art References
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0054960 to Eroz et al. (LGE1004 or
`
`“Eroz”)
`
`ETSI EN 300 744 V1.2.1, Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB);
`
`Framing structure, channel coding and modulation for digital
`
`terrestrial television, 1999-07 (LGE1005 or “DVB-T”)
`
`D. Sommer and G.P. Fettweis, Signal Shaping by Non-Uniform
`
`QAM for AWGN Channels and Applications Using Turbo
`
`Coding, January 2000 (LGE1006 or “Sommer”)
`
`Ulrich Reimers et al., DVB The Family of International
`
`Standards for Digital Video Broadcasting, Second Edition, 2005
`
`(LGE1008 or “Ulrich”)
`
`ETSI EN 302 307 V1.1.2, Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB);
`
`Second generation framing structure, channel coding and
`
`modulation systems for Broadcasting, Interactive Services,
`
`News Gathering and other broadband satellite applications,
`
`June, 2006 (LGE1009 or “DVB-S2”)
`
`
`
`7
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Provisional application No. 60/933,319 (LGE1010 or “’319
`
`Provisional”)
`
`ETSI TS 102 006 V1.2.1, Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB);
`
`Specifications for System Software Update in DVB Systems,
`
`October 2002 (LGE1013 or “DVB-TS”)
`
`De Gaudenzi et al., Turbo-coded APSK modulations design for
`
`satellite broadband communications, Int. J. Satell. Commun.
`
`Network. 2006; 24:261–281, Published online 19 May 2006 in
`
`Wiley InterScience (LGE1014 or “DeGaudenzi”)
`
`Proakis, John G. Digital Communications, Fourth Edition, 2000.
`
`(LGE1021 or “Proakis”)
`
`G. Robins, Signal constellation design tool: A case study in user
`
`interface synthesis, International Conference on Computer
`
`Assisted Learning, 1989. First Online: 01 January 2005.
`
`(LGE1016 or “Robins”)
`
`[0018] Counsel (Fish & Richardson) has informed me that I should consider
`
`these materials through the lens of a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)
`
`related to the ’700 Patent, and I have done so during my review of these
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`materials. See also infra Sections VIII-X. The ’700 Patent was filed on
`
`December 23, 2019 and claims priority from U.S. Provisional application No.
`
`60/933,319, which was filed on June 5, 2007. LGE1001, cover. For the
`
`purposes of this declaration, Counsel has indicated that I should use June 5, 2007
`
`for the purposes of what a POSITA would have known or considered. I have
`
`therefore used June 5, 2007 as the date for my analysis below.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS FORMED
`
`[0019] This declaration explains the conclusions that I have formed based on my
`
`analysis. Based on my review of the Challenged Claims and above-noted
`
`materials considered, it is my conclusion that:
`
` 1A: Claims 1, 8, 10-11, 18, 20-21, 28, and 30 are obvious over Eroz and
`
`DVB-T;
`
` 1B: Claims 1, 6, 8, 10-11, 16, 18, 20-21, 26, 28, and 30 are obvious over
`
`Eroz and DVB-T and DeGaudenzi;
`
` 2A: Claims 4, 14, and 24 are obvious over Eroz, DVB-T, and Sommer;
`
` 2B: Claims 4, 14, and 24 are obvious over Eroz, DVB-T, and Sommer and
`
`DeGaudenzi;
`
` 3A: Claims 7, 17, and 27 are obvious over Eroz, DVB-T, and DVB-S2;
`
` 3B: Claims 7, 17, and 27 are obvious over Eroz, DVB-T, and DVB-S2 and
`9
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`DeGaudenzi; and
`
` 4A: Claims 9, 19, and 29 are obvious over Eroz, DVB-T, and DVB-TS; and
`
` 4B: Claims 9, 19, and 29 are obvious over Eroz, DVB-T, and DVB-TS and
`
`DeGaudenzi.
`
`[0020]
`
`In support of these conclusions, I provide an overview of the references
`
`and combinations in Section IX and more detailed comments regarding the
`
`obviousness of the Challenged Claims in Section X.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`[0021]
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I was asked to
`
`consider the Challenged Claims and the prior art through the eyes of a POSITA
`
`as of June 5, 2007. I understand that the factors considered in determining the
`
`ordinary level of skill in a field of art include the level of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field; the types of problems encountered
`
`in the field; the teachings of the prior art, and the sophistication of the
`
`technology as of June 5, 2007. I understand that a POSITA is not a specific real
`
`individual, but rather is a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected
`
`by the factors above. I understand that a POSITA would also have knowledge
`
`from the teachings of the prior art, including the art cited below.
`
`[0022] Taking these factors into consideration, a POSITA would have had at
`10
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`least a Master’s degree in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering
`
`or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience in the field working
`
`with, teaching, or researching communication systems including the use of
`
`constellations in transmitting signals between devices. Alternatively, the person
`
`could also hold a more advanced degree, e.g., a Masters or Doctor of Philosophy
`
`degree in these academic disciplines, with less than two years work experience
`
`in the same discipline.
`
`[0023] By June 5, 2007, my level of skill in the art was at least that of a POSITA.
`
`I am qualified to provide opinions concerning what a POSITA would have
`
`known and understood at that time, and my analysis and conclusions herein are
`
`from the perspective of a POSITA as of that date.
`
`
`
`VI. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`[0024]
`
`I am not an attorney and I have not been asked to express any legal
`
`opinions. I have been informed by Counsel and understand that:
`
` documents and materials that qualify as prior art can render a patent claim
`
`unpatentable as being anticipated or obvious; and
`
` all prior art references are to be looked at from the viewpoint of a POSITA, and
`
`that this viewpoint prevents one from using his or her own insight or hindsight
`11
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`in deciding whether a claim is anticipated or rendered obvious.
`
`[0025]
`
`In connection with the analysis presented in this declaration, I considered
`
`the following legal standards that counsel for Petitioner provided to me.
`
`
`
` Anticipation
`[0026]
`I understand that patents or printed publications that qualify as prior art
`
`can be used to invalidate a patent claim as anticipated or as obvious.
`
`[0027]
`
`I understand that, once the claims of a patent have been properly
`
`construed, the second step in determining anticipation of a patent claim requires
`
`a comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art on a
`
`limitation-by-limitation basis.
`
`[0028]
`
`I understand that a prior art reference “anticipates” an asserted claim, and
`
`thus renders the claim invalid, if all limitations of the claim are disclosed in that
`
`prior art reference, either explicitly or inherently (i.e., necessarily present).
`
` Obviousness
`[0029]
`I understand that even if a patent is not anticipated, it is still invalid if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a POSITA as of the
`
`earliest priority date of a patent.
`
`12
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`[0030]
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a claim is
`
`unpatentable for obviousness and that obviousness may be based upon a
`
`combination of prior art references. I am informed by Counsel and understand
`
`that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely
`
`to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. However, I
`
`am informed by Counsel and understand that a patent claim composed of several
`
`elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its
`
`elements was, independently, known in the prior art.
`
`[0031]
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that when a patented invention
`
`is a combination of known elements, a court determines whether there was an
`
`apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the
`
`patent at issue by considering the teachings of prior art references, the effects of
`
`demands known to people working in the field or present in the marketplace,
`
`and the background knowledge possessed by a POSITA.
`
`[0032]
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that a patent claim composed
`
`of several limitations is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each
`
`of its limitations was independently known in the prior art. I am informed by
`
`Counsel and understand that identifying a reason those elements would be
`
`combined can be important because inventions in many instances rely upon
`
`
`
`13
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of
`
`necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known. I am
`
`informed by Counsel and understand that it is improper to use hindsight in an
`
`obviousness analysis, and that a patent’s claims should not be used as a
`
`“roadmap.”
`
`[0033]
`
`I am informed by Counsel and understand that an obviousness inquiry
`
`requires consideration of the following factors: (1) the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) any so called “secondary considerations” of
`
`non-obviousness, which include: (i) “long felt need” for the claimed invention,
`
`(ii) commercial success attributable to the claimed invention, (iii) unexpected
`
`results of the claimed invention, and (iv) “copying” of the claimed invention by
`
`others.
`
`[0034]
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that an obviousness
`
`evaluation can be based on a single reference or a combination of multiple prior
`
`art references. I understand that the prior art references themselves may provide
`
`a suggestion, motivation, or reason to combine, but that the nexus linking two
`
`or more prior art references is sometimes simple common sense. I have been
`
`informed by Counsel and understand that obviousness analysis recognizes that
`
`
`
`14
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that
`
`a motivation to combine references may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace.
`
`[0035]
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that if a technique has
`
`been used to improve one device, and a POSITA at the time of invention would
`
`have recognized that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using
`
`the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`[0036]
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that practical and
`
`common sense considerations should guide a proper obviousness analysis,
`
`because familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a POSITA looking to
`
`overcome a problem will often be able to fit together the teachings of multiple
`
`prior art references. I have been informed by Counsel and understand that
`
`obviousness analysis therefore takes into account the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a POSITA would have employed at the time of invention.
`
`[0037]
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a proper
`
`obviousness analysis focuses on what was known or obvious to a POSITA at
`
`the time of invention, not just the patentee. Accordingly, I understand that any
`
`need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
`
`
`
`15
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the
`
`manner claimed.
`
`[0038]
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that a claim can be
`
`obvious in light of a single reference, without the need to combine references,
`
`if the elements of the claim that are not found explicitly or inherently in the
`
`reference can be supplied by the common sense of a POSITA.
`
`[0039]
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that there must be a
`
`relationship between any such secondary considerations and the invention, and
`
`that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary
`
`consideration supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`[0040]
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a POSITA having the understanding and knowledge reflected
`
`in the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing the inventor, would
`
`have been led to make the combination of elements recited in the claims. Under
`
`this analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or problem known
`
`in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a reason for
`
`combining the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed manner.
`
`[0041]
`
`I have been informed by Counsel and understand that in an inter partes
`
`review (IPR), “the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of
`
`
`
`16
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`unpatentability,” including a proposition of obviousness, “by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence.”
`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`[0042]
`
`I understand that when considering the meaning of claims subject to inter
`
`partes review, one must consider the claim language. I understand that claim
`
`terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning, as would be
`
`understood by a POSITA in the context of the specification, the prosecution
`
`history, and other claims. I have applied the above principles in forming my
`
`opinions provided in this declaration.
`
`
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF US PATENT NO. 10,693,700
`
`Patent Family of the ’700 Patent
`
`[0043] The
`’700 Patent,
`titled “Receivers
`
`Incorporating Non-Uniform
`
`Multidimensional Constellations and Code Rate Pairs” was filed on December
`
`23, 2019, and issued on June 23, 2020. LGE1001, cover page. I understand
`
`that:
`
` the ’700 Patent issued from US Patent Application No. 16/726,037, and
`
`claims to be a continuation of application No. 16/206,991, filed on Nov.
`17
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`30, 2018, now US Pat. No. 10,567,980;
`
` US Pat. No. 10,567,980 is a continuation of US Patent Application No.
`
`15/682,475, filed on Aug. 21, 2017, now US Pat. No. 10,149,179;
`
` US Pat. No. 10,149,179 is a continuation of US Patent Application No.
`
`15/200,800, filed on Jul. 1, 2016, now US Pat. No. 9,743,292;
`
` US Pat. No. 9,743,292 is a continuation of US Patent Application No.
`
`14/491,731, filed on Sep. 19, 2014, now US Pat. No. 9,385,832;
`
` US Pat. No. 9,385,832 is a continuation of US Patent Application No.
`
`13/618,630, filed on Sep. 14, 2012, now US Pat. No. 8,842,761;
`
` US Pat. No. 8,842,761 is a continuation of US Patent Application No.
`
`13/118,921, filed on May 31, 2011, now US Pat. No. 8,270,511;
`
` US Pat. No. 8,270,511 is a continuation of US Patent Application No.
`
`12/156,989, filed on Jun. 5, 2008, now US Pat. No. 7,978,777; and
`
` US Pat. No. 7,978,777 claims priority from U.S. Provisional application
`
`No. 60/933,319, filed on June 5, 2007. Id.
`
`[0044]
`
`I have not offered any opinions in this declaration regarding whether the
`
`’700 Patent is entitled to priority to June 5, 2007, but have used this date for my
`
`analysis as I noted above.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`Background of the ’700 Patent
`
`[0045] The ’700 Patent is directed to communication systems that use
`
`“geometrically-shaped constellations” that have a capacity approaching the
`
`Shannon limit. LGE1001, 2:21-25, Abstract. In communication systems, the
`
`term “constellation” refers to “the possible symbols that can be transmitted by
`
`a typical digital communication system.” Id., 1:42-44. When a transmitter
`
`transmits data symbols, a “receiver attempts to detect the symbols that were
`
`transmitted by mapping a received signal to the constellation.” Id., 1:44-46.
`
`The ’700 Patent explains that the “minimum distance (dmin) between
`
`constellation points is indicative of the capacity of a constellation at high signal-
`
`to-noise ratios (SNRs),” so “constellations used in many communication
`
`systems are designed to maximize dmin” to bring the constellation capacity closer
`
`to the Shannon limit. Id., 1:46-50.
`
`[0046] According to the ’700 Patent, many communication systems have been
`
`designed to increase the capacity of a communication channel, or come near the
`
`theoretical capacity known as the Shannon limit. LGE1001, 1:55-60. “The
`
`Shannon limit can be thought of as being based upon a theoretical constellation
`
`known as a Gaussian distribution [constellation], which is an infinite
`
`constellation where symbols at the center of the constellation are transmitted
`
`
`
`19
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`more frequently than symbols at the edge of the constellation.” Id., 1:62-67.
`
`Known methods to designs systems reaching the Shannon capacity limit include
`
`using coding techniques such as turbo codes or LDPC codes. Id., 1:52-61:2:6.
`
`[0047] The ’700 Patent acknowledges that using unequally spaced constellations
`
`to design systems approaching the Shannon capacity limit is not new.
`
`LGE1001, 1:55-60, 2:6-17. One known system “uses unequally spaced
`
`constellations that are optimized to minimize the error rate of an uncoded
`
`system.” Id., 2:6-9. “Another proposed system uses a constellation with
`
`equiprobable but unequally spaced symbols in an attempts[sic] to mimic a
`
`Gaussian distribution.” Id., 2:10-12. Yet another known method “increases the
`
`dimensionality of a constellation or select[s] a new symbol to be transmitted
`
`taking into consideration previously transmitted symbols.” Id., 2:13-15.
`
`Although the ’700 Patent contends that earlier “constellation[s] were still
`
`designed based on a minimum distance criteria,” known prior art systems that
`
`employed unequally spaced constellations without reliance on a minimum
`
`distance criteria also existed. Id., 2:15-17; see infra Sections IX-X.
`
`
`
` Brief Description of the ’700 Patent
`[0048] The ’700 Patent discloses “constructing a modulation such that the
`
`
`
`20
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`constrained capacity between a transmitter and a receiver approaches the
`
`Gaussian channel limit first described by Shannon.” LGE1001, 2:21-25. The
`
`’700 Patent discloses a method for locating points (in a one or multiple
`
`dimensional space) in order to maximize capacity between the input and output
`
`of a bit or symbol mapper and demapper respectively.” Id., 2:29-34.
`
`[0049] Figure 1 (reproduced below) shows a communication system 10
`
`according to the ’700 Patent, which includes “a source 12 that provides user bits
`
`to a transmitter 14,” which in turn “transmits symbols over a channel to a
`
`receiver 16 using a predetermined modulation scheme.” LGE1001, 5:32-35.
`
`Using knowledge of the modulation scheme, the receiver 16 decodes the signal
`
`and provides the decoded bits to a sink device 18 connected to the receiver 16.
`
`Id., 5:33-35.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`LGE1001, FIG. 1.
`
`[0050] FIG. 2 (reproduced below) of the ’700 Patent depicts the transmitter 14
`
`and its components, which include a coder 20, a mapper 22, and a modulator
`
`24. LGE1001, 3:45-46, 5:40-51. FIG. 3 (reproduced below) of the ’700 Patent
`
`depicts the receiver 16 and its components, which include a demodulator 30, a
`
`demapper 32, and a decoder 34. LGE1001, 3:47-48, 5:53-59.
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`LGE1001, FIGS. 2-3. 1
`
`[0051] The coder 20 of the transmitter 14 “receives user bits from a source and
`
`encodes the bits in accordance with a predetermined coding scheme,” such as a
`
`capacity approaching code (e.g., turbo code, LDPC code) or other coding
`
`schemes that provide a coding gain. LGE1001, 5:40-44. A mapper 22
`
`connected to the coder “maps the bits output by the coder to a symbol within a
`
`geometrically distributed signal constellation stored within the mapper” and
`
`“provides the symbols to a modulator 24, which modulates the symbols for
`
`transmission via the channel.” Id., 5:46-51. The mapper of the transmitter
`
`encodes bits to symbols in a symbol constellation that “is a capacity optimized
`
`geometrically spaced symbol constellation that provides a given capacity at a
`
`reduced signal-to-noise ratio compared to a signal constellation that maximizes
`
`dmin.” Id., 2:52-55, 2:56-62, 4:66-5:3. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is “defined
`
`as the ratio of the average constellation energy per dimension to the average
`
`noise energy per dimension.” Id., 7:52-54. The ’700 Patent explains that
`
`
`
`1 I have annotated this and other figures in my declaration using colored text and/or
`
`marks.
`
`
`
`23
`
`27
`
`
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
