IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`PLAINTIFF NEO WIRELESS LLC’S DISCLOSURE OF PROPOSED
`INTERPRETATIONS AND EVIDENCE OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Neo Wireless” ) hereby makes
`
`the following Proposed Constructions and discloses the following Expert Witness,
`
`Intrinsic, and Extrinsic Evidence to support the same for the terms identified by
`
`Neo Wireless and Defendants Volkswagen Group of America Inc., Volkswagen
`
`Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC (“VW”), Nissan North America
`
`Inc., Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
`
`(“Nissan”), Honda Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC (“Honda”),
`
`Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor
`
`Sales USA, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America,
`
`Inc. (“Toyota”), Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”), Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Mercedes”),
`
`and General Motors (“GM”) (collectively “Defendants”) in their respective
`
`December 7, 2022 disclosures for U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 (the “’366 Patent”),
`
`1
`
`VWGoA EX1028
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366
`
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`PLAINTIFF NEO WIRELESS LLC’S DISCLOSURE OF PROPOSED
`INTERPRETATIONS AND EVIDENCE OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Neo Wireless” ) hereby makes
`
`the following Proposed Constructions and discloses the following Expert Witness,
`
`Intrinsic, and Extrinsic Evidence to support the same for the terms identified by
`
`Neo Wireless and Defendants Volkswagen Group of America Inc., Volkswagen
`
`Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC (“VW”), Nissan North America
`
`Inc., Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
`
`(“Nissan”), Honda Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC (“Honda”),
`
`Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor
`
`Sales USA, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America,
`
`Inc. (“Toyota”), Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”), Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Mercedes”),
`
`and General Motors (“GM”) (collectively “Defendants”) in their respective
`
`December 7, 2022 disclosures for U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 (the “’366 Patent”),
`
`1
`
`VWGoA EX1028
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908 (the “’908 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941 (the
`
`“’941 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450 (the “’450 Patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,965,512 (the “’512 Patent”), and U.S. Patent 10,771,302 (the “’302 Patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`Neo Wireless reserves the right to supplement or amend this evidence in
`
`response to the evidence that Defendants may disclose to support their
`
`construction, the parties’ meeting and conferring, Defendants’ proposed claim
`
`constructions, or as otherwise permitted by the Court’s orders. Neo Wireless’s
`
`disclosed Extrinsic Evidence should not be interpreted as implying that any term
`
`or claim element is appropriate for or requires construction, and is not presented
`
`in any particular order of importance.
`
`I.
`
`Expert Witness
`
`In support of its claim construction briefing, Neo Wireless intends to
`
`submit and rely upon the expert declaration of William P. Alberth. Mr. Alberth
`
`has a Masters of Engineering, and with over 35 years of experience in technology
`
`development, Mr. Alberth is qualified to opine on the understanding those skilled
`
`in the art would have in the field of technology of the Asserted Patents. As such,
`
`he will offer expert declaration testimony regarding the topics described below.
`
`Mr. Alberth may provide details regarding his training, background, and
`
`experience, and will explain what he believes should be the applicable level of
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`educational and professional training and experience of one skilled in the art. Mr.
`
`Alberth may also offer information and opinion describing and placing in context
`
`the inventions claimed in the Asserted Patents, as well as a helpful background
`
`and overview of the technology at the time of invention.
`
`Additionally, Mr. Alberth expects to provide opinions relating to his
`
`understanding, as one skilled in the relevant art, of the claims of the Asserted
`
`Patents, of the disclosures and teachings of the specification of the Asserted
`
`Patents, and of the procedural and substantive aspects of the Asserted Patents’
`
`respective file histories before the Patent and Trademark Office that may be
`
`relevant to and helpful for analyzing and understanding the proper constructions
`
`of the disputed claim terms. Mr. Alberth also expects to provide opinions directed
`
`to each of the disputed claim terms that should be given any particularized
`
`construction in support of Neo Wireless’s proposed constructions, as noted in
`
`Exhibits A and B hereto. In doing so, he intends to rely upon the claims
`
`themselves, the intrinsic evidence, the extrinsic evidence available to him as
`
`disclosed below, and his knowledge and expertise. Mr. Alberth may also explain
`
`why, in his opinion, no particularized construction need be given for certain of the
`
`proposed constructions offered by Defendants, because the plain language of such
`
`terms would be readily understood by one skilled in the art at the time of
`
`invention. As a result, Mr. Alberth may opine that no particularized construction
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`for these terms is necessary or appropriate and that the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning should apply. Further, Mr. Alberth may explain why, in his opinion,
`
`Defendants’ proposed constructions for such terms and ordering diverge from the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning without justification, are artificially narrow, or do not
`
`adequately capture the proper scope of the patent terms as claimed.
`
`To the extent that Defendants contend that any one or more claim terms are
`
`allegedly indefinite, Mr. Alberth may also opine as to why, in his opinion,
`
`Defendants’ indefinite contentions do not pass muster, and why the identified
`
`claim terms are not indefinite. As Defendants have not yet articulated any such
`
`contentions, let alone any identify any basis or support for such contentions, Neo
`
`Wireless reserves the right to supplement or amend this evidence in connection
`
`with its claim construction briefing.
`
`Should Defendants offer their own expert declaration(s) in support of their
`
`claim construction briefing, Mr. Alberth reserves the right to review, analyze, and
`
`respond to such opinions, to the extent necessary, in connection with Neo
`
`Wireless’s responsive and/or reply claim construction briefs. Mr. Alberth also
`
`reserves the right to assess, and opine on, any extrinsic evidence Defendants
`
`choose to identify, produce, disclose, or rely upon in support of any of their claim
`
`construction briefs, and to identify, produce, disclose, or rely upon additional
`
`extrinsic evidence in support of such further analysis and opinion.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Finally, Mr. Alberth, and/or other expert(s) retained by Plaintiff, may also
`
`offer testimony in rebuttal to any expert testimony offered by Defendants
`
`including without limitations with respect to the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the technology described in the asserted patents, technical background concerning
`
`any claim term and what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
`
`claim term to mean in view of the specifications, the prosecution histories, the
`
`claim language, and/or the extrinsic evidence.
`
`By identifying Mr. Alberth, Plaintiff does not waive any right and is not
`
`precluded from relying on other experts with similar qualifications who may
`
`provide a declaration or testimony addressing these or similar issues. For
`
`example, in support of its claim construction briefing, Neo Wireless may submit
`
`and rely upon the expert declaration of Dr. Rich Gitlin whose credentials were
`
`contained in the disclosure Plaintiff provided to Defendants on December 29,
`
`2022.
`
`II.
`
`Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence
`
`In further support of its claim construction positions, Neo Wireless may
`
`also rely on at least the following intrinsic and extrinsic evidence identified in
`
`Exhibits A and B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`DATED: December 30, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jason D. Cassady
`Jason D. Cassady
`Texas State Bar No. 24045625
`Email: jcassady@caldwellcc.com
`Christopher S. Stewart
`Texas State Bar No. 24079399
`Email: cstewart@caldwellcc.com
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY
`P.C.
`2121 N. Pearl St., Suite 1200
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 888-4848
`Facsimile: (214) 888-4849
`
`Jaye Quadrozzi (P71646)
`Email: quadrozzi@youngpc.com
`YOUNG, GARCIA &
`QUADROZZI, PC
`2775 Stansbury Blvd., Suite 125
`Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334
`Telephone: (248) 353-8620
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`NEO WIRELESS LLC
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon all
`
`
`
`counsel of record via electronic mail on December 30, 2022.
`
`/s/ Jason D. Cassady
`Jason D. Cassady
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`No.
`
`P1
`
`Claim Term
`
`“In a multi-cell orthogonal
`frequency division multiple
`access (OFDMA) wireless
`communication system
`comprising a plurality of
`base stations and mobile
`stations, a mobile station
`configured to communicate
`with a serving base station
`in a cell via a
`communication channel, the
`mobile
`station comprising:”
`
`(’366 Patent, Claim 1)
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Proposed Construction
`The ’366 Patent
`The preamble is limiting.
`The claim language.
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`The Abstract, Background
`of the Invention, and
`Summary of the Invention
`Section.
`
`The specification,
`including, information
`depicted, for example, in
`FIGs. 3, 5, 6 and
`accompanying text. And,
`information, for example,
`in the following passages:
`1:24-64, 2:40-56, 3:5-26,
`3:43-51, 3:57-4:5, 4:31-48,
`5:10-23.
`
`The prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`13/205,579 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`In addition to the
`disclosure described
`above, Neo Wireless
`intends to rely on expert
`testimony in the form of a
`declaration from Mr.
`Alberth that may
`describe:
`
`1. why the preamble is
`limiting; and
`2. how a person having
`ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood
`the term in light of the
`intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence; and
`3. why Defendants’
`construction is
`unnecessary and
`incorrect.
`
`Mr. Alberth’s declaration
`may also include
`discussion and analysis of
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`the intrinsic record,
`including but not limited
`to, the identified portions
`in the adjacent column:
`
`the claim language;
`
`the Specification of the
`’366 Patent; and
`
`the prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`13/205,579 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`In addition to the
`disclosure described
`above, Neo Wireless
`intends to rely on expert
`testimony in the form of a
`declaration from Mr.
`Alberth that describes:
`
`1. why the preamble is
`limiting; and
`
`“In an orthogonal frequency
`division multiple access
`(OFDMA) wireless
`communication system, a
`method for signal
`transmission by a mobile
`station to a serving base
`station via a communication
`channel, the method
`comprising:”
`
`
`P2
`
`
`
`The preamble is limiting.
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`The claim language.
`
`The Abstract, Background
`of the Invention, and
`Summary of the Invention
`Section.
`
`The specification,
`including, information
`depicted, for example, in
`
`2
`
`
`
`(’366 Patent, Claim 17)
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`FIGs. 3, 4, 5, 6 and
`accompanying text. And,
`information, for example,
`in the following passages:
`1:24-64, 2:40-56, 3:5-51,
`3:57-4:5, 4:31-48, 5:10-23.
`
`The prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`13/205,579 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`
`2. how a person having
`ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood
`the term in light of the
`intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence; and
`3. why Defendants’
`construction is
`unnecessary and
`incorrect.
`
`Mr. Alberth’s declaration
`may also include
`discussion and analysis of
`the intrinsic record,
`including but not limited
`to:
`
`the claim language;
`
`the Specification of the
`’366 Patent; and
`
`the prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`13/205,579 including any
`relevant post-grant
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`P3
`
`“A mobile station
`comprising:”
`(’908 Patent, Claim 1)
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`The ’908 Patent
`The preamble is limiting.
`The claim language.
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`The Abstract, Background
`of the Invention, and
`Summary of the Invention
`Section.
`
`The specification,
`including, information
`depicted, for example, in
`FIGs. 10, 11, 17 and
`accompanying text. And.
`information, for example,
`in the following passages:
`5:35-39, 5:42-67, 6:26-31,
`6:35-57, 6:65-7:3, 8:34-
`9:18, 9:29-40, 9:50-10:9,
`10:14-27.
`
`The prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`16/902,740 including any
`relevant post-grant
`
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`
`In addition to the
`disclosure described
`above, Neo Wireless
`intends to rely on expert
`testimony in the form of a
`declaration from Mr.
`Alberth that may
`describe:
`
`1. why the preamble is
`limiting; and
`2. how a person having
`ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood
`the term in light of the
`intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence; and
`3. why Defendants’
`construction is
`unnecessary and
`incorrect.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`
`P4
`
`“wherein the portion of the
`frequency band used for
`transmission of the random
`access signal does not
`include control channels”
`
`(’908 Patent, Claim 4)
`
`“wherein the portion of the
`frequency band used for
`transmission of the random
`access signal does not
`overlap with the portions of
`the frequency band used for
`control channels”
`
`
`The claim language.
`
`The Abstract, Background
`of the Invention, and
`Summary of the Invention
`Section.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Mr. Alberth’s declaration
`may also include
`discussion and analysis of
`the intrinsic record,
`including but not limited
`to, the identified portions
`in the adjacent column:
`
`the claim language;
`
`the Specification of the
`’908 Patent; and
`
`the prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`16/902,740 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`In addition to the
`disclosure described
`above, Neo
`Wireless intends to rely
`on expert testimony in the
`form of a declaration
`from Mr. Alberth that
`describes:
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`The specification,
`including, information
`depicted, for example, in
`FIGs. 1, 2, 6, 9, 14, 18 and
`accompanying text. And,
`information, for example,
`in the following passages:
`1:43-58, 2:41-3:3, 3:41-50,
`3:59-4:2, 4:51-62, 5:22-39,
`7:17-24, 7:26-44, 7:54-65,
`7:66-8:11, 9:23-28, 9:41-
`49, 10:13-28.
`
`The prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`16/902,740 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`
`
`1. why Neo Wireless’s
`construction is correct;
`and
`2. how a person having
`ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood
`the term in light of the
`intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence; and
`3. why Defendants’
`construction is incorrect.
`
`Mr. Alberth’s declaration
`may also include
`discussion and analysis of
`the intrinsic record,
`including but not limited
`to:
`
`the claim language;
`
`the Specification of the
`’908 Patent; and
`
`the prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`“A mobile device in a
`wireless packet system
`using a frame structure of
`multiple frames for
`transmission, each frame
`comprising a plurality of
`time
`intervals, each time interval
`comprising a plurality of
`orthogonal frequency
`division multiplexing
`(OFDM) symbols, and each
`OFDM symbol containing a
`plurality of frequency
`subcarriers, the
`mobile device configured
`to:”
`
`(’450 Patent, Claim 7)
`
`
`The ’450 Patent
`The preamble is limiting.
`The claim language.
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`The Abstract, Background
`of the Invention, and
`Summary of the Invention
`Section.
`
`The specification,
`including, information
`depicted, for example, in
`FIGs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and
`accompanying text. And,
`information, for example,
`in the following passages:
`1:51-2:16, 3:6-18, 3:36-
`4:4, 4:5-16, 4:27-37, 4:49-
`5:18, 5:32-53, 5:61-64,
`7:55-8:5, 8:6-26, 8:37-54,
`9:4-29, 9:40-50, 9:56-67,
`10:27-34, 10:56-11:6,
`11:19-33.
`
`
`7
`
`P5
`
`
`
`16/902,740 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`
`In addition to the
`disclosure described
`above, Neo Wireless
`intends to rely on expert
`testimony in the form of a
`declaration from Mr.
`Alberth that may
`describe:
`
`1. why the preamble is
`limiting; and
`2. how a person having
`ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood
`the term in light of the
`intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence; and
`3. why Defendants’
`construction is
`unnecessary and
`incorrect.
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`The prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`15/676,421 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories
`including Applicant
`Response Dated 2/16/2016
`Applicant Response Dated
`2/16/2016 Applicant
`Response Dated
`11/21/2016 Applicant
`Response Dated 7/5/2017
`Applicant Response Dated
`2/5/2018 Notice of
`Allowance and Notice of
`Allowability Dated
`4/5/2018.
`
`
`Mr. Alberth’s declaration
`may also include
`discussion and analysis of
`the intrinsic record,
`including but not limited
`to, the identified portions
`in the adjacent column:
`
`the claim language;
`
`the Specification of the
`’450 Patent; and
`
`the prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`15/676,421 and all other
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings and file
`histories including
`Applicant Response
`Dated 2/16/2016
`Applicant Response
`Dated 2/16/2016
`Applicant Response
`Dated 11/21/2016
`Applicant Response
`Dated 7/5/2017 Applicant
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`Response Dated 2/5/2018
`Notice of Allowance and
`Notice of Allowability
`Dated 4/5/2018.
`
`In addition to the
`disclosure described
`above, Neo Wireless
`intends to rely on expert
`testimony in the form of a
`declaration from Mr.
`Alberth that may
`describe:
`
`1. why Neo Wireless’s
`construction is correct;
`and
`2. how a person having
`ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood
`the term in light of the
`intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence; and
`3. why Defendants’
`construction is incorrect.
`
`
`The claim language.
`
`The Abstract, Background
`of the Invention, and
`Summary of the Invention
`Section.
`
`The specification,
`including, information
`depicted, for example, in
`FIG 6 and accompanying
`text. And, information, for
`example, in the following
`passages: 1:62-66, 5:57-
`64, 6:14-19, 6:22-29, 7:12-
`18.
`
`The prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`15/676,421 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`
`P6
`
`“the segment having a
`starting time-frequency
`coordinate”
`
`(’450 Patent, Claim 7)
`
`
`“the segment having a
`singular, one-dimensional
`parameter reflecting a
`starting location in both time
`and frequency”
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`relevant file histories
`including IPR2021-10486,
`paper No. 10, pp. 23-28.
`
`
`P7
`
`“wherein modular coding is
`applied to the time-
`frequency resource units in
`the segment of time-
`frequency resource”
`
`(’450 Patent, Claim 11)
`
`“wherein a modular coding
`scheme is applied to the
`time-frequency resource
`units in the segment of time-
`frequency resource.”
`
`The claim language.
`
`The Abstract, Background
`of the Invention, and
`Summary of the Invention
`Section.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Mr. Alberth’s declaration
`may also include
`discussion and analysis of
`the intrinsic record,
`including but not limited
`to, the identified portions
`in the adjacent column:
`
`the claim language;
`
`the Specification of the
`’450 Patent; and
`
`the prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`15/676,421 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`In addition to the
`disclosure described
`above, Neo Wireless
`intends to rely on expert
`testimony in the form of a
`declaration from Mr.
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`The specification,
`including, information
`depicted, for example, in
`FIG 6 and accompanying
`text. And, information, for
`example, in the following
`passages: 1:52-55, 1:62-
`66, 2:45-59, 4:12-13, 5:57-
`64, 6:14-19, 6:22-29, 6:45-
`62, 7:7-27, 8:15-19, 8:23-
`26, 8:37-39.
`
`The prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`15/676,421 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`
`
`Alberth that may
`describe:
`
`1. why Neo Wireless’s
`construction is correct;
`and
`2. how a person having
`ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood
`the term in light of the
`intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence; and
`3. why Defendants’
`construction is incorrect.
`
`Mr. Alberth’s declaration
`may also include
`discussion and analysis of
`the intrinsic record,
`including but not limited
`to, the identified portions
`in the adjacent column:
`
`the claim language;
`
`the Specification of the
`’450 Patent; and
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`
`the prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`15/676,421 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`
`
`
`
`In addition to the
`disclosure described
`above, Neo Wireless
`intends to rely on expert
`testimony in the form of a
`declaration from Mr.
`Alberth that may
`describe:
`
`1. why the preamble is
`limiting; and
`2. how a person having
`ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood
`the term in light of the
`
`“A link adaption method by
`a mobile station served by a
`serving base station in an
`Orthogonal Frequency
`Division Multiplexing
`(OFDM) communication
`system, the communication
`system
`utilizing a transmission
`structure with time slots in
`the time domain and
`frequency subchannels in
`the frequency domain, the
`method comprising:”
`
`
`The ’941 Patent
`The preamble is limiting.
`The claim language.
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`The Abstract, Background
`of the Invention, and
`Summary of the Invention
`Section.
`
`The specification,
`including, information
`depicted, for example, in
`FIGs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and
`accompanying text. And,
`information, for example,
`in the following passages:
`1:6-63, 2:33-41, 2:50-55,
`
`12
`
`P8
`
`
`
`
`
`(’941 Patent, Claim 8)
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`3:54-61, 3:62-4:13, 4:13-
`38, 4:39-60, 5:27-50, 6:50-
`67, 7:10-16, 7:25-8:3,
`8:11-23.
`
`The prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`15/082,878 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`
`intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence; and
`3. why Defendants’
`construction is
`unnecessary and
`incorrect.
`
`Mr. Alberth’s declaration
`may also include
`discussion and analysis of
`the intrinsic record,
`including but not limited
`to, the identified portions
`in the adjacent column:
`
`the claim language;
`
`the Specification of the
`’941 Patent; and
`
`the prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`15/082,878 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`The preamble is limiting.
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`P9
`
`“A mobile station served by
`a serving base station in an
`Orthogonal Frequency
`Division Multiplexing
`(OFDM)
`communication system, the
`communication system
`utilizing a
`transmission structure with
`time slots in the time
`domain and frequency
`subchannels in the
`frequency domain, the
`mobile station comprising a
`receiver
`configured to:”
`
`(’941 Patent, Claim 13)
`
`The claim language.
`
`The Abstract, Background
`of the Invention, and
`Summary of the Invention
`Section.
`
`The specification,
`including, information
`depicted, for example, in
`FIGs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and
`accompanying text. And,
`information, for example,
`in the following passages:
`1:6-63, 2:33-41, 2:50-55,
`3:12-22, 3:33-43, 3:54-61,
`3:62-4:13, 4:13-38, 4:39-
`60, 5:27-50, 6:50-67, 7:1-
`8:3, 8:11-23.
`
`The prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`15/082,878 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`
`In addition to the
`disclosure described
`above, Neo Wireless
`intends to rely on expert
`testimony in the form of a
`declaration from Mr.
`Alberth that may
`describe:
`
`1. why the preamble is
`limiting; and
`2. how a person having
`ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood
`the term in light of the
`intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence; and
`3. why Defendants’
`construction is
`unnecessary and
`incorrect.
`
`Mr. Alberth’s declaration
`may also include
`discussion and analysis of
`the intrinsic record,
`including but not limited
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`to, the identified portions
`in the adjacent column:
`
`the claim language;
`
`the Specification of the
`’941 Patent; and
`
`the prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`15/082,878 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`In addition to the
`disclosure described
`above, Neo Wireless
`intends to rely on expert
`testimony in the form of a
`declaration from Mr.
`Alberth that may
`describe:
`
`1. why Neo Wireless’s
`construction is correct;
`and
`
`P10 “the antenna transmission
`scheme comprising a
`transmission diversity
`scheme or a multiple-input
`multiple-output (MIMO)
`scheme”
`
`(’941 Patent, Claims 8 and
`13)
`
`“the antenna transmission
`scheme is capable of
`comprising either a MIMO
`scheme or a transmission
`diversity scheme other than
`MIMO. To avoid any doubt,
`this requires supporting both
`MIMO and non-MIMO
`transmission diversity
`systems.”
`
`
`
`The claim language.
`
`The Abstract, Background
`of the Invention, and
`Summary of the Invention
`Section.
`
`The specification,
`including, information
`depicted, for example, in
`FIGs. 4, 5, 6, 7 and
`accompanying text. And.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`information, for example,
`in the following passages:
`2:17-27, 2:33-38, 3:66-
`4:12, 4:17-19, 4:32-36,
`4:39-43, 4:61-62, 5:1-5,
`5:20-22, 6:50-53, 6:60-67,
`7:1-9, 7:10-16, 7:33-36.
`
`The prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`15/082,878 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories
`including Preliminary
`Amendment Dated
`11/11/2016 Applicant
`Response Dated
`4/12/2018.
`
`
`2. how a person having
`ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood
`the term in light of the
`intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence; and
`3. why Defendants’
`construction is incorrect.
`
`Mr. Alberth’s declaration
`may also include
`discussion and analysis of
`the intrinsic record,
`including but not limited
`to, the identified portions
`in the adjacent column:
`
`the claim language;
`
`the Specification of the
`’941 Patent; and
`
`the prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`15/082,878 and all other
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings and file
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`histories including
`Preliminary Amendment
`Dated 11/11/2016
`Applicant Response
`Dated 4/12/2018.
`
`In addition to the
`disclosure described
`above, Neo Wireless
`intends to rely on expert
`testimony in the form of a
`declaration from Mr.
`Alberth that may
`describe:
`
`1. why Neo Wireless’s
`construction is correct;
`and
`2. how a person having
`ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood
`the term in light of the
`intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence; and
`3. why Defendants’
`construction is incorrect.
`
`
`The claim language.
`
`The Abstract, Background
`of the Invention, and
`Summary of the Invention
`Section.
`
`The specification,
`including, information
`depicted, for example, in
`FIGs. 2, 3, 6 and
`accompanying text. And,
`information, for example,
`in the following passages:
`1:62-66, 3:28-61, 4:25-31,
`4:46-60, 5:28-39, 5:57-64,
`6:14-19, 6:22-29, 7:1-9,
`7:10-18, 7:59-8:3.
`
`The prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`
`P11 “the corresponding
`subchannel configuration
`characterized by distributed
`subcarriers or localized
`subcarriers in the frequency
`domain”
`
`(’941 Patent, Claims 8 and
`13)
`
`“The corresponding
`subchannel configuration
`characterized by distributed
`subcarriers or localized
`subcarriers in the frequency
`domain, wherein the
`subchannel configuration is
`capable of comprising either
`localized or distributed
`subcarriers. To avoid any
`doubt, this requires
`supporting both localized
`and distributed subchannel
`configurations.”
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`15/082,878 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`
`P12 “A mobile device in an
`Orthogonal Frequency
`Division Multiplexing
`(OFDM) communication
`system, the mobile device
`comprising”
`
`The ’302 Patent
`The preamble is limiting.
`The claim language.
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`The Abstract, Background
`of the Invention, and
`Summary of the Invention
`Section.
`
`
`
`18
`
`Mr. Alberth’s declaration
`may also include
`discussion and analysis of
`the intrinsic record,
`including but not limited
`to, the identified portions
`in the adjacent column:
`
`the claim language;
`
`the Specification of the
`’941 Patent; and
`
`the prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`15/082,878 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`
`In addition to the
`disclosure described
`above, Neo Wireless
`intends to rely on expert
`testimony in the form of a
`declaration from Mr.
`
`
`
`
`(’302 Patent, Claim 23)
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`
`The specification,
`including, information
`depicted, for example, in
`FIGs. 10, 11, 17 and
`accompanying text.
`And, information, for
`example, in the following
`passages: 1:42–44, 3:6–8,
`3:63–4:5, & 4:6–14.
`
`The prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`15/953,950 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`
`Alberth that may
`describe:
`
`1. why the preamble is
`limiting; and
`2. how a person having
`ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood
`the term in light of the
`intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence; and
`3. why Defendants’
`construction is
`unnecessary and
`incorrect.
`
`Mr. Alberth’s declaration
`may also include
`discussion and analysis of
`the intrinsic record,
`including but not limited
`to, the identified portions
`in the adjacent column:
`
`the claim language;
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`the Specification of the
`’302 Patent; and
`
`the prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`15/953,950 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`In addition to the
`disclosure described
`above, Neo Wireless
`intends to rely on expert
`testimony in the form of a
`declaration from Mr.
`Alberth that may
`describe:
`
`1. why Neo Wireless’s
`construction is correct;
`and
`2. how a person having
`ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood
`the term in light of the
`
`The claim language.
`
`The Abstract, Background
`of the Invention, and
`Summary of the Invention
`Section.
`
`The specification,
`including, information
`depicted, for example, in
`FIGs. 6, 7, 15, and
`accompanying text. And,
`information, for example,
`in the following passages:
`4:38–44, 6:52–57, & 7:64–
`8:11.
`
`
`P13 “the probing signal is
`configured to occupy a
`portion of spectrum in the
`uplink frequency band not
`designated for transmission
`of uplink control signals in
`the system”
`
`(’302 Patent, Claim 23)
`
`
`“the probing signal is
`configured to reside within a
`portion of spectrum in the
`uplink frequency band not
`designated for transmission
`of uplink control signals in
`the system.”
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`The prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`15/953,950 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`
`intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence; and
`3. why Defendants’
`construction is incorrect.
`
`Mr. Alberth’s declaration
`may also include
`discussion and analysis of
`the intrinsic record,
`including but not limited
`to, the identified portions
`in the adjacent column:
`
`the claim language;
`
`the Specification of the
`’302 Patent; and
`
`the prosecution history of
`U.S. Application No.
`15/953,950 including any
`relevant post-grant
`proceedings, and any
`relevant file histories.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`P14 “An orthogonal frequency
`division multiple access
`(OFDMA)-compatible
`mobile station that uses
`subcarriers in a frequency
`domain and time slots in a
`time domain, the OFDMA-
`compatible mobile station
`comprising:”
`
`(’512 Patent, Claim 15)
`
`
`Exhibit A – Neo Wireless’s Identified Terms
`
`The ’512 Patent
`The preamble is limiting.
`The claim language.
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`The Abstract, Background
`of the Invention, and
`Summary of the Invention
`Section.
`
`The specification,
`including, information
`depicted, for example, in
`FIGs. 1–4, 10–12, and
`accompanying text. And,
`information, f
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
