IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`David Chauncey et al.
`In re Patent of:
`8,345,780
`U.S. Patent No.:
`January 1, 2013
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 12/132,757
`Filing Date:
`June 4, 2008
`Title:
`WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM COMPENSATING
`FOR INTERFERENCE AND RELATED METHODS
`
` Attorney Docket No.: 50095-0106IP1
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ZHI DING
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1003
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3
`I.
`Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 4
`II.
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................10
`IV. Summary of Opinions and Materials Considered/Relied Upon ....................11
`V.
`Legal Standards .............................................................................................13
`A. Legal Standards for Claim Construction ................................................14
`B. Legal Standard for Obviousness .............................................................15
`VI. Overview of the ’780 Patent ..........................................................................18
`A. Background of Related Technology .......................................................18
`B. Subject Matter Overview of the ’780 Patent ..........................................19
`C. File History of the ’780 Patent ................................................................22
`Interpretation of the ’780 Patent Claims at Issue ..........................................25
`VII.
`VIII. Overview of the Cited References .................................................................28
`A. Diener (APPLE-1006) ............................................................................28
`B. Bergstrom Overview (APPLE-1005) .....................................................39
`IX. Diener in view of Bergstrom renders obvious claims 1-4 and 7-14 ..............42
`A. Diener-Bergstrom Combination .............................................................42
`1. Motivation .....................................................................................43
`2.
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ..............................................48
`3.
`Claim 1 ..........................................................................................53
`4.
`Claim 2 ..........................................................................................97
`5.
`Claim 3 ........................................................................................101
`6.
`Claim 4 ........................................................................................104
`7.
`Claim 7 ........................................................................................106
`8.
`Claim 8 ........................................................................................108
`9.
`Claim 9 ........................................................................................112
`10. Claim 10 ......................................................................................114
`11. Claim 11 ......................................................................................114
`12. Claim 12 ......................................................................................114
`13. Claim 13 ......................................................................................116
`14. Claim 14 ......................................................................................117
`X. Additional Remarks .....................................................................................117
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`I, Zhi Ding, Ph.D., declare that:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1. My name is Zhi Ding, and I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) as an expert witness to provide assistance
`
`regarding U.S. Patent 8,345,780 (“the ’780 Patent”). Specifically, I have been asked
`
`to consider the validity of claims 1-4 and 7-14 of the ’780 Patent (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) in view of prior art, anticipation and obviousness considerations, and
`
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, i.e.,
`
`as of the effective filing date of the patent application as it relates to the ’780 Patent
`
`(“POSITA”). I have personal knowledge of the facts and opinions set forth in this
`
`declaration and believe them to be true. If called upon to do so, I would testify
`
`competently thereto.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at my standard consulting rate. I
`
`am also being reimbursed for expenses that I incur during the course of this work.
`
`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.
`
`3. My analysis here is based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials, including
`
`3
`
`

`

`those cited herein.
`
`4.
`
`I may rely upon these materials, my knowledge and experience, and/or
`
`additional materials to rebut arguments raised by the Patent Owner. Further, I may
`
`also consider additional documents and information in forming any necessary
`
`opinions, including documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`5. My analysis of the materials produced in this proceeding is ongoing and
`
`I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information and
`
`on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. Background and Qualifications
`
`6.
`
`I presently hold the title of Distinguished Professor in the Department
`
`of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of California, Davis. Since
`
`my appointment on July 1, 2020, I have held the position of professor for the past
`
`22 years and have served as a faculty member at several US universities for over 32
`
`years. I am also a private technical consultant on various technologies related to
`
`information systems. In total, I have more than three decades of research experience
`
`on a wide range of topics related to data communications and signal processing.
`
`7.
`
`I earned my Bachelor of Science degree in 1982 in wireless engineering
`
`from the Nanjing Institute of Technology (later renamed as Southeast University) in
`
`4
`
`

`

`Nanjing, China. I earned my Master of Science degree in 1987 in electrical
`
`engineering from the University of Toronto in Toronto, Canada. I earned my Ph.D.
`
`in 1990 in electrical engineering from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.
`
`8. My responsibilities as a Professor at University of California, Davis,
`
`include classroom instruction on various topics of communication systems and
`
`signal analysis, as well as mentoring undergraduate students and supervising
`
`graduate students in their research and development efforts on various topics related
`
`to digital communications. I have directly supervised such research and development
`
`works ranging from signal detection to wireless networking. As the chief academic
`
`advisor, I have also directly supervised the completion of over 20 Masters theses and
`
`30 Ph.D. dissertations on various topics related to digital communications. I have
`
`served full time as a faculty member at three major research universities in the
`
`United States over the past 30 years, including Auburn University from 1990 to 1998,
`
`University of Iowa from 1999 to 2000, and University of California, Davis, from
`
`2000 to present.
`
`9.
`
`Since 1990, I have been selected as the principal investigator of
`
`multiple highly competitive federal and local research grants, including more than
`
`twenty major research projects supported by the National Science Foundation and
`
`two research projects funded by the U.S. Army Research Office. These competitive
`
`research projects focused on developing more efficient and effective digital
`
`5
`
`

`

`communication transceivers, networks, and signal processing tools. I have also
`
`participated in several large-scale projects supported by the Defense Advanced
`
`Research Projects Agency (DARPA) with teams of researchers. I have applied for,
`
`and received support from, other federal, state, and industry sponsors.
`
`10.
`
`I have published over 210 peer-reviewed research articles in premier
`
`international journals, in addition to over 240 refereed technical articles at top
`
`international conferences on communications and information technologies.
`
`According to Google Scholar, my published works have been cited by over 13,000
`
`times by peers. I also authored two books on communications technologies. My most
`
`recent book, coauthored with B.P. Lathi, is entitled, “Modern Digital and Analog
`
`Communication Systems,” 5th edition, and was published by the Oxford University
`
`Press in 2018. The 4th edition of this book (published in 2009) had been widely
`
`adopted as an introductory textbook to communication systems.
`
`11.
`
`In addition to the over 450 published technical papers that have been
`
`cited over 15,000 times according to Google Scholar, I am also co-inventor of 4
`
`issued U.S. patents on communication technologies.
`
`12.
`
`I am a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(IEEE) and was elevated to the grade of Fellow in January 2003 for contributions
`
`made in signal processing for communication. The IEEE is the world’s largest
`
`professional society of engineers, with over 400,000 members in more than 160
`
`6
`
`

`

`countries. The IEEE has led the development of many standards for modern digital
`
`communications and networking, most notably, the IEEE 802 series of network
`
`standards. The IEEE Grade of Fellow is conferred by the Boards of Directors upon
`
`a person with an extraordinary record of accomplishments in any of the IEEE fields
`
`of interest. The total number selected in any one year does not exceed one-tenth of
`
`one percent of the total voting Institute membership.
`
`13.
`
`I have served the IEEE in the following capacities:
`
`(cid:120) Chief Information Officer of the IEEE Communications Society from
`
`Jan. 2018 to present.
`
`(cid:120) Chief Marketing Officer of the IEEE Communications Society from
`
`Jan. 2020 to present.
`
`(cid:120) General Chair of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics,
`
`Speech, and Signal Processing, the flagship conference of the IEEE
`
`Signal Processing Society.
`
`(cid:120) Chair of the Steering Committee for the IEEE Transactions on Wireless
`
`Communications from 2008 to 2010.
`
`(cid:120) Distinguished Lecturer of the IEEE Communications Society from
`
`January 2008 to December 2009.
`
`(cid:120) Technical Program Chair of the 2006 IEEE Globecom, one of two
`
`flagship annual IEEE Communication Society conferences.
`
`7
`
`

`

`(cid:120) Distinguished Lecturer of the IEEE Circuits and Systems Society from
`
`2004 to 2005.
`
`(cid:120) Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing from
`
`1994 to 1997 and from 2001 to 2004.
`
`(cid:120) Member of the IEEE Statistical Signal and Array Processing for
`
`Communications Technical Committee from 1993 to 1998.
`
`(cid:120) Member of the IEEE Signal Processing for Communications Technical
`
`Committee from 1998 to 2004.
`
`14.
`
`In 2012, I received the Wireless Communications Technical Committee
`
`Recognition Award from the IEEE Communications Society, an award given to a
`
`person with a high degree of visibility and contribution in the field of “Wireless and
`
`Mobile Communications Theory, Systems, and Networks.” I received the 2020
`
`Education Award from the IEEE Communications Society. According to the Society,
`
`this award “recognizes distinguished and significant contributions to education
`
`within the Society’s technical scope.”
`
`15.
`
`I have also served as a technical consultant for the telecommunication
`
`industry. For example, in 1995 I consulted for Analog Devices, Inc., on the
`
`development of the first generation DOCSIS cable modem systems. I have also
`
`consulted for other companies, including Nortel Networks and NEC US
`
`Laboratories. I worked as a visiting faculty research fellow at NASA Glenn Research
`
`8
`
`

`

`Center in 1992 and at U.S. Air Force Wright Laboratory in 1993. I have served on
`
`multiple review panels of the National Science Foundation to evaluate competitive
`
`research proposals in the field of communication. I have also reviewed a large
`
`number of research proposals at the request of the National Science and Engineering
`
`Research Council (NSERC) of Canada as an expert panelist from 2010 to 2013, and
`
`also at the request of the Research Grant Council (RGC) of Hong Kong as an external
`
`reviewer.
`
`16.
`
`I have served as an expert witness or consulting expert on a number of
`
`matters related to intellectual property, mostly in the arena of telecommunications,
`
`including cellular communications, Wi-Fi technologies, Bluetooth, and optical
`
`communications. For example, since 2007, I have been engaged to work on various
`
`litigations involving cellular, WiFi, Bluetooth, and optical communication networks.
`
`17. Further experience and a complete list of my publications are presented
`
`in my curriculum vitae. I understand that a copy of my curriculum vitae is attached
`
`as APPLE-1004.
`
`18. Based on my above-described near three decades of experience in
`
`communications technologies, and the acceptance of my publications and
`
`professional recognition by societies in my field, I believe that I am qualified to be
`
`an expert in wireless communication systems, communication networks, and signal
`
`processing.
`
`9
`
`

`

`19. Based on my experiences described above, and as indicated in my
`
`Curriculum Vitae, I am qualified to provide the following opinions with respect to
`
`the patents in this case. Additionally, I was at least a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art as of June 4, 2008 (“Critical Date”).
`
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`20.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I was asked to
`
`consider the patent claims and the prior art through the eyes of one of ordinary skill
`
`at the time of the alleged invention, which I understand is asserted to be June 4,
`
`2008—the filing date of the ’780 Patent. 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 at
`
`the time of the alleged invention. I understand that one of ordinary skill is not a
`
`specific real individual, but rather is a hypothetical individual having the qualities
`
`reflected by the factors above. I understand that one of ordinary skill would also
`
`have knowledge from the teachings of the prior art, including the art cited below.
`
`21. Taking these factors into consideration, on or before June 4, 2008, one
`
`of ordinary skill relating to the technology of the ’780 Patent would have had a
`
`Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science,
`
`or a related field from an accredited program, and 2-3 years of experience in design
`
`10
`
`

`

`or development of wireless communication systems/networks
`
`including
`
`ranging/positioning systems, or the equivalent. Additional graduate education could
`
`substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could
`
`substitute for formal education.
`
`22. Before June 4, 2008, my level of skill in the art was at least that of one
`
`of ordinary skill. I am qualified to provide opinions concerning what one of ordinary
`
`skill would have known and understood at that time, and my analysis and
`
`conclusions herein are from the perspective of one of ordinary skill as of that date.
`
`IV. Summary of Opinions and Materials Considered/Relied Upon
`
`23.
`
`In reaching the conclusions described in this declaration, I have relied
`
`on the documents and materials cited herein as well as those identified in this
`
`declaration, including the ’780 Patent, the prosecution history of the ’780 Patent, and
`
`prior art references cited herein. These materials comprise patents, related
`
`documents, and printed publications. Each of these materials is a type of document
`
`that experts in my field would have reasonably relied upon when forming their
`
`opinions.
`
`24.
`
`I have also relied on my education, training, research, knowledge, and
`
`personal and professional experience in the relevant technologies and systems that
`
`were already in use prior to, and within the timeframe of the earliest proclaimed
`
`priority date of the claimed subject matter in the ’780 Patent, which is June 4, 2008
`
`11
`
`

`

`(“Critical Date”).
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`APPLE-1001
`
`U.S. Patent 8,345,780 to David Chauncey , et al.
`
`(“the ’780 Patent”)
`
`APPLE-1002
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’780
`
`Patent (“the Prosecution History”)
`
`APPLE-1005
`
`U.S. Patent 6,131,013
`
`to Bergstrom, et al.
`
`(“Bergstrom”)
`
`APPLE-1006
`
`U.S. Patent Publication US2004/0047324 to Diener
`
`(“Diener”)
`
`APPLE-1007
`
`U.S. Patent Publication US2005/0266808
`
`to
`
`Reunamaki, et al. (“Reunamaki”)
`
`APPLE-1008
`
`U.S. Patent Publication US2005/0099973 to Qiu,
`
`et al. (“Qiu”)
`
`APPLE-1009
`
`International Patent Publication Application
`
`WO2005/062798 to Scheinert, et al. (“Scheinert”)
`
`APPLE-1010
`
`Defendant’s Opening Claim Construction Brief,
`
`Speir Technologies Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case 6:22-cv-00077-ADA
`
`(WDTX)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`APPLE-1011
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief,
`
`Speir Technologies Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case 6:22-cv-00077-ADA
`
`12
`
`

`

`(WDTX)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`(cid:120)
`
`APPLE-1018
`
`U.S. Patent Publication US 2004/0203826 to Sugar,
`
`et al. (“Sugar”)
`
`APPLE-1019
`
`U.S. Patent Publication US 2003/0224741 to Sugar,
`
`et al. (“Sugar_CIP”)
`
`25.
`
`In my opinion, the Challenged Claims of the ’780 Patent are
`
`unpatentable because they are rendered obvious by the combinations of prior art
`
`references cited in this report and explained herein. The following table summarizes
`
`my opinions.
`
`’780 Patent Claims
`1-4 and 7-14
`
`
`V. Legal Standards
`
`Prior Art Invalidity
`Obvious over Diener and Bergstrom
`
`26.
`
`I am not a lawyer and do not provide any legal opinions, but I have
`
`been advised that certain legal standards are to be applied by technical experts in
`
`forming opinions regarding meaning and validity of patent claims. I have applied
`
`the legal standards described below, which were provided to me by counsel for the
`
`Petitioner.
`
`27.
`
`It is my understanding that assessing the validity of a U.S. patent based
`
`on a prior art analysis requires two steps. First, one must construe the terms of the
`
`patent claims to understand what meaning one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`13
`
`

`

`given the terms. Second, after the claim terms have been construed, one may then
`
`assess validity by comparing a patent claim to the “prior art.” I understand that the
`
`teaching of the prior art is viewed through the eyes of one of ordinary skill at the
`
`time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application. My
`
`analysis as to what constitutes a relevant POSITA is set forth above.
`
`A.
`
`28.
`
`Legal Standards for Claim Construction
`
`I understand that, for purposes of my analysis in this IPR, the terms
`
`appearing in the patent claims should be interpreted according to their “ordinary and
`
`customary meaning.” In determining the ordinary and custom meaning, I understand
`
`that the words of a claim are first given the plain meaning that those words would
`
`have had to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application. I also
`
`understand that the structure of the claims, the specification, and file history also
`
`may be used to better construe a claim insofar as the plain meaning of the claims
`
`cannot be understood. Moreover, I understand that even treatises and dictionaries
`
`may be used, albeit under limited circumstances, to determine the meaning attributed
`
`by a POSITA to a claim term at the time of the invention.
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that the words of the claims should be interpreted as
`
`they would have been interpreted by a POSITA at the time of the invention (not
`
`today).
`
`14
`
`

`

`30.
`
`I have followed these guidelines in my analysis, and, unless otherwise
`
`indicated, I have applied the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standard for Obviousness
`
`31. My understanding is that a patent claim is invalid as obvious only if the
`
`subject matter of the claimed invention “as a whole” would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date
`
`of the patent application. To determine the differences between a prior art reference
`
`(or a proposed combination of prior art references) and the claims, the question of
`
`obviousness is not whether the differences themselves would have been obvious, but
`
`whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. Also,
`
`obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements. Rather, it
`
`is necessary to provide some articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to
`
`support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that a patent claim that comprises several elements is not
`
`proved obvious by simply showing that each of its elements was independently
`
`known in the prior art. In my evaluation of whether any claim of the ’780 Patent
`
`would have been obvious, I considered whether the Petition, or any evidence
`
`submitted in this proceeding, presented an articulated reason with a rational basis
`
`that would have motivated one of ordinary skill to combine the elements or concepts
`
`from the prior art in the same way as in the claimed invention.
`
`15
`
`

`

`33.
`
`It is my understanding that there is no single way to define the line
`
`between true inventiveness on one hand—which is patentable—and the application
`
`of common sense and ordinary skill to solve a problem on the other hand—which is
`
`not patentable. For instance, factors such as market forces or other design incentives
`
`may be the source of what produced a change, rather than true inventiveness.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that the decision-maker may consider whether the change
`
`was merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to their
`
`known functions, or whether it was the result of true inventiveness. And, the
`
`decision-maker may also consider whether there is some teaching or suggestion in
`
`the prior art to make the modification or combination of elements recited in the claim
`
`at issue. Also, the decision-maker may consider whether the innovation applies a
`
`known technique that had been used to improve a similar device or method in a
`
`similar way. The decision-maker may also consider whether the claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious to try, meaning that the claimed innovation was one of a
`
`relatively small number of possible approaches to the problem with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success by those skilled in the art.
`
`35.
`
`I have been instructed by counsel that if any of these considerations are
`
`relied upon to reach a conclusion of obviousness, the law requires that the analysis
`
`of such a consideration must be made explicit. I understand that the decision-maker
`
`must be careful not to determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight and that
`
`16
`
`

`

`many true inventions might seem obvious after the fact. I understand that the
`
`decision-maker should consider obviousness from the position of one of ordinary
`
`skill at the time of the invention and that the decision-maker should not consider
`
`what is known today or what is learned from the teaching of the patent.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that in order to determine whether a patent claim is
`
`obvious, one must make certain factual findings regarding the claimed invention and
`
`the prior art. Specifically, I understand that the following factors must be evaluated
`
`to determine whether a claim is obvious: the scope and content of the prior art; the
`
`difference or differences, if any, between the claim of the patent and the prior art;
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention; and, if available, the
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness, also known as “secondary considerations.”
`
`37.
`
`I understand that the secondary considerations include: commercial
`
`success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention; a long felt need for
`
`the solution provided by the claimed invention; unsuccessful attempts by others to
`
`find the solution provided by the claimed invention; copying of the claimed
`
`invention by others; unexpected and superior results from the claimed invention;
`
`acceptance by others of the claimed invention as shown by praise from others in the
`
`field or from the licensing of the claimed invention; teaching away from the
`
`conventional wisdom in the art at the time of the invention; independent invention
`
`of the claimed invention by others before or at about the same time as the named
`
`17
`
`

`

`inventor thought of it; and other evidence tending to show obviousness.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that, to establish a secondary consideration, the evidence
`
`must demonstrate a nexus between that secondary consideration and the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`VI. Overview of the ’780 Patent
`
`A. Background of Related Technology
`39. The ’780 patent “relates to the field of communications, and, more
`
`particularly, to interference compensation and related methods.” APPLE-1001, 1:7-
`
`9. The ’780 patent recognizes that “[a]s wireless communications has become
`
`prevalent in society, it is not uncommon for two wireless communications devices
`
`to interfere with the operation of each other when operating within transmission
`
`range of each other.” APPLE-1001, 1:13-17.
`
`40. The ’780 patent admits that “[i]nterference is typically categorized into
`
`two types: narrowband interference and wideband interference,” and “[a]nother
`
`common type of interference is self interference.” APPLE-1001, 1:25-26, 41. There
`
`had been “common approaches to compensating for” each known type of
`
`interference. APPLE-1001, 1:25-53.
`
`41. The ’780 patent also admits that various “interference compensation”
`
`techniques, such as “frequency diversity” and “spatial diversity” had been known
`
`and used in the art to compensate for interference. APPLE-1001, 2:1-28.
`
`18
`
`

`

`B.
`
`42.
`
`Subject Matter Overview of the ’780 Patent
`
` The ’780 patent describes a “wireless communication system may
`
`include first and second wireless communications devices communicating with one
`
`another via a wireless communications link having a settable link characteristic,”
`
`with “an object … to provide effective interference compensation.” APPLE-1001,
`
`Abstract, 2:32-34.
`
`43. The described system in FIG. 1, for example, includes “first and second
`
`wireless communications devices 21, 25” which include “respective first and second
`
`controllers 22, 26” and “first and second wireless transceivers 23, 27” such as
`
`“orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) transceivers.” APPLE-1001,
`
`3:65-4:5, 4:56-62.
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`APPLE-1001, FIG. 1.
`
`44. The ’780 patent’s “FIG. 2 is a flowchart of a method for compensating
`
`interference in the wireless communication system of FIG. 1.” APPLE-1001, 3:26-
`
`27. “The method for compensating interference 28 a-28 c begins at Block 32, the
`
`first wireless communications device 21 receives a transmission from the second
`
`wireless communications device 25 at Block 34.” APPLE-1001, 4:6-10. “At
`
`decision Block 36, the first controller 22 illustratively detects whether there is any
`
`received interference 28 a-28 c. The first controller 22 may detect the received
`
`interference 28 a-28 c based upon a comparison of a current received signal to at
`
`least one prior received signal.” APPLE-1001, 4:15-19. “More specifically, the first
`
`20
`
`

`

`controller 22 may store data associated with past performance of the received signal
`
`and compare the current received signal with the stored data to determine whether
`
`there is any received interference 28 a-28 c.” APPLE-1001, 4:20-24.
`
`45.
`
`“[I]f interference 28 a-28 c is detected, the method moves to Block 40
`
`where the first controller 22 determines a type of the interference from among a
`
`plurality of interference types comprising narrowband interference 28 a, wideband
`
`interference 28 b, and self interference 28 c.” APPLE-1001, 4:41-46. “More
`
`specifically, the first controller 22 determines the interference type based upon at
`
`least one of fade characteristics (flat or frequency selective), noise characteristics
`
`(wideband or narrowband), and path characteristics (line-of-sight or multipath).”
`
`APPLE-1001, 4:47-51.
`
`21
`
`

`

`APPLE-1001, FIG. 2.
`
`C.
`
`File History of the ’780 Patent
`
`
`
`46. As part of my preparation of this declaration, I reviewed the file history
`
`(APPLE-1002) of the ’780 Patent (APPLE-1001). I understand that the ’780 Patent
`
`22
`
`

`

`was filed on June 4, 2008 as U.S. Patent Application No. 12/132,757 (“the ’757
`
`application”). APPLE-1001, Cover. The original claims were rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aboba (US 2009/0124205) in view of
`
`Belogolovy (US 2008/0299932). APPLE-1002, 2011-10-17 Non-Final Rejection.
`
`Applicant added “self interference” in the limitation “determining a type of the
`
`received interference from among a plurality of interference types comprising
`
`wideband interference, self interference, and narrowband interference.” Id., 198
`
`(Applicant’s 2012-01-11 Response).
`
`47. Applicant admitted
`
`that “the
`
`interference mitigation
`
`technique
`
`disclosed by Aboba et al. may differentiate between narrowband and wideband
`
`interference,” but argued Aboba “does not determine whether such interference is
`
`self-inflicted, i.e. self-interference, as in the claimed invention.” Id., 205-206
`
`(Applicant’s 2012-01-11 Response).
`
`48. The amended claims were rejected again under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Aboba in view of Belogolovy and Scharf (US
`
`2006/0153283). APPLE-1002, 216 (2012-04-25 Non-Final Rejection). After an
`
`Examiner interview, Applicant amended the “determining” limitation further to
`
`recite “determining determine a type of the received interference from among a
`
`plurality of interference types comprising wideband interference, self interference,
`
`and narrowband interference based upon comparing at least one characteristic of a
`
`23
`
`

`

`current received signal with the short term and long term historical characteristics of
`
`interference” and added “respective first and second controllers coupled thereto and
`
`configured to store short term and long term historical characteristics of interference.”
`
`Id., 227 (Applicant’s 2012-07-25 Response). Applicant argued that this “underlined
`
`claim feature permits advantageous determination of the cause of the degradation in
`
`link performance, i.e., permitting the first controller to determine, for example,
`
`whether the degradation is the result of short term fade or true interference, and also
`
`determining the type of the received interference from among a plurality of
`
`interference types, as recited in amended independent Claim 1.” Id., 237
`
`(Applicant’s 2012-07-25 Response).
`
`49. A Notice of Allowance issued on August-13-2012, without Examiner’s
`
`statement of Reasons for Allowance. Id., 247. The ’780 Patent issued on Jan-01-
`
`2013 with 14 claims, of which claims 1, 9, and 12 are independent claims.
`
`50. However, as discussed below, the features of the Challenged Claims
`
`are disclosed in the prior art references discussed here. None of the prior art
`
`references discussed were discussed 1 by the Examiner during prosecution. See
`
`
`
`1 Diener (APPLE-1006) is a continuation in part of the cited reference
`
`(US2004/0028003) bearing the “Diener” label on the ’780 patent or its prosecution
`
`24
`
`

`

`Sections VII-IX.