IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -00698
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. and
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`THETA IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -00698
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. LARSON IN SUPPORT
`OF PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSES
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. and
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`THETA IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -00698
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE E. LARSON IN SUPPORT
`OF PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSES
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`
`
`
`I, Lawrence E. Larson, declare as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Larry Larson. I have been retained by Theta IP, LLC
`
`(“Theta”) to provide information and assistance regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,010,330
`
`(“the ’330 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,129,825 (“the ’825 Patent”), and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,524,202 (“the ’202 Patent”) (collectively, the “Tsividis Patents”).
`
`Specifically, I have been asked to consider the Petitions for Inter Partes Review
`
`numbered IPR2023-00694, IPR2023-00697, and IPR2023-00698 (“Petitions”)
`
`regarding the Tsividis Patents, and specifically the Declarations of Professor R.
`
`Jacob Baker (EX1002) that accompany the Petitions.
`
`2.
`
`For the purposes of this declaration, I have been asked to provide
`
`information and opinions about the state of the art and knowledge of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, what such a person would understand from the Tsividis
`
`Patents, what such a person would find disclosed in or obvious from the prior art
`
`references relied on in the Petitions, and related issues in response to the opinions
`
`expressed by Prof. Baker.
`
`3.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts and opinions set forth in this
`
`declaration, and, if called upon to do so, I would testify competently thereto.
`
`4.
`
`I am currently Professor of Engineering at the School of Engineering,
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`
`Brown University. I have also held the positions of Interim Provost of Brown
`
`University, as well as Sorensen Family Dean and Founding Dean of the School of
`
`Engineering. I hold a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, as well as a M.B.A. degree,
`
`from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Master of Engineering and
`
`Bachelor of Science degrees in Electrical Engineering from Cornell University. I
`
`have over 40 years of experience in the design of high-performance circuits for RF
`
`communications and other applications, both in industry and academia. I have
`
`published hundreds of papers in refereed journals and conference proceedings, and
`
`am a named inventor on at least 43 issued patents. My experience will be described
`
`further below under Qualifications and Background, and in my CV (EX2006).
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in connection with this matter at
`
`my standard hourly consulting rate. My compensation for my work in this matter is
`
`not dependent in any way on my conclusions and opinions, the contents of this
`
`declaration, the substance of any further opinions or testimony that I may provide,
`
`or the outcome of this matter or any matter involving the Tsividis Patents.
`
`6.
`
`The materials I have reviewed in forming the opinions in this
`
`declaration include the following:
`
`a. The ’330 Patent, ’825 patent, and ’202 Patent (EX1001 to each
`
`Petition) and their prosecution histories (EX1003 to each Petition).
`
`b. The Rauhala (EX1004), Cummins (EX1005), Meador (EX1006),
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`
`Furuno (EX1007), and Saito (EX1008) references cited in the
`
`
`
`Petitions.
`
`c. The Declarations of Professor R. Jacob Baker (EX1002 to each
`
`Petition) and the materials discussed therein.
`
`d. The Petitions and their remaining exhibits.
`
`7.
`
`In addition, I have considered the relevant legal standards, as they have
`
`been explained to me by counsel and as I understand them. I have also considered
`
`the knowledge and understanding of a person of ordinary skill at the time of the
`
`filing of the ’330 Patent and as of the filing of its provisionals, of which I am familiar.
`
`8.
`
`I have previously submitted a report concerning some of the Tsividis
`
`Patents, in the concluded litigation Theta IP, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.,
`
`No. W-20-CV-00160-ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`
`QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`
`9. My education and professional background is in Electrical Engineering,
`
`with a particular focus on high-speed integrated circuit design. I hold a Ph.D. (1986)
`
`in Electrical Engineering from the University of California, Los Angeles, as well as
`
`a M.B.A. degree (1996) from that university, and Master of Engineering (1980) and
`
`Bachelor of Science (1979) degrees in Electrical Engineering from Cornell
`
`University.
`
`10.
`
`I am currently a Professor of Engineering at the School of Engineering
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`
`at Brown University. I recently completed an appointment as Interim Provost for
`
`Brown University. I have also been the Sorensen Family Dean (Inaugural Chair
`
`Holder) and Founding Dean of the School of Engineering there. I held that position
`
`beginning in 2011, during which time I oversaw a large expansion in the number of
`
`tenure-track engineering faculty, substantial increases in external research funding,
`
`the creation of new graduate programs, and the construction of a state-of-the-art
`
`research and teaching facility.
`
`11. Over the course of my career, I have held a variety of positions in
`
`academia and industry. These include but are not limited to the following:
`
`12. From 1980 to 1988, I was a Member of Technical Staff at Hughes
`
`Aircraft and Hughes Research Laboratories, where I was responsible for the
`
`development of CMOS and III-V analog and digital integrated circuits, modeling
`
`and characterization of MESFETs and HEMTs and the development of improved
`
`III-V process techniques. During my tenure, among other things, I helped developed
`
`the first high-performance GaAs switched-capacitor circuits with clock rates in
`
`excess of 100 MHz, demonstrated the first use of low-temperature buffer GaAs
`
`MESFET technology with digital integrated circuits, setting a record for digital
`
`divider performance (22 GHz), and developed GaAs MESFET operational amplifier
`
`with record GBW (10 GHz).
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`13. From 1988 to 1992, I was an Adjunct Associate Professor at UCLA,
`
`
`
`where I was responsible for senior level digital and analog integrated circuit design
`
`courses and a graduate analog MOS integrated circuit design course.
`
`14. From 1992 to 1994, I was an Assistant Manager for the DARPA /
`
`Hughes MIMIC Program, where I was responsible for Program Management of the
`
`Advanced Technology Portion of DARPA/Hughes MIMIC Program, with a budget
`
`of approximately $8M/yr. In that capacity, I was responsible for the technical and
`
`program direction of GaAs HBT and PHEMT efforts. I also directed insertion of
`
`advanced GaAs-based technology into next generation communication and radar
`
`systems.
`
`15. From 1988 to 1994, I was also a Manager in the HEMT Technology
`
`Department, Microwave Devices and Circuits Laboratory, at Hughes Research
`
`Laboratories, where I directed research in high-speed III-V materials, devices, and
`
`circuits, and was responsible for approximately $4M/yr. in Corporate IR&D and
`
`Government Research Contracts. In that capacity, I helped develop the first space-
`
`qualified InP low-noise millimeter wave HEMT. This effort was awarded the 1996
`
`Lawrence Hyland Award - the highest technical achievement award at Hughes
`
`Electronics. I also helped develop the first micromachining (MEMS) switch and
`
`tuner applications for RF and microwave applications (1991). This technology has
`
`now become an extremely active area of worldwide research and development. I
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`
`also helped demonstrate the first InP-based HEMT low-noise and high- power
`
`MMICs from 2 - 60 GHz, with world record noise figures and power-added
`
`efficiencies. I further helped establish a state-of-the-art InP HEMT MMIC foundry
`
`at HRL, developed the first low-power/high-speed InP HEMT digital IC technology
`
`with ring oscillator delays of 4.2 pS, and directed the research program that
`
`demonstrated HEMTs with record fT’s and fMAX’s above 300 GHz (1993), which
`
`produced the highest frequency room temperature integrated circuit ever reported -
`
`a 210 GHz VCO (IEDM 1994).
`
`16. From 1994 to 1996, I was a Manager in the Telecommunications
`
`Technology Department, Microwave Devices and Circuits Laboratory, at Hughes
`
`Research Laboratories, where I directed the research and development of integrated
`
`circuits for commercial RF and microwave communications applications, including
`
`DBS, cellular telephone, VSAT, and PCS.
`
`17. From 1996 to 2011, I held the CWC Industry Chair Professor in
`
`Wireless Communications, in the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). Among other
`
`things, I helped develop improved integrated circuit techniques and novel device
`
`structures for wireless communications applications. This required development of
`
`high-frequency integrated circuits, devices, and packaging techniques for ultra-wide
`
`bandwidth telecommunications applications, and development of novel data
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`
`converter and analog-signal processing architectures
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`to
`
`that are matched
`
`communications applications.
`
`18. From 2000 to 2001, while on academic leave from UCSD, I was a
`
`Director at IBM’s West Coast Design Center of Excellence in IBM Research
`
`Division, where I directed development of Radio Frequency Integrated Circuits for
`
`SiGe RFICs for 3rd Generation wireless cellular applications. I was also responsible
`
`for leading the team that developed a complete Wideband CDMA chip set for several
`
`“first tier” cellular telephone providers.
`
`19. From 2001 to 2006, I was the Director of the UCSD Center for Wireless
`
`Communications (http://cwc.ucsd.edu), which is one of the largest industry-funded
`
`University Research Centers in the world. Involving over 20 professors, and
`
`supporting roughly 50 PhD graduate students during my tenure, with an annual
`
`budget in excess of $3M, the CWC conducted research in all areas of wireless
`
`communications, from fundamental devices and materials to software applications.
`
`I was responsible for all aspects of the Center, from new member development to
`
`financial management and establishing the research direction.
`
`20. From 2007 to 2011, I was the Chair of the Department of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. The ECE
`
`Department at UCSD is the largest graduate program on the UCSD campus. As
`
`Chair, I oversaw the faculty development (hiring, promotion, and tenure process),
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`
`educational policy and teaching, successful accreditation review, department
`
`resource allocation, and external relations. I also led the development (with CS) of
`
`the Executive Masters of Advanced Study in Embedded Wireless Systems program.
`
`21.
`
`I have authored more than 125 refereed journal publications and more
`
`than 250 peer reviewed conference publications. I have authored and/or edited 12
`
`books or chapters, including:
`
`• L. E. Larson, P. T. Greiling, and J. F. Jensen, “GaAs Device Physics
`and Circuit Design”, in Microprocessor Design for GaAs
`Technology, V. Milutinovic, Ed., (Prentice Hall, York, 1989).
`
`• L. E. Larson, “High-Speed Analog-to-Digital and Digital-to-Analog
`Conversion with GaAs Technology: Prospects, Trends, and
`Obstacles”, in GaAs Technology and Devices and Their Impact
`on Circuits and Systems, D. Haigh, Ed., (Peter Peregrinus, Ltd,
`1989).
`
`• L. E. Larson and G. C. Temes, “Signal Conditioning and Interface
`Circuits”,
`in McGraw-Hill Handbook of Digital Signal
`Processing, S. Mitra, Ed., 1993.
`
`• L. E. Larson, “GaAs Operational Amplifier Design”, in High-Speed
`Analog Integrated Circuits, R. Goyal, Ed., (Wiley Interscience,
`York, 1995).
`
`• L. E. Larson, RF and Microwave Circuit Design for Wireless
`Communications (Artech House, Inc., 1996).
`
`• M. Matloubian and L. E. Larson, “InP-Based Power HEMTs”, in
`Pseudomorphic HEMT Technology and Applications, Ed. R. L.
`Ross et al., (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 1996).
`
`• J. Groe, and L. E. Larson, CDMA Mobile Radio Design: Systems,
`Algorithms, and Circuits (Artech House, Inc., 2000).
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`
`• L. Larson and F. Chang, “Si/SiGe HBT Technology for Low-Power
`Mobile Communications Systems Applications,”
`in RF
`Technologies for Low-Power Wireless Communications, Ed. T.
`Itoh, G. Haddad, and J. Harvey, Wiley Interscience, 2001.
`
`• X. Zhang, L. Larson, and P. Asbeck, Design of Linear Outphasing
`Power Amplifiers for Wireless Communications, Artech House,
`2002. 196 pages. BOOK
`
`• Digital Communications Using Chaos and Nonlinear Dynamics,
`Larson, Lawrence E; Liu, Jia-Ming; Tsimring, Lev S. (Eds.) 2006,
`XIV, Springer.
`
`• Circuits and Systems for Future Generations of Wireless
`Communications, A. Tasic, W. Serdijn, L. Larson, G. Setti, G.
`(Eds.), 2009, VIII, Springer.
`
`• Fast Hopping Frequency Generation
`in Digital CMOS,
`Mohammad Farazian, Lawrence E. Larson, Prasad S. Gudem. 2012
`Springer.
`
`I am also named inventor on at least 43 US patents.
`
`22.
`
`I have been elected a Fellow of the IEEE. The Fellow is the highest
`
`grade of membership of the IEEE, a world professional body consisting of over
`
`300,000 electrical and electronics engineers, with only one‐tenth of one percent
`
`(0.1%) of the IEEE membership being elected to the Fellow grade each year.
`
`Election to Fellow is based upon votes cast by existing Fellows in IEEE. I have also
`
`served on a number of IEEE Committees and as a Paper Reviewer.
`
`23. EX2006 contains a true and correct copy of my Curriculum Vitae
`
`further describing my background and experience.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`
`UNDERSTANDING OF RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`24.
`
`In forming my opinions here, I have applied the following
`
`understanding of certain legal concepts related to anticipation, obviousness,
`
`combinations of references, and knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. This
`
`understanding was supplied to me by counsel.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that in order for a patent claim to be invalid as anticipated
`
`by a prior art reference, each and every element of that patent claim must be found
`
`disclosed in that reference, explicitly or inherently, to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. Inherent disclosure requires that the claimed element be the only possible
`
`option given the other disclosures of the reference. If any single element of a claim
`
`is not disclosed in the reference, the entire claim is not anticipated.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a patent may be 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 at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art provides a
`
`reference point from which the prior art and claimed invention should be viewed.
`
`This reference point prevents one from using his or her own insight or hindsight in
`
`deciding whether a claim is obvious.
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the
`
`
`
`28.
`
`consideration of various factors such as (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2)
`
`the differences between the prior art and the asserted claims; (3) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the pertinent art; and (4) the existence of secondary considerations such as
`
`commercial success, long-felt but unresolved needs, failure of others, etc.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that in considering the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`references must be reasonably related (i.e., analogous) to the claimed invention of
`
`that patent.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the test for determining whether a prior art reference
`
`constitutes analogous art to the claimed invention is (1) whether the reference is from
`
`the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the
`
`reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference
`
`still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem the inventor is trying to solve.
`
`31.
`
`I also understand that the existence of each and every element of the
`
`claimed invention in the prior art does not necessarily prove obviousness of the
`
`combination of those elements, and that inventions usually rely on building blocks
`
`of prior art.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that one may consider whether a reason existed at the time
`
`of the invention that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`relevant field to combine the known elements in the way the claimed invention does.
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`
`The reason could come from the prior art, the background knowledge of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, the nature of the problem to be solved, market demand, or
`
`common sense. But it cannot come from hindsight.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that in considering whether a claimed invention is obvious,
`
`one may but is not required to find obviousness if at the time of the claimed invention
`
`there was a reason that would have prompted a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`field of the invention to combine the known elements in a way the claimed invention
`
`does, taking into account such factors as: (1) whether the claimed invention was
`
`merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to their known
`
`function(s); (2) whether the claimed invention provides an obvious solution to a
`
`known problem in the relevant field; (3) whether the prior art teaches or suggests the
`
`desirability of combining elements claimed in the invention; (4) whether the prior
`
`art teaches away from combining elements in the claimed invention; (5) whether it
`
`would have been obvious to try the combinations of elements, such as when there is
`
`a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions; and (6) whether the change resulted more from
`
`design incentives or other market forces. To find it rendered the invention obvious,
`
`the prior art must provide a reasonable expectation of success. Obvious to try is not
`
`sufficient in unpredictable technologies.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that each claim must be evaluated separately for
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`
`obviousness, and that it is improper to use hindsight. In other words, one must
`
`consider only what was known at the time of the invention.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that, when present, secondary indicia of non-obviousness
`
`must always be considered and can serve as an important check on hindsight bias.
`
`These factors may include (1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was
`
`satisfied by the invention of the patent; (2) commercial success or lack of
`
`commercial success of processes covered by the patent; (3) unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; (4) recognition and praise of the invention by others
`
`skilled in the art; (5) taking of licenses under the patent by others; (6) skepticism,
`
`disbelief in or incredulity on the part of those skilled in the art that the patentee’s
`
`approach worked; (7) rapid replacement of the prior art devices in the industry; (8)
`
`unsuccessful attempts by those skilled in the art to make the invention; (9) teaching
`
`away by those skilled in the art; and (10) deliberate copying of the invention. I also
`
`understand that there must be a relationship, or nexus, between any such secondary
`
`indicia and the invention.
`
`36.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the obviousness analysis
`
`requires a comparison of the properly construed claim language to the prior art on a
`
`claim-by-claim basis.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that questions of fact concerning obviousness, such as the
`
`knowledge of a person of skill in the art, ordinarily must be proven by clear and
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`
`convincing evidence. For an obviousness combination, obviousness must be proven
`
`by clear and convincing evidence such that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention would have had a reason (or reasons) for combining
`
`the teachings of those prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that
`
`same person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success from combining those teachings.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that the disclosures in a patent or prior art reference are
`
`viewed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that a person having ordinary skill in the art is a
`
`hypothetical person and the concept is used to analyze the relevant art without the
`
`benefit of hindsight. A person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to be one who
`
`thinks along the lines of conventional wisdom in the art. I understand that the
`
`hypothetical person of ordinary skill is presumed to have knowledge of all references
`
`that are sufficiently related to one another and to the pertinent art, and to have
`
`knowledge of all arts reasonably pertinent to the particular problem that the claimed
`
`invention addresses.
`
`THE TSIVIDIS PATENTS
`
`40.
`
`I have reviewed the Tsividis Patent (EX1001 to each Petition) and their
`
`file histories (EX1003 to each Petition). The parent ’330 Patent issued from U.S.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`
`Patent Application No. 10/784,613, which was filed on February 23, 2004. And
`
`each of the Tsividis Patents claims priority to effective priority date of U.S.
`
`Provisional Application Nos. 60/451,229 and 60/451,230, filed March 1, 2003.
`
`41.
`
`In the early 2000s, wireless connectivity was becoming increasingly
`
`prevalent – in cellular phones, laptops, etc. Reducing power consumption in cellular
`
`phones—in order to increase battery life and increase the length of time that the
`
`device could operate before recharging—was an ever-present concern.
`
`42. As explained in the Tsividis Patents, electronic circuits are generally
`
`designed to function under “worst-case” operating conditions. A worst-case
`
`operating condition occurs when reception of a desired signal is low while
`
`interfering signals and spurious noise are high. These conditions are typically
`
`accompanied by a worst-case power consumption because of the need for increased
`
`amplifier gain and bias and impedance changes to achieve and maintain adequate
`
`connectivity.
`
`43. The patents recognize that a wireless transceiver does not always
`
`operate in these worst-case conditions—such as when the received signal is strong
`
`or interfering signals are weak or non-existent. In these improved conditions,
`
`dynamic adjustments can be made to circuits to reduce power. For example, receiver
`
`bias currents can be reduced below what is necessary for the worst-case condition.
`
`As another example, signal path impedances can be raised, introducing some
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`
`additional noise but also reducing current consumption. As a third example, gain
`
`can be reduced, also reducing current consumption in amplifier circuits. The patents
`
`explain that if these adjustments are done appropriately, power dissipation is reduced
`
`while signal-to-noise ratio is appropriately managed, increasing battery life.
`
`44. Professor Tsividis’ patented inventions use bias current control,
`
`varying impedance, gain, and other dynamic changes (separately or in combination)
`
`to reduce power dissipation when conditions are better than a worst case. For
`
`example, they describe reducing bias currents in response to a need for reduced
`
`signal handling capability; or varying/controlling impedances thereby reducing
`
`required drive and other bias currents in response to a strong received signal; or
`
`varying gain and/or impedances in response to a received signal in the presence of
`
`interfering signals that are weak or non-existent.
`
`45. The Tsividis Patents teach various implementations of these inventions.
`
`Information about the desired signal and interferer signal is used to adjust the
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`
`operating characteristics of the components in the receiver’s signal path—for
`
`example, the amplifier(s), mixer(s), and/or filter(s)—relative to a worst-case
`
`condition. The patents describe multiple separate adjustments, dynamically
`
`changing operating parameters, including bias current, impedance, and gain, either
`
`separately or in combination, to reduce power dissipation in better-than-worst case
`
`conditions. This allows for significant reduction in the power consumed by wireless
`
`receivers by responding to the changing signal spectrum conditions experienced by
`
`the mobile device.
`
`
`
`
`
`ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`46.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion of the level of education and
`
`experience that would have been possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`
`time of the ’330 Patent, which I take for purposes of this declaration to be as of the
`
`current earliest undisputed priority date on March 1, 2003. I understand that factors
`
`such as the education level of those working in the field, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, the types of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those
`
`problems, and the speed at which innovations are made, may help establish the level
`
`of skill in the art at the time.
`
`47.
`
`I have previously considered and given an opinion on this question with
`
`respect to the Tsividis Patents in District Court case Theta IP, LLC v. Samsung
`
`Electronics Co. Ltd., No. W-20-CV-00160-ADA (W.D. Tex.), and my opinion has
`
`not changed.
`
`48.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least
`
`a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical or Electronics Engineering, and approximately five
`
`years of relevant experience in the design of transceiver architecture, RF systems
`
`and components, and analog and mixed signal circuits, as well as experience in
`
`control algorithms for such system and familiarity with wireless standards—with
`
`additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.
`
`49. As described above, I obtained my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering in
`
`1986, and I had more than fifteen years of professional experience in the analysis
`
`and design of high-performance RF circuits prior to the priority date of the Tsividis
`
`Patents. I believe that my own education and experience exceeds that of a person of
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art, under my definition or Lenovo’s definition, today and as of
`
`March 1, 2003.
`
`50.
`
`I understand that Prof. Baker’s declarations give a definition of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art that is similar to mine, but with less professional
`
`experience. See, e.g., IPR2023-00694, EX1002, ¶30 (“two or more years”).
`
`51.
`
`I disagree with Prof. Baker about his opinions concerning what a person
`
`of ordinary skill would find disclosed or obvious from the prior art, as detailed
`
`below. I have considered both his and my opinion concerning the level of skill, and
`
`my opinions as expressed in this declaration do not change if I instead apply his
`
`definition. For example, no person of skill with a degree in Electrical Engineering,
`
`and any professional experience with RF electronics, would find disclosure of
`
`dynamically changing an impedance in a signal path, from the DC bias circuit of
`
`Rauhala that Lenovo and Prof. Baker identify.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`52.
`
`I understand that in claim construction for an Inter Partes Review
`
`proceeding, the claim terms are to be construed in accordance with the Phillips
`
`standard that is also used in district court. I understand that the proper construction
`
`of a disputed term under that standard is the meaning that would be understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, considered in the
`
`context of the patent specification.
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`I have been asked to consider how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
`53.
`
`at the time would interpret “an impedance” in the context of the Tsividis Patents.
`
`Impedance was a well-known parameter for all Electrical Engineers working in
`
`circuits, and the Tsividis Patents use the term consistently with its standard and well-
`
`known definition at the time and now.
`
`54. A person of ordinary skill would understand that impedance refers to
`
`the opposition of a circuit or circuit component to alternating current. Impedance
`
`includes both resistance (from resistors) and reactance (from inductors or capacitors)
`
`to alternating current. Impedance is often symbolized with Z, and is given by the
`
`formula Z = √(R2 + (XL + XC)2), where R is resistance, XL is inductive reactance,
`
`and XC is capacitive reactance.
`
`55.
`
`Impedance is an alternating current (AC) circuit parameter, measured
`
`for signals with a frequency component. Its definition as such is taught in
`
`introductory EE courses, and is given in many Electronic Circuits dictionaries and
`
`textbooks. See, e.g., EX2009, 6 (“The total opposition (i.e., resistance and
`
`reactance) a circuit offers to the flow of alternating current at a given frequency;”).
`
`56.
`
`In general, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`impedance is an AC circuit parameter, and would use it accordingly to refer to, e.g.,
`
`signal path circuits and other circuits carrying alternating or varying currents. A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would instead use terms like “resistance,”
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`IPR2023-00697
`Theta EX2005
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00694, -00697, & -006986
`Patent Nos. 7,010,330, 10,129,825, & 10,524,202
`
`
`“capacitance,” and “inductance” when referring to DC circuits such as the supply or
`
`bias current controls identified in the Petition from Rauhala.
`
`57. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that
`
`impedance is an AC circuit parameter in the context of the Tsividis Patents and their
`
`claims. Professor Tsividis uses “impedance” consistently, to refer to AC circuit
`
`loads in varying-signal driver circuits. EX1001 (’330 Patent), 7:44-52, Fig. 6:
`
`
`
`And Professor Tsividis uses “resistance” to refer to circuits changing a DC bias
`
`current. 7:35-41 (“by opening switches across portions of the resistance”), 8:12-14
`
`(“increasing a load resistance using switches”), Fig. 5. During prose
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
