UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF ZHI DING, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF INTER
`PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,260,141
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 1
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................. I
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
`II.
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ....................................... 2
`III. METHODOLOGY; MATERIALS CONSIDERED ............................ 7
`IV. OVERVIEW AND LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................... 9
`A.
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................................... 10
`B.
`OBVIOUSNESS ................................................................................................ 11
`C.
`ANALOGOUS ART .......................................................................................... 15
`D.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................. 16
`V.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................. 17
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY ............................................. 18
`A.
`PHASED ARRAY ANTENNAS AND ADAPTIVE ANTENNA ARRAYS ................... 18
`B.
`BEAMFORMING .............................................................................................. 20
`C.
`BASEBAND AND DIGITAL BEAMFORMING ...................................................... 20
`D.
`CARRIER FREQUENCY OFFSET (CFO) ........................................................... 22
`E.
`SYMBOL-BASED COMMUNICATION ............................................................... 23
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’141 PATENT ................................................. 24
`VIII. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’141 PATENT ........................ 27
`IX. OPINIONS REGARDING THE COMBINATION OF WILLIAMS,
`FULTON, AND TROTT ................................................................................. 28
`A.
`OVERVIEW OF WILLIAMS ................................................................................ 28
`B.
`OVERVIEW OF FULTON .................................................................................. 41
`C.
`OVERVIEW OF TROTT ..................................................................................... 45
`X.
`OPINIONS REGARDING GROUNDS I AND II IN THE PETITION
`46
`
`i. Independent Claim 1 ......................................................................... 46
`ii. Claim 2 ............................................................................................. 60
`iii. Claim 3 ............................................................................................ 63
`iv. Claim 4 ............................................................................................ 69
`v. Claim 7 ............................................................................................. 71
`vi. Claim 8 ............................................................................................ 75
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 2
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`vii. Claim 9 ........................................................................................... 75
`viii. Claim 18 ........................................................................................ 81
`ix. Claim 19 .......................................................................................... 83
`x. Claim 20 ........................................................................................... 84
`xi. Claim 21 .......................................................................................... 85
`xii. Claim 22 ......................................................................................... 86
`XI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 87
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 3
`
`

`

`I, Zhi Ding, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Zhi Ding. I have been retained as a technical expert on
`
`behalf of Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) to provide my opinions
`
`regarding the validity of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141 (Ex. 1001, the
`
`“’141 Patent”) 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 alleged
`
`invention (“POSITA”) as it relates to the ’141 Patent. I submit this declaration based
`
`on my personal knowledge and experience, as well as the materials I reviewed and
`
`considered in formulating my opinions. I am over the age of 21 and am competent
`
`to make this declaration. 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 not currently, and never have been, an employee of Apple. I
`
`received no compensation for preparing this declaration beyond my normal hourly
`
`compensation rate based on my time actually spent in analyzing the issues and
`
`preparing this declaration. I will not receive any added compensation based on my
`
`opinions or the outcome of this proceeding. I have no financial interest in or
`
`affiliation with the Petitioner or the Patent Owner, which I understand is Lionra
`
`Technologies Ltd.
`
`1
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 4
`
`

`

`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`3.
`I presently hold the title of Distinguished Professor in the Department
`
`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`
`of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of California, Davis. Since
`
`my first UC Davis appointment on July 1, 2000, I have held the position of professor
`
`for over 20 years and have served as a faculty member at several US universities for
`
`over 30 years. I am also a private technical consultant on various technologies related
`
`to information systems. I have more than three decades of research experience on a
`
`wide range of topics related to data communications and signal processing.
`
`4.
`
`I earned my Bachelor of Science degree in 1982 in wireless engineering
`
`from the Nanjing Institute of Technology (later named as Southeast University) in
`
`Nanjing, China. I earned my Master of Science degree in 1987 in electrical
`
`engineering from the University of Toronto, Canada. I earned my Ph.D. in 1990 in
`
`electrical engineering from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.
`
`5. My responsibilities as a Professor at the 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
`
`2
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 5
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`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.
`
`6.
`
`Since 1990, I have been selected as the principal investigator of
`
`multiple highly competitive federal and local research grants, including more than a
`
`dozen 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
`
`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.
`
`7.
`
`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 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
`
`3
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 6
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`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.
`
`8.
`
`In addition to over 450 published technical papers that have been cited
`
`over 13,000 times according to Google Scholar, I am also co-inventor of 4 issued
`
`U.S. Patents on communication technologies.
`
`9.
`
`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 communications. The IEEE is the world’s largest
`
`professional society of engineers, with over 400,000 members in more than 160
`
`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 Fellow is conferred by the Board 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.
`
`10.
`
`I have served the IEEE in the following capacities:
`
`• Chief Information Officer at the IEEE Communications Society from
`Jan. 2018 to present.
`
`• Chief Marketing Officer at the IEEE Communications Society from
`Jan. 2020 to present.
`
`4
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 7
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`• General Chair of the 2016 IEEE International Conferences on
`Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, the flagship of the IEE
`Signal Processing Society.
`
`• Chair of the Steering Committee for the IEEE Transactions on Wireless
`Communications from 2008 to 2010.
`
`• Distinguished Lecturer of the IEEE Communications Society from
`January 2008 to December 2009.
`
`• Technical Program Chair of the 2006 IEEE Globecom, one of two
`flagship annual IEEE Communication Society conferences.
`
`• Distinguished Lecturer of the IEEE Circuits and Systems Society from
`2004 to 2005.
`
`• Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions of Signal Processing from
`1994 to 1997 and from 2001 to 2004.
`
`• Member of the IEEE Statistical Signal and Array Processing for
`Communications Technical Committee from 1993 to 1998.
`
`• Member of the IEEE Signal Processing for Communications Technical
`Committee from 1998 to 2004.
`In 2012, I received the Wireless Communications Technical Committee
`
`11.
`
`Recognition Award from the IEEE Communications Society, a prestigious award
`
`given to a person with a high degree of visibility and contribution to 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.”
`
`5
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 8
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`I have also served as a technical consultant for the telecommunication
`
`12.
`
`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
`
`Center in 1992 and at U.S. Air Force Wright Laboratory in 1993. I have served on
`
`multiple review panels on 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.
`
`13.
`
`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, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and optical communication
`
`networks.
`
`14. Further experience and a complete list of my publications are presented
`
`in my Curriculum Vitae, which is attached as Ex. 1010.
`
`6
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 9
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`15. Based on my experience of over 3 decades in communications
`
`technologies as described above, the acceptance of my publications and professional
`
`recognition by societies in my field, I believe that I am qualified to be an expert
`
`witness in wireless communication systems, communications networks, and signal
`
`processing.
`
`16. 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 the Critical Date (which I discuss below) of the ’141 Patent.
`
`III. METHODOLOGY; MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`17.
`I have relied upon my education, knowledge, and experience in wireless
`
`communication systems, communication networks, and signal processing, as well as
`
`other materials discussed in this declaration in forming my opinions.
`
`18. For this work, I have been asked to review the ’141 Patent including
`
`the specification and claims, and the ’141 Patent’s prosecution history (file history).
`
`In developing my opinions relating to the ’141 Patent, I have considered the
`
`materials cited or discussed herein, including those itemized in the Exhibit Table
`
`below.
`
`7
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 10
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141 (“the ’141 Patent”)
`Exhibit 1002 File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`Exhibit 1004 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0042290 to Williams et al.
`(“Williams”)
`Exhibit 1005 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/239,859 (the “Williams-
`Provisional”)
`Exhibit 1006 U.S. Patent No. 5,604,768 to Fulton (“Fulton”)
`Exhibit 1007 U.S. Patent No. 6,836,673 to Trott (“Trott”)
`Exhibit 1008 Mark C. Roh, “A Base Station Smart Antenna System for CDMA
`Cellular,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1997
`Exhibit 1009 3G TS 25.213 version 3.2.0 Release 1999 18 ETSI TS 125 213
`V3.2.0 (2000-03)
`Exhibit 1011 U.S. Patent No. 3,340,531 to Kefalas et al.
`Exhibit 1012 U.S. Patent No. 3,500,422 to Cheston et al.
`Exhibit 1013 Modern Dictionary of Elec. 7th (excerpt)
`Exhibit 1014 Newton’s Telecom Dictionary 16 (excerpt)
`Exhibit 1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,795,424 to Kapoor et al.
`Exhibit 1016 U.S. Patent No. 6,240,072 to Lo et al.
`Exhibit 1017 U.S. Patent No. 6,052,085 to Hanson et al.
`Exhibit 1018 Analysis of new and existing methods…IEEE
`Exhibit 1019 Robust Frequency and Timing Synchronization for OFDM
`Exhibit 1020 U.S. Patent No. 5,499,268 to Takahashi
`Exhibit 1021 U.S. Patent No. 5,206,886 to Bingham
`Exhibit 1022 Selecting Mixed Signal Components for Digital Communication
`Systems
`Exhibit 1023 U.S. Patent No. 6,130,602 to O’Toole et al.
`Exhibit 1024 U.S. Patent No. 7,039,372 to Sorrells et al.
`Exhibit 1025 U.S. Patent No. 6,404,247 to Wang
`Exhibit 1026 Understanding Offset 8-PSK Modulation for GSM EDGE
`Exhibit 1027 Understanding and Enhancing Sensitivity in Receivers for
`Wireless Applications
`Exhibit 1028 Characteristics of Digital Fixed Wireless Systems Below About
`17 GHz
`Exhibit 1029 A Complex Multiplier with Low Logic Depth
`Exhibit 1030 The Roles of FPGAs in Reprogrammable Systems
`Exhibit 1031 Cramming More Components onto Integrated Circuits
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 11
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`I have considered these materials from the viewpoint of a person of
`
`19.
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention (“POSITA”) as of the
`
`priority date of the ’141 Patent. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`asked to assume that the priority date of the ’141 Patent is February 28, 2001. I note
`
`that my opinions provided in this Declaration are made from the perspective of a
`
`POSITA as of the priority date of the ’141 Patent, unless expressly stated otherwise.
`
`20.
`
`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.
`
`21. 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 herein based on new information and my
`
`continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW AND LEGAL STANDARDS
`22.
`In formulating my opinions, I have been instructed to apply certain
`
`legal standards. I am not a lawyer. I do not expect to offer any testimony regarding
`
`what the law is. Instead, the following sections summarize the law as I have been
`
`instructed to apply it in formulating and rendering my opinions found later in this
`
`9
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 12
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`declaration. I understand that, in an inter partes review proceeding, patent claims
`
`may be deemed unpatentable if it is shown that they were anticipated or rendered
`
`obvious in view of the prior art. I understand that prior art in an inter partes review
`
`is limited to patents or printed publications that predate the priority date of the patent
`
`at issue. I understand that questions of claim clarity (definiteness) and enablement
`
`cannot be considered as a ground for considering the patentability of a claim in these
`
`proceedings.
`
`A.
`23.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
` I understand that the ’141 Patent, the record of proceedings at the
`
`Patent Office (which I understand is called the “File History” or “Prosecution
`
`History”), and the teachings of the prior art are evaluated from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). I understand that the factors
`
`considered in determining the ordinary level of skill in the art include: (i) the levels
`
`of education and experience of persons working in the field; (ii) the types of
`
`problems encountered in the field; and (iii) the sophistication of the technology. I
`
`may also consider, if available, the education level of the inventor, prior art solutions
`
`to the problems encountered in the art, and/or the rapidity with which innovations
`
`are made in the relevant art.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is not a specific
`
`real individual, but rather a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected by
`
`10
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 13
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`the factors above. This hypothetical person has knowledge of all prior art in the
`
`relevant field as if it were arranged on a workshop wall and takes from each reference
`
`what it would teach to a person having the skills of a POSITA.
`
`B. Obviousness
`25.
`I understand that a claim may be invalid under § 103(a) if the subject
`
`matter described by the claim as a whole would have been “obvious” to a
`
`hypothetical POSITA in view of a single prior art reference or in view of a
`
`combination of references at the time the claimed invention was made. Therefore, I
`
`understand that obviousness is determined from the perspective of a hypothetical
`
`POSITA. I further understand that a hypothetical POSITA is assumed to know and
`
`to have all relevant prior art in the field of endeavor covered by the patent in suit and
`
`all analogous prior art. I understand that obviousness in an inter partes review
`
`proceeding is evaluated using a preponderance of the evidence standard, which
`
`means that the claims must be more likely obvious than nonobvious.
`
`26.
`
`I also understand that an analysis of whether a claimed invention would
`
`have been obvious should be considered in light of the scope and content of the prior
`
`art, the differences (if any) between the prior art and the claimed invention, and the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art involved. I understand as well that a prior
`
`art reference should be viewed as a whole. I understand that in considering whether
`
`an invention for a claimed combination would have been obvious, I may assess
`
`11
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 14
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`whether there are apparent reasons to combine known elements in the prior art in the
`
`manner claimed in view of interrelated teachings of multiple prior art references, the
`
`effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace,
`
`and/or the background knowledge possessed by a POSITA. I also understand that
`
`other principles may be relied on in evaluating whether a claimed invention would
`
`have been obvious, and that these principles include the following:
`
`• A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results;
`
`• When a device or technology is available in one field of endeavor,
`design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
`either in the same field or in a different one, so that if a POSITA can
`implement a predictable variation, the variation is likely obvious;
`
`• If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a POSITA
`would have recognized that it would improve similar devices in the
`same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application
`is beyond his or her skill;
`
`• An explicit or implicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine
`two prior art references to form the claimed combination may
`demonstrate obviousness, but proof of obviousness does not depend on
`or require showing a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine;
`
`• Market demand, rather than scientific literature, can drive design trends
`and may show obviousness;
`
`• In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim would have
`been obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose
`of the named inventor controls;
`
`• One of the ways in which a patent’s subject can be proved obvious is
`by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem
`for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s
`claims;
`
`12
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 15
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`• Any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
`combining the elements in the manner claimed;
`
`• “Common sense” teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses
`beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a POSITA will be
`able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a
`puzzle;
`
`• A POSITA is also a person of ordinary creativity, and is not an
`automaton;
`
`• A patent claim can be proved obvious by showing that the claimed
`combination of elements was “obvious to try,” particularly when there
`is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a
`finite number of identified, predictable solutions such that a POSITA
`would have had good reason to pursue the known options within his or
`her technical grasp; and
`
`• One should not use hindsight in evaluating whether a claimed invention
`would have been obvious.
`
`
`I also understand that an obviousness determination includes the
`
`27.
`
`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, and so
`
`forth.
`
`28.
`
`I am informed that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I am informed that a reference may
`
`be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, upon reading
`
`13
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 16
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference,
`
`or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the patent
`
`applicant. In general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of
`
`development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of
`
`the result sought by the patentee. I am informed that a reference teaches away, for
`
`example, if (1) the combination would produce a seemingly inoperative device, or
`
`(2) the references leave the impression that the product would not have the property
`
`sought by the patentee. I also am informed, however, that a reference does not teach
`
`away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does
`
`not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention
`
`claimed.
`
`29.
`
`I am informed that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an invention
`
`would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which include: (a)
`
`commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a
`
`long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of others to find the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention
`
`by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the
`
`14
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 17
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of independent simultaneous invention
`
`within a comparatively short space of time; (h) teaching away from the invention in
`
`the prior art.
`
`30.
`
`I am further informed that secondary considerations evidence is only
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art features.
`
`The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. While I understand that the Patent
`
`Owner here has not offered any secondary considerations at this time, I will
`
`supplement my opinions in the event that the Patent Owner raises secondary
`
`considerations during the course of this proceeding.
`
`31. Finally, I understand that obviousness in an IPR must be proven by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence.
`
`C. Analogous Art
`32.
`I have been informed that for a prior art reference to be proper for use
`
`in an obviousness analysis, the reference must be “analogous art” to the claimed
`
`invention. I have been informed that a reference is analogous art to the claimed
`
`invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed
`
`invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably
`
`pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of
`
`endeavor as the claimed invention). For a reference to be “reasonably pertinent” to
`
`15
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 18
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`the problem, it must logically have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
`
`considering his problem. In determining whether a reference is reasonably pertinent,
`
`one should consider the problem faced by the inventor, as reflected either explicitly
`
`or implicitly, in the specification. I believe that all the references upon which my
`
`opinions in this IPR are based are well within the range of references a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art would consult to address the type of problems described in
`
`the Challenged Claims.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`33.
`I understand that the claims in this IPR will be construed according to
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning as understood in light of the claim language,
`
`the patent’s description, and the prosecution history viewed from the perspective of
`
`a POSITA. I further understand that where a patent defines claim language, the
`
`definition in the patent controls, even if there are other definitions that might be
`
`understood by those working in the art.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that in the parallel litigation, Patent Owner contends that
`
`no claim language requires express construction. For purposes of my analysis, I have
`
`been instructed to apply the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms as I
`
`understand them in light of the claim language as a whole, the patent’s description,
`
`and the prosecution history as viewed from the perspective of a POSITA.
`
`16
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 19
`
`

`

`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`35. Taking these factors into consideration, based on my review and
`
`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`
`analysis of the ’141 Patent, the prior art cited herein, and the ordinary skill factors
`
`described above in Section IV.A, a POSITA in the field of the ’141 Patent at the
`
`time of the earliest possible priority date (February 28, 2001) would have had a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or an equivalent from an accredited
`
`university program with at least two years of work experience in the field of wireless
`
`communications. A person with less relevant practical experience but with
`
`additional education can also qualify as a POSITA in the field of the ’141 Patent
`
`provided the additional education focused on wireless communication systems.
`
`When I refer to the understanding of a POSITA, I am referring to the understanding
`
`of such a person as of February 28, 2001.
`
`36.
`
` As of February 28, 2001, I had more than ordinary skill in the art. I am,
`
`however, familiar with the skills and knowledge possessed by those I would have
`
`considered to be of ordinary skill in the art as of that date. For example, I knew
`
`people working in the field through my involvement with IEEE. And I supervised
`
`graduate students, including Master’s students and Ph.D. candidates who would
`
`have qualified as POSITAs at the time, during my time at Auburn University, the
`
`University of Iowa, and UC Davis. I am qualified to provide opinions concerning
`
`what one of ordinary skill would have known and understood at that time, and my
`
`17
`
`IPR2023-00796
`Apple EX1003 Page 20
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00796
`U.S. Patent No. 7,260,141
`analysis and conclusions herein are from the perspective of one of ordinary skill as
`
`of that date.
`
`37. My opinions in this declaration would not change in view of minor
`
`modifications to this level of ordinary skill.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`38.
`I was asked to briefly summarize the background of the technology
`
`from the standpoint of a POSITA prior to February 28, 2001.
`
`A.
`Phased Array Antennas and Adaptive Antenna Arrays
`39. Before the priority date of the ’141 Patent, phased array antennas were
`
`well known and wide