`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THETA IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2024-00817
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,129,825
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ASAD ABIDI
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,129,825
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 1
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Table of Contents
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 3
`A. Background and Qualifications ................................................................. 3
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................. 7
`III. OPINIONS ................................................................................................. 14
`A. Overview of the ’825 Patent ..................................................................... 14
`B. Overview of the ’825 File History ........................................................... 20
`C. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 21
`D. Claim Construction .................................................................................. 23
`E. Summary of the Prior Art References .................................................... 24
`1. Behbahani .................................................................................................. 24
`2. Leete ........................................................................................................... 29
`3. Tan .............................................................................................................. 30
`F. Behbahani in view of Leete in further view of Tan ................................... 31
`1. Claim 1 ....................................................................................................... 31
`2. Claim 2 ....................................................................................................... 90
`3. Claim 3 ....................................................................................................... 94
`4. Claim 4 ....................................................................................................... 95
`5. Claim 5 ....................................................................................................... 96
`6. Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 102
`7. Claim 7 ..................................................................................................... 103
`8. Claim 8 ..................................................................................................... 106
`G. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 2
`
`

`

`I, Dr. Asad Abidi, hereby declare the following:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Asad Abidi, and I am over 21 years of age and otherwise
`
`competent to make this Declaration. I make this Declaration based on facts and
`
`matters within my own knowledge and on information provided to me by others. If
`
`called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters set forth
`
`herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner as a technical expert in
`
`the above-captioned case. Specifically, I have been asked to render certain opinions
`
`relating to the accompanying Petition for Inter Partes Review of 10,129,825 (the
`
`“’825 Patent”), challenging all claims in the patent (“Challenged Claims”). My
`
`compensation in this matter is not based on the substance of my opinions or the
`
`outcome of this matter, and I have no financial interest in Apple Inc.
`
`A. Background and Qualifications
`3.
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, career
`
`history, and other qualifications relevant to this matter. I have also included a current
`
`version of my curriculum vitae, which is attached as Appendix A.
`
`4.
`
`I received a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering in 1978
`
`and a PhD in Electrical Engineering in 1981, both from the University of California,
`
`Berkeley. In 2015, I received UC Berkeley’s Distinguished EECS Alumnus Award
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 3
`
`

`

`5.
`
`After earning my doctorate degree, I went to work at Bell Laboratories
`
`in Murray Hill, NJ, from 1981-1984, where I was a member of the Technical Staff
`
`in the Advanced LSI Development Laboratory. My research here was focused on
`
`MOS integrated circuits with gigahertz bandwidths for optical-fiber interface
`
`electronics.
`
`6.
`
`In 1985 I joined the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) as
`
`a member of the faculty of Electrical Engineering. Today, I hold the title of
`
`Distinguished Professor at UCLA. My research focuses on advanced analog
`
`integrated circuits for RF communications, signal processing, and data conversion.
`
`7.
`
`In 1996, I was elevated to Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers (IEEE). In 2007, I was elected Member of the US National
`
`Academy of Engineering (NAE). Election to the NAE is one of the highest
`
`professional honors accorded in the US to an engineer.
`
`I have received many major awards for my research. They include the IEEE Donald
`
`G. Fink Prize Paper Award in 1997, and the IEEE Donald O. Pederson Solid-State
`
`Circuits Award in 2008. My publications have received the Best Paper Award twice
`
`from the IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, in 2012 and 2022.
`
`8. My opinions are based on my years of education, research, and experience,
`
`as well as my study of relevant materials. In forming my opinions, I have also
`
`considered the materials identified in this declaration and in the Petition.
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 4
`
`

`

`9. In sum, I have extensive experience as a researcher relating to wireless
`
`communications devices.
`
`10.
`
`In writing this declaration, I have considered my own knowledge and
`
`experience, including my work, research, and teaching experience. I have also
`
`reviewed the following references and materials:
`
`Exhibit 1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,129,825 (the “’825 Patent”)
`Exhibit 1002 File History for U.S. Patent 10,129,825 (the “’825 File History”)
`Exhibit 1003
`Intentionally left blank
`Exhibit 1004 Farbod Behbahani et al., Adaptive Analog IF Signal Processor for a
`Wide-Band CMOS Wireless Receiver, 36 IEEE Journal of Solid-State
`Circuits 1205, (Aug. 2001) (“Behbahani”)
`Exhibit 1005 Farbod Behbahani et al., A 2.4-GHz Low-IF Receiver for Wideband
`WLAN in 0.6µm CMOS – Architecture and Front-End, 35 IEEE
`Journal of Solid-State Circuits 1908, (Dec. 2000) (“Leete”)
`Exhibit 1006 Farbod Behbahani et al., A Broad-Band Tunable CMOS Channel-
`Select Filter for a Low-IF Wireless Receiver, 35 IEEE Journal of
`Solid-State Circuits 476, (April 2000) (“Tan”)
` Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`Intentionally left blank
`
`Exhibit 1007
`Exhibit 1008
`Exhibit 1009
`Exhibit 1010
`Intentionally left blank
`Exhibit 1011 Y. Tsividis et al., Internally Varying Analog Circuit Minimize Power
`Dissipation, IEEE Circuits & Devices Magazine, Jan. 2003.
`Exhibit 1012 Mihai Banu & Yannis Tsividis, Fully Integrated Active RC Filters in
`Technology, 18 IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits 644, (Dec. 1983)
`(“Fully Integrated”)
`Exhibit 1013 Farbod Behbahani et. al, An Adaptive 2.4GHz Low-IF Receiver in
`0.6µm CMOS for Wideband Wireless LAN, IEEE International Solid-
`State Circuits Conference, 2000 (“Kishigami”).
`Exhibit 1014 U.S. Patent No. 6,335,952 to Lee et al. (“Lee”)
`Exhibit 1015 Reinhold Ludwig, et. al, RF Circuit Design, 2000, (“Ludwig”)
`Exhibit 1016 “AN-844 Integrated LNA and Mixer Basics” by Texas Instruments
`(April 1993) (“Texas”)
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 5
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1024
`
`Exhibit 1025
`Exhibit 1026
`
`Exhibit 1017
`Intentionally left blank
`Exhibit 1018
`Intentionally left blank
`Exhibit 1019 “BARRON’S ELECTRONICS THE EASY WAY”, (2002) “Barron”
`Exhibit 1020
`Intentionally left blank
`Exhibit 1021 Thomas Byunghak Cho, et al, A 10 b, 20 Msample/s, 35 mW Pipeline
`A/D Converter, IEEE Journal Of Solid-State Circuits Conference,
`(March 1995) (“Cho”)
`Exhibit 1022
`Intentionally left blank
`Exhibit 1023 Roubik Gregorian, Analog MOS Integrated Circuits for Signal
`Processing (1986) (“Gregorian”)
`John Pritiskutch et al, UNDERSTANDING LDMOS DEVICE
`FUNDAMENTALS, (July 2000) (“STMicroelectronics”)
`Intentionally left blank
`John G. Proakis et. al, Communications Systems Engineering, (1994)
`(“Proakis”)
` S. Khorram et. al, A CMOS Limiting Amplifier and Signal-Strength
`Indicator, 1995 Symposium on VSLI Circuits Digest of Technical
`Papers, (1995) (“Khorram”)
`Exhibit 1028 The Evolution of Wi-Fi Technology (May 16, 2023) (“IEEE")
`Exhibit 1029 Kevin Werbach, The New Wireless Paradigm, Open Spectrum
`(October 2002) (“Werbach")
`Exhibit 1030 Robert G. Fichman et. al, Information-Rich Commerce At A
`Crossroads: Business and Technology Adoption Requirements, (July
`2002) (“Fichman")
`Exhibit 1031 U.S. Patent No. 6,480,700 to Groe et al. (“Groe”)
`Exhibit 1032 Gary J. Saulnier et. al, A VLSI Demodulator for Digital RF Network
`Applications: Theory and Results, IEEE Journal On Selected Areas In
`Communications, Vol 8. No. 8 (October 1990) (“Saulnier”)
`Exhibit 1033
`Intentionally left blank
`Exhibit 1034
`Intentionally left blank
`Exhibit 1035 Arthur D. Spaulding et al, Optimum Reception in an Impulsive
`Interference Environment-Part I: Coherent Detection, (September
`1997), IEEE Transactions on Communications, Vol. COM-25, No. 9
`( Spaulding”)
`Exhibit 1036
`Intentionally left blank
`Exhibit 1037
`Intentionally left blank
`Exhibit 1038 Marvin E. Frerking, Digital Signal Processing In Communication
`Systems, (1994) (“Frerking”)
`Intentionally left blank
`
`Exhibit 1027
`
`Exhibit 1039
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 6
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1040
`Exhibit 1041
`
`Intentionally left blank
`Jacques C. Rudell et. al, Recent Developments in High Integration
`Multi-Standard CMOS Transceivers for Personal Communication
`Systems, 1998 (“Rudell”)
`
`
`
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`11.
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However,
`
`counsel has informed me as to certain legal principles regarding patentability and
`
`related matters under United States patent law, which I have applied in performing
`
`my analysis and arriving at my technical opinions in this matter.
`
`12.
`
`I have been informed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)
`
`now applies the claim construction standard applied by Article III courts (i.e., the
`
`Phillips standard) regardless of whether a patent has expired. I have been informed
`
`that under the Phillips standard, claim terms are to be given the meaning they would
`
`have to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, taking
`
`into consideration the patent, its file history, and, secondarily, any applicable
`
`extrinsic evidence (e.g., dictionary definitions). I understand that, for purposes of
`
`this proceeding, Petitioner has proposed the PTAB apply certain specific
`
`constructions advanced in the parallel litigation. I have reviewed these constructions
`
`in the petition and apply them to my analyses herein. For any other claim language,
`
`I have applied its plain meaning as instructed by Phillips.
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 7
`
`

`

`13.
`
`I have also been informed that a person cannot obtain a patent on an
`
`invention if the differences between the invention 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 having ordinary skill in the art. I have been informed that a
`
`conclusion of obviousness may be founded upon more than a single item of prior art.
`
`I have been further informed that obviousness is determined by evaluating the
`
`following factors: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claim at issue, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. In addition, the
`
`obviousness inquiry should not be done in hindsight. Instead, the obviousness
`
`inquiry should be done through the eyes of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`14.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent claim
`
`obvious, counsel has informed me that I can consider the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, including the fact that one of skill in the art would regularly look to the
`
`disclosures in patents, trade publications, journal articles, industry standards,
`
`product literature and documentation, texts describing competitive technologies,
`
`requests for comment published by standard setting organizations, and materials
`
`from industry conferences, as examples. I have been informed that for a prior art
`
`reference to be proper for use in an obviousness analysis, the reference must be
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 8
`
`

`

`“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). In order for a reference
`
`to be “reasonably pertinent” to 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 of the references that my opinions in this IPR are based upon 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.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed that, in order to establish that a claimed invention
`
`was obvious based on a combination of prior art elements, a clear articulation of the
`
`reason(s) why a claimed invention would have been obvious must be provided.
`
`Specifically, I am informed that a combination of multiple items of prior art renders
`
`a patent claim obvious when there was an apparent reason for one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, at the time of the invention, to combine the prior art, which can include,
`
`but is not limited to, any of the following rationales: (A) combining prior art methods
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) substituting one known
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 9
`
`

`

`element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) using a known technique to
`
`improve a similar device in the same way; (D) applying a known technique to a
`
`known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) trying a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable potential solutions, with a reasonable expectation
`
`of success; (F) identifying that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt
`
`variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art; or (G) identifying an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in
`
`the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference
`
`or to combine the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`16.
`
`I am informed that the existence of an explicit teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine known elements of the prior art is a sufficient, but not a
`
`necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness. This so-called “teaching
`
`suggestion-motivation” test is not the exclusive test and is not to be applied rigidly
`
`in an obviousness analysis. In determining whether the subject matter of a patent
`
`claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`patentee controls. Instead, the important consideration is the objective reach of the
`
`claim. In other words, if the claim extends to what is obvious, then the claim is
`
`invalid. I am further informed that the obviousness analysis often necessitates
`
`consideration of the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 10
`
`

`

`known to the technological community or present in the marketplace, and the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. All of
`
`these issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason
`
`to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent.
`
`17.
`
`I also am informed that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a precise
`
`teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim need not be
`
`sought out because it is appropriate to take account of the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. The prior art considered
`
`can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`
`invention and can provide a reason for combining the elements of the prior art in the
`
`manner claimed. In other words, the prior art need not be directed towards solving
`
`the same specific problem as the problem addressed by the patent. Further, the
`
`individual prior art references themselves need not all be directed towards solving
`
`the same problem. I am informed that common sense is important and should be
`
`considered. Common sense teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses
`
`beyond their primary purposes.
`
`18.
`
`I also am informed that the fact that a particular combination of prior
`
`art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious
`
`even if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it is
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 11
`
`

`

`likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. I am
`
`further informed that in many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious
`
`techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather
`
`than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an invention. I am
`
`informed that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do more than yield
`
`predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`19.
`
`I am informed that for a patent claim to be obvious, the claim must be
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I am
`
`informed that the factors to consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art include (1) the educational level and experience of people working in the field at
`
`the time the invention was made, (2) the types of problems faced in the art and the
`
`solutions found to those problems, and (3) the sophistication of the technology in the
`
`field.
`
`20.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 12
`
`

`

`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.
`
`21.
`
`I am informed that 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 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.
`
`22.
`
`I am further informed that secondary considerations evidence is only
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 13
`
`

`

`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art features.
`
`The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. I understand that the Patent Owner
`
`may introduce evidence relevant to secondary considerations. I have not seen any
`
`such evidence, and I will supplement my opinions if the Patent Owner raises
`
`secondary considerations during this proceeding.
`
`III. OPINIONS
`
`A. Overview of the ’825 Patent
`
`23. The ‘825 Patent shares a specification with U.S. Patent No. 7,010,330
`
`(“the ‘330 Patent”). I have also submitted a declaration in support of Inter Partes
`
`Review of the ‘330 Patent. That declaration included an overview of the ‘330 Patent.
`
`Because they are identical specifications, my overview of the ‘330 Patent applies
`
`equally to the ‘825 Patent. I have pasted my summary of the ‘330 Patent here. This
`
`discussion does not represent my full understanding of the patent(s) nor does it
`
`attempt to cover all aspects of the disclosures relevant to my analyses below. Instead,
`
`it is provided merely as a high-level overview to provide some context for my more
`
`detailed discussions.
`
`24. The ’330 Patent generally relates to methods for reducing power
`
`dissipation in wireless transceivers, targeting the problem of battery drain in portable
`
`devices such as laptops and handheld devices. ’330 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 1:16-30.
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 14
`
`

`

`25. The ’330 Patent explains that prior art transceivers were designed to
`
`function properly under “worst-case operating conditions”—when the strength of a
`
`desired signal is low and the strength of interfering signals is high. ’330 Patent at
`
`1:26-37. When better than worst case conditions exist (e.g., high desired signal
`
`and/or low interferers), the alleged invention reduces “receiver circuit currents . . .
`
`below what is necessary for the worst case condition[,]” reducing power dissipation1
`
`and increasing battery life. ’330 Patent at 1:38-48.
`
`26. The ’330 Patent relates the concept of power dissipation to the
`
`“dynamic range” of the receiver. ’330 Patent at 5:28-62. The dynamic range is
`
`defined on the upper end by the maximum signal strength that can be recovered—
`
`referred to as Smax—and on the lower end by the noise floor (N)—the level
`
`approaching which desired signals may be misinterpreted in the receiver, causing
`
`bit-errors. ’330 Patent at 6:1-20.
`
`27. Fig. 2B below illustrates the dynamic range required under worst-case
`
`conditions. Here, the desired signal strength is low, requiring a low noise floor (N),
`
`and the interferers are strong, requiring a large Smax.
`
`
`1 All emphases added unless otherwise noted.
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`’330 Patent at Fig. 2B. As the patent explains, if Smax falls below the strength of
`
`interferer signals, intermodulation distortion may corrupt reception of the desired
`
`signal. ’330 Patent, 6:28-46, Fig. 3. Accordingly, while Smax is not an absolute cap
`
`on signal strengths that can be accommodated by the receiver circuit, it represents
`
`the level above which signals can create distortion, which may overlap the
`
`frequencies of the desired signal and prevent its recovery.
`
`28. Fig. 2A below illustrates the dynamic range required under better than
`
`worst-case conditions. Here, (1) the desired signal strength is high, allowing for an
`
`increased noise floor (N), and (2) the interferers by comparison are weak, allowing
`
`Smax to be lowered without risking corruption from intermodulation distortion:
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 16
`
`

`

`’330 Patent, Fig. 2A, 5:33-50 (describing the same).
`
`
`
`29. The ’330 Patent identifies three variables used to adjust the dynamic
`
`range, to save power when better than worst-case conditions are experienced: DC
`
`bias current, signal path impedance, and gain.
`
`30. First, a DC bias current may be used to lower Smax, saving power when
`
`conditions permit accommodating a lower maximum signal strength. ’330 Patent at
`
`6:18-20, 9:5-12. Figs. 8B and 8C illustrate saving power by decreasing bias current,
`
`which lowers Smax, when the desired signal strength and interferer signal strengths
`
`permit a lower Smax:
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 17
`
`

`

`’330 Patent at Figs. 8B-8C.
`
`
`
`31. Second, increasing the signal path impedance permits a lower AC
`
`drive/switching current to be used in the RF signal path, saving power. ’330 Patent
`
`at 6:17-18, 7:44-59. I understand that the ‘330 Patent specification means by “drive
`
`current” as the AC current that flows through the signal path. ’330 Patent at 7:44-
`
`67, 9:21-23, 9:55-59, 10:10-18. I understand that the Challenged Claims uses
`
`“switching current”—a phrase that does not appear in the specification. I have been
`
`instructed to treat these terms as interchangeable.
`
`32.
`
`In one example, illustrated in Fig. 6, an RC filter circuit is “scaled,”
`
`doubling the signal path impedance, which allows the “circuit’s required drive
`
`current” to be cut in half. ’330 Patent at 7:44-59. Although the patent does not
`
`explain why increasing the signal path impedance also increases the noise floor (N),
`
`it repeatedly notes that the signal path impedance can be increased to save power by
`
`lowering drive/switching current only if conditions permit increasing the noise floor
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 18
`
`

`

`(N). For example, “[c]ircuit impedances and currents are set such that the noise floor
`
`264 is sufficiently low for an acceptable bit-error rate.” ’330 Patent at 6:7-9.
`
`33. The patent does describe an exemplary RC filter that may be adjusted
`
`in order to adjust the signal path impedance. ’330 Patent at 7:44-52 (teaching that
`
`impedance is increased by increasing the series resistance of an RC filter and that
`
`the frequency response is maintained by also decreasing the shunt capacitance of the
`
`RC filter). A POSITA would recognize that resistor thermal noise is often a
`
`dominant source of noise in an RC filter. Accordingly, increasing the impedance of
`
`an RC filter by increasing the signal path resistance, as the ‘330 Patent teaches,
`
`would indeed increase the noise introduced by the filter. It was well-known in the
`
`prior art that resistor thermal noise contributes to the noise figure. In fact, the Theta
`
`inventor admitted this concept in an article titled “Fully Integrated Active RC Filters
`
`in Technology” (“Fully Integrated”): “[N]oise is mostly due to the resistor thermal
`
`noise[.]” Fully Integrated at 650.
`
`34. The third variable used to adjust a circuit’s dynamic range is gain.
`
`While gain does not directly correspond to power savings, it does provide a
`
`mechanism by which all signals—desired and interferers—can be increased,
`
`creating room for power savings to be realized by increasing impedance. See ’330
`
`Patent at Figs. 8B-8D. As illustrated in these figures, when the desired signal and
`
`interferer signals are all low, power savings can be realized by (1) lowering the bias
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 19
`
`

`

`current, which lowers Smax, as shown in Fig. 8C, (2) increasing gain and increasing
`
`impedance, which increases noise floor (N), as shown in Fig. 8D, or (3) all three—
`
`lowering the bias current, increasing gain, and increasing impedance:
`
`
`Id., Figs. 8B-8D, Fig. 12, 10:60-67 (explaining that a combination of all three
`
`adjustments may be used when the desired signal and interferer signals are all low).
`
`B. Overview of the ’825 File History
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed that the ’825 patent was filed as Application No.
`
`15/080,432 (“the ’432 application”) on March 24, 2016, which was a continuation
`
`of the ’330 Patent.” The ’330 Patent was filed on February 23, 2004, claiming
`
`priority to Provisional Application Nos. 60/451,229 and 60/451,230, both filed
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 20
`
`

`

`March 1, 2003. I have been asked to assume that March 1, 2003 is the priority date
`
`for the Challenged Claims.
`
`36.
`
`I note that the original submitted claims were subject to multiple office
`
`actions and significant amendments. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 90-108 (first office action),
`
`252-66 (amendments and arguments responsive to first office action), 275-85
`
`(supplemental amendment and argument), 292-324 (final office action).
`
`37.
`
`In a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) submitted on March 3,
`
`2018, the applicant submitted entirely new claims. Id., 331-37. The applicant noted
`
`that the newly submitted claims are no longer “directed to the detailed circuit
`
`design” of the earlier claims, “but rather [are] directed to when, and how . . .
`
`parameters, particularly bias and impedance, should be controlled based on the
`
`signal strength of an interferer signal and the signal strength of a desired signal.”
`
`Id., 338-40.
`
`38. A Non-Final Office Action issued on April 13, 2018, rejecting the new
`
`claims on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting. Id. at 355-61. I have been
`
`informed that applicant filed a terminal disclaimer on June 1, 2018, and the claims
`
`were allowed with no further actions.
`
`C. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`39.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to the level of skill of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’825 Patent, which I have
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 21
`
`

`

`been instructed to assume is March 1, 2003. In determining the characteristics of a
`
`hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed
`
`invention, I was told to consider several factors, including the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art, the solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made in the field, the sophistication of the technology, and the
`
`education level of active workers in the field. I also placed myself back in the time
`
`frame of the claimed invention and considered the colleagues with whom I had
`
`worked at that time.
`
`40. A person having ordinary skill in the art, as of March 1, 2003, would
`
`have been a person having a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or an
`
`equivalent, and two or more years of experience with wireless communications
`
`devices. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience,
`
`or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Such a
`
`person would have been capable of understanding the ’825 Patent and the prior art
`
`references discussed below. I understand that a POSITA definition has been
`
`proposed in the parallel litigation that requires only a bachelor’s degree. My opinions
`
`would not change under this alternative POSITA definition.
`
`41. Based on my education, training, and professional experience in the
`
`field of the claimed invention, I am familiar with the level and abilities of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. Additionally, I met
`
`IPR2024-00817
`Apple EX1003 Page 22
`
`

`

`at least these minimum qualifications to be a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`as of the time of the claimed invention of the ’825 Patent.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`
`42.
`
`I have