Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`
`Trial Number: IPR2014-01149
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`
`Attorney Docket No. 4472-00500
`
`Issued: February 8, 2000
`
`Petitioners: Ericsson Inc. and
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`
`Inventors: Darush Divsalar, et al.
`
`Panel: To be assigned
`
`Assignee: Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`
`
`
`Title: Hybrid Concatenated Codes and Iterative Decoding
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MARK R. LANNING
`REGARDING CERTAIN PATENT CLAIMS OF U.S. PATENT NO.
`6,023,783
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 163
`
`
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`I. LIST OF REPORT APPENDICES AND EXHIBITS .................................. 4
`II. INTRODUCTION AND BASES FOR OPINIONS ....................................... 6
`A. EDUCATION AND WORK EXPERIENCE ............................................................ 6
`B. SCOPE OF WORK AND COMPENSATION .......................................................... 7
`C. DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON ............................................................................ 8
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS......................................................................... 9
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES ....................... 9
`A. ANTICIPATION ...............................................................................................10
`B. OBVIOUSNESS ................................................................................................10
`C. PRIORITY DATE .............................................................................................12
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’783 PATENT ..........................................................12
`A. THE FIELD OF ART .......................................................................................12
`B. THE INVENTION DISCLOSED .........................................................................15
`C. PRIORITY DATE FOR THE ’783 PATENT ........................................................19
`D. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL .......................................................................19
`E. CHALLENGED CLAIMS ..................................................................................20
`F. SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ’783 PATENT ON THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS .........................................................................................20
`G. LEGAL STANDARD FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................21
`H. CONSTRUED TERMS ......................................................................................21
`i. Systematic and Nonsystematic ..................................................................21
`ii. Coded or Encoded Data/Coded or Encoded Output Elements ................24
`iii. Original Digital Data Elements ................................................................25
`iv. Other Claim Terms ....................................................................................28
`VI. TECHNICAL BASIS UNDERLYING THE GROUNDS OF
`REJECTIONS SET FORTH IN THE PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW .................................................................................................................28
`A. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 6-9 AND 43-46 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`103(A) AS OBVIOUS OVER BERROU ’747 IN VIEW OF FORNEY .............................29
`i. Disclosure of Berrou ’747 and Forney regarding Claims 6 and 43 .......32
`ii. Disclosure of Berrou ’747 and Forney regarding Claims 7 and 44 .......55
`iii. Disclosure of Berrou ’747 and Forney regarding Claims 8 and 45 .......59
`iv. Disclosure of Berrou ’747 and Forney regarding Claims 9 and 46 .......63
`
`Page 2 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`B. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 10, 11, 47, AND 48 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 103(A) AS OBVIOUS OVER BERROU ’747 AND FORNEY IN VIEW OF
`UNGERBOECK ........................................................................................................72
`i. Disclosure of Ungerboeck regarding Claims 10 and 47 ..........................73
`ii. Disclosure of Ungerboeck regarding Claims 11 and 48 ..........................77
`C. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 12 AND 49 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`103(A) AS OBVIOUS OVER BERROU ’747, FORNEY, AND UNGERBOECK IN VIEW OF
`MASSEY .................................................................................................................79
`i. Disclosure of Massey regarding Claims 12 and 49 .................................81
`D. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 18, 19, 55, AND 56 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 103(A) AS OBVIOUS OVER DEUTSCH IN VIEW OF BERROU ’747 .............85
`i. Disclosure of Deutsch and Berrou ’747 regarding Claims 18 and 55 ....87
`ii. Disclosure of Berrou ’747 regarding Claims 19 and 56 .........................98
`E. GROUND 5: CLAIMS 20, 21, 57, AND 58 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 103(A) AS OBVIOUS OVER DEUTSCH AND BERROU ’747 IN VIEW OF
`UNGERBOECK ......................................................................................................105
`i. Disclosure of Ungerboeck regarding Claims 20 and 57 ........................106
`ii. Disclosure of Ungerboeck regarding Claims 21 and 58 ........................109
`F. GROUND 6: CLAIMS 22 AND 59 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`103(A) AS OBVIOUS OVER DEUTSCH, BERROU ’747, AND UNGERBOECK IN VIEW
`OF MASSEY ..........................................................................................................111
`i. Disclosure of Massey regarding Claims 22 and 59 ...............................112
`G. GROUND 7: CLAIMS 25, 26, 62, AND 63 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 103(A) AS OBVIOUS OVER DIVSALAR TCDSC, BERROU ’747, AND
`FORNEY IN VIEW OF UNGERBOECK .....................................................................117
`i. Disclosure of Divsalar TCDSC, Berrou ’747, Forney, and Ungerboeck
`regarding Claims 25 and 62 ...........................................................................122
`ii. Disclosure of Ungerboeck regarding Claims 26 and 63 ........................161
`VII. OTHER COMMENTS ..............................................................................163
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`LIST OF REPORT APPENDICES AND EXHIBITS
`
`
`Description
`
`Appendix No.
`Appendix 1
`Appendix 2
`
`Mark Lanning C.V.
`Claim Charts
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Exhibit Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783 to Divsalar, et al. (the “’783 Patent”)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 08/857,021 Specification & Drawings
`as Filed on May 15, 1997 (“the ’021 Application”)
`Declaration of Mark Lanning re the ’783 Patent with appendices
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,446,747 to C. Berrou, filed on April 16, 1992
`and issued on August 29, 1995 (“Berrou ’747”)
`“Convolutional Codes I: Algebraic Structure” by G. Forney, Jr.,
`IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 16:6, 1970 (“Forney”)
`
`
`U.S. Patent 4,907,233 to Deutsch, et al., filed on May 18, 1988,
`published on Mar 6, 1990, and issued on March 6, 1990
`(“Deutsch”)
`“Trellis-coded Modulation with Redundant Signal Sets” by G.
`Ungerboeck, IEEE Communications Magazine, February 1987
`(“Ungerboeck”)
`“Combined Multilevel Turbo-code with 8PSK Modulation” by K.
`Fazel, et al., IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference,
`November 14-16, 1995 (“Fazel”)
`“Turbo Codes for Deep-Space Communications” by D. Divsalar, et
`al., NASA TDA progress report, February 15, 1995 (“Divsalar
`TCDSC”)
`“Coding and Modulation in Digital Communications” by J.
`Massey, International Zurich Seminar on Digital Communications,
`March 1974 (“Massey”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,734,962 to Hladik, et al., filed on July 17, 1996
`and issued on March 31, 1998 (“Hladik”)
`
`Page 4 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`
`Exhibit No. Exhibit Description
`1012
`“Recursive Systematic Convolutional Codes and Application to
`Parallel Concatenation” by P. Thitimajshima, IEEE Global
`Telecommunications Conference, November 14-16, 1995
`(“Thitimajshima”)
`“Multiple Turbo Codes” by Divsalar, et al. (“Divsalar MTC”)
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`“Deep-Space Communications and Coding: A Marriage Made in
`Heaven” by Massey (“Massey DS”)
`“Efficient Coding/Decoding Strategies for Channels with
`Memory” by Lai (“Lai”)
`“Nonsystematic Convolutional Codes for Sequential Decoding in
`Space Applications” by Massey, et al. (“Massey NC”)
`“Near Shannon limit error – correcting coding and decoding:
`Turbo – Codes” by Berrou, et al. (“Berrou NS”)
`“Claude Berrou: from turbo codes to the neocortex” available at:
`http://www.mines-telecom.fr/en/claude-berrou-from-turbo-codes-
`to-the-neocortex/
`Office Action issued October 5, 1998, Prosecution History of ’783
`Patent
`Response to Office Action filed February 8, 1999, Prosecution
`History of ’783 Patent
`Final Office Action issued April 27, 1999, Prosecution History of
`’783 Patent
`Interview Summary of Interview Conducted July 12, 1999,
`Prosecution History of ’783 Patent
`Notice of Allowability with Examiner’s Amendment issued July
`16, 1999, Prosecution History of ’783 Patent
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/017,784 as Filed on May 15,
`1996
`“An iterative Decoding Scheme for Serially Concatenated
`Convolutional Codes” by M. Siala, et al., 1995 IEEE International
`Symposium on Information Theory, September 17-22, 1995
`(“Siala”)
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`II.
`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
` INTRODUCTION AND BASES FOR OPINIONS
`1. I have been retained in the above-referenced inter partes review
`
`proceeding by Conley Rose, P.C., on behalf of Ericsson
`
`Inc. and
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively “Ericsson” or “Petitioners”), as a
`
`technical expert to evaluate certain patent claims of U.S. Patent 6,023,783 (the
`
`“’783 Patent”). (Ex. 1001)
`
`2. Specifically, I have been requested to evaluate Claims 6-12, 18-22,
`
`25-26, 43-49, 55-59, and 62-63 of the ’783 Patent. As detailed in this report, it is
`
`my opinion that each of the asserted claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by
`
`prior art references that predate the ’783 Patent. If requested by the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“PTAB”), I will testify at trial about my opinions expressed herein.
`
`3. I reserve the right to modify or supplement my opinions, as well as
`
`the basis for my opinions, based on the nature and content of the documentation,
`
`data, proof and other evidence or testimony that other experts may present or based
`
`on any additional discovery or other information provided to me or found by me in
`
`this matter.
`
`A. Education and Work Experience
`
`4. I am currently the President of Telecom Architects, Inc., a technical
`
`consulting company that I own. I have over 35 years of experience in the design and
`
`implementation of voice and data telecommunication networks and also the
`
`development of the equipment used in these networks and by their users.
`
`Page 6 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`5. Along with the experience listed in my C.V., I note the following
`
`experience that is uniquely situated to the technology at issue in this matter. I have
`
`extensive experience in the design and development of the software and hardware
`
`for communication protocols and, specifically, data communications systems,
`
`including error correction coding using turbo encoders and decoders, interleavers,
`
`modulators and demodulators, and other relevant technologies.
`
`6. I received a B.S. in Computer Science from SMU in 1983. More
`
`details on my education and work experience are contained in my C.V. in Appendix
`
`1.
`
`7. The cases that I have previously given testimony within the past four
`
`years are also listed in my C.V. in Appendix 1.
`
`B. Scope of Work and Compensation
`
`8. I have reviewed the ’783 Patent, its prosecution history, and
`
`references cited therein.
`
`9. I have been asked to compare the subject matter recited for Claims 6-
`
`12, 18-22, 25-26, 43-49, 55-59, and 62-63 of the ’783 Patent to publications and
`
`patents that predate the filing date of the ’783 Patent. I have been asked to express
`
`my opinion on the differences, if any, between the subject matter recited in each of
`
`those claims and each of the foregoing items. To the extent I conclude there are any
`
`differences, I have also been asked to express my opinion on whether the subject
`
`Page 7 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`matter recited in each of those claims would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of in light of the technical information available to such a
`
`person at the time of the earliest priority of the ’783 Patent.
`
`10. My detailed analysis is included in claim charts attached as
`
`Appendix 2.
`
`11. I was requested to specifically address the following topics:
`
`a.
`
`the level of skill of persons who would have worked in the field
`
`around the time of invention of the ’783 Patent; and
`
`b. whether the claims are unpatentable as anticipated or obvious in
`
`view of the prior art to one of skill in the art.
`
`12. I am being paid an hourly rate of $550 per hour, plus reasonable
`
`expenses. I have received no additional compensation of any kind for my work on
`
`this case. No part of my compensation is dependent on the conclusions that I reach
`
`or the outcome of this case.
`
`C. Documents Relied Upon
`
`13. In performing my analysis, I have relied on my own personal
`
`knowledge and extensive experience, including my extensive experience in the
`
`design, development, network design, and operation of relevant systems as well as
`
`my review of the ’783 Patent and its prosecution history.
`
`Page 8 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`14. A list of all other documents that I relied upon in preparing this
`
`report listed in the list of Exhibits.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`15. Based on my experience, knowledge of the art at the earliest priority
`
`date of the patent application for the ’783 Patent, and my analysis of references, it is
`
`my opinion that, to one of ordinary skill in the art, Claims 6-12, 18-22, 25-26, 43-
`
`49, 55-59, and 62-63 of the ’783 Patent are unpatentable as anticipated or rendered
`
`obvious by one or more of the prior art references cited in this report as identified in
`
`the claim charts in Appendix 2.
`
`16. I have reviewed the inter partes review Petition prepared by Conley
`
`Rose, P.C. on behalf of the Petitioners and believe it accurately describes the ’783
`
`Patent and cited references. Further, I have reviewed and understand the claim
`
`construction and claim charts contained in the present petition and believe that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would agree with the construction of claim terms,
`
`as well as, the teaching and disclosures of the cited references.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES
`17. I am not an attorney and I will offer no opinions on the law. I am,
`
`however, informed on several principles concerning patentability, which I have
`
`used in arriving at my stated conclusions in this report.
`
`Page 9 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`18. I have written my Report with the understanding that the standard for
`
`instituting an inter partes review is on a showing that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that at least one or more of the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`19. It is my understanding that claims of a patent are anticipated (and
`
`therefore unpatentable) by a prior art reference if each and every element of the
`
`claim, as properly construed, is found either explicitly or inherently in a single prior
`
`art reference.
`
`20. I understand that, although anticipation cannot be established through
`
`a combination of references, additional references may be used to interpret the
`
`allegedly anticipating reference by, for example, indicating what the allegedly
`
`anticipating reference would have meant to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`21. I further understand that a claimed invention may be invalid even if
`
`each and every limitation is not disclosed in a single reference or described by a
`
`single use or sale.
`
`22. I have been informed that, under the doctrine of obviousness, a patent
`
`claim may be invalid 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
`
`Page 10 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`matter pertains.
`
`23. Obviousness, as I understand, is based on the scope and content of
`
`the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the patent claim, the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art and secondary indicia of obviousness and non-obviousness,
`
`to the extent they exist.
`
`24. I understand that a patent claim can be found invalid as obvious if the
`
`design incentives or market forces provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the
`
`invention resulted from the application of the prior knowledge in a predictable
`
`manner. I understand that a patent claim can be found invalid as obvious if the
`
`patent claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known
`
`element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the earliest priority date of the patent.
`
`25. I understand that a patent claim can be found invalid as obvious if the
`
`claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular
`
`class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. I understand that a claim can be found invalid as obvious if the patent claim
`
`would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as
`
`part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
`
`Page 11 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`26. I understand that a patent claim can be obvious in light of a single
`
`reference, without the need to combine references, if the elements of the patent
`
`claim that are not found in the reference can be supplied by the common sense of
`
`one of skill in the art. I understand that a patent claim can be obvious if it would
`
`have been obvious to try for one of ordinary skill in the art, given a finite number of
`
`choices, where there is with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`C. Priority Date
`
`27. As further discussed below, I have been instructed to rely on certain
`
`dates for priority for the ’783 Patent.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’783 PATENT
`A. The Field Of Art
`
`28. The field of art for the ’783 Patent is error correcting codes for data
`
`communication. More specifically, the ’783 Patent deals with data encoding and
`
`decoding using turbo codes.
`
`29. In citing portions of the specification, I will refer to the ’783 Patent
`
`unless otherwise noted. Additionally, where I provide a citation to column and line
`
`number in the specification of the ’783 Patent, it should be understood that this
`
`citation is an example of where support can be found in the specification and is not
`
`intended to suggest that the cited portion is the entirety of support in the
`
`specification. If asked to explain my conclusions about the scope, meaning or
`
`Page 12 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`disclosure of the ’783 Patent, I intend to use any and all parts of the patent,
`
`including the drawings and prosecution history.
`
`30. Turbo coder, a revolutionary technology in the history of data
`
`communication, was originally invented by Claude Berrou and his team. See, e.g.,
`
`Berrou NS (Ex. 1017), one of Berrou’s first publications on turbo code. Turbo
`
`coders were able to advance coding technology to near the “Shannon Limit,” which
`
`refers to the theoretical maximum channel communication rate. An article entitled
`
`“Claude Berrou: from turbo codes to the neocortex,” (Ex. 1018) published April 1,
`
`2012 on www.mines-telecom.fr (Website of the Institut Mines-Télécom, a French
`
`public higher education and research establishment), states that:
`
`Claude Berrou is the co-inventor of turbo codes, a major
`development in the history of digital communications now widely
`
`used in satellites and high-speed networks.
`
`. . . .
`
`Since American Claude Shannon published his pioneering work in
`
`1948, it had been widely accepted that in a digital communication
`
`channel disrupted by a certain amount of noise, as long as the average
`
`level of noise does not exceed a certain threshold and the information
`
`is encoded with appropriate redundancy, the receiver can identify the
`original message without errors. But the efficiency of forward
`
`correction codes is limited and researchers had been attempting
`to reach the theoretical limit for decades, before finally writing it
`off as an impossibility. There was thus a considerable degree of
`
`Page 13 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`skepticism in the air at ICC ’93 (International Communications
`
`Conference) when Claude Berrou and his colleague and co-author
`
`Alain Glavieux announced that they had reached the fabled Shannon
`
`Limit, even more so since this discovery was not backed up by reams
`
`of equations. Yet the leading figures in the field verified the results,
`and an integrated circuit developed by Berrou and his team proved
`
`to even the most skeptical observers that the results they had
`announced could be accurately measured. This marked the dawn
`of the turbo code era, with dozens of teams launching themselves
`into researching this new field. Over four hundred patents have been
`
`registered in the last twenty years.
`
`. . . .
`His work has brought him various other honours and awards:
`
`in 2003, Claude Berrou and Alain Glavieux (who passed away in
`
`2004) were awarded the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers’ (IEEE) Hamming Medal. He also picked up the Marconi
`
`Prize [1] in 2005, following in the footsteps of the creators of Google
`
`in 2004, and the inventor of the World Wide Web itself in 2002. He
`
`was also nominated for the European Inventor of the Year award in
`
`2006. He was actively involved in the foundation of the company
`
`Turbo concept, and has registered several patents in the field of
`
`coding and decoding, and on the extension of the ‘turbo principle’ to
`
`other functions within telecommunications systems.
`
`. . . .
`
`At the ICC93 conference, this idea immediately piqued the interest
`
`of a researcher from NASA. The increase in efficiency made possible
`
`by this method can cut energy expenditure in half, thus drastically
`
`Page 14 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`reducing the number of solar panels required for space probes and
`saving the agency tens of millions of dollars. The world now has
`
`between four and five billion turbo decoders, powering our high-
`speed WiMAX and 3G and 4G networks.
`
`(Ex. 1018 (emphasis added))
`31. The inventors of the ’783 Patent emphatically acknowledged
`
`Berrou’s turbo codes. “Perhaps the most exciting and potentially important
`
`development in coding theory in recent years has been the dramatic announcement
`
`of “turbo codes” by Berrou et al. in 1993 [7]. The announced performance of these
`
`codes was so good that the initial reaction of the coding establishment was deep
`
`skepticism, but recently researchers around the world have been able to reproduce
`
`those results [15, 18, 9]. The introduction of turbo codes has opened a whole new
`
`way of looking at the problem of constructing good codes [5] and decoding them
`
`with low complexity [7, 2]. These codes achieve near-Shannon-limit error
`
`correction performance with relatively simple component codes and large
`
`interleavers.” (Ex. 1013, p. 279, ¶¶ 2-3)
`
`B. The Invention Disclosed
`
`32. The ’783 Patent focuses on ways to correct data errors during
`
`transmission using turbo codes. According to the ’783 Patent, the original version
`
`of turbo codes invented by C. Berrou, et al. encoded a source of original data and
`
`transmitted encoded data along with a copy of the original data. The ’783 Patent
`
`proposes to input more than one source of original data and in some cases to
`
`Page 15 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`remove the original data from the output, and outputs only encoded data. The ’783
`
`Patent further discloses modulating the turbo coder output, coding multiple sources
`
`of original data, and concatenating a first encoder, an interleaver, and a
`
`convolutional encoder in series. The ’783 Patent also discloses decoder structures
`
`for decoding the received coded data.
`
`33. The term ‘turbo’ is often combined with several equivalent terms
`
`including “code,” “codes,” “coder,” and “encoder.” Turbo coder is a well-known
`
`prior art type of coder as described above and also described in detail in the
`
`Background of the ’783 Patent as binary error-correcting codes. (Ex. 1001, Fig. 1
`
`and col. 1, ll. 15)
`
`(Ex. 1001, Fig. 1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`34. The ’783 Patent states: “[t]he reference and patents to Berrou
`
`describe a basic turbo code encoder architecture of the type shown in the block
`
`diagram in Fig. 1. As described in Berrou ’747, Fig. 1 shows a block diagram of a
`
`coder in an example where two distinct codes are used in parallel. The term
`
`“parallel” was well-known at time of the earliest filing date for the ’783 Patent to
`
`indicate that multiple series of data processing are accomplished at substantially
`
`similar time. Each source data element d to be coded is coupled to a first systematic
`
`coding module 11 and, through a temporal interleaving module 12, to a second
`
`systematic coding module 13. The coding modules 11 and 13 may be of any known
`
`systematic type, such as convolutional coders, that take into account at least one of
`
`the preceding source data elements in order to code the source data element d. The
`
`codes implemented in coding modules 11 and 13 may be identical or different. The
`
`input information bits d feed the first coding module 11 and, after being scrambled
`
`by the interleaving module 12, enter the second coding module 13. A codeword of a
`
`parallel concatenated code consists of the information input bits to the first encoder
`
`followed by the parity check bits of both encoders. Under this architecture, there are
`
`at least two coded data elements Y1 and Y2, coming from distinct coders 11 and 13,
`
`associated with each source data element d. A data element X, equal to the source
`
`data element d, is also transmitted.” (Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 23-45 (emphasis added))
`
`Page 17 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`35. Such an architecture was also disclosed by the inventors of turbo
`
`coder, Claude Berrou et al., in Berrou NS (Ex. 1017). Therefore, a turbo code/coder
`
`may be defined as error-correction code/coder that includes at least two coding
`
`elements, including but not limited to systematic convolutional coders, in parallel.
`
`The first coding element is coupled to the source data element and the second
`
`coding element is indirectly coupled, via an intervening interleaver, to the source
`
`data element. Berrou’s turbo coder outputs coded data (such as parity check bits)
`
`generated by coding elements as well as the source data or an equivalent. Since
`
`Berrou’s turbo coder outputs both the code and original data, the turbo coder is
`
`systematic. Otherwise, if a turbo coder output only coded data and not the original
`
`data, the turbo coder would be nonsystematic.
`
`36. It is my opinion that the inventors of the ’783 Patent recognized, as
`
`did many at the time, the tremendous coding advances provided by Berrou’s turbo
`
`coder and merely made obvious modifications to turbo code. Thus it is my opinion
`
`that the invention disclosed by the ’783 Patent is nothing more than the predictable
`
`integration of systems and methods that were already in existence and common
`
`knowledge to persons of ordinary skill in the art long before its filing. The
`
`following paragraphs describe how all of the components and concepts claimed by
`
`the ’783 Patent existed prior to their filing date in the same arrangement or
`
`combination as in the selected claims. Each of the components and concepts using
`
`Page 18 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`the systems and methods claimed by the ’783 Patent were common sense to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`C. Priority Date for the ’783 Patent
`
`37. The ’783 Patent issued on February 8, 2000 from the ’021
`
`Application, filed on May 15, 1997. (Ex. 1002) According to a Certificate of
`
`Correction dated February 8, 2000, the ’783 Patent claims priority to U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/017,784, filed on May 15, 1996. (Ex. 1024) I have
`
`been instructed for the purposes of this report to assume the priority date of the ’783
`
`Patent is May 15, 1996.
`
`D. Person of Ordinary Skill
`
`38. It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the field of the ’783
`
`Patent would have at least a Bachelors or Masters level college degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering, Computer Science, Computer Engineering or equivalent training and
`
`experience. This person would also have at least three to five years of academic or
`
`industrial experience in the field of communication systems, such as wireless
`
`cellular communication systems and networks. Such a person would be familiar
`
`with turbo codes and the functionality provided by turbo encoders, decoders,
`
`interleavers, multiplexers and demultiplexers, and modulators.
`
`Page 19 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`
`E. Challenged Claims
`
`39. I have been asked to opine on challenged Claims 6-12, 18-22, 25-26,
`
`43-49, 55-59, and 62-63 of the ’783 Patent, for which I have provided detailed
`
`analysis tables as appendices.
`
`F. Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’783 Patent on the
`Challenged Claims
`
`40. The Examiner issued an Office Action (Ex. 1019) on October 5,
`
`1998, in which Claims 6-12, 25-26, 43-49, and 62-63 were rejected as being
`
`anticipated by Divsalar MTC (Ex. 1013), Claims 18-22 were rejected as being
`
`anticipated by Fazel (Ex. 1008), Claims 6, 7, 9, 11-12, 18-19, 21-22, 43-44, 46, and
`
`48-49 were rejected as anticipated by Hladik (Ex. 1011), Claim 55 was rejected as
`
`obvious over Thitimajshima (Ex. 1012), and Claim 58 was rejected as obvious over
`
`Thitimajshima (Ex. 1012) in view of Siala (Ex. 1025). In addition, Claims 56, 57,
`
`and 59 were objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Applicants
`
`noted that Divsalar MTC (dated 11/1995), Fazel (dated 11/1995), Hladik (dated
`
`7/1996), Thitimajshima (dated 11/1995), and Siala (dated 9/1995) were not proper
`
`102(b) or 102(e) references in view of the ’783 Patent’s provisional priority date of
`
`May 15, 1996. Even though Applicants failed to provide evidence supporting an
`
`invention date earlier than May 15, 1996, the Examiner withdrew the rejections and
`
`allowed Claims 6-12, 18-22, 25-26, 43-49, 55-59, and 62-63 in the Final Office
`
`Action. (Ex. 1021)
`
`Page 20 of 163
`
`ERICSSON EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Lanning Declaration
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,783
`
`G. Legal Standard for Claim Construction
`
`41. My understanding is that a primary step in determining the
`
`patentability of a patent’s claims is to properly ascertain the meaning of the claims
`
`to determine the claim scope. I have been informed that in an inter partes review
`
`proceeding, the claims are to be given their broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the patent’s specification and prosecution history. I contrast this with the
`
`different standard I understand is used in District Court litigation, where the claims
`
`are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in light of the specification and prosecution his