UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERICSSON INC. and TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127
`
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-
`EXAMINATION OF DR. ZYGMUNT HAAS
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,127
`
`Observation No. 1 ...................................................................................................... 1
`Observation No. 2 ...................................................................................................... 2
`Observation No. 3 ...................................................................................................... 2
`Observation No. 4 ...................................................................................................... 3
`Observation No. 5 ...................................................................................................... 3
`Observation No. 6 ...................................................................................................... 4
`Observation No. 7 ...................................................................................................... 5
`Observation No. 8 ...................................................................................................... 6
`Observation No. 9 ...................................................................................................... 6
`Observation No. 10 .................................................................................................... 7
`Observation No. 11 .................................................................................................... 7
`Observation No. 12 .................................................................................................... 8
`Observation No. 13 .................................................................................................... 9
`Observation No. 14 .................................................................................................. 10
`Observation No. 15 .................................................................................................. 11
`Observation No. 16 .................................................................................................. 12
`Observation No. 17 .................................................................................................. 13
`Observation No. 18 .................................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,127
`
`Exh. No.
`
`IV 2001
`
`Description
`Biography of Gordon Stüber (October 14, 2014),
`http://users.ece.gatech.edu/stuber/
`Biography of Dr. Apurva N. Mody (October 14, 2014),
`http://www.inatel.br/iwt2013/index.php/keynote-speakers-sp-
`212359168/dr-apurva-n-mody
`IV 2003 May 14, 2015 Official Deposition Transcript of Zygmunt J. Haas
`IV 2004 Webster Dictionary
`IV 2005 Oxford Dictionary
`IV 2006 Webster’s New World Dictionary
`IV 2007 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary
`IV 2008 Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary
`IV 2009 Declaration of Dirk Hartogs, Ph.D.
`IV 2010
`Curriculum Vitae of Dirk Hartogs, Ph.D.
`IV 2011 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Zygmunt Haas (September 4, 2015)
`
`IV 2002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,127
`
`Patent Owner hereby submits observations on Patent Owner’s September 4,
`
`2015 cross-examination of Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Zygmunt Haas, regarding his
`
`August 21, 2015 Declaration (Ex. 1036) in support of Petitioners’ Reply dated Au-
`
`gust 21, 2015 (Paper 22). Exhibit 2011 is a transcript of that deposition and is used
`
`as the basis for the observations below.
`
`Observation No. 1
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 6, line 12 through page 7, line 2, Dr. Haas testified:
`
`Q. … Did you review the entire declaration of Dirk Har-
`togs?
`…
`A: If I remember correctly, for the preparation of the
`supplemental declaration, I reviewed portions of Dr. Har-
`togs’ declaration.
`Q: And what portions of his declaration did you review?
`…
`A: I reviewed those portions that were provided by Erics-
`son’s counsel.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the reliability of ¶¶ 4–22 of Dr. Haas’ supplemental
`
`declaration because it demonstrates that Dr. Haas’ characterization of and response
`
`to Dr. Hartogs’ opinions are based only on the portions of Dr. Hartogs’ declaration
`
`specifically selected by Petitioners’ counsel and not on Dr. Hartogs’ opinions when
`
`considered as a whole.
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`Observation No. 2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,127
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 8, lines 3 to 13, Dr. Haas testified:
`
`[Q.] Did you review in preparation for your supplemental
`declaration the entire deposition transcript of Dr. Har-
`togs?
`A: Not in preparation for the supplemental declaration.
`Q: Okay. And what excerpts did you review of the depo-
`sition transcript in preparation of your supplemental dec-
`laration?
`A: In preparation of the supplemental declaration, I re-
`viewed those excerpts that were provided by counsel for
`Ericsson.
`This testimony is relevant to the reliability of ¶¶ 4–22 of Dr. Haas’ supplemental
`
`declaration because it demonstrates that Dr. Haas’ characterization of and response
`
`to Dr. Hartogs’ opinions are based only on portions of Dr. Hartogs’ deposition
`
`transcript specifically selected by Petitioners’ counsel and not on Dr. Hartogs’
`
`opinion when considered as a whole.
`
`Observation No. 3
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 10, lines 12 to 15, Dr. Haas was asked whether he “re-
`
`view[ed] Patent Owner’s response in preparation for [his] supplemental declara-
`
`tion,” and he responded “Not in preparation for my supplemental declaration.”
`
`This testimony is relevant to the reliability of ¶¶ 4–22 of Dr. Haas’ supplemental
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01185
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,127
`
`
`declaration because it demonstrates that Dr. Haas’ opinions were not prepared as a
`
`rebuttal to Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`Observation No. 4
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 11, line 10 through page 12, line 1, Dr. Haas was asked if his
`
`characterization of Dr. Hartogs’ claim 1 interpretation provided in ¶ 4 of his sup-
`
`plemental declaration was a direct quote from Dr. Hartogs. Dr. Haas replied “As I
`
`remember right now, I do not believe that this is a direct – direct quotation….” The
`
`testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that the first sentence of ¶ 4 of Dr.
`
`Haas’ supplemental declaration is misleading because it is not a quote from Dr.
`
`Hartogs or the Patent Owner Response.
`
`Observation No. 5
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 14, lines 15–18, Dr. Haas testified that “one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would – understand that the insertion of the pilot symbols into data
`
`blocks means insert pilot symbols among a set of data blocks.” (Emphasis add-
`
`ed.) Dr. Haas further acknowledged that claim 1 does not recite “among a set of
`
`data blocks.” (Haas Second Depn., 14:3 to 15:5.) This testimony is relevant to pp.
`
`28–30 of the Petition, ¶¶ 53–54 and pp. 44–48 of Dr. Haas’ first declaration (Ex.
`
`1009), pp. 11–26 of Patent Owner’s Response, pp. 1–19 of Petitioner’s Reply, and
`
`¶¶ 4–22 of Dr. Haas’ supplemental declaration because it demonstrates that Dr.
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01185
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,127
`
`
`Haas’ opinions on the obviousness of claim 1 are based on an interpretation of the
`
`claim that is contrary to the explicit language of the claim.
`
`Observation No. 6
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 29, line 16 through page 31, line 1, Dr. Haas testified:
`
`Q. So the pilot symbols are between the data symbols,
`correct, in your figure?
`A: You know, you use the word “between.” I – I would
`prefer to use the term “inserted into the data symbols” or
`“into the stream of data symbols.”
`Q: Okay. And when you say “stream of data symbols,”
`what are you referring to?
`A: Well, so if you look at the top of my Figure A… the
`pilot symbols are inserted into the stream of the data
`blocks.
`Q. All right.
`A. And again, I use the word “data blocks” here, but
`maybe a more accurate use would be data symbols.
`Q. Okay. And when you say it would be more accurate to
`use data symbols, why – why would you say that?
`A. Well, because if you look at the modified Figure A,
`the pilot symbols appear in between – I’m sorry, not in
`between – among – in among – appear in among the data
`symbols.
`(Emphasis added.) This testimony is relevant to pp. 28–30 of the Petition, ¶¶ 53–54
`
`and pp. 44–48 of Dr. Haas’ first declaration (Ex. 1009), pp. 11–26 of Patent Own-
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01185
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,127
`
`
`er’s Response, pp. 1–19 of Petitioner’s Reply, and ¶¶ 4–22 of Dr. Haas’ supple-
`
`mental declaration because it demonstrates that Dr. Haas’ opinions on the obvious-
`
`ness of claim 1 are based on an incorrect interpretation that reads in limitations
`
`(e.g., “stream of data blocks” and “among”) not present in the explicit language of
`
`the claims.
`
`Observation No. 7
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 31, lines 6 through 14, Dr. Haas was asked if his Figure “il-
`
`lustrate[s] any pilots inserted into this leftmost data symbol (80),” to which Dr.
`
`Haas replied “[p]ilot symbols are not inserted into a single data symbol… The pi-
`
`lots are inserted into the sequence of data symbols in plural.” (Emphasis added.)
`
`This testimony is relevant to pp. 28–30 of the Petition, ¶¶ 53–54 and pp. 44–48 of
`
`Dr. Haas’ first declaration (Ex. 1009), pp. 11–26 of Patent Owner’s Response, pp.
`
`1–19 of Petitioner’s Reply, and ¶¶ 4–22 of Dr. Haas’ supplemental declaration be-
`
`cause it demonstrates that Dr. Haas’ opinions on the obviousness of claim 1 are
`
`based on an incorrect interpretation that reads in limitations (e.g., “sequence of da-
`
`ta symbols”) not present in the explicit language of the claims and because it sup-
`
`ports Patent Owner’s position that the combination of Schmidl and Arslan does not
`
`insert pilot symbols into data blocks.
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Observation No. 8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,127
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 32, lines 1–6, Dr. Haas testified:
`
`Q. The question was, does the ’127 patent describe the
`sequence of data symbols as a data structure?
`A: Well, clearly the – if you look at Figure 6 of the pa-
`tent, you know, the figures of the ’127 patent, the figure
`clearly shows that the data structure is composed of a
`sequence of data symbols.
`
`(Emphasis added.) The testimony is relevant to the reliability Dr. Haas’ previous
`
`testimony that claim 1 requires only that “pilots are inserted into the data sequenc-
`
`es” (Haas Second Depn., 31:13–14) because it demonstrates that Dr. Haas' “data
`
`sequences” are the “data structure” which is recited separately in claim 1 from the
`
`“data blocks” and that Dr. Haas has impermissibly rewritten claim 1 as “inserting
`
`pilot symbols into the data structure.”
`
`Observation No. 9
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 33, line 22 to page 34, line 4, Dr. Haas was asked if “Claim
`
`1 state[s] that pilot symbols are inserted into data symbols,” to which Dr. Haas re-
`
`plied “No. It says… [t]he pilots/training symbol inserter configured to insert pilot
`
`symbols into data blocks.” This testimony is relevant to ¶ 9 of Dr. Haas’ supple-
`
`mental declaration because it demonstrates that Dr. Haas’ theory that there are dis-
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01185
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,127
`
`
`tinct pilot symbols in the time domain relies on portions of the specification that
`
`are not reflected in the explicit language of the claims.
`
`Observation No. 10
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 42, lines 17–21, when asked if the quote of the ’127 patent
`
`he provided in ¶ 7 of his supplemental declaration is “in the section of the patent
`
`that is titled ‘Background of the Invention,’” Dr. Haas testified “Is – yes. To an-
`
`swer your question, this particular citation, Column 2, Line 10 to 25, appears in the
`
`background of the invention.” This testimony is relevant to ¶ 7 of Dr. Haas’ decla-
`
`ration, which concludes that “Thus, pilot symbols have the same structure as train-
`
`ing symbols (also known as preambles) in the time domain, but the pilots are ar-
`
`ranged within groups of data symbols, as opposed to being at the beginning of a
`
`transmission” because it demonstrates that Dr. Haas’ conclusion in this paragraph
`
`is based on a description in the background of the ’127 patent rather than in the de-
`
`scription of the claimed invention.
`
`Observation No. 11
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 18, lines 1 through 4, Dr. Haas was asked if in ¶ 14 of his
`
`supplemental declaration he “us[es] the term ‘pilot symbol’ in both the time and
`
`frequency domain,” to which Dr. Haas responded, “That’s correct.” This testimony
`
`is relevant to ¶ 7 of Dr. Haas’ supplemental declaration, which states that “pilot
`
`symbols have the same structure as training symbols … in the time domain” be-
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01185
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,127
`
`
`cause it demonstrates that the ’127 patent’s disclosure of the pilot symbols having
`
`the same structure as training symbols could instead apply to the frequency do-
`
`main. (See Haas Suppl. Decl., p. 7, Figure A.)
`
`Observation No. 12
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 38, line 8 to page 39, line 6, Dr. Haas testified:
`
`Q. … So in your Figure A in that bottom portion, you’ve
`illustrated the pilot block as consisting of N, sub I, con-
`tinuous samples, correct?
`A. The pilot block is N, sub I, continuous samples, yes.
`…
`Q. Okay. And so if we focus on the first pilot block
`you’ve illustrated in the bottom portion of Figure A,
`within the frame structure, is it fair to say that that pilot
`block is inserted into the middle of the frame?
`A. … Well, it’s clearly not inserted in the beginning of
`the frame. In this particular example, this pilot block is
`not inserted at the end of the frame, so inserted some-
`where within the frame. Whether it’s exactly the middle
`or not, I don’t know.
`
`This testimony is relevant to ¶ 13 of Dr. Haas’ supplemental declaration, which
`
`concludes that “[t]he pilot symbols and training symbols are inserted in a similar
`
`manner so as to result in separate OFDM symbols (which are in the time domain).”
`
`The testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that Dr. Haas’ time domain pilot
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01185
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,127
`
`
`symbols are equivalent to the ’127 patent’s description of training blocks, which
`
`are “one or more continuous sections of symbols provided by the pilot/training
`
`symbol inserter 46” (’127 patent, 7:30–32) and “may also be inserted in other parts
`
`of the signal structures, such as the middle or end of the frame structures” (’127
`
`patent, 7:35–37). It is also relevant to ¶ 8 of Dr. Haas’ supplemental declaration,
`
`where he quotes Dr. Hartogs as stating “Obviously, if you get to the point where
`
`you have the entire block filled with pilots, then it really has just become another
`
`training symbol” because it shows that Dr. Hartogs’ interpretation of training
`
`blocks and pilot blocks is more consistent with the ’127 patent than Dr. Haas’ in-
`
`terpretation.
`
`Observation No. 13
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 45, lines 5–10, Dr. Haas testified regarding Figure A of his
`
`supplemental declaration:
`
`Those boxes which are – which are, you know, drawn
`here, some of them are training symbols. Some of them
`are pilot symbols. Where they go depends where they’re
`supposed to go. Training symbols would go to the pre-
`amble of the frame. Pilot symbols would go into some-
`where in the middle of the frame.
`
`This testimony is relevant to ¶ 7 of Dr. Haas’ supplemental declaration, which con-
`
`cludes that “pilot symbols have the same structure as training symbols … in the
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01185
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,127
`
`
`time domain, but the pilot symbols are arranged within groups of data symbols, as
`
`opposed to being at the beginning of a transmission.” The testimony is relevant be-
`
`cause it demonstrates that Dr. Haas’ main distinction between training symbols and
`
`pilot symbols—that one is at the beginning of transmission and one is in the mid-
`
`dle of the frame—runs contrary to the ’127 patent’s description of training blocks,
`
`which “may also be inserted in other parts of the signal structures, such as the mid-
`
`dle or end of the frame structures” (’127 patent, 7:35–37).
`
`Observation No. 14
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 16, lines 4 through 6, Dr. Haas testified:
`
`Training symbols which are in the preambles are used to
`synchronize the transmission of this particular frame that
`I put in.
`
`This testimony is relevant to ¶¶ 6–7 of Dr. Haas’ supplemental declaration, which
`
`discusses the Mody provisional’s use of the term “pilots” because it demonstrates
`
`that the Mody provisional uses the term “pilots” to refer to training symbols be-
`
`cause it “present[s] a general method of forming efficient sequence structures
`
`which can be used for parameter estimation as well as synchronization.” (Mody
`
`Provisional, Abstract.)
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Observation No. 15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,127
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 57, lines 7 through 18, Dr. Haas testified:
`
`Q. … And my question was whether you considered
`when you were preparing your supplemental declaration
`whether or not the system [in the Mody provisional] was
`synchronized prior to using S, sub K.
`…
`A. … as I sit here right now, I do not recall now or at the
`time of preparation of my supplemental declaration
`whether the S, sub Ks are used to synchronize the system
`that was already previously synchronized, partially syn-
`chronized, or not.
`
`(Objections omitted.) Dr. Haas also testified that “if the system was partially syn-
`
`chronized, then the pilots will improve the synchronization or it calibrates the sys-
`
`tem to … bring it to better synchronization.” (Haas Second Depn., 58:6–9.) This
`
`testimony is relevant to ¶¶ 6–7 of Dr. Haas’ supplemental declaration, which dis-
`
`cusses the Mody provisional’s use of the term “pilots,” and ¶ 14 of Dr. Haas’ sup-
`
`plemental declaration, which distinguishes training symbols from pilot symbols in
`
`that “[t]raining symbols are used for initial synchronization.” The testimony is rel-
`
`evant because it demonstrates that the Mody provisional uses the term “pilots” to
`
`refer to training symbols because the pilot symbols in the ’127 patent are used to
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01185
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,127
`
`
`improve synchronization after the system is already synchronized, and the Mody
`
`provisional does not disclose that its system is already synchronized or that its pi-
`
`lots improve an initial synchronization.
`
`Observation No. 16
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 59, line 10 to page 60, line 14, Dr. Haas testified:
`
`Q. So can you point me to where in Exhibit 1035 it states that syn-
`chronization is for small-scale synchronization?
`A. Synchronizations for small scale? I don’t think this was small
`scale… I don’t think that the 1035, you know, necessarily only lim-
`its itself to – to – only to one type of synchronization.
`
`And if you allow me to quote…the second paragraph, right
`column, the second sentence, it says here, “The short sequence is
`used for time synchronization and coarse frequency offset estima-
`tion whereas the long sequence is used for fine frequency offset in
`channel estimation.”
`
`Clearly, they talk about both fine and coarse frequency offset
`estimation. So they talk both about – both type of synchronization.
`Q. But isn’t this paragraph referring to the IEEE 802.11a standard?
`A. Right, but they – but they talk about what – the sequences are
`being used.
`This testimony is relevant to ¶ 14 of Dr. Haas’ declaration, which quotes the ’127
`
`patent as stating that pilot blocks “calibrate (i.e., synchronize) the receiver 16 to
`
`the transmitter 14 on a small scale,” whereas “[t]raining blocks are used for initial
`
`synchronization,” because it demonstrates that the Mody provisional does not dis-
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01185
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,127
`
`
`cuss small-scale synchronization, which is how pilots are used in the ’127 patent.
`
`This testimony is also relevant to ¶¶ 6–7 of Dr. Haas’ declaration, which discuss
`
`the use of the term “pilots” in the Mody provisional. The testimony is relevant be-
`
`cause it demonstrates that the Mody provisional uses the term “pilots” in the same
`
`manner as the ’127 patent uses the term “training blocks.”
`
`Observation No. 17
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 62, line 8 to page 63, line 2, Dr. Haas testified that the ’127
`
`patent describes the short and long sequences from the IEEE 802.11a standard as
`
`being “part of the preamble structure.” This testimony is relevant to ¶¶ 6–7 of Dr.
`
`Haas’ declaration, which discuss the use of the term “pilots” in the Mody provi-
`
`sional, because it demonstrates that the portion of the Mody provisional that Dr.
`
`Haas pointed to in his deposition as disclosing both coarse and fine synchroniza-
`
`tion is limited to the preamble structure, and therefore the Mody provisional uses
`
`the term “pilots” in the same manner as the ’127 patent uses the term “training
`
`blocks.”
`
`Observation No. 18
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 51, line 15 to page 52, line 2, Dr. Haas testified that the por-
`
`tion of the Mody provisional that he relied on for his supplemental declaration
`
`“does not make – make any reference to the term ‘data blocks,’” and that “it also
`
`does not talk about inserting pilots into data blocks.” This testimony is relevant to
`
`13
`
`

`
`1111 6-7 of Dr. Haas’ supplemental declaration because it demonstrates that the Mo-
`
`dy provisional is not relevant to interpretation of the claim 1 element that recites
`
`IPR2014—01185
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,127
`
`“inserts pilot symbols into data blocks.”
`
`Observation No. 19
`
`In Exhibit 2011, page 49, lines 3 through 8, Dr. Haas acknowledged that the ’ 127
`
`patent does not claim priority to Exhibit 1035, which Dr. Haas calls “the Mody
`
`provisional.” (Ex. 2011, 48:10-17.) This testimony is relevant to 1111 6-7 of Dr.
`
`Haas’ supplemental declaration, in which Dr. Haas interprets the Mody Provision-
`
`al’s treatment of the term “pilots” in relation to the ’127 patent. The testimony is
`
`relevant because it demonstrates that the Mody Provisional does not necessarily
`
`disclose the same invention as the ’127 patent and its use of the term “pilots” is not
`
`necessarily representative of that term’s use in the ’ 127 patent.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/
` {L ad Counsel, Patent Owner
`
`Date: September 1 1, 2015
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01185
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,269,127
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6§en
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR.
`
`ZYGMUNT HAAS and Exhibit 2011 were served electronically via e-mail on
`
`September 1 1, 2015 in their entirety on the following:
`
`J. Andrew Lowes (Lead Counsel)
`David M. O’De1l (Back—up Counsel)
`John Russell Emerson (Back—up Counsel)
`Clint Wilkins (Back-up Counsel)
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`
`andrew.lowes.ipr@haynesboone.com
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`russell.emerson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`clint.wilkins.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`
`
`(Reg. No. 50,633)
`L i / . Gord
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Date: September 1 1, 2015
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 371-2600