Case 2:16-cv-00062-JRG-RSP Document 88-6 Filed 12/07/16 Page 2 of 417 PageID #:
` 2389
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Civ. A. No. 2:16-cv-62-JRG-RSP
`(Lead Case)
`
`Civ. A. No. 2:16-cv-61-JRG-RSP
`(Consolidated)
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC AND
`PANOPTIS PATENT MANAGEMENT, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY CORPORATION, et al
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD GITLIN, SC.D, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`I, Richard Gitlin, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I make this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Optis Wireless Technology, LLC
`
`and PanOptis Patent Management, LLC (“PanOptis”) Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, the statements made herein are based on my personal knowledge, and if
`
`called to testify in Court, I could and would testify competently and truthfully with regards to
`
`this matter.
`
`2.
`
`My name is Richard Gitlin. I have been retained as a technical expert by counsel
`
`for PanOptis to address certain issues in support of PanOptis’ Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`
`I understand this declaration is to be used in the matter of PanOptis v. BlackBerry, 2:16-cv-0062-
`
`JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.). I have been asked to review the below identified patents and related
`
`materials and based upon that review to provide my expert opinion regarding the proper
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1011, pg. 1
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00062-JRG-RSP Document 88-6 Filed 12/07/16 Page 3 of 417 PageID #:
` 2390
`
`construction for various terms. I previously provided expert declarations in support of PanOptis’
`
`claim construction briefs regarding some of the same patents addressed here in PanOptis v. ZTE
`
`Corp., 2:15-cv-300-JRG-RSP, which I will refer to as the “ZTE matter.” I have reviewed the
`
`Court’s opinion on claim construction issues from that case (Dkt. 116), which I will refer to as
`
`“the ZTE Claim Construction Order.”
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual consulting rate of $675 per hour for my work
`
`related to this dispute. My compensation is in no way dependent on the outcome of this dispute
`
`or the testimony or opinions that I give.
`
`4.
`
`My curriculum vitae and testimony list are included in Appendix A to this
`
`declaration.
`
`5.
`
`My opinions and conclusions are fully discussed in later sections of this
`
`declaration.
`
`6.
`
`In reaching these opinion and conclusions, I have relied upon my education,
`
`experience and training, my review of the patents, the patent prosecution history, and my review
`
`of the evidence produced in this matter. A list of materials relied upon is provided in Appendix
`
`B.
`
`7.
`
`I reserve any right that I may have to supplement this declaration if further
`
`information becomes available or if I am asked to consider additional information. Furthermore,
`
`I wish to reserve any right that I may have to consider and comment on any additional expert
`
`statements and testimony of BlackBerry’s experts in this matter. I may also rely on
`
`demonstrative exhibits to explain my testimony and opinions.
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1011, pg. 2
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00062-JRG-RSP Document 88-6 Filed 12/07/16 Page 4 of 417 PageID #:
` 2391
`
`A.
`
`8.
`
`Education and Experience
`
`I received a Bachelor’s Degree (with honors) in electrical engineering from the
`
`City College of New York, and a Master of Science in electrical engineering and a Doctorate in
`
`engineering science from Columbia University. I am currently a State of Florida 21st Century
`
`Scholar, Distinguished University Professor, and the Agere Systems Chaired Professor of
`
`Electrical Engineering at the University of South Florida (“USF”). I have more than 45 years of
`
`experience in the field of communications and wireless communications in particular.
`
`Throughout my career, I have managed and led research in wireline and wireless systems,
`
`broadband and optical networking, multimedia communications, and access technologies.
`
`9.
`
`After receiving my doctorate from Columbia University in 1969, I joined Bell
`
`Laboratories (“Bell Labs”), which at the time was part of the Bell System, and eventually
`
`became AT&T Bell Labs, and then became Lucent Technologies-Bell Labs (now Alcatel-Lucent
`
`Bell Labs). I was with Bell Labs in its various instantiations for 32 years. My first assignment
`
`was in the data communications (“modem”) area and, during this time, I contributed to the
`
`invention of many key modem technologies. I was also involved in the product realization,
`
`standardization, and introduction of several pioneering modem products. I was the leader of the
`
`V.32 modem development team in the early 1980s, assembled the team that developed the V.34
`
`modem, and I was a co-inventor of Digital Subscriber Line (“DSL”) technology in 1985-1986.
`
`10.
`
`In 1987, I moved to Bell Labs research to lead research on wireless systems, high-
`
`speed packet switching, optical networking, and related areas. I held several senior executive
`
`positions in Bell Labs, and one of these positions was Senior Vice President for Communication
`
`Sciences Research. In this position, included in my responsibilities were all of Bell Labs
`
`wireless communications research projects, including time division multiple access (“TDMA”),
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1011, pg. 3
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00062-JRG-RSP Document 88-6 Filed 12/07/16 Page 5 of 417 PageID #:
` 2392
`
`code division multiple access (“CDMA”), and OFDM research for both cellular and wireless
`
`local area network (“WLAN” or WiFi) systems. In this position, I oversaw over 500
`
`professionals, many of whom were involved in wireless communications and network research,
`
`and many of whom are regarded as innovators in wireless technologies. In particular, I
`
`established and oversaw the Bell Labs research group located in Utrecht, The Netherlands that
`
`was focused on creating WLAN technology. This group was involved in the research and
`
`exploratory development of CDMA and OFDM WLAN systems. In addition, I oversaw a
`
`cellular wireless research group located in Swindon, UK. The Bell Labs research groups
`
`working on wireless research in the United States also reported to me and included several
`
`researchers working on OFDM and MIMO. At Bell Labs, I was personally involved in MIMO
`
`technology, working with and extending the work of some the original inventors.
`
`11.
`
`Throughout my career, I have conducted and led pioneering research and
`
`development in digital communications, wireless systems, and broadband networking that has
`
`resulted in many innovative products. I am the named inventor on more than 50 issued United
`
`States patents, the author, or co-author, of over 100 journal and conference articles and a
`
`graduate level data communications textbook, and I have given numerous keynote presentations,
`
`including premier wireless conferences, such as WAMICON 2016, Wireless Communications
`
`and Networking Conference 2015 (“WCNC 2015”), Wireless Telecommunications Symposium
`
`2015 (“WTS 2015”), Mobicom 2004, Wireless Communications and Networking Conference
`
`2003 (“WCNC 2003”), and the Wireless Telecommunications Symposium 2010 (“WTS 2010”).
`
`I am the co-recipient of three prize paper awards including the 1995 IEEE Communications
`
`Society’s Steven O. Rice Award, the 1994 IEEE Communications Society’s Frederick Ellersick
`
`Award, and the 1982 Bell System Technical Journal Award.
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1011, pg. 4
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00062-JRG-RSP Document 88-6 Filed 12/07/16 Page 6 of 417 PageID #:
` 2393
`
`12.
`
`In addition to my responsibilities at Bell Laboratories and Lucent Technologies,
`
`from 1999 to 2001, I was a Visiting Professor of Electrical Engineering at Columbia University,
`
`where I taught courses, conducted research, and supervised doctoral students in the area of
`
`communications and wireless networking. From 2001-2003, I was an Adjunct Professor of
`
`Electrical Engineering at Columbia University.
`
`13.
`
`From 2001 to 2004, I was Vice President, Technology and Chief Technical
`
`Officer of NEC Laboratories America, Inc., where I had specific responsibility for wireless
`
`networking, broadband and IP systems, system LSI, quantum communications, and bio-
`
`informatics.
`
`14.
`
`From 2002 to 2005, I served on the Board of Directors of PCTEL, a NASDAQ
`
`company (PCTI) focused on wireless technologies.
`
`15.
`
`From 2005 to 2008, I was Chief Technical Officer of Hammerhead Systems, a
`
`Silicon Valley venture-funded start-up and market leader in providing innovative data
`
`networking solutions for wireline, wireless, and cable service providers. At Hammerhead
`
`Systems, I was responsible for product line vision and system architecture, developing core
`
`technologies, representing product technology and directions with customers, partners, and
`
`standards bodies.
`
`16.
`
`In 2008, I assumed my current position at USF, and in March 2010, I co-founded
`
`a medical device company to design and market in vivo wireless devices to facilitate minimally
`
`invasive surgery.
`
`17.
`
`In 1986-1987, I was named a Fellow of the IEEE and an AT&T Bell Laboratories
`
`Fellow. In 2005, I was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Engineering (“NAE”), and I
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1011, pg. 5
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00062-JRG-RSP Document 88-6 Filed 12/07/16 Page 7 of 417 PageID #:
` 2394
`
`was also a co-recipient of the Thomas Alva Edison patent award. I am also a Charter Fellow
`
`(2012) of the National Academy of Inventors (“NAI”).
`
`18.
`
`I served as the Chair of the Communication Theory Committee of the IEEE
`
`Communications Society (COMSOC), as a member of the COMSOC Awards Board, the Editor
`
`for Communications Theory of the IEEE Transactions on Communications, as a member of the
`
`Board of Governors of the IEEE Communications Society, and as a member of the Nominations
`
`and Elections Board.
`
`19.
`
`I also served on the Advisory Committee for Computer Science and Engineering
`
`(“CISE”) of the National Science Foundation.
`
`20.
`
`I was a founding Editorial Board member of the Bell Labs Technical Journal, and
`
`have served on the Editorial Boards of Mobile Networks and Applications and the Journal of
`
`Communications Networks.
`
`21.
`
`For more than 15 years, I presented an intensive five-day short course on wireless
`
`systems to industrial, government, and academic participants, from wireless organizations
`
`throughout the world.
`
`22.
`
`Since joining USF in 2008, I have focused my research on the intersection of
`
`wireless communications and networking with medicine and created an interdisciplinary team
`
`that is focused on wireless networking of in vivo miniature wirelessly controlled devices to
`
`advance minimally invasive surgery and other cyber-physical health care systems. I teach
`
`graduate courses in Random Processes, Digital Communications, and Wireless Networking.
`
`23.
`
`A detailed record of my professional qualifications is set forth in the attached
`
`Appendix A, which is my curriculum vitae, including a list of publications, awards, research
`
`grants, and professional activities.
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1011, pg. 6
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00062-JRG-RSP Document 88-6 Filed 12/07/16 Page 8 of 417 PageID #:
` 2395
`
`B. Materials Reviewed
`
`24.
`
`In connection with this declaration, I have read U.S. Patent No. 7,783,949 (“the
`
`’949 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,064,919 (“the ’919 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,199,792
`
`(“the ’792 patent”) (the Standard-Essential, or “SEP Patents”). I have also reviewed the
`
`prosecution histories for these patents and the documents cited in this declaration.
`
`25.
`
`I have reviewed the proposed construction and evidence disclosed in the parties’
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart1 in connection with these claim construction proceedings. My
`
`opinions regarding claim construction are based on my understanding of the parties’ proposed
`
`constructions as of the date of this declaration. If the parties alter those constructions after this
`
`declaration is submitted, I may, if appropriate and permitted, submit a supplemental declaration
`
`addressing any new constructions.
`
`C.
`
`26.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I have been asked to offer my opinion regarding the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art with respect to each of the Asserted Patents. In my opinion, with regard to the ’949 patent, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering,
`
`Computer Engineering, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the design,
`
`development, and/or testing of cellular base stations or mobile devices. This description is
`
`approximate, and a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and
`
`vice-versa.
`
`27.
`
`In my opinion, with regard to the ’919 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or a related
`
`field, and at least two years of experience in the design, development, and/or testing of cellular
`
`1 Dkt. 85-2, Joint Claim Construction Statement, including Ex. B
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1011, pg. 7
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00062-JRG-RSP Document 88-6 Filed 12/07/16 Page 9 of 417 PageID #:
` 2396
`
`base stations or mobile devices. This description is approximate, and a higher level of education
`
`or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.
`
`28.
`
`In my opinion, with regard to the ’792 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or a related
`
`field, and at least two years of experience in the design, development, and/or testing of cellular
`
`base stations or mobile devices. This description is approximate, and a higher level of education
`
`or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.
`
`D.
`
`29.
`
`Scope of Opinions
`
`I understand the parties have provided agreed upon construction of various terms
`
`in the claims of the Asserted Patents. I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding the
`
`meaning of certain disputed claim terms as understood by one of ordinary skill at the time of the
`
`invention. My opinions are based on my understanding of what the disputed claim terms and
`
`proposed construction were, and what the evidence relied upon by the parties was, as of the time
`
`that I executed this declaration.
`
`E.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`Legal Standards Relied Upon
`
`Certain legal principles that relate to my opinions have been explained to me.
`
`I have been informed that ultimately the Court will determine the matter of how
`
`specific terms shall be construed. The intent of this declaration is to help inform the Court how a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the meaning of certain disputed claim terms
`
`in the context of the Asserted Patents’ claims, specification, and prosecution history in a manner
`
`that will assist the Court in the process of finding a proper set of constructions.
`
`32.
`
`It is my understanding that, generally, terms found in a patent claim should be
`
`given their plain and ordinary meaning, as a person of ordinary skill in the appropriate art would
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1011, pg. 8
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00062-JRG-RSP Document 88-6 Filed 12/07/16 Page 10 of 417 PageID #:
` 2397
`
`understand them. Further, it is my understanding that a patentee can decide to act as their own
`
`lexicographer by explicitly defining terms to have specific meaning within the bounds of the
`
`patent specification. Finally, it is my understanding that statements made to the patent office by
`
`the patentee or their legal representative during prosecution can serve to illuminate the proper
`
`scope of claim terms and such statements must be considered when one searches for the
`
`appropriate claim construction. I have endeavored, to the best of my ability, to take into account
`
`all of these factors during the process of my analysis.
`
`33.
`
`In determining the meaning of the claims, I have followed my ordinary practice
`
`for claim construction. My analysis is in accord with long-established principles of claim
`
`construction—giving a claim term its ordinary meaning that one of skill in the art, at the time of
`
`the invention and in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, would have given
`
`it, except in two unusual circumstances: (1) where the intrinsic record provides a special
`
`definition for the term; or (2) where the patentee disclaims a portion of the term’s ordinary
`
`meaning.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that when a claim uses the word “means” to describe a limitation, we
`
`presume that the limitation is a “means plus function” limitation. I further understand that when
`
`a claim does not use the word “means,” there is a rebuttable presumption that the limitation is not
`
`a “means plus function” limitation. I understand that the procedure for construing a “means plus
`
`function” claim limitation involves first defining the function of the limitation, and then
`
`identifying the corresponding structure for that function. I understand that the function of a
`
`means-plus-function limitation is construed to include the limitations contained in the claim
`
`language, and only those limitations. Further, I understand that the corresponding structure is
`
`identified by looking at the specification and prosecution history of the patent.
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1011, pg. 9
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00062-JRG-RSP Document 88-6 Filed 12/07/16 Page 11 of 417 PageID #:
` 2398
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`35.
`
`In the sections below, I offer my opinions on the claim terms and phrases that are
`
`disputed by BlackBerry and PanOptis.
`
`’919 Patent
`
`I understand that PanOptis asserts the ’919 patent has a priority date of March 23,
`
`A.
`
`36.
`
`2007.
`
`37.
`
`I previously provided expert declarations that addressed the ’919 patent in the
`
`ZTE matter. I have reviewed the Court’s opinion on claim construction issues from that case in
`
`the ZTE Claim Construction Order and have taken it into account in my opinions below.
`
`1.
`
`“a determination unit . . .” / “a reception unit . . . ” / “a transmission
`unit . . .”
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`This term is subject to
`112(f)
`
`
`
`PanOptis’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`This claim term should not
`be governed by 35 U.S.C. §
`112(6).2
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`This claim term should not
`be governed by 35 U.S.C. §
`112(6).
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`This term is subject to
`112(f)
`
`
`Cls.
`
`Disputed Term
`
`1, 2
`
`1
`
`“a determination unit configured
`to determine a resource of
`downlink, to which a response
`signal transmitted from the base
`station is mapped, from an index
`of the allocated resource block
`based on the allocation
`information”
`“a reception unit configured to
`receive, from a base station,
`allocation information indicating
`one or a plurality of allocated
`resource block(s) of uplink, the
`resource blocks being
`
`2 I have been informed that 35 USC § 112(6) applies to the asserted patents because they have
`effective filing dates prior to the version of the statute that renamed that paragraph as Section
`112(f). I understand that the language of the statute is the same for this section regardless of which
`citation is used.
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1011, pg. 10
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00062-JRG-RSP Document 88-6 Filed 12/07/16 Page 12 of 417 PageID #:
` 2399
`
`PanOptis’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’
`Proposed
`Construction
`
`This term is subject to
`112(f)
`
`
`
`This claim term should not
`be governed by 35 U.S.C. §
`112(6).
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`
`
`Cls.
`
`Disputed Term
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`consecutive in a frequency
`domain”
`“a transmission unit configured
`to transmit data using the
`allocated resource block(s)
`based on the allocation
`information”
`
`38.
`
`I have been asked to give my opinion regarding whether the “determination unit,”
`
`“reception unit,” and “transmission unit” terms identified above as used in the ’919 patent would
`
`have connoted structure to one of skill in the art at the time of the ’919 patent’s priority date. In
`
`my opinion, they would.
`
`39.
`
`I previously addressed this issue for each of these terms in my December 22, 2015
`
`declaration. Specifically, I addressed “transmission unit” at paragraphs 45 through 46,
`
`“reception unit” at paragraphs 47 and 48, and “determination unit” at paragraphs 49 through 51.
`
`I further addressed the “determination unit” term in paragraphs 33 through 38 of my January 27,
`
`2016 declaration in the ZTE matter.
`
`40.
`
`The Court in the ZTE matter found that the “determination unit . . .” term denotes
`
`structure. ZTE Claim Construction Order at 53-55. The Court also noted that the parties in the
`
`ZTE matter ultimately agreed that “reception unit” and “transmission unit” did not need to be
`
`presented to the Court for construction, from which “the Court understands that there is no
`
`dispute that ‘reception unit’ and ‘transmission unit’ are structural.” ZTE Claim Construction
`
`Order at 54. I agree with the Court’s conclusion and analysis, and reiterate my prior opinions for
`
`each term in turn below.
`
`41.
`
`In my opinion, the term “determination unit” has a meaning that would be
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1011, pg. 11
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00062-JRG-RSP Document 88-6 Filed 12/07/16 Page 13 of 417 PageID #:
` 2400
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and file history.
`
`Specifically, the term “determination unit” would be understood to be a structure configured to
`
`determine a resource of downlink, to which a response signal transmitted from the base station is
`
`mapped, from an index of the allocated resource block based on the allocation information. The
`
`’919 patent gives an example of such a determination unit structure: mapping specifying section
`
`209, which “holds the association information between uplink RBs and downlink control
`
`channels shown in FIG. 3 and the downlink control channel mapping information shown in FIG.
`
`6, and specifies the downlink control channels to which response signals for the mobile station
`
`are mapped, from the RB allocation information received.” 8:8-14. Further to this exemplary
`
`structure, the ’919 patent explains that the determination unit “holds” the relevant “association
`
`information” via a lookup table structure as shown in Fig. 3. The determination unit structure
`
`receives “RB allocation information . . . as input from decoding section 208 . . . and outputs the
`
`specified result to demultiplexing section 205.” 6:8-20.
`
`42.
`
`The patent expressly describes that the ’919 patent’s embodiments, as disclosed,
`
`are “configured by hardware.” 22:26-29. The patent further discloses that the embodiments may
`
`be implemented by an LSI comprised of an integrated circuit, software, a Field Programmable
`
`Gate Array, or a reconfigurable processor. 22:26-48. Taken in combination with the above
`
`disclosures regarding mapping specifying section 209, including the lookup table structure as
`
`shown in Figure 3, it is my opinion that the ’919 patent discloses that the determination unit of
`
`the claims is a structural component—that is, a configurable resource selector within a mobile
`
`unit that is configured to identify the resources of the relevant downlink signal. Further, in my
`
`opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to take the claims of the patent and the
`
`description in the specification—including that which is described above—and implement a
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1011, pg. 12
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00062-JRG-RSP Document 88-6 Filed 12/07/16 Page 14 of 417 PageID #:
` 2401
`
`determination unit configured to determine a resource of downlink, to which a response signal
`
`transmitted from the base station is mapped, from an index of the allocated resource block based
`
`on the allocation information.
`
`43.
`
`To one of skill in the art reading the claims of the ’919 patent in light of the ’919
`
`patent specification, a “reception unit” is the physical part of a wireless device that receives
`
`signals, in this case RF (radio frequency) signals that represent a downlink message from a base
`
`station to a mobile station. The reception unit is a receiver. The terms “reception unit” and
`
`“receiver” both refer to a class of structures that is well-known by those skilled in the art of
`
`wireless communication. The components of a receiver or reception unit in the context of
`
`wireless communications were widely known in 2007. Reception units were a fundamental part
`
`of wireless devices, as they are today, since they are needed to receive wireless signals. In order
`
`to receive a wireless signal, it was widely understood that a reception unit comprised several
`
`basic structural components. For example, it is my understanding that BlackBerry has identified
`
`the corresponding structure of the “reception unit” as an “integrated circuit” implementing an
`
`algorithm “in connection with sections 202-208 and antenna 201 of FIG. 5.” See the Joint Claim
`
`Construction Chart at 10. I agree the antenna 201 as well as the components of the radio
`
`receiving section 202 (the down-converter and A/D converter), which could be implemented as
`
`an integrated circuit (22:30-48), are all structural. See 5:44-48; Fig. 5. In my opinion, these
`
`structures are connoted by the term “reception unit,” as used in the ’919 patent claims. Also,
`
`based on my experience, a reception unit would have been understood to include an antenna,
`
`which is a physical component designed to receive radio frequency signals. Further, in my
`
`experience, the analog to digital converter and RF down-converter, in addition to the antenna
`
`discussed above, would have been regarded as well-known dedicated receiver circuitry to one of
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1011, pg. 13
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00062-JRG-RSP Document 88-6 Filed 12/07/16 Page 15 of 417 PageID #:
` 2402
`
`skill in the art at the time of the ’919 patent. In my experience, these structures are readily
`
`identifiable to those skilled in the art in a torn down handset.
`
`44.
`
`To one of skill in the art reading the claims of the ’919 patent in light of the ’919
`
`patent specification, a “transmission unit” is the physical part of a wireless device that transmits
`
`signals, in this case, RF (radio frequency) signals that represent an uplink message from a mobile
`
`station to a base station. The transmission unit is a transmitter. The terms “transmission unit”
`
`and “transmitter” both refer to a class of structures that is well-known by those skilled in the art
`
`of wireless communication. The components of a transmitter or transmission unit in the context
`
`of wireless communications were widely known in 2007. Transmission units were a
`
`fundamental part of wireless devices, as they are today, since they are needed to transmit signals
`
`wirelessly. In order to transmit a signal wirelessly, it was widely understood that a transmission
`
`unit comprised several basic structural components. For example, it is my understanding that
`
`BlackBerry has identified the corresponding structure of the “transmission unit” as an “integrated
`
`circuit” implementing an algorithm “in connection with sections 214 and 218 and antenna 201 of
`
`FIGS. 5.” See the Joint Claim Construction Chart at 13. I agree the antenna 201, as well as the
`
`components of the radio transmitting section 218 (the D/A converter, RF up-converter, and
`
`amplifier), which could be implemented as an integrated circuit (22:30-48), are all structural. See
`
`6:58-63; Fig. 5. In my opinion, these structures are connoted by the term “transmission unit,” as
`
`used in the ’919 patent claims. Also, based on my experience, a transmission unit would have
`
`been understood to include an antenna, which is a physical component designed to emit radio
`
`frequency signals. A transmission unit would also have included an amplifier, which is another
`
`well-known physical component that would be selected to ensure reception over the required
`
`physical range of communication. Further, in my experience, a digital to analog converter and
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1011, pg. 14
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00062-JRG-RSP Document 88-6 Filed 12/07/16 Page 16 of 417 PageID #:
` 2403
`
`RF up-converter, in addition to the antenna and amplifier discussed above, would have been
`
`regarded as well-known dedicated transmitter circuitry to one of skill in the art at the time of the
`
`’919 Patent. In my experience, these structures are readily identifiable to those skilled in the art
`
`in a torn down handset.
`
`’792 Patent
`
`I understand that PanOptis asserts the ’792 patent has a priority date of June 12,
`
`B.
`
`45.
`
`2007.
`
`46.
`
`I previously provided expert declarations that addressed the ’792 patent in the
`
`ZTE matter. I have reviewed the Court’s opinion on claim construction issues from that case in
`
`the ZTE Claim Construction Order and have taken it into account in my opinions below.
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`This term is subject to 112(f)
`
`[See Dkt. 85-2 at pp. 15-16 for the
`proposed structure and function
`identified by BlackBerry]
`
`1.
`
`“a spreading unit . . ”
`
`Cls.
`
`Disputed Term
`
`1, 3-
`4, 6,
`12,
`14,
`20-21
`
`
`“a spreading unit
`configured to spread
`an ACK or NACK
`with an orthogonal
`sequence, which is
`one of plural
`orthogonal sequences,
`and with a sequence
`defined by a cyclic
`shift value, which is
`one of plural cyclic
`shift values and which
`is associated with the
`orthogonal sequence””
`
`
`PanOptis’ Proposed
`Construction
`This claim term should
`not be governed by 35
`U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`No construction
`necessary.
`
`
`[See Dkt. 85-2 at pp. 15-16
`for the proposed structure
`and function identified if
`this term were subject to
`112 ¶ 6]
`
`47.
`
`I have been asked to give my opinion in regard to whether the term “spreading
`
`
`
`unit” as used in the ’792 Patent would have connoted structure to one of skill in the art at the
`
`time the 792 Patent was filed. In my opinion, it would. I provided a similar opinion in the ZTE
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1011, pg. 15
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00062-JRG-RSP Document 88-6 Filed 12/07/16 Page 17 of 417 PageID #:
` 2404
`
`matter, and I understand that ZTE withdrew their contention because I had presented substantial
`
`evidence of use in the art of spreading unit and related term spreader to connote structures. ZTE
`
`Claim Construction Brief at fn.35 on p.34.
`
`48.
`
`In the art of wireless telecommunications, spreading is generally known as a
`
`process by which a signal with a particular bandwidth is deliberately spread in the frequency
`
`domain, resulting in a signal with a wider bandwidth. Typically, the process involves
`
`multiplying a narrowband signal by a broadband signal to produce a broadband signal of greater
`
`bandwidth than the original signal. The signals can be in-phase and quadrature, that is, complex
`
`signals. Often the narrowband and broadband signals can be viewed and processed as digital
`
`sequences or signals. Similarly, a digital signal is spread by multiplying it by a sequence of bits
`
`representing real or complex numbers, that is, a spreading signal (sequence). In the ’792 patent,
`
`the spreading sequences are orthogonal sequences. The examples of the two types of orthogonal
`
`sequences described in the ’792 patent specification are Walsh sequences and Zadoff-Chu
`
`sequences, the latter of which are a type of orthogonal sequence that are defined by cyclic shift
`
`values in the corresponding claims. Orthogonal sequences are members of a set of more than
`
`one sequence that are each orthogonal to each other. Sequences are orthogonal if the dot product
`
`of distinct sequences is zero.
`
`49.
`
`Orthogonal sequences are often used in wireless communications because, under
`
`many conditions, signals spread using orthogonal sequences do not interfere with one another
`
`when modulated onto the same frequencies. A device on the receiving end of a communication
`
`system can recognize the distinct signals that have been spread if they are spread with different
`
`orthogonal sequences and will make use of these sequences to extract the desired signal(s) from
`
`the composite spread signal. The ’792 patent explains that under real world conditions,
`
`BlackBerry Exhibit 1011, pg. 16
`
`

`
`Case 2:16-cv-00062-JRG-RSP Document 88-6 Filed 12/07/16 Page 18 of 417 PageID #:
` 2405
`
`orthogonality can be compromised by adverse conditions such as physical obstructions that
`
`produce multipath