EXHIBIT 14 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 1 of 181 PageID #:

2156
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 1 - 

EXPERT DECLARATION OF DR. KEVIN NEGUS 

FOR

INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,177,369 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 2 of 181 PageID #:

2157
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 2 - 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................3

II. QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................................................................................5

III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ..................................................................12

IV. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING .................................................................................................14

V. THE ‘369 PATENT .................................................................................................................19

A. Overview of the ‘369 Patent ................................................................................19

B. Prosecution File History of the ‘369 Patent .......................................................30

C. Asserted Claims and Priority Date .....................................................................36

D. Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness ................................................................39

VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................................40

VII. STATE OF THE ART .......................................................................................................42

A. Yamamoto (Ex. 1004) ..........................................................................................43

B. Wong (Ex. 1005) ...................................................................................................49

C. Minn (Ex. 1006) ....................................................................................................58

D. Yeh (Ex. 1007) ......................................................................................................67

E. Heiskala (Ex. 1008) ..............................................................................................73

F. Sindhushayana (Ex. 1009) ...................................................................................84

G. Lehne (Ex. 1010)...................................................................................................86

VIII. OBVIOUSNESS OF THE ‘369 PATENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 DUE TO WONG, 

MINN AND/OR LEHNE ..............................................................................................................94

IX. CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................180

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 3 of 181 PageID #:

2158
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 3 - 

I. INTRODUCTION 

I, Dr. Kevin Negus, submit this declaration in support of a Petition for Inter 

Partes Review of United States Patent No. 7,177,369 (the “‘369 Patent”), owned by XR 

COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES (“XR” or “Patent Owner”). I 

have been retained in this matter by counsel for Ericsson, Inc. and Nokia Corporation of America 

(“Petitioners”). I understand that Petitioners are the Real Party-in-Interest to this Petition. 

I make this declaration based upon my personal knowledge. I am over the age of 

21 and am competent to make this declaration. 

The statements herein include my opinions and the bases for those opinions, 

which relate to at least the following documents of the pending inter partes review petition: 

§ U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369 by W. Crilly, Jr., entitled “Multipath communication methods 

and apparatuses” (the “‘369 Patent”) (Ex. 1001). 

§ File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369 (Ex. 1002). 

§ US Provisional Patent Application No. 60/287,163 (the “‘163 Application”) (Ex. 1011). 

§ U.S. Patent No. 6,252,914 by T. Yamamoto, entitled “Radio Communication System” 

(“Yamamoto”) (Ex. 1004). 

§ “Multiuser OFDM with Adaptive Subcarrier, Bit, and Power Allocation” by C. Y. Wong 

et al., IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Vol. 17, No. 10, Oct. 1999 

(“Wong”) (Ex. 1005). 

§ “An Investigation into Time-Domain Approach for OFDM Channel Estimation” by H. 

Minn et al., IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, Vol. 46, No. 4, Dec. 2000 (“Minn”) 

(Ex. 1006). 

§ “Channel Estimation Using Pilot Tones in OFDM Systems” by C. Yeh et al., IEEE 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 4 of 181 PageID #:

2159
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 4 - 

Transactions on Broadcasting,Vol. 45, No. 4, Dec. 1999 (“Yeh”) (Ex. 1007). 

§ OFDM Wireless LANs: A Theoretical and Practical Guide, by J. Heiskala and J. Terry, 

ISBN: 0672321572, Sams Publishing, First Printing: Dec. 2001 (“Heiskala”) (Ex. 1008). 

§ U.S. Patent No. 6,594,318 by N. Sindhushayana, entitled “Method and apparatus for 

computing soft decision input metrics to a turbo decoder” (“Sindhushayana”) (Ex. 1009). 

§ “An Overview of Smart Antenna Technology for Mobile Communications Systems”, 

IEEE Communications Surveys, 4th Quarter, 1999, Vol. 2, No. 4 by Per H. Lehne and 

Magne Pettersen (“Lehne”) (Ex. 1010). 

§ Declaration of Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee (Ex. 1012). 

§ Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC’s Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted Claims and 

Infringement Contentions (Ex. 1013). 

§ G. J. Foschini and M. J. Gans, “On limits of wireless communications in a fading 

environment when using multiple antennas”, Wireless Personal Communications 6, pp. 

311–335, 1998 (Ex. 1014). 

My materials considered for forming my opinions herein have included at least 

the above-referenced documents. 

Although I am being compensated for my time at my normal and customary rate 

in preparing this declaration, the opinions herein are my own, and I have no stake in the outcome 

of the review proceeding. My compensation does not depend in any way on the outcome of the 

Petitioner’s petition. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 5 of 181 PageID #:

2160
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 5 - 

II. QUALIFICATIONS 

I am qualified by education and experience to testify as an expert in the field of 

telecommunications. Attached, as Attachment A, is a copy of my resume detailing my 

experience and education. Additionally, I provide the following overview of my background as it 

pertains to my qualifications for providing expert testimony in this matter. 

I am currently a Full Professor of Electrical Engineering at Montana Tech 

University in Butte, MT. I lead research programs at Montana Tech that include developing 

communications solutions for extremely low power sensors in challenging locations such as 

alpine mountains and watersheds including federally-designated wilderness areas and for control 

of critical infrastructure distributed continentally and globally including within severe 

environments such as arctic forests. For example, I am currently the Principal Investigator on a 

Montana Tech research program funded indirectly by the US military to improve wireless 

communications under battlefield conditions for the US Army 11th Airborne based in Alaska. I 

also mentor, supervise and teach both senior undergraduate and graduate students of Electrical 

Engineering in the general fields of telecommunications and networking with an emphasis on 

wireless systems. 

In 1988, I received my Ph.D. in Engineering from the University of Waterloo in 

Canada. The Departments of Electrical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering jointly 

supervised my Ph.D. research on the modeling of bipolar semiconductor devices. My graduate 

course work was primarily in Electrical Engineering and included such subjects as 

semiconductor device physics and fabrication, wireless circuit design, and wireless propagation 

analysis. For my Ph.D. work, I received the Faculty Gold Medal in 1988 for the best Ph.D. thesis 

in the entire Faculty of Engineering across all Departments for that year. My Ph.D. thesis 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 6 of 181 PageID #:

2161
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 6 - 

research also formed the basis of a paper published in 1989 that won the award for Best Paper in 

1989 for the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) journal in which it was 

published. 

In 1984 and 1985, respectively, I received the B.A.Sc. and M.A.Sc. Degrees in 

Mechanical Engineering from the University of Waterloo in Canada. My coursework and 

research work included, amongst many other topics, extensive embedded firmware development 

for automation applications and implementation of networks and communications protocols. For 

my M.A.Sc. Degree research and academic achievements, I received the prestigious University 

Gold Medal in 1985 for the best Masters thesis in the entire University of Waterloo for that year. 

In 1986, I joined the Palo Alto Research Center of Fairchild Semiconductor in 

Palo Alto, CA. At Fairchild, I participated in the development of devices and products for highspeed applications such as wired networking, RISC microprocessors and wireless 

communications. 

In 1988, I took the position of Member of the Technical Staff at Avantek, Inc. in 

Newark, CA. I was hired to develop products for both wireless and wired data networking 

applications. Some of the components I developed early in my career at Avantek were used for 

1st generation wireless local area network (WLAN) products, voice band modem equipment, 

wired data networking both in the LAN and WAN and 1st generation cellular handsets and base 

stations based on AMPS or TACS. 

In 1991, the Hewlett-Packard Company purchased Avantek, Inc. I continued to 

work for Hewlett-Packard until 1998 in such roles as IC Design Manager, Director of Chipset 

Development and Principal System Architect. In 1992, Hewlett-Packard assigned me to work on 

the “Field of Waves” project, which was a major multi-division effort to build WLAN products 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 7 of 181 PageID #:

2162
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 7 - 

for mobile computers. The project was cancelled in 1993. However, the work I did on the 

project was leveraged into producing the world’s first IEEE 802.11 chipset, which my division at 

Hewlett-Packard first offered for sale in 1994. I led the project to develop and market this 

chipset for many early WLAN product companies including Proxim, Symbol (now part of 

Motorola) and Aironet (now part of Cisco). I also helped coordinate efforts within HewlettPackard to guide extensive research projects on WLAN protocols and technology at HewlettPackard’s central research laboratories in Palo Alto, CA and Bristol, U.K. 

In 1998, I joined Proxim, Inc. in Mountain View, CA. At that time, Proxim was 

engaged in the development and sale of wired and wireless products for home and enterprise 

networking applications based on several different wired and wireless networking protocols. I 

stayed at Proxim through 2002 and was the Chief Technology Officer for this publicly-traded 

company at the time of my departure. During my career at Proxim, I led or participated in the 

development of many WLAN and WWAN products and/or chipsets for network adapters, OEM 

design-in modules, access points, bridges, switches, and routers that used a wide variety of bus, 

LAN, or WAN wired interfaces. I have supervised many engineers including those responsible 

for embedded firmware development to implement various wired and wireless networking, 

reservation, and security protocols at the MAC layer and above, those responsible for HDL code 

creation of baseband chips to implement PHY and MAC algorithms, as well as other engineers 

that developed hardware reference designs, modem algorithms and chipsets. 

I note that specific to this matter that while I was Chief Technology Officer at 

Proxim that we developed the world’s first Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing 

(OFDM) wireless networking products for high speed data communications including custom 

integrated circuit chips and software. These products, which we first developed during 2000 and 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 8 of 181 PageID #:

2163
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 8 - 

2001, were based on the IEEE 802.11a standard and proprietary extensions that we added for 

increased performance. These products also utilized many of the same technology elements 

described and/or claimed in the ‘369 Patent when sold in the USA starting in 2001. 

Since 2002, I have been an independent consultant and have provided services to 

a number of companies including some that have developed IEEE 802.11 products. In particular, 

from 2002 until 2007 I was Chairman of WiDeFi, Inc. – a company that developed chips and 

embedded firmware for 802.11 repeater products based on 802.11a, b, g and draft n amendments. 

From 2007-2011, I was Chairman of Tribal Shout – a company that delivered IP voice and audio 

streaming media using VoIP to any cellular or landline phone including those reachable only by 

the circuit-switched connections such as the PSTN and 2nd generation cellular radio. From 

2010-2016, I was Chairman and Chief Technology Officer of CBF Networks, Inc. (dba Fastback 

Networks) – a company that developed fiber extension products for backhaul of data networks 

including Wi-Fi, HSPA, CDMA2000, WiMAX and LTE cellular radio systems. 

I have been a Board Observer on behalf of the venture capital firm Camp 

Ventures at two companies that develop semiconductor components including one that 

developed technology specifically to improve the system performance of HSPA and LTE cellular 

radio systems (Quantance) and another that provides system on a chip (SOC) microcontrollers, 

OEM design-in modules and firmware with 802.11 and wired interfaces for embedded 

applications (GainSpan). I have also been a technology and/or business strategy advisor to 

multiple early stage companies that are developing such products as new wireless 

communications security systems (AirTight), RFID radio systems (Mojix), time/frequency 

reference components (SiTime), and application of machine learning to wireless communications 

(Aira). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 9 of 181 PageID #:

2164
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 9 - 

I have actively monitored or participated in the IEEE 802.11 standards process 

continuously since 1989. I am a listed contributor to the highly successful IEEE 802.11g 

standard published in 2003 that describes a wireless communications protocol in use worldwide 

by over 5 billion devices. In 2002 and 2003, I participated in the IEEE 802.11 Wireless Next 

Generation Committee that was responsible for launching the 802.11n standards development 

process. 

I am an author or co-author of many papers that have been published in 

distinguished engineering journals or conferences such as those of the IEEE or ASME. An 

exemplary list of these publications is included in my resume. 

I am also a former member of the Federal Communication Commission’s 

Technological Advisory Committee as an appointee of then Chairman Michael Powell. I have 

also served on the Wyoming Telecommunications Council as an appointee of then Governor Jim 

Geringer after confirmation by the Wyoming State Senate. 

I am named as an inventor on numerous U.S. patents all of which have related in 

at least some way to products for wired and/or wireless networks. I believe that the following is 

a complete list as of this date for my approximately 88 issued U.S. Patents: 4,839,717, 

5,111,455, 5,150,364, 5,436,595, 5,532,655, 6,587,453, 7,035,283, 7,085,284, 7,187,904, 

8,095,067, D704174, 8,238,318, 8,300,590, 8,311,023, 8,385,305, 8,422,540, 8,467,363, 

8,502,733, 8,638,839, 8,649,418, 8,761,100, 8,811,365, 8,824,442, 8,830,943, 8,872,715, 

8,897,340, 8,928,542, 8,942,216, 8,948,235, 8,982,772, 8,989,762, 9,001,809, 9,049,611, 

9,055,463, 9,178,558, 9,179,240, 9,226,295, 9,226,315, 9,252,857, 9,282,560, 9,313,674, 

9,325,398, 9,345,036, 9,350,411, 9,374,822, 9,408,215, 9,474,080, 9,490,918, 9,572,163, 

9,577,700, 9,577,733, 9,578,643, 9,609,530, 9,655,133, 9,712,216, 9,713,019, 9,713,155, 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 10 of 181 PageID #:

2165
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 10 - 

9,713,157, 9,876,530, 10,051,643, 10,063,363, 10,129,888, 10,135,501, 10,237,760, 10,284,253, 

10,306,635, 10,313,898, 10,356,782, 10,506,611, 10,548,132, 10,700,733, 10,708,918, 

10,716,111, 10,720,969, 10,735,979, 10,736,110, 10,764,891, 10,785,754, 10,932,267, 

10,966,201, 11,134,491, 11,160,078, 11,166,280, 11,271,613, 11,283,192, 11,303,322, 

11,343,060, 11,343,684. 

I have provided expert testimony, reports or declarations in the cases of Agere v. 

Sony (on behalf of plaintiff Agere), Linex v. Belkin et al. (on behalf of defendant Cisco), CSIRO 

v. Toshiba et al. (multiple related cases on behalf of plaintiff CSIRO), Freedom Wireless v. 

Cingular et al. (on behalf of plaintiff Freedom Wireless), Rembrandt v. HP et al. (on behalf of 

defendant HP), DNT v. Sprint et al. (on behalf of the defendants Sprint, T-Mobile, US Cellular, 

Verizon and Novatel), Teles v. Cisco (on behalf of defendant Cisco), WiAV v. HP (on behalf of 

defendant HP), SPH v. Acer et al. (on behalf of defendants Sony, Nokia, Motorola, Novatel, 

Sierra and Dell), LSI v. Funai (on behalf of plaintiff LSI), WiAV v. Dell and RIM (on behalf of 

the defendants Dell and RIM), Wi-LAN v. RIM (on behalf of defendant RIM), LSI v. Barnes & 

Noble (on behalf of plaintiff LSI), Novatel v. Franklin and ZTE (on behalf of plaintiff Novatel), 

LSI v. Realtek (on behalf of plaintiff LSI), Wi-LAN v. Apple et al. (on behalf of defendants 

Apple, Sierra and Novatel), EON v. Sensus et al. (on behalf of defendants Motorola, US Cellular 

and Sprint), M2M/Blackbird v Sierra et al. (multiple related cases on behalf of defendants Sierra 

and Novatel), Intellectual Ventures v. AT&T et al. (on behalf of defendants AT&T, T-Mobile and 

Sprint), Intellectual Ventures v. Motorola (on behalf of defendant Motorola), TQ Beta v. DISH et 

al. (on behalf of defendant DISH), Qurio v. DISH et al. (on behalf of defendant DISH), Fatpipe 

v. Talari (on behalf of the defendant Talari), EON v. Apple (on behalf of defendant Apple), 

Chrimar v. Dell (on behalf of defendant Dell), Nokia v. LGE (on behalf of plaintiff Nokia), 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 11 of 181 PageID #:

2166
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 11 - 

PanOptis v. Blackberry (on behalf of defendant Blackberry), Customedia v. DISH et al. (on 

behalf of defendant DISH), Blackberry v. BLU (on behalf of plaintiff Blackberry), MTel v. 

Charter et al. (on behalf of defendants Charter, Time Warner, Cox and Bright House), Huawei v. 

Samsung (on behalf of plaintiff Huawei), Alacritech v. Wistron (on behalf of defendant Wistron), 

IPA v. DISH et al. (on behalf of defendant DISH), XR v. Ruckus et al. (on behalf of defendants 

Ruckus, Netgear and Belkin), Twilio v. Telesign (on behalf of plaintiff Twilio), Hera/Sisvel v. 

Arris et al. (on behalf of defendants Arris/Ruckus, Netgear, Amazon, Roku and Belkin), 

Intellectual Ventures v. Ericsson et al. (on behalf of defendants Ericsson, T-Mobile and Sprint), 

Sol IP v. AT&T et al. (on behalf of defendants AT&T, Verizon and Sprint), Soundview v DISH et 

al. (on behalf of defendants DISH and Sling Media), DISH v Peloton, iFIT and MIRROR (on 

behalf of plaintiffs DISH and Sling Media), XR v. D-Link et al. (on behalf of defendants D-Link, 

HP, Netgear and Belkin), SPV v HP (on behalf of defendant HP) and DISH v MG et al. (on 

behalf of plaintiffs DISH and Sling Media). I believe that the preceding list includes all cases 

that I have testified in as an expert at trial or by deposition at least during the past four years. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 12 of 181 PageID #:

2167
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 12 - 

III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART 

I understand that the content of a patent (including its claims) and prior art should 

be interpreted the way a person of ordinary skill in the art (or “POSITA”) would have interpreted 

the material at the alleged time of invention. 

I understand that the “alleged time of invention” here is no earlier than the date 

that the applicants for the ‘369 Patent first filed an application related to the ‘369 Patent, namely, 

Apr. 27, 2001. 

A person of ordinary skill in the art (referred to herein as a “POSITA”) at the 

alleged time of invention for the ‘369 Patent would have been a person familiar with wireless 

communications networks, equipment and integrated circuit chips, and would have had at least a 

working knowledge of the design of physical layer signal processing for Orthogonal Frequency 

Division Multiplexing (OFDM) wireless communications including the use of multiple antennas. 

For example, such a POSITA would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in 

Electrical Engineering or an equivalent field, and at least two years of work experience in 

developing OFDM-based wireless communications. Alternatively, a POSITA would have had a 

more advanced degree, such as a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or an equivalent 

field, combined with at least one year of work experience in developing OFDM-based wireless 

communications. 

In addition to my testimony as an expert, I am prepared to testify as someone who 

actually practiced in the field from 1986 to present, who actually possessed at least the 

knowledge of a POSITA within that time period including at the alleged time of invention, and 

who actually worked with others possessing at least the knowledge of a POSITA within that time 

period including at the alleged time of invention. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 13 of 181 PageID #:

2168
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 13 - 

I understand that the POSITA is a hypothetical person who is assumed to be 

aware of all the pertinent information that qualifies as prior art. In addition, the POSITA makes 

inferences and takes creative steps. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 14 of 181 PageID #:

2169
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 14 - 

IV. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING 

I have a general understanding of validity based on my experience with patents 

and my discussions with counsel. 

I understand that the claims of a patent are presumed valid. I understand that one 

factor to be considered in challenging this presumption of validity is whether or not prior art 

references cited by Petitioner are cumulative to one or more prior art references considered by 

the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”) in allowing the claims at issue. I understand 

that prior art references not specifically considered by the PTO are presumed to be noncumulative. I understand that if Patent Owner contends that certain prior art references are 

cumulative to one or more prior art references considered by the PTO, then Patent Owner has the 

burden to prove this contention with specificity, and further that Petitioner and/or its experts will 

be allowed to rebut the Patent Owner’s contention. 

I have a general understanding of prior art and priority date based on my 

experience with patents and my discussions with counsel. 

I understand that inventors may be entitled to a priority date earlier than an actual 

date of filing of a patent application that provides written description support for a particular 

claim to the extent that they can show complete possession of such a particular claimed invention 

at such an earlier priority date and reasonable diligence to reduce such a particular claimed 

invention to practice between such an earlier priority date and such an actual date of filing. I 

understand that if Patent Owner contends that particular claims are entitled to such an earlier 

priority date than such an actual date of filing, then Patent Owner has the burden to prove this 

contention with specificity. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 15 of 181 PageID #:

2170
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 15 - 

I understand that an invention by another must be made before the priority date of 

a particular patent claim in order to qualify as “prior art” under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, that a 

printed publication must be publicly available before the priority date of a particular patent claim 

in order to qualify as “prior art” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), that a printed publication must be 

publicly available more than one year prior to the actual date of filing of a patent application that 

provides written description support for a particular claim in the United States in order to qualify 

as “prior art” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), or that the invention by another must be described in an 

application for patent filed in the United States before the priority date of a particular patent 

claim in order to qualify as “prior art” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). I understand that Petitioner has 

the burden of proving that any particular reference or product usage or offer for sale is prior art. 

I have a general understanding of obviousness based on my experience with 

patents and my discussions with counsel. 

I understand that a patent claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious 

only if the differences between the claimed 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 of 

ordinary skill in that art. An obviousness analysis requires consideration of four factors: (1) 

scope and content of the prior art relied upon to challenge patentability; (2) differences between 

the prior art and the claimed invention; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the 

invention; and (4) the objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as commercial success, 

unexpected results, the failure of others to achieve the results of the invention, a long-felt need 

which the invention fills, copying of the invention by competitors, praise for the invention, 

skepticism for the invention, or independent development. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 16 of 181 PageID #:

2171
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 16 - 

I understand that a prior art reference is proper to use in an obviousness 

determination if the prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. I understand 

that a prior art reference is analogous art if at least one of the following two considerations is 

met. First a prior art reference is analogous art if it is from the same field of endeavor as the 

claimed invention, even if the prior art reference addresses a different problem and/or arrives at a 

different solution. Second, a prior art reference is analogous art if the prior art 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. 

I understand that it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the 

time of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation that a modification or 

combination of one or more prior art references would have succeeded. Furthermore, I 

understand that a claim may be obvious in view of a single prior art reference, without the need 

to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not found in the reference can be 

supplied by the knowledge or common sense of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. 

However, I understand that it is inappropriate to resolve obviousness issues by a retrospective 

analysis or hindsight reconstruction of the prior art and that the use of “hindsight reconstruction” 

is improper in analyzing the obviousness of a patent claim. 

I further understand that the law recognizes several specific guidelines that inform 

the obviousness analysis. First, I understand that a reconstructive hindsight approach to this 

analysis, i.e., the improper use of post-invention information to help perform the selection and 

combination, or the improper use of the listing of elements in a claim as a blueprint to identify 

selected portions of different prior art references in an attempt to show that the claim is obvious, 

is not permitted. Second, I understand that any prior art that specifically teaches away from the 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 17 of 181 PageID #:

2172
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 17 - 

claimed subject matter, i.e., prior art that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to a 

specifically different solution than the claimed invention, points to non-obviousness, and 

conversely, that any prior art that contains any teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify or 

combine such prior art reference(s) points to the obviousness of such a modification or 

combination. Third, while many combinations of the prior art might be “obvious to try”, I 

understand that any obvious to try analysis will not render a patent invalid unless it is shown that 

the possible combinations are: (1) sufficiently small in number so as to be reasonable to conclude 

that the combination would have been selected; and (2) such that the combination would have 

been believed to be one that would produce predictable and well understood results. Fourth, I 

understand that if a claimed invention that arises from the modification or combination of one or 

more prior art references uses known methods or techniques that yield predictable results, then 

that factor also points to obviousness. Fifth, I understand that if a claimed invention that arises 

from the modification or combination of one or more prior art references is the result of known 

work in one field prompting variations of it for use in the same field or a different one based on 

design incentives or other market forces that yields predicable variations, then that factor also 

points to obviousness. Sixth, I understand that if a claimed invention that arises from the 

modification or combination of one or more prior art references is the result of routine 

optimization, then that factor also points to obviousness. Seventh, I understand that if a claimed 

invention that arises from the modification or combination of one or more prior art references is 

the result of a substitution of one known prior art element for another known prior art element to 

yield predictable results, then that factor also points to obviousness. 

I understand that a dependent claim incorporates each and every limitation of the 

claim from which it depends. Thus, my understanding is that if a prior art reference fails to 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 18 of 181 PageID #:

2173
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 18 - 

anticipate an independent claim, then that prior art reference also necessarily fails to anticipate 

all dependent claims that depend from the independent claim. Similarly, my understanding is 

that if a prior art reference or combination of prior art references fails to render obvious an 

independent claim, then that prior art reference or combination of prior art references also 

necessarily fails to render obvious all dependent claims that depend from the independent claim. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 19 of 181 PageID #:

2174
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 19 - 

V. THE ‘369 PATENT 

The ‘369 Patent, entitled “Multipath communication methods and apparatuses” 

relates “to data communications, and more particularly to wireless communication systems, 

apparatuses and related methods that support wireless communication in a multipath signal 

propagation environment” (see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 1:14-17). 

A. Overview of the ‘369 Patent 

In the “Background” section, the ‘369 Patent observes that at the time of the 

invention that there was a desirability that “the user of a portable device will be free to move

around a region that is supported by the wireless network” even though “as the subscribers move

about freely there will not always be a clear or otherwise unobstructed communication path

between a transmitting network resource and the receiving device” and thus “there is need for 

improved methods and apparatuses that can support wireless communications within such 

varying environments” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 1:37-39, 1:49-52, 1:58-

60). 

In the “Summary” section, the ‘369 Patent states that “The above stated needs

and/or others are satisfied, for example, by a method in accordance with certain exemplary 

implementations of the present invention that includes identifying at least one multipath 

transmission delay within a reverse path data signal, determining at least one forward path preequalization parameter based on the transmission delay, and modifying a forward path data 

signal based on the forward path pre-equalization parameter” and further that “In accordance 

with certain other implementations, such pre-equalization techniques can be advantageously 

combined, for example, with antenna arrangements that support transmission diversity, spatial 

division transmission, and/or other like techniques” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 

at 2:1-8, 2:24-28). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 20 of 181 PageID #:

2175
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 20 - 

In a section entitled “Multipath Propagation Delays”, the ‘369 Patent observes 

as known in the art at the time of the alleged invention that “Multipath propagation is primarily 

the result of reflections and diffraction from objects in the coverage area of the transmitting and 

receiving antennas” and further that “High data rate communication systems may be subject to 

detrimental intersymbol interference caused by such multipath propagation or fading” (emphasis 

added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 3:12-17). 

Additionally, the ‘369 Patent observes as known in the art at the time of the 

alleged invention that “Multipath fading may be observed by examining the frequency domain 

characteristics of the communication channel” at least because such “multipath fading will often 

cause the channel transfer function to have frequency-dependent responses that alter the 

amplitude and phase modulation content of a received signal” (emphasis added, see, for example, 

Ex. 1001 at 3:22-27). 

In a section entitled “Traditional Modulation Techniques for Dealing with 

Multipath Propagation Delays”, the ‘369 Patent admits as known in the art at the time of the 

alleged invention that “Various modulation techniques have been used independently and/or in 

combination to ameliorate or avoid intersymbol interference” wherein such “modulation 

techniques that have been developed include the use of Orthogonal Frequency Division 

Multiplexing (OFDM) to significantly increase the symbol time” (emphasis added, see, for 

example, Ex. 1001 at 3:35-37, 3:62-64). 

More specifically, the ‘369 Patent explains that for such known OFDM 

technology that “OFDM operates by coding a series of bits into a set of modulated orthogonal 

sub-carriers, thus producing a symbol to be transmitted” that “typically includes a guard interval 

(GI) that contains a cyclic extension of the basic symbol” which “is typically designed to be 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 21 of 181 PageID #:

2176
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 21 - 

longer than the expected multipath propagation delay spread of the channel” (emphasis added, 

see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 3:66-4:6). 

In a section entitled “Traditional Antenna Techniques for Dealing with 

Multipath Propagation Delays”, the ‘369 Patent admits as known in the art at the time of the 

alleged invention that “various antenna designs may be used to further ameliorate the effects of 

multipath propagation and fading” such as when “Certain systems, for example, employ what is 

commonly referred to as spatial division techniques” whereby “transmitting antennas having 

narrow beam widths are employed to reduce multipath propagation caused by reflections from 

various objects by not illuminating those objects in the first place” (emphasis added, see, for 

example, Ex. 1001 at 4:46-54). 

More specifically, the ‘369 Patent explains that for such known spatial division 

technology that “Spatial division techniques may be performed with single or multielement 

transmitting and/or receiving antennas” wherein such “multielement antennas, for example, are 

also referred to as phased array antennas” which “are capable of providing flexible antenna 

patterns and simultaneously transmitting and receiving in several directions using the same 

antenna aperture” and thus “are very helpful in the reception and amelioration of signals that are 

affected by multipath fading” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 4:64-67, 5:9-15). 

In a section entitled “Conclusion Regarding Such Traditional Techniques”, the 

‘369 Patent admits that such “techniques described above greatly improve the capacity of a 

wireless system/network to carry information” but still contends that such “techniques/systems 

do not provide equalization for a large delay spread when the radio chipsets and associated 

physical layer standards do not include amelioration of these long delay spreads” (emphasis 

added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 6:14-15, 6:64-67). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 22 of 181 PageID #:

2177
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 22 - 

In a section entitled “Introducing Novel Pre-Equalization Techniques”, the 

‘369 Patent observes that “it is usually preferred that any required additional processing 

complexity be implemented at the node/location which is least subject to complexity restrictions, 

such as a base station or the like in a wireless communication system/network” and thus 

accordingly that “the present invention equalization techniques are provided for use at a 

transmitting node and configured to perform pre-equalization that substantially reduces 

unwanted effects associated with multipath fading, including retro-reflected propagation delays” 

(emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 7:10-20). 

Additionally, the ‘369 Patent observes that as known in the art at the time of the 

alleged invention that “reciprocity can be used to determine channel characteristics that are used 

while pre-equalizing a transmitted path” wherein such “use of a reciprocal channel is very 

useful, for example, when Time Division Duplex (TDD) channels are implemented” and thus 

“conventional techniques use OFDM signal sequences to correct for multipath effects due to 

multipath delay spread shorter than the guard interval” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 

1001 at 7:30-34, 7:43-45). 

The ‘369 Patent contends that its “exemplary OFDM pre-equalization technique

basically acts within the frequency band of OFDM sub-carriers to pre-equalize the multipath 

channel to handle multipath delay spread greater than the delay protection provided by 

conventional OFDM signal processing techniques, such as, e.g., the OFDM GI” such that “the 

receiver can still correct multipath effects that are less than the GI” (emphasis added, see, for 

example, Ex. 1001 at 7:64-8:3). 

The ‘369 Patent further contends that such “pre-equalization techniques use 

training sequences, which are contained within a reverse link received OFDM burst, to 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 23 of 181 PageID #:

2178
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 23 - 

specifically adjust associated transmission signals/parameters applied to subsequent OFDM 

transmissions back towards that particular node” wherein such “training sequences may or may 

not be part of the header and equalization sequences provided for in a conventional chipset or 

standard” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 8:4-11). 

In a section entitled “An Exemplary Multipath Environment”, the ‘369 Patent 

describes “FIG. 1” as a “a block diagram depicting an exemplary communication system 100

operating in a multipath environment” wherein “a base station device 102 is configured to 

exchange data with at least one customer premise equipment (CPE) device 104 through an 

antenna 108 and over a wireless communication link” while “in reverse order, CPE device 104

can transmit data over a wireless communication link to base station device 102 through antenna 

108” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 8:16-21, 8:28-30, FIG. 1 as reproduced 

below). 

More specifically, the ‘369 Patent explains that “Transmission 109 takes a direct 

path to CPE device 104” and “radiates and is reflected or diffused, for example, by one or more 

objects 110 that are closer to antenna 109” which “causes a multipath propagation signal 111 to 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 24 of 181 PageID #:

2179
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 24 - 

be directed towards CPE device 104” while also “some of the electromagnetic energy in 

transmission 109 can be retro-reflected back towards CPE device 104, as multipath propagation 

signal 115, by one or more objects 114 located further away from antenna 109” (emphasis 

added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 8:34-43). 

In a section entitled “Exemplary Base Station and CPE Nodes”, the ‘369 Patent 

describes “FIG. 2” as a “block diagram depicting functional units within base station device 102

and CPE device 104” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 8:54-55, FIG. 2 as 

reproduced below). 

In reference to FIG. 2 shown above, the ‘369 Patent states that “Transceiver 204

is configured to send and receive information in the form of data to/from network interface 202

and/or logic 206” as well as “to send and receive information in the form of data to/from antenna

108” wherein such “antenna 108 is representative of any number of transmitting and/or receiving 

elements provided in any suitable type of antenna configuration” including “a phased array 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 25 of 181 PageID #:

2180
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 25 - 

antenna having a plurality of elements” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 8:62-

9:4). 

In a section entitled “Providing a Pre-Equalization Capability at an 

Exemplary Base Station Node”, the ‘369 Patent describes “FIG. 3” as a “functional block 

diagram, wherein a set of coded data to be transmitted from base station device 102 to CPE

device 104 is further prepared, pre-equalized and eventually transmitted” (emphasis added, see, 

for example, Ex. 1001 at 9:49-52, FIG. 3 as reproduced below). 

In reference to FIG. 3 shown above, the ‘369 Patent states that “OFDM 

processing block 302 is configured to generate corresponding Quadrature Phase Shift Keying 

(QPSK) modulation values for each of forty-eight OFDM sub-carriers” that “may, for example, 

be output by an OFDM IFFT (not shown)” and “are then provided to a pre-equalization block

304” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 9:56-62). 

Additionally, the ‘369 Patent states that “Pre-equalization block 304 is configured 

to modify one or more of the OFDM modulated sub-carriers based on information from a 

reverse link processing block 308” that “is basically configured to identify multipath propagation 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 26 of 181 PageID #:

2181
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 26 - 

delays and/or problems for packets transmitted from CPE device 104 to base station device 102” 

(emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 9:63-10:1). 

More specifically, the ‘369 Patent states that “One exemplary way to recognize 

multipath delays is to have CPE device 104 transmit a known sequence of data/tones” such that 

“The received signal can then be compared or contrasted with the known sequence and 

differences detected, the differences being at least partially associated with the multipath 

communication environment” and then these “differences, or information derived from such 

differences can then be used within pre-equalization block 304 to modify, in some manner, as 

applicable, the OFDM modulated sub-carriers” which “are then provided to antenna processing 

block 306, wherein they are further processed and eventually transmitted using one or more 

antennas 108” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 10:2-13). 

However, the ‘369 Patent also admits that “Those skilled in the art will recognize

that reverse link processing block 308 and pre-equalization block 304 may be implemented in a 

variety of ways” such as when “reverse link processing block 308 may include a tapped 

transversal filter, or FFT/multipliers/IFFT filter of length on the order of the longest expected 

multipath delay” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 10:14-20). 

Accordingly, the ‘369 Patent states that “pre-equalization block 304 may be 

configured, in this example, to invert the measured channel response so that the pre-equalization 

and the actual subsequently induced channel response errors substantially cancel out” such that 

“transceiver 208 in the receiving CPE device will receive a signal that is essentially significantly 

free of troublesome multipath signals that are longer than the GI” (emphasis added, see, for 

example, Ex. 1001 at 10:31-37). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 27 of 181 PageID #:

2182
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 27 - 

The ‘369 Patent also states that “the subsequent multipath estimate can then be 

used to estimate antenna pointing and/or determine the near-optimal summation of signals 

received by the two phased array antennas” so that “The base station device 102 produces a 

directed signal to CPE device 104 using substantially the same antenna and pre-equalized 

settings/parameters” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 10:61-67). 

The ‘369 Patent further states that “When a phased array antenna 108 is used at 

the base station node to further ameliorate the effect of multipath, antenna element coefficients 

may be determined by evaluating, for example, the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) of the 

signals received on the elements of the phased array” such that “Knowing that the channel is 

essentially reciprocal allows a pre-equalization of the signals to be applied to the phased array 

during subsequent forward path transmissions from base station device 102 to CPE device 104” 

(emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 11:40-44, 11:62-66). 

Moreover, the ‘369 Patent notes that “In those systems where only a few transmit 

antennas are used, transmit antenna diversity and like techniques may also be implemented in 

place of phased array transmission/processing” such as when “transmit diversity may be 

implemented using simultaneous transmission of coded user data on diversity antennas” 

(emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 12:7-10, 12:24-26). 

The ‘369 Patent observes that “known headers that may be used to support 

training sequences can be found in the IEEE 802.11a standard” including “short and long 

sequences totaling a duration of about 8 μs” and in a section entitled “Some Exemplary 

Training Sequences”, the ‘369 Patent further recites that “CPE device 104 is configured to 

transmit a signal or signals back to base station device 102 over the reverse link transmission 

path” wherein “One or more of these transmissions may include training sequences that are 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 28 of 181 PageID #:

2183
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 28 - 

designed to allow reverse link processing block 308 (see FIG. 3) to determine what if any 

changes need to be made in pre-equalizing the signals transmitted on the forward link 

transmission path from base station device 102 to CPE device 104” (emphasis added, see, for 

example, Ex. 1001 at 12:45-47, 12:63-13:4). 

In a section entitled “Exemplary Frequency Domain Pre-Equalization 

Techniques”, the ‘369 Patent recites that “the pre-equalization techniques described herein may, 

for example, take advantage of frequency domain equalization techniques such as those 

described by Van Acker, et al.” as “adapted for use in pre-equalizing signals in the transmitting 

portion of a base station or like device/node” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 

14:30-42). 

More specifically, the ‘369 Patent describes for such “frequency domain 

equalization techniques” that this “essentially acts a sub-band equalizer in the transmitting node

(here, the base station device)” wherein “power may be set to be equal in each of the sub-bands, 

allowing regulatory rules, such as FCC rules, to be satisfied” while “the power may be 

substantially flattened over the spectrum” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 15:21-

29). 

In a section entitled “Using Reduced Spectral Power Density Transmissions”, 

the ‘369 Patent recites that in contrast to where “The power in each sub-carrier in the above 

example may be held substantially constant” that instead “A modification to the system involves 

the determination of a worst case path loss over the OFDM tones, for example, through the use 

of reciprocal measurements” such that “Then the highest allowed power spectral density for that 

particular sub-carrier is used, while the power spectral density for other tones is reduced to 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 29 of 181 PageID #:

2184
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 29 - 

allow the other tones to sustain the same level of QAM, QPSK, BPSK, etc.” (emphasis added, 

see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 15:31-39). 

The ‘369 Patent contends that “By reducing the power of the other tones, an 

improvement may be had with respect to the capacity of the system as a result of lower 

interference being generated” and that “doing so could allow the power amplifier to carry 

additional channels for the same PEP level” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 

15:39-43). 

Additionally, the ‘369 Patent states that “The requisite power spectral density 

needed to establish a level of QAM can be determined, for example, by path loss estimation and 

the knowledge of the reverse link power level transmitted on the reverse link” wherein “One 

exemplary method involves establishing a reverse link, having the CPE device provide 

information to the base station device regarding the power levels being used on the reverse link” 

so that “Next, reciprocal path loss measurements are made by the base station device and a link 

budget for a particular QAM level is determined” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 

15:44-54). 

Accordingly, the ‘369 Patent also states that “Then variations in channel path loss

can be used to set/reset minimum/maximum power levels for a particular QAM level, e.g., 16 

QAM” so that “Sub-carrier/channel equalization is then provided by the base station device and 

the signals are transmitted to the CPE device” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 

15:54-60). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 30 of 181 PageID #:

2185
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 30 - 

B. Prosecution File History of the ‘369 Patent 

I understand that on Apr. 25, 2002 that U.S. Patent Application No. 10/131,864 

by William J. Crilly, Jr., entitled “Improved Multipath Communication Methods And 

Apparatuses” was filed (see, for example, Ex. 1002 at p. 3). 

I understand the following to be original claims 1 and 42 of U.S. Patent 

Application No. 10/131,864 (from Ex. 1002 at pp. 37, 46): 

I understand that in Dec. 2005 that the US PTO rejected all pending claims of 

U.S. Patent Application No. 10/131,864 wherein original claim 1 shown above was rejected as 

being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,870,515 (“Kitchener”) in view of U.S. Patent 

Publication No. 2003/0058929 (“Cox”) and wherein original claim 42 shown above was rejected 

as being unpatentable over Kitchner in view of Cox further in view of U.S. Patent Publication 

No. 2002/00191540 (“Fujii”) (see, for example, Ex. 1002 at pp. 86, 106). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 31 of 181 PageID #:

2186
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 31 - 

I understand that applicant provided amended claims for U.S. Patent Application 

No. 10/131,864 and remarks in response to the above noted rejection in Jun 2006 (see, for 

example, Ex. 1002 at pp. 124-163, amended claim 1 as shown below). 

I understand that applicant informed the PTO regarding U.S. Patent Application 

No. 10/131,864 in the above noted Jun 2006 correspondence that “Cox is only directed to a 

receiving device that equalizes a received signal and/or conserves power in the receiving device, 

whereas Applicant describes and claims identifying a multipath transmission delay within a 

reverse path data signal received from a receiving device, determining a forward path preequalization parameter, and modifying a forward path data signal that is to be transmitted to the 

receiving device, as recited in claim 1” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1002 at p. 160). 

I understand that in Sep. 2006 that the US PTO rejected at least then-pending 

claims 1-41 of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/131,864 wherein at least then-pending claim 1 

shown above, as well as then-pending claims 2-5, 9, 12-15 and 28, were rejected as anticipated 

by U.S. Patent No. 6,252,914 (“Yamamoto”) (see, for example, Ex. 1002 at pp. 211-215). For 

example, the examiner provided at least the following summary of how Yamamoto anticipates 

such claims (from Ex. 1002 at pp. 213-215): 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 32 of 181 PageID #:

2187
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 32 - 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 33 of 181 PageID #:

2188
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 33 - 

Additionally, I understand that in Sep. 2006 that the US PTO rejected at least 

then-pending claims 1-41 of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/131,864 wherein at least thenpending claims 6-7, 10, 19, 21, 32-33, 35-37 and 41 were rejected as obvious over Yamamoto, 

without view to additional named prior art (see, for example, Ex. 1002 at pp. 216-219). For 

example, the examiner provided at least the following summary of how Yamamoto alone renders 

obvious such claims (from Ex. 1002 at pp. 217-219): 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 34 of 181 PageID #:

2189
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 34 - 

However, I also understand that in Sep. 2006 that the US PTO notified applicant 

that at least then-pending claim 42 “would be allowable if rewritten in independent form 

including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims” (see, for example, 

Ex. 1002 at p. 223). 

I understand that applicant provided amended claims for U.S. Patent Application 

No. 10/131,864 and remarks in response to the above noted rejection in Sep 2006 (see, for 

example, Ex. 1002 at pp. 228-249, amended claim 1 as shown below). 

I note that applicant did not provide written correspondence to the US PTO that 

expressed any disagreement with examiner’s above-excerpted descriptions of either disclosure in 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 35 of 181 PageID #:

2190
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 35 - 

Yamamoto of the additional limitations of at least then-pending claims 2-5, 9, 12-15 and 28 or 

obviousness to a POSITA of the additional limitations of at least then-pending claims 6-7, 10, 

19, 21, 32-33, 35-37 and 41 (see, for example, Ex. 1002 at pp. 228, 247-249). 

I understand that in Oct. 2006 that the US PTO notified the applicant of U.S. 

Patent Application No. 10/131,864 that then-pending claims were allowable (see, for example, 

Ex. 1002 at pp. 259-262). 

I understand that U.S. Patent Application No. 10/131,864 issued as U.S. Patent 

No. 7,177,369 on Feb. 13, 2007 (see, for example, Ex. 1001 at [45]). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 36 of 181 PageID #:

2191
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 36 - 

C. Asserted Claims and Priority Date 

The ‘369 Patent includes 91 claims. I understand that Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-15, 

19, 21, 28, 32-33, 35-37 and 41 of the ‘369 Patent are asserted in the District Court litigation 

(see, for example, Ex. 1013 at p. 2) and are subject to this Inter Partes Review petition. 

Accordingly, I may refer to Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-15, 19, 21, 28, 32-33, 35-37 and 41 of the ‘369 

Patent as the “challenged claims” herein. 

The ‘369 Patent was filed on Apr. 25, 2002 (see, for example, Ex. 1001 at [22]). 

However, I understand that in the District Court litigation that the Patent Owner alleges the 

priority date of at least the challenged claims of the ‘369 Patent to be Apr. 27, 2001 based upon 

US Provisional Patent Application No. 60/287,163 (the “‘163 Application”) to which the ‘369 

Patent claims priority to (see, for example, Ex. 1001 at 1:6-10, Ex. 1013 at p.7). 

In my opinion, at least the challenged claims of the ‘369 Patent should not be 

entitled to a priority date based on the ‘163 Application. 

For example, challenged claim 1 recites at least “modifying a forward path data 

signal ... based on said at least one forward path pre-equalization parameter” wherein “said 

modifying includes selectively setting different transmission power levels for at least two 

Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) tones” but limited to where said 

“forward path pre-equalization parameter” is determined based on “at least one multipath 

transmission delay” that has been identified “within a reverse path data signal”.

However, to the extent that the ‘163 Application may be alleged to show such 

“modifying a forward path data signal ... based on said at least one forward path preequalization parameter” wherein “said modifying includes selectively setting different 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 37 of 181 PageID #:

2192
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 37 - 

transmission power levels for at least two Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing 

(OFDM) tones”, such disclosure is within the following excerpt (from Ex. 1003 at pp. 54-55): 

Thus, the ‘163 Application at most discloses such “modifying a forward path data 

signal ... based on said at least one forward path pre-equalization parameter” wherein “said 

modifying includes selectively setting different transmission power levels for at least two 

Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) tones” wherein such “forward path 

pre-equalization parameter” is determined based on “info. regarding reverse link power level” 

that “is sent to B.S.” and “reciprocal path loss measurement” that “is made at BS” (emphasis 

added, see, for example, Ex. 1003 at p. 55). 

However, a POSITA would not understand that disclosure of a pre-equalization 

procedure based upon “info. regarding reverse link power level” that “is sent to B.S.” and 

“reciprocal path loss measurement” that “is made at BS” constitutes disclosure of a “forward 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 38 of 181 PageID #:

2193
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 38 - 

path pre-equalization parameter” that is determined based on “at least one multipath 

transmission delay” that in turn has been identified “within a reverse path data signal” at least 

because neither such “reverse link power level” nor such “reciprocal path loss measurement” 

disclose such “identifying at least one multipath transmission delay within a reverse path 

data signal” from which “determining at least one forward path pre-equalization 

parameter” is “based on” as required for at least all of the challenged claims. 

Accordingly, for purposes of this declaration, I have considered that either Apr. 

27, 2001 or Apr. 25, 2002 may be the priority date of the ‘369 Patent. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 39 of 181 PageID #:

2194
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 39 - 

D. Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness 

I understand that in the District Court litigation, Patent Owner has not yet 

provided any information regarding this topic. As of this writing, I am unaware of any 

information that would provide objective indicia of non-obviousness for any of the challenged 

claims of the ‘369 Patent. However, to the extent that Patent Owner (or its expert) provides 

opinions and/or analysis with respect to this topic, I reserve the right to supplement my opinions 

and analyses on this topic. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 40 of 181 PageID #:

2195
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 40 - 

VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 

I understand that claim construction is a matter of law. I further understand that 

in a Inter Partes Review proceeding that the claims are to be given their ordinary and customary 

(or “plain and ordinary”) meaning, as would be understood by a POSITA in the context of the 

entire disclosure and intrinsic record. I also understand that limitations from the specification of 

the patent are not to be read into the claims, and that conversely, not all claims necessarily 

encompass all material disclosed within the specification. The specification, however, can 

inform a POSITA as to the plain and ordinary meaning of the claims. In addition, I understand 

that a POSITA would look to statements made by the applicants during the prosecution file 

history to inform as to the plain and ordinary meaning of the claims. 

I understand that at least indefiniteness and lack of written description and/or 

enablement are potential invalidity issues that cannot be addressed as part of an Inter Partes

Review proceeding. Therefore, solely for the purposes of my prior art invalidity analyses herein 

as relevant to this Inter Partes Review proceeding, I have assumed claim constructions as 

appropriate for an Inter Partes Review proceeding even for such claims and/or claim elements 

that I may otherwise believe to be indefinite, lacking written description and/or non-enabled as 

may be set forth in the District Court litigation. 

I understand that in the District Court litigation involving the Petitioner that 

Patent Owner has not, as of this writing, identified any claim terms alleged to require 

constructions nor proposed any claim constructions thereof for the ‘369 Patent. However, Patent 

Owner has provided an allegation of infringement for at least the challenged claims of the ‘369 

Patent. Thus, Patent Owner appears to believe that the claim terms of the challenged claims of 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 41 of 181 PageID #:

2196
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 41 - 

the ‘369 Patent are at least as broad as would be necessary for such allegation of infringement to 

apply. 

I have applied a plain and ordinary meaning to all claim terms for the purposes of 

this Inter Partes Review proceeding. In my opinion, my analyses of obviousness herein would 

apply to any reasonable construction of the claim terms as well. 

In the event that one or more of these constructions is changed, or in the event 

that additional terms not specifically construed herein receive a proposed construction, I reserve 

the right to revisit my analysis under such additional construction(s). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 42 of 181 PageID #:

2197
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 42 - 

VII. STATE OF THE ART 

As of the possible priority date of the ‘369 Patent, the state of the art in the field 

of wireless communications for OFDM systems already fully encompassed the elements of the 

asserted claims of the ‘369 Patent, as evidenced in even the small sample of the art described 

herein. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 43 of 181 PageID #:

2198
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 43 - 

A. Yamamoto (Ex. 1004) 

For example, amongst the numerous prior art references in this field, U.S. Patent 

No. 6,252,914 by Takeshi Yamamoto, entitled “Radio Communication System” (“Yamamoto”) 

was filed on Jul. 20, 1999 and assigned to NEC (see, for example, Ex. 1004 at [10], [22], [73], 

[75]). Thus, I understand that Yamamoto qualifies as prior art to the ‘369 Patent at least under 

35 U.S.C. § 102(e). 

I note that Yamamoto was cited by the examiner during prosecution of the ‘369 

Patent and that the examiner determined that Yamamoto either disclosed or rendered obvious all 

limitations in the challenged claims except for the limitation of “where said modifying includes 

selectively setting different transmission power levels for at least two Orthogonal 

Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) tones in said forward path data signal” (see, for 

example, ¶¶ 78-82 above). 

Yamamoto “relates to a radio communication system, particularly to a radio 

communication system capable of reducing deterioration of transmission quality due to 

multipath fading” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1004 at 1:17-20). 

According to Yamamoto, “FIG. 1” discloses “terminal 2 and a base station 1

connected each other through a propagation path 3” wherein such “base station 1 is provided 

with a frequency converter 10 for frequency-converting the up-data sent from the terminal 2

through the propagation path 3 into a base band signal and outputting the signal, an A/D 

converter 20 serving as sample quantization means for sample-quantizing the base band signal 

outputted from the frequency converter 10, an automatic equalizer 30 for equalizing distortions 

of the propagation path 3 about the base band signal sample-quantized by the A/D converter 20, 

estimating the characteristic of the propagation path 3 in accordance with the base band signal 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 44 of 181 PageID #:

2199
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 44 - 

sample-quantized by the A/D converter 20, and outputting the estimation result as propagationpath-characteristic information, a demodulator 40 for demodulating the base band signal whose 

distortions are equalized by the automatic equalizer 30, a predistortion section 50 for adding the 

inverse characteristic of the propagation path 3 to down-transmission data in accordance with 

the propagation-path-characteristic information outputted from the automatic equalizer 30, and 

a modulator 60 for modulating the down-transmission data to which the inverse characteristic of 

the propagation path 3 is added by the predistortion section 50” (emphasis added, see, for 

example, Ex. 1004 at 3:35-61, FIG. 1 as reproduced below). 

Therefore, in my opinion, a POSITA would understand even before considering 

the detailed disclosure of Yamamoto to follow that Yamamoto is from the same field of 

endeavor as the ‘369 Patent and that Yamamoto is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by 

the ‘369 Patent (see, for example, ¶¶ 40-41 above regarding the ‘369 Patent in comparison with 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 45 of 181 PageID #:

2200
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 45 - 

the above-summarized introduction to Yamamoto). Accordingly, Yamamoto is analogous art to 

the ‘369 Patent. 

According to Yamamoto, “FIG. 2 is an illustration showing the configuration of 

the automatic equalizer 30 and the predistortion section 50 shown in FIG. 1” (emphasis added, 

see, for example, Ex. 1004 at 3:62-64, FIG. 2 as reproduced below). 

In reference to FIG. 2 shown above, Yamamoto discloses a “modulation method” 

that “uses the QPSK method” and explains that “In the base station 1, the up-data sent from the 

terminal 2 through the propagation path 3 is first frequency-converted into a base band signal

by the frequency converter 10 and the base band signal outputted from the frequency converter 

10 is sample-quantized by the A/D converter 20” so that “Then, in the Fourier transform circuit

31 of the automatic equalizer 30, the base band signal sample-quantized by the A/D converter 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 46 of 181 PageID #:

2201
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 46 - 

10 is converted into a frequency-region signal and outputted to the propagation-pathcharacteristic estimation section 32 and complex multiplier 34” (emphasis added, see, for 

example, Ex. 1004 at 4:57-58, 5:5-14). 

Additionally, Yamamoto explains that “Then, in the propagation-pathcharacteristic estimation section 32, the transfer function of the propagation path 3 is estimated 

in accordance with a reference signal for estimating a known propagation path characteristic 

regularly inserted into the up-data sent from the terminal 2 and a frequency-region signal 

corresponding to the reference signal among the frequency-region signals outputted from the 

Fourier transform circuit 31 and thereby, the propagation path characteristic H(ω) of the 

propagation path 3 is estimated” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1004 at 5:16-25). 

In continued reference to FIG. 2 shown above, Yamamoto also explains that 

“Then, in the complex divider 33, the propagation path characteristic H(ω) estimated by the 

propagation-path-characteristic estimation section 32 is complex-divided and thereby, the inverse 

characteristic 1/H(ω) of the propagation path characteristic H(ω) estimated by the propagationpath-characteristic estimation section 32 is computed” and “inputted to the selector 35” 

(emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1004 at 5:26-31, 5:39-42). 

Additionally, Yamamoto explains that “In the selector 35” that such “inverse 

characteristic 1/H(ω) of the propagation path 3 computed by the complex divider 33 is 

outputted after receiving the up-data, in accordance with a transmission/reception switching 

signal inputted from an external unit” so that subsequently such “inverse characteristic 1/H(ω) 

of the propagation path 3 is inverse-Fourier-transformed and thereby, an impulse response is 

computed and the computed impulse response is outputted to the predistortion section 50” 

(emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1004 at 5:43-50, 5:58-63). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 47 of 181 PageID #:

2202
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 47 - 

In further reference to FIG. 2 shown above, Yamamoto also explains that “Then, 

the impulse response of the inverse characteristic 1/H(ω) of the propagation path 3 outputted 

from the inverse Fourier transform circuit 36 is stored in the tap-coefficient memory 51 of the 

predistortion section 50” so that “Then, in the FIR filter 52, the convolutional operation between 

the down-transmission data to be transmitted to the terminal 2 and the impulse response of the 

inverse characteristic 1/H(ω) of the propagation path 3 is performed by using the impulse 

response stored in the tap-coefficient memory 51 as a tap coefficient and thereby, the inverse 

characteristic of the propagation path 3 is added to the down-transmission data and output to 

the converter 60” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1004 at 5:64-6:11). 

Accordingly, Yamamoto concludes that “As described above, in the case of this 

embodiment, the propagation characteristic of the propagation path 3 is estimated by the 

automatic equalizer 30 in the base station 1 and the inverse characteristic of the propagation 

path 3 is added to the down-transmission data to be transmitted to the terminal 2 in accordance 

with the estimation result” such that “even when a distortion is produced due to a multipath in 

the propagation path 3, the down-data transmitted from the base station 1 is correctly received 

by the terminal 2 and thereby, transmission quality is not deteriorated” (emphasis added, see, for 

example, Ex. 1004 at 6:23-33). 

I note that Yamamoto also recites 8 claims. Exemplary claims 6 and 7 are shown 

below (from Ex. 1005 at 8:59-9:36): 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 48 of 181 PageID #:

2203
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 48 - 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 49 of 181 PageID #:

2204
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 49 - 

B. Wong (Ex. 1005) 

For example, amongst the numerous prior art references in this field, “Multiuser 

OFDM with Adaptive Subcarrier, Bit, and Power Allocation” by C. Y. Wong et al. was 

published in the IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications at pp. 1747-1758 of Vol. 

17, No. 10, Oct. 1999 (“Wong”) (see, for example, Ex. 1005 at p. 1747). Thus, I understand that 

Wong qualifies as prior art to the ‘369 Patent at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b). 

In its “Abstract” section, Wong proposes for “Multiuser orthogonal frequency 

division multiplexing (OFDM)” a “multiuser OFDM subcarrier, bit, and power allocation 

algorithm to minimize the total transmit power” based upon “Assuming knowledge of the 

instantaneous channel gains for all users” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1005 at p. 

1747). 

More specifically, Wong teaches that this “power allocation algorithm” is “done 

by assigning each user a set of subcarriers and by determining the number of bits and the 

transmit power level for each subcarrier” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1005 at p. 

1747). 

In its “Introduction” section, Wong observes that “Recently, intense interest has 

focused on modulation techniques which can provide broadband transmission over wireless 

channels for applications including wireless multimedia, wireless Internet access, and futuregeneration mobile communication systems” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1005 at p. 

1747). 

More specifically, Wong notes that “One of the main requirements on the 

modulation technique is the ability to combat intersymbol interference (ISI), a major problem in 

wideband transmission over multipath fading channels” and that even though “There are many 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 50 of 181 PageID #:

2205
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 50 - 

methods proposed to combat the ISI” that “Multicarrier modulation techniques, including 

orthogonal frequency division multiplex (OFDM)” are “among the more promising solutions to 

this problem” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1005 at p. 1747). 

Wong further observes that “Assuming that the transmitter knows the 

instantaneous channel transfer functions of all users” then prior art papers “have demonstrated 

that significant performance improvement can be achieved if adaptive modulation is used with 

OFDM” because “subcarriers with large channel gains employ higher order modulation to carry 

more bits/OFDM symbol, while subcarriers in deep fade carry one or even zero bits/symbol” 

(emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1005 at p. 1747). 

Accordingly, Wong concludes as known from survey of the prior art that “As 

different subcarriers experience different fades and transmit different numbers of bits, the 

transmit power levels must be changed accordingly” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 

1005 at p. 1747). 

Therefore, in my opinion, a POSITA would understand even before considering 

the detailed disclosure of Wong to follow that Wong is from the same field of endeavor as the 

‘369 Patent and that Wong is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the ‘369 Patent (see, 

for example, ¶¶ 69-72 above regarding the ‘369 Patent in comparison with the abovesummarized Abstract and Introduction to Wong). Accordingly, Wong is analogous art to the 

‘369 Patent. 

Wong teaches that “In this paper, we formulate the multiuser subcarrier, bit, and 

power allocation problem” so that “the bit and power allocation algorithm can be applied to 

each user on its allocated subcarriers” as “can be applied, for instance, to the downlink 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 51 of 181 PageID #:

2206







Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 58 - 

C. Minn (Ex. 1006) 

For example, amongst the numerous prior art references in this field, “An 

Investigation into Time-Domain Approach for OFDM Channel Estimation” by H. Minn et al. 

was published in the IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting at pp. 240-248 of Vol. 46, No. 4, Dec. 

2000 (“Minn”) (see, for example, Ex. 1006 at p. 240). Thus, I understand that Minn qualifies as 

prior art to the ‘369 Patent at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and/or 102(b). 

In its “Abstract” section, Minn states that “A time-domain based channel 

estimation for OFDM system with pilot-data multiplexed scheme is investigated” wherein “intrasymbol time-averaging and most significant channel taps selection are applied” (emphasis added, 

see, for example, Ex. 1006 at p. 240). 

In its “Introduction” section, Minn observes that “Orthogonal frequency division 

multiplexing (OFDM)” has “recently achieved much popularity due to its desirable properties

such as its robustness to multipath delay spread and impulse noise, its high data rate

transmission capability with high bandwidth efficiency, and its feasibility in application of 

adaptive modulation and power allocation across the subcarriers according to the channel 

conditions” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1006 at p. 240). 

More specifically, Minn notes that OFDM “has been adopted” for at least “high 

rate wireless LAN standards such as ETSI HiperLAN 2 and IEEE 802.11(a), and multimedia 

wireless services such as Japanese MMAC (Multimedia Mobile Access Communications)” 

(emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1006 at p. 240). 

Minn explains that “If coherent OFDM system is adopted, channel estimation 

becomes a requirement and usually pilot tones are used for channel (frequency response) 

estimation” wherein “Pilot tones can be inserted in all subcarriers of a particular OFDM symbol

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 59 of 181 PageID #:

2214








Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 67 - 

D. Yeh (Ex. 1007) 

For example, amongst the numerous prior art references in this field, “Channel 

Estimation Using Pilot Tones in OFDM Systems” by C. Yeh et al. was published in the IEEE 

Transactions on Broadcasting at pp. 400-409 of Vol. 45, No. 4, Dec. 1999 (“Yeh”) (see, for 

example, Ex. 1007 at p. 400). Thus, I understand that Yeh qualifies as prior art to the ‘369 

Patent at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b). 

In its “Abstract” section, Yeh states that “Channel estimation techniques using 

pilot tones in OFDM systems are investigated” wherein “Based on theoretical analysis and 

computer simulation, for a channel with multipath distortion and AWGN, the proposed timedomain channel estimation schemes perform better than the conventional frequency domain 

channel estimation techniques” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1007 at p. 400). 

In its “Introduction” section, Yeh observes that “In an OFDM system, the 

incoming signal is transmitted using N equally spaced carriers with a carrier spacing of l/(NT) 

Hz, where T is the input data bit period” but subject to “Multipath” that “causes the channel 

transfer function to have variation in both spectral magnitude and spectral phase linearity” such 

that “The effect of multipath distortion is then reduced to amplitude attenuation and phase 

rotation of data in each carrier, and the channel equalization is reduced to a complex 

multiplication bank in front of the decision circuit at the receiver” (emphasis added, see, for 

example, Ex. 1007 at p. 400). 

Additionally, Yeh observes that “In the OFDM system, the estimation of the 

channel response uses in-band pilot tones inserted into each symbol with a pilot ratio PR =1/R” 

as “referred to as scheme A, as depicted in Fig. la” and also “An alternative is to insert pilot 

tones into all of the carriers in an OFDM symbol with a period of R, as depicted in Fig. 1b” as 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 68 of 181 PageID #:

2223
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 68 - 

“referred to as scheme B” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1007 at p. 400, Figure 1 as 

reproduced below). 

In its “Proposed Channel Estimation Techniques” section, Yeh states that “A 

typical OFDM system is depicted in Fig. 2”, which illustrates conventional “Channel model 

estimation of frequency pilot in the frequency domain” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 

1007 at p. 400, Figure 2 as reproduced below). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 69 of 181 PageID #:

2224
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 69 - 

In reference to Figure 2 shown above, Yeh explains that “Pilot tones are 

modulated with a PN sequence in the frequency domain and are inserted into each OFDM 

symbol with a ratio PR =1/R using scheme A” so that then “The channel response is estimated in 

the frequency domain using FFT processing and comparing received pilots with the locally 

stored reference pilots” wherein “This is referred to as the Frequency Pilot Frequency 

Interpolation (FPFI) technique since the channel response is obtained via frequency 

interpolation” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1007 at p. 401). 

Additionally, in reference to Figure 2 shown above, Yeh explains that “The pilot 

tones can also be inserted into the OFDM symbols using scheme B” so that “In this scheme, all 

pilot tones are inserted in the first OFDM symbol (pilot symbol) of a data frame” and then “The 

channel response is obtained by averaging several consecutive pilot symbols and comparing the 

average with a locally stored reference symbol” wherein “This technique is referred to as the 

Frequency Pilot Frequency Average (FPFA) technique” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 

1007 at p. 401). 

However, as Yeh previously noted, “In this paper, channel estimation conducted 

in the time domain is proposed” and “In one of the two proposed techniques, instead of the PN 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 70 of 181 PageID #:

2225
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 70 - 

sequence the positive and negative polarization pilot signals are alternatively inserted into 

OFDM symbols in the frequency domain using FPFI” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 

1007 at p. 401). 

For this first “time domain” technique, Yeh further explains that “An OFDM 

symbol can be regarded as several time slots, with each time slot having a pilot” and thus 

“Assuming that the impulse response of each time slot is identical, one can obtain the channel 

response in the time domain by averaging these time slots” wherein “This technique is referred 

to as the Frequency Pilot Time Average (FPTA) technique, as depicted in Fig. 3a” (emphasis 

added, see, for example, Ex. 1007 at p. 401, Fig. 3a as reproduced below). 

Additionally, for the second “time domain” technique, Yeh explains that “a PN 

sequence is periodically inserted into the OFDM symbol in the time domain, and the channel 

response can be obtained via correlation in the time domain” wherein “This technique is referred 

to as the Time Pilot Time Correlation (TPTC) technique, as depicted in Fig. 3b” (emphasis 

added, see, for example, Ex. 1007 at p. 401, Fig. 3b as reproduced below). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 71 of 181 PageID #:

2226

Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 72 - 

illustrated in Fig. 6” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1007 at p. 404, Fig. 6 as reproduced 

below). 

In its “Summary” section, Yeh concludes that “In this paper the channel 

estimation techniques (FPTA and TPTC) in the time domain using pilot tones for the OFDM 

system are presented” because “a higher P/N ratio can be obtained in the time domain” such that 

“the proposed estimation techniques outperform the conventional estimation techniques (FPFI 

and FPFA) in which the channel response is estimated in the frequency domain” (emphasis 

added, see, for example, Ex. 1007 at p. 404). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 73 of 181 PageID #:

2228

Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 74 - 

Heiskala provides Figure 1.2 as the “Basic elements of a digital communication 

system” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1008 at p. 13, Figure 1.2 as reproduced below). 

In reference to Figure 1.2 shown above, Heiskala explains that “Multiple access

refers to the remote sharing of a fixed communication resource (CR), such as a wireless channel, 

by a group of users” wherein “For wireless communications, the CR can be thought of as a 

hyperplane in frequency and time” and wherein “The goal of multiple access is to allow users to 

share the CR without creating unmanageable interferences with each other” (emphasis added, 

see, for example, Ex. 1008 at p. 25). 

Heiskala explains that “In mobile wireless communications, the information 

signals are subjected to distortions caused by reflections and diffractions generated by the 

signals interacting with obstacles and terrain conditions as depicted in Figure 1.11”, which 

depicts “Multipath scattering in mobile communications” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 

1008 at p. 28, Figure 1.11 as reproduced below). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 75 of 181 PageID #:

2230
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 75 - 

In reference to Figure 1.11 shown above, Heiskala explains that “Multipath is a 

term used to describe the reception of multiple transmission paths to the receiver” wherein “the 

channel can be accurately described by a random process; hence, the state of the channel will be 

characterized by its channel correlation function” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1008 

at p. 28). 

Heiskala observes that “Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) is a 

promising technique for achieving high data rate and combating multipath fading in wireless 

communications” wherein “Orthogonality amongst the carriers is achieved by separating the 

carriers by an integer multiples of the inverse of symbol duration of the parallel bit streams” 

such that “With OFDM, all the orthogonal carriers are transmitted simultaneously” or “In other 

words, the entire allocated channel is occupied through the aggregated sum of the narrow 

orthogonal subbands” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1008 at p. 31). 

Heiskala notes, specifically for around the time of the alleged invention of the 

‘369 Patent, that “Currently, there are three approved world WLAN standards that utilize OFDM

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 76 of 181 PageID #:

2231
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 76 - 

for their physical layer specifications, which are listed in Table 1.3, where HiperLAN/2 stands 

for High Performance Local Area Network type 2 and MMAC stands for Mobile Multimedia 

Access Communications” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1008 at p. 32, Table 1.3 as 

reproduced below). 

Heiskala also explains that “The physical layers of all the standards are very 

similar and are based on an OFDM baseband modulation” that “was selected to combat 

frequency selective fading and to randomize the burst errors caused by a wideband fading 

channel” wherein “A simplified block diagram of the IEEE 802.11a transceiver” is given by 

Figure 1.17 (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1008 at p. 36, Figure 1.17 as reproduced 

below). 

In reference to Figure 1.17 shown above, Heiskala explains that “Since OFDM is 

a frequency domain modulation technique, it is essential to have accurate estimates of the 

frequency offset, caused by oscillator instability, at the receiver” and “channel estimation is 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 77 of 181 PageID #:

2232




Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 81 - 

Heiskala notes for OFDM that “Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM)

changes both the amplitude and phase of the carrier” wherein “Figure 3.4 shows three QAM 

constellations: (a) 4-QAM or QPSK, (b) 8-QAM, and (c) 16-QAM” and further notes that 

“Especially QPSK and 16-QAM are very common modulations” (emphasis added, see, for 

example, Ex. 1008 at pp. 94-95, Figure 3.4 as reproduced below). 

In a chapter entitled “Antenna Diversity”, Heiskala notes that “Recent 

information theoretic results suggest that there is tremendous capacity potential for wireless 

communication systems using antenna diversity” as “multiple independent channels between 

transmitters and receivers” such as “antenna diversity or polarization discrimination” that 

“occurs when the independent paths are spatial in nature” because “there is sufficient spacing 

between the antenna elements at the transmitters and receivers such that there is no or very little 

correlation amongst their respective signals” and accordingly, such “antenna diversity can be 

used to either improve the link performance of a signal or increase data throughput”, and 

Heiskala further notes with reference to a 1998 publication that “OFDM systems are particularly 

well-suited for enhanced capacity using antenna diversity techniques” (emphasis added, see, for 

example, Ex. 1008 at p. 124, Ex. 1014 at § 6.2). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 82 of 181 PageID #:

2237
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 82 - 

More specifically, Heiskala describes that “When the channel is not AWGN but 

rather fading, diversity can be employed at the receiver” such that “It can be shown that multiple 

reception from a single transmitter can increase capacity” (emphasis added, see, for example, 

Ex. 1008 at p. 126). 

For example, Heiskala explains that “At the receiver, a linear combination of the 

antenna outputs are performed such that information contained in the input signal is maximized” 

by an “algorithm” that “is called the maximal ratio combining (MRC)” or “Another receive 

diversity technique, which is commonly used but not optimum, is selection diversity” that 

“selects the receive antenna with the highest SNR” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1008 

at pp. 126-127). 

More generally, Heiskala observes that “Spectral diversity is effective when the 

fading is frequency-selective” as “can be exploited when the available bandwidth for 

transmission is large enough that individual multipath components can begin to be resolved” 

such as in “OFDM systems” but “Even in situations where the fading channel is nonselective” 

Heiskala explains that “spatial diversity can be used to provide substantial improvement in 

system performance” through “the use of multiple antennas sufficiently well-separated at the 

receiver and/or the transmitter that the individual transmission paths experience effectively 

independent fading” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1008 at p. 131). 

Additionally, Heiskala explains that “receive diversity can be impractical in a 

number of applications” but “In such scenarios, the use of multiple antennas at the transmitter, 

which is referred to as transmit diversity, is significantly more attractive” and thus “Multiple 

element transmitter antenna arrays have an increasingly important role to play in emerging 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 83 of 181 PageID #:

2238



Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 86 - 

G. Lehne (Ex. 1010) 

For example, amongst the numerous prior art references in this field, “An 

Overview of Smart Antenna Technology for Mobile Communications Systems”, IEEE 

Communications Surveys, 4th Quarter, 1999, Vol. 2, No. 4 by Per H. Lehne and Magne Pettersen 

(“Lehne”) was published in 1999 (see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 1). Thus, I understand that 

Lehne qualifies as prior art to the ‘369 Patent at least under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b). 

Lehne states that “The technology of smart or adaptive antennas for mobile 

communications has received enormous interest worldwide in recent years” such as for a 

“cellular system” wherein “the radio communication is between the user and a base station, 

which provides radio coverage within a certain area, which is called a cell” (bold italic 

emphasis in original, other emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 2). 

Lehne notes that “The theory behind smart antennas is not new” because “The 

technique has for many years been used in electronic warfare (EWF) as a countermeasure to 

electronic jamming” while “In military radar systems similar techniques were already used 

during World War II” but “the technology almost exclusively suggested for land-based mobile 

and personal communications systems is array antennas” wherein “By maximizing the antenna 

gain in the desired direction and simultaneously placing minimal radiation pattern in the 

directions of the interferers, the quality of the communication link can be significantly improved” 

(bold italic emphasis in original, other emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 3). 

Lehne further notes that although “Several different definitions for smart antennas 

are used in the literature” that a “consistent definition can be that the difference between a 

smart/adaptive antenna and a “dumb”/fixed antenna is the property of having an adaptive and 

fixed lobe-pattern, respectively” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 4). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 87 of 181 PageID #:

2242
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 87 - 

Lehne explains that “Normally, the term “antenna” comprises only” the 

“radiating element” but “In the context of smart antennas, the term “antenna” has an extended 

meaning” of a “complete transceiver concept” that includes “a number of radiating elements, a 

combining/dividing network and a control unit” that “controls feeder parameters of the antenna, 

based on several inputs, in order to optimize the communications link” (italic emphasis in 

original, other emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 4). 

Additionally, Lehne explains that “Switched lobe (SL)” or “switched beam” is 

“the simplest technique” (or one of the “levels of intelligence”) as it “comprises only a basic 

switching function between separate directive antennas or predefined beams of an array” as 

“illustrated in Fig. 3” wherein a “setting that gives the best performance, usually in terms of 

received power, is chosen” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 4, Figure 3 as 

reproduced below). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 88 of 181 PageID #:

2243
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 88 - 

In reference to Figure 3 shown above, Lehne also explains for the “Dynamically 

phased array (PA)” that “By including a direction of arrival (DoA) algorithm for the signal 

received from the user, continuous tracking can be achieved and it can be viewed as a 

generalization of the switched lobe concept” wherein “the received power is maximized”, and 

accordingly “phased arrays will have a greater gain potential than switched lobe antennas 

because all elements can be used for diversity combining” (emphasis added, see, for example, 

Ex. 1010 at p. 4). 

Additionally, Lehne describes for the “Adaptive array (AA)” that “In this case, a 

DoA algorithm for determining the direction toward interference sources (e.g., other users) is 

added” such that “The radiation pattern can then be adjusted to null out the interferers” and 

further that with “space diversity techniques, the radiation pattern can be adapted to receive 

multipath signals which can be combined” in order to “maximize the signal to interference ratio

(SIR)” such that “an additional increase in capacity is achieved by allowing more users per 

carrier” (italic emphasis in original, other emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 4). 

Lehne teaches that with respectively increased capability from these “Switched 

lobe (SL)”, “phased array (PA)” and “Adaptive array (AA)” approaches that “the benefits of 

using smart antennas are many, there are also drawbacks and cost factors” (emphasis added, 

see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 5). 

For example, Lehne observes for the “Switched lobe (SL)” approach that “Such 

an antenna will be easier to implement in existing cell structures than the more sophisticated 

adaptive arrays, but it gives a limited improvement” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 

at p. 4). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 89 of 181 PageID #:

2244
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 89 - 

For example, Lehne notes for at least the “phased array (PA)” and “Adaptive 

array (AA)” approaches the need for “separate transceiver chains for each of the array antenna 

elements and accurate real-time calibration of each of them” wherein such “arrays” typically 

consist of “six to 10 horizontally separated elements”, and further for the “Adaptive array (AA)” 

approach there is a “computationally intensive process” associated with the “beamforming” such 

that “base stations” that use these increasingly complex “smart antenna” approaches will be 

“much more expensive than conventional base stations” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 

1010 at pp. 5-6). 

Additionally, Lehne notes that “efficient algorithms for real-time optimizing and 

signal tracking” are needed as well as “new demands on network functions such as resource and 

mobility management” for such “base stations” that use these “smart antenna” approaches 

(emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 5). 

Therefore, in my opinion, a POSITA would understand even before considering 

the detailed disclosure of Lehne to follow that Lehne is from the same field of endeavor as the 

‘369 Patent and that Lehne is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the ‘369 Patent (see, 

for example, ¶¶ 63-65 above regarding the ‘369 Patent in comparison with the abovesummarized material from Lehne). Accordingly, Lehne is analogous art to the ‘369 Patent. 

Lehne discloses that “Electronically steerable antenna patterns are most often 

generated using array antennas” that are “consisting of a number of antenna elements on which 

the signal is divided or combined in both phase and amplitude” such that “By using a narrow 

antenna beam at the base station the multipath propagation can be somewhat reduced” 

(emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at pp. 5-6). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 90 of 181 PageID #:

2245

Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 91 - 

Lehne also notes that “When the lobe forming is done digitally (after A/D) the 

lobe forming and signal processing units will normally be integrated in the same unit” and thus 

“The separation in Fig. 12 is done to clarify the functionality” and Lehne further notes that “It is 

also possible to perform the lobe forming in hardware at radio frequency (RF)” (emphasis 

added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 10). 

More specifically, Lehne explains that “The signal processing unit will, based on 

the received signal, calculate the complex weights w1 – wN with which the received signal from 

each of the array elements is multiplied” wherein for the “switched lobe or phased array” 

techniques, these “weights can be optimized” for the “maximization of received signal from the 

desired user” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 9). 

Accordingly, Lehne teaches that “For the base station to be able to estimate the 

radio channel, a reference or training sequence is normally necessary, i.e., a known bit sequence 

must be transmitted periodically” because to “maximize the SIR” will “require knowledge of the 

instantaneous channel response” which means that “the training sequence must be unique for 

each user” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 10). 

Lehne further teaches that “The method for calculating the weights will differ 

depending on the type of optimization criterion” such as “When switched lobe (SL) is used the 

receiver will test all the pre-defined weight vectors (corresponding to the lobe set) and choose 

the one giving the strongest received signal level” but “If the phased array approach (PA) is 

used, which consists of directing a maximum gain beam toward the strongest signal component, 

the direction-of-arrival (DoA) is first estimated and then the weights are calculated” with the 

“amplitude and phase in accordance with the desired steering angle” wherein “well documented 

methods exist for estimating the DoA”, and for the “adaptive array approach (AA)” then 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 92 of 181 PageID #:

2247
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 92 - 

“optimum combining” is used that “directs nulls toward the strongest interference source” (bold 

italic emphasis in original, other emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at pp. 9-10). 

For example, Lehne discloses that “The transmission part of the smart antenna

will be schematically very similar to the reception part” as “shown in Fig. 16” wherein “The 

signal is split into N branches, which are weighted by the complex weights z1 – zN in the lobe 

forming unit” and these “weights, which decide the radiation pattern in the downlink direction, 

are calculated by the signal processing unit” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 

10, Figure 16 as reproduced below). 

Lehne teaches in reference to FIG. 16 shown above that “In a time division duplex 

(TDD) system the mobile station and base station use the same carrier frequency only separated 

in time” such that “In this case the weights calculated on uplink will be optimal on downlink if 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 93 of 181 PageID #:

2248
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 93 - 

the channel does not change during the period from uplink to downlink transmission” (emphasis 

added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 10). 

Lehne further explains that “The principle reason for the growing interest in 

smart antennas is the capacity increase” because “In densely populated areas mobile systems are 

normally interference-limited, meaning that interference from other users is the main source of 

noise in the system” but “Smart antennas will on average, by simultaneously increasing the 

useful received signal level and lowering the interference level, increase the SIR” (emphasis 

added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 5). 

For example, Lehne reports that for then existing “TDMA systems”, “a capacity 

increase of 300 percent can be expected”, while for then newer systems “such as IS-95 or 

UMTS” that “the expected capacity gain is even larger” and “A fivefold capacity gain has been 

reported” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 5). 

Lehne notes that while “Smart antennas for mobile communications are not yet 

available commercially” at the time this paper was written (likely in early 1999) that “In the 

autumn of 1998 the Ericsson/Mannesmann trial became the first trial to demonstrate commercial 

traffic through base stations equipped with smart antennas” for “GSM1800” (a “time division 

duplex (TDD) system”) using “six-element stacked dipoles” wherein “The combining on uplink

was based on maximal ratio combining, while the downlink beam forming was based on 

switching between eight lobes” (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 12). 

Additionally, Lehne notes that “The U.S. company Arraycomm has developed 

smart antenna solutions for the GSM standard and for the Japanese Personal Handyphone 

System (PHS)” (each a “time division duplex (TDD) system”) with “Field trials” performed in the 

USA (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1010 at p. 12). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 94 of 181 PageID #:

2249
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 94 - 

VIII. OBVIOUSNESS OF THE ‘369 PATENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 DUE TO 

WONG, MINN AND/OR LEHNE 

In my opinion, Wong renders obvious at least Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-15, 28 and 41 

of the ‘369 Patent for at least the reasons described herein. 

In my opinion, Wong in view of Minn renders obvious at least Claims 1-7, 9-10, 

12-15, 28 and 41 of the ‘369 Patent for at least the reasons described herein. 

In my opinion, Wong in view of Lehne renders obvious at least Claims 1-7, 9-10, 

12-15, 19, 21, 28, 32-33, 35-37 and 41 (i.e. all of the challenged claims) of the ‘369 Patent for at 

least the reasons described herein. 

In my opinion, Wong in view of Minn further in view of Lehne renders obvious at 

least Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-15, 19, 21, 28, 32-33, 35-37 and 41 (i.e. all of the challenged claims) 

of the ‘369 Patent for at least the reasons described herein. 

Wong is analogous art to the ‘369 Patent (see ¶ 120 above). Similarly, Minn is 

also analogous art to the ‘369 Patent (see ¶ 155 above). Additionally, Lehne is analogous art to 

the ‘369 Patent (see ¶ 244 above). 

A general overview of Wong is given at ¶¶ 113-147 above. 

A general overview of Minn is given at ¶¶ 148-179 above. 

A general overview of Lehne is given at ¶¶ 232-257 above. 

My specific analyses of Wong in view of Minn, Lehne and/or the knowledge of 

a POSITA, with respect to the challenged claims of the ‘369 Patent is given herein.

Note that for purposes of my analysis herein that I have provided subsection 

headings for claim elements in the form “1(a)”, “1(b)”, etc. for the convenience of the reader 

even though such headings do not exist in the actual ‘369 Patent claims themselves.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 95 of 181 PageID #:

2250
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 95 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 1

1. A method comprising: 

a) identifying at least one multipath transmission delay within a reverse path 

data signal received from a receiving device; 

determining at least one forward path pre-equalization parameter based on said 

at least one transmission delay; and

b) modifying a forward path data signal that is to be transmitted to the receiving 

device based on said at least one forward path pre-equalization parameter, where said 

modifying includes selectively setting different transmission power levels for at least 

two Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) tones in said forward path 

data signal.

1. A method comprising: 

In my opinion, this preamble claim element expresses no limitations. 

However, I have considered that this preamble claim element may be limiting. 

For example, Wong discloses a “multiuser OFDM subcarrier, bit, and power 

allocation algorithm to minimize the total transmit power” based upon “Assuming knowledge of 

the instantaneous channel gains for all users” and then “by assigning each user a set of 

subcarriers and by determining the number of bits and the transmit power level for each 

subcarrier” (see, for example, ¶¶ 114-115 above). 

In my opinion, a POSITA would understand that Wong’s disclosure of procedures 

associated with this “OFDM subcarrier, bit, and power allocation algorithm” as summarized 

herein would at least constitute a “method”.

Thus, Wong discloses a “method” (for example, the procedures associated with 

the “OFDM subcarrier, bit, and power allocation algorithm” of Wong). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element, if any. 

For example, Minn discloses “A time-domain based channel estimation for 

OFDM system with pilot-data multiplexed scheme is investigated” wherein “intra-symbol timeaveraging and most significant channel taps selection are applied” as part of a “Most Significant 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 96 of 181 PageID #:

2251
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 96 - 

Taps (MST) Method” or its “MST dual form DFT-based method” (see, for example, ¶¶ 149, 164 

and 174 above). 

In my opinion, a POSITA would understand that Minn’s description of a “Most 

Significant Taps (MST) Method” or a “MST dual form DFT-based method” as summarized 

herein would at least constitute a “method”.

Thus, Minn discloses a “method” (for example, the “Most Significant Taps 

(MST) Method” or “MST dual form DFT-based method” of Minn). 

In my opinion, a POSITA would have been highly motivated to combine Wong 

with Minn to adapt the procedures associated with the “OFDM subcarrier, bit, and power 

allocation algorithm” of Wong to include at least the “MST dual form DFT-based method” of 

Minn as I summarized at ¶¶ 346-356 below. 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a 

POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim element, if any. 

At least because each of Wong and Minn discloses the limitations of this claim 

element, if any, then either of Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA or Wong 

in view of Minn further in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element, if any. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 97 of 181 PageID #:

2252
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 97 - 

1(a) identifying at least one multipath transmission delay within a reverse path data signal 

received from a receiving device; 

determining at least one forward path pre-equalization parameter based on said at least 

one transmission delay; 

A POSITA would understand that the plain, ordinary meanings of the terms 

“forward path” and “reverse path” for wireless communications systems at the time of the 

alleged invention of the ‘369 Patent were consistent with the usage of such terms in the 

specification of the ‘369 Patent. 

For example, the ‘369 Patent uses the term “forward path” in the context of 

“forward path transmissions from base station device 102 to CPE device 104” (see, for example, 

¶ 64 above), which is consistent with the plain, ordinary meaning of “forward path” as the 

“downlink” communications path in a wireless system from a central “base station” or “access 

point” to a “subscriber”, “mobile”, “user” or “customer premise”. 

Similarly, the ‘369 Patent uses the term “reverse path” in the context of “in 

reverse order, CPE device 104 can transmit data over a wireless communication link to base 

station device 102”, which is consistent with the plain, ordinary meaning of “reverse path” as 

the “uplink” communications path in a wireless system from a “subscriber”, “mobile”, “user” or 

“customer premise” to a central “base station” or “access point”. 

A POSITA would also understand that the plain, ordinary meaning of the term 

“data signal”, whether applied to the “forward path” or the “reverse path”, for wireless 

communications systems at the time of the alleged invention of the ‘369 Patent to include at least 

a “signal” exchanged within a wireless communications system in order to convey “data”. 

Although the exact term “data signal” does not appear in the specification of the ‘369 Patent 

except in the claims and summary, usage of the term “data” in context with terms such as 

“exchange”, “transmit” and/or “receive” within the ‘369 Patent (see, for example, ¶¶ 53, 56-57, 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 98 of 181 PageID #:

2253
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 98 - 

60 and 65 above) confirms the applicability of this plain, ordinary meaning for the term “data 

signal”.

A POSITA would further understand that the plain, ordinary meaning of the term 

“forward path pre-equalization” for wireless communications systems at the time of the 

alleged invention of the ‘369 Patent to mean at least that a signal to be transmitted in a “forward 

path” is modified in some way that accounts for the properties of the propagation path(s) 

between the “transmitter” at the “base station” or “access point” and the “receiver” at the 

“subscriber”, “mobile”, “user” or “customer premise”. Although the ‘369 Patent does not 

explicitly define the term “pre-equalization”, a POSITA would understand that usage of the 

term such as in “pre-equalization that substantially reduces unwanted effects associated with 

multipath fading” or “pre-equalization block 304 to modify, in some manner, as applicable, the 

OFDM modulated sub-carriers” which “are then provided to antenna processing block 306, 

wherein they are further processed and eventually transmitted using one or more antennas 108” 

(see, for example, ¶¶ 49 or 60 above) within the ‘369 Patent is consistent with this plain, 

ordinary meaning. 

Accordingly, a POSITA would also understand that the plain, ordinary meaning 

of the term “forward path pre-equalization parameter” for wireless communications systems 

at the time of the alleged invention of the ‘369 Patent is then simply a “parameter” used for any 

part in performing “forward path pre-equalization” as also consistent with the specification of 

the ‘369 Patent (see, for example, ¶ 52 above). 

A POSITA would understand that the plain, ordinary meaning of the term “delay” 

for wireless communications systems at the time of the alleged invention of the ‘369 Patent 

refers at least to an amount of time duration between subsequent events such as transmission and 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 99 of 181 PageID #:

2254
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 99 - 

reception, and this plain, ordinary meaning is consistent with the usage of the term within the 

‘369 Patent (see, for example, ¶¶ 45, 48-51 and 59-61 above). 

Also, a POSITA would understand that the plain, ordinary meaning of the term 

“multipath transmission” for wireless communications systems at the time of the alleged 

invention of the ‘369 Patent includes at least the concept of multiple propagation paths between 

transmitter and receiver due to scattering, reflections and/or diffraction with physical objects in 

the vicinity of the transmitter and/or receiver (see, for example, ¶¶ 200-201 above), and this 

plain, ordinary meaning is consistent with the usage of the term within the ‘369 Patent (see, for 

example, ¶¶ 42 and 54 above). 

Accordingly, a POSITA would understand that the plain, ordinary meaning of the 

term “multipath transmission delay” for wireless communications systems at the time of the 

alleged invention of the ‘369 Patent refers to an amount of time duration or variance thereof 

associated with such multiple propagation paths between transmitter and receiver. In other 

words, because these multiple propagation paths each traverse a different distance from 

transmitter to receiver (see, for example, ¶¶ 53 and 200 above) then even though the speed of the 

propagation is extremely fast (equal to the speed of light in air, or about 186,000 miles per 

second) these different distances corresponding to different multiple propagation paths each also 

have a different corresponding “multipath transmission delay” as measured in some unit of 

time (i.e. in seconds or some number of fractional seconds). 

Thus, a POSITA would understand that “identifying at least one multipath 

transmission delay within a reverse path data signal received from a receiving device” 

expresses limitations that require the “method” of Claim 1 to include identifying at least one 

measure of time associated with one or more propagation paths among multiple such propagation 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 100 of 181 PageID #:

2255

Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 101 - 

Consistent with Fig. 1 shown above, Wong teaches that “In this paper, we 

formulate the multiuser subcarrier, bit, and power allocation problem” so that “the bit and 

power allocation algorithm can be applied to each user on its allocated subcarriers” as “can be 

applied, for instance, to the downlink transmission in a time division duplex (TDD) wireless 

communication system to improve the downlink capacity” (see, for example, ¶ 121 above). 

As I explain in greater detail for claim element 1(b) herein, Wong discloses 

“modifying a forward path data signal that is to be transmitted to the receiving device” via 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 102 of 181 PageID #:

2257








Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 110 - 

Thus, a POSITA would have known that application of the known prior art “time 

domain” approaches to channel estimation in OFDM at a base station (BS) with multiple users 

for subcarrier power allocation as described in Wong would reduce channel estimation errors, or 

hence produce more accurate determinations of the “magnitude of the channel gain”, compared 

to conventional “frequency domain” approaches by significant margins as summarized above. 

Fourth, a POSITA would have been highly motivated to implement one or more 

of these known prior art “time domain” approaches to channel estimation in OFDM at the base 

station (BS) of Wong at least because such improved channel estimation would improve the 

reception sensitivity for the base station regarding “a reverse path data signal received from a 

receiving device”, whether for “forward path pre-equalization” purposes or otherwise. 

For example, a POSITA would have known that the prior art teaches that the 

“advantage of the time domain approach is improved performance” in view of the fact that 

“Channel estimation is mandatory for OFDM systems that employ coherent modulation

schemes” (such as the “WLAN standards that utilize OFDM” that were commonly known at the 

time of the alleged invention of the ‘369 Patent and discussed in the specification of the ‘369 

Patent) because “Otherwise correct demodulation would not be possible” (see, for example, ¶¶ 

66, 151-152, 203, 210 and 214 above). 

Fifth, a POSITA would have been highly motivated to implement one or more of 

these known prior art “time domain” approaches to channel estimation in OFDM at the base 

station (BS) of Wong at least because such improved channel estimation was specifically 

important to the “power allocation algorithm” that is “applied to each user on its allocated 

subcarriers” that is the core technology disclosure of Wong. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 111 of 181 PageID #:

2266
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 111 - 

For example, Wong reports significant performance advantages due to its “power 

allocation algorithm” compared to “conventional OFDM without adaptive modulation” (see, 

for example, ¶ 146 above). However, Wong also reports that “The results in this paper assume 

perfect channel estimation” but “channel estimation in wireless fading channels is in general 

not very accurate”, and accordingly Wong states that “the effect of nonideal channel 

information on the performance of our proposed MAO scheme is a very important issue” (see, 

for example, ¶ 147 above). 

Thus, at least because Wong highlights that the benefits of the “power allocation 

algorithm” described in Wong “assume perfect channel estimation” but Wong also reports that 

channel estimation errors (or “nonideal channel information”) are a “very important issue”, a 

POSITA would have been highly motivated to implement channel estimation using one or more 

of these known prior art “time domain” approaches that were known to provide reduced channel 

estimation errors compared to conventional “frequency domain” approaches. 

Sixth, a POSITA would have an expectation of success when implementing one 

or more of these known prior art “time domain” approaches to channel estimation in OFDM at 

the base station (BS) of Wong because at least 3 of these known approaches were taught to be 

specifically applicable to system architectures such as the OFDM base station of Wong. 

For example, the prior art teaches that the advantageous “MST dual form DFTbased method” (see, for example, ¶¶ 174-176 above) is specifically applicable for a “system with 

training symbol (i.e., pilot tones on all subcarriers)” (see, for example, ¶¶ 175 and 177 above) 

such as would be expected for an OFDM base station such as Wong in view of the known 

OFDM wireless standards at the time of the alleged invention of the ‘369 Patent (see, for 

example, ¶¶ 66, 151, 203-204, 211, 214 and 219 above). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 112 of 181 PageID #:

2267
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 112 - 

For example, the prior art teaches that the advantageous “Time Pilot Time 

Correlation (TPTC) technique” (see, for example, ¶¶ 189-190 above) is specifically applicable 

when a “sequence is periodically inserted into the OFDM symbol in the time domain” in order 

to “insert pilot tones into all of the carriers in an OFDM symbol” (see, for example, ¶¶ 183 and 

189 above) such as would be expected for an OFDM base station such as Wong in view of the 

known OFDM wireless standards at the time of the alleged invention of the ‘369 Patent (see, for 

example, ¶¶ 66, 151, 203-204, 211, 214 and 219 above). 

For example, the prior art teaches that the advantageous “Time Domain 

Convolution approach” (see, for example, ¶¶ 213-216 above) is specifically applicable for 

“IEEE 802.11a standard training symbols as an example” wherein the “received time domain 

signal” includes the “two long training symbols” (see, for example, ¶ 214 above) such as would 

be expected for an OFDM base station such as Wong in view of the known OFDM wireless 

standards at the time of the alleged invention of the ‘369 Patent (see, for example, ¶¶ 66, 151, 

203-204, 211, 214 and 219 above). 

Accordingly, a POSITA would have an expectation of success when 

implementing one or more of these known prior art “time domain” approaches to channel 

estimation in OFDM at the base station (BS) of Wong. 

Thus, Wong in view of the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious “identifying 

at least one multipath transmission delay” (for example, by performing channel estimation 

with a known prior art time domain approach that identifies a channel impulse response 

including at least a time-domain index for one or more channel taps) that is “within a reverse 

path data signal received from a receiving device” (for example, the received uplink 

transmissions from the users to the base station of Wong as also shown in annotated Fig. 1 of 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 113 of 181 PageID #:

2268

Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 114 - 

Minn further teaches that “Neglecting those nonsignificant channel taps in 

channel estimation may introduce some performance degradation if some of the channel energy 

is missed, but at the same time it will eliminate the noise perturbation from those taps” and 

because “Usually total noise perturbation from those neglected channel estimate taps is much 

higher than the multipath energy contained in them, especially for low SNR values” then 

“neglecting those nonsignificant channel estimate taps can improve the channel estimation 

performance significantly” (see, for example, ¶ 164 above). 

Accordingly, Minn introduces the “Most Significant Taps Approach (MST)” to 

“time-domain based channel estimation for OFDM system” in a first form that uses “intrasymbol time-averaging” and a second form, referred to as the “MST dual form DFT-based 

method”, that uses the “one-to-one relationship of DFT and IDFT” such that the “MST method 

can be related to DFT-based approach” as shown in Fig. 2 (see, for example, ¶¶ 149, 164 and 

174 above, annotated Fig. 2 as shown below). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 115 of 181 PageID #:

2270



Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 118 - 

mobile links based on the received uplink transmissions” in a “time division duplex (TDD) 

wireless communication system” (such as IEEE 802.11a at the time of the alleged invention of 

the ‘369 Patent) (see, for example, ¶¶ 114-115, 118 and 122 above). 

However, a POSITA implementing an OFDM subcarrier power allocation method 

based upon the teaching of Wong would understand that a problem remains because Wong does 

not specifically disclose a method for how the “base station (BS) can estimate the 

instantaneous channel characteristics of all the BS-to-mobile links based on the received 

uplink transmissions”.

A POSITA would understand that Minn discloses methods for how Wong’s “base 

station (BS) can estimate the instantaneous channel characteristics of all the BS-to-mobile 

links based on the received uplink transmissions” at least in the form of the “Most Significant 

Taps Approach (MST)” or the “MST dual form DFT-based method” as a “time-domain based 

channel estimation for OFDM system” as described above. 

Accordingly, a POSITA would have been highly motivated to consider the “Most 

Significant Taps Approach (MST)” or the “MST dual form DFT-based method” as a “timedomain based channel estimation for OFDM system” of Minn as a solution to the problem of 

how the “base station (BS) can estimate the instantaneous channel characteristics of all the 

BS-to-mobile links based on the received uplink transmissions” when implementing an OFDM 

subcarrier power allocation method based upon the teaching of Wong. 

Second, as I noted above, Wong is specifically directed to a “multiuser OFDM 

subcarrier, bit, and power allocation algorithm” at a “base station (BS)” for “assigning each 

user a set of subcarriers” and “determining the number of bits and the transmit power level for 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 119 of 181 PageID #:

2274

Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 120 - 

Fourth, as I have noted above, a POSITA would have been highly motivated to 

implement either of the “Most Significant Taps Approach (MST)” or the “MST dual form 

DFT-based method” of Minn for channel estimation in OFDM at the base station (BS) of Wong 

at least because such improved channel estimation would improve the reception sensitivity for 

the base station regarding “a reverse path data signal received from a receiving device”, 

whether for “forward path pre-equalization” purposes or otherwise, and because such 

improved channel estimation was specifically important to the “power allocation algorithm” that 

is “applied to each user on its allocated subcarriers” that is the core technology disclosure of 

Wong (see, for example, ¶¶ 322-326 above). 

Fifth, as I have also noted above, a POSITA would have an expectation of success 

when implementing at least the “MST dual form DFT-based method” of Minn for channel 

estimation in OFDM at the base station (BS) of Wong at least because Minn specifically teaches 

that the “MST dual form DFT-based method” is applicable for a “system with training symbol

(i.e., pilot tones on all subcarriers)” (see, for example, ¶¶ 175 and 177 above) such as would be 

expected for an OFDM base station such as Wong in view of the known OFDM wireless 

standards at the time of the alleged invention of the ‘369 Patent (see, for example, ¶¶ 66, 151, 

203-204, 211, 214 and 219 above). 

Thus, Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

“identifying at least one multipath transmission delay” (for example, by performing channel 

estimation using the MST dual form DFT-based method of Minn that identifies a channel 

impulse response including at least a time-domain index for one or more channel taps) that is 

“within a reverse path data signal received from a receiving device” (for example, the 

received uplink transmissions from the users to the base station of Wong as also shown in 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 121 of 181 PageID #:

2276
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 121 - 

annotated Fig. 1 of Wong) and “determining at least one forward path pre-equalization 

parameter” (for example, the determination of the channel frequency response using the MST 

dual form DFT-based method of Minn that includes the magnitude of the channel gain as used 

for the power allocation algorithm of Wong) that is “based on said at least one transmission 

delay” (for example, when such channel frequency response is determined using the MST dual 

form DFT-based method of Minn that identifies the channel impulse response). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a 

POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because each of Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA and Wong in 

view of Minn and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim 

element, then either of Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA or Wong in 

view of Minn further in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 122 of 181 PageID #:

2277
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 122 - 

1(b) modifying a forward path data signal that is to be transmitted to the receiving device 

based on said at least one forward path pre-equalization parameter, where said modifying 

includes selectively setting different transmission power levels for at least two Orthogonal 

Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) tones in said forward path data signal. 

See ¶¶ 280-285 above regarding at least the terms “forward path”, “data 

signal”, “pre-equalization” and “parameter”. 

Additionally, a POSITA would understand that the plain, ordinary meaning of the 

term “selectively setting” in the context of “selectively setting different transmission power 

levels for at least two Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) tones” is to 

differentiate from other possible forms of “setting different transmission power levels for at 

least two Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) tones” such as, but not 

limited to, “accidentally setting”, “coincidentally setting”, “unintentionally setting” or 

“randomly setting” as also consistent with the specification of the ‘369 Patent (see, for example, 

¶ 69 above). 

For example, a POSITA would understand that for 16 QAM modulation (see, for 

example, ¶¶ 72 and 220 above) that there are 3 possible amplitude levels or thus 3 possible 

instantaneous power levels for a given symbol on a given subcarrier (or “tone”). However, to 

the extent that in a given symbol period that one particular subcarrier within an OFDM ensemble 

with all subcarriers allocated equal “transmission power levels” might have one of 3 possible 

instantaneous power levels for this given symbol while another particular subcarrier has a 

different one of these 3 possibilities, a POSITA would understand that this is merely an example 

of “accidentally setting”, “coincidentally setting”, “unintentionally setting” or “randomly 

setting”, as opposed to the recited “selectively setting”, of “different transmission power 

levels for at least two Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) tones”.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 123 of 181 PageID #:

2278
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 123 - 

Wong discloses “Multiuser orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM)” 

wherein a “multiuser OFDM subcarrier, bit, and power allocation algorithm to minimize the 

total transmit power” is “done by assigning each user a set of subcarriers and by determining the 

number of bits and the transmit power level for each subcarrier” (see, for example, ¶¶ 114-115 

above). 

Wong observes that prior art papers “have demonstrated that significant 

performance improvement can be achieved if adaptive modulation is used with OFDM” because 

“subcarriers with large channel gains employ higher order modulation to carry more bits/OFDM 

symbol, while subcarriers in deep fade carry one or even zero bits/symbol” and accordingly 

concludes that “As different subcarriers experience different fades and transmit different 

numbers of bits, the transmit power levels must be changed accordingly” (see, for example, ¶¶ 

118-119 above). 

See at least ¶¶ 291-293 and 296 above for claim element 1(a) regarding the 

system architecture of Wong as illustrated in annotated Fig. 1, which I incorporate herein for this 

claim element 1(b). 

Also, in reference to annotated Fig. 1 shown above, Wong explains that “The 

complex symbols at the output of the modulators are transformed into the time domain samples

by inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT)” and “Cyclic extension of the time domain samples, 

known as the guard interval, is then added” so that “The transmit signal is then passed through 

different frequency selective fading channels to different users” (see, for example, ¶ 131 above). 

Accordingly, a POSITA would understand that Wong’s description of this 

“transmit signal” to the “different users” with respect to annotated Fig. 1 shown above discloses 

“a forward path data signal that is to be transmitted to the receiving device”.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 124 of 181 PageID #:

2279




Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 128 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 2

2. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: receiving said reverse path data 

signal over at least one reverse transmission path. 

2. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: receiving said reverse path data 

signal over at least one reverse transmission path. 

Wong discloses a “time division duplex (TDD) wireless communication system” 

wherein “all the BS-to-mobile links” include “received uplink transmissions” (see, for example, ¶ 

122 above). 

Accordingly, in view also of my analysis for claim element 1(a) above describing 

Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA with respect to “a reverse path data signal received 

from a receiving device”, a POSITA would also understand that Wong’s “received uplink 

transmissions” over “multipath fading channels” disclose at least “receiving said reverse path 

data signal over at least one reverse transmission path”.

Thus, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious “The method as 

recited in claim 1” (for example, my analysis for Claim 1), further comprising: “receiving said 

reverse path data signal” (for example, the received uplink transmissions of Wong per my 

analysis of claim element 1(a)) “over at least one reverse transmission path” (for example, 

over the multipath fading channel of the BS-to-mobile link of Wong). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious the 

limitations of this claim element, then any of Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a 

POSITA, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA or Wong in view of Minn 

further in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious the limitations 

of this claim element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 129 of 181 PageID #:

2284
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 129 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 3

3. The method as recited in claim 2, further comprising: transmitting said modified 

forward path data signal over at least one forward transmission path. 

3. The method as recited in claim 2, further comprising: transmitting said modified 

forward path data signal over at least one forward transmission path. 

Wong discloses “downlink transmission in a time division duplex (TDD) wireless 

communication system” over “multipath fading channels” using “orthogonal frequency division 

multiplex (OFDM)” (see, for example, ¶¶ 117 and 121 above). 

Accordingly, in view also of my analysis for claim element 1(b) above describing 

Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA with respect to “a forward path data signal that is to 

be transmitted to the receiving device”, a POSITA would also understand that Wong’s 

“downlink transmission” over “multipath fading channels” disclose at least “transmitting said 

modified forward path data signal over at least one forward transmission path”.

Thus, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious “The method as 

recited in claim 2” (for example, my analysis for Claim 2), further comprising: “transmitting 

said modified forward path data signal” (for example, the downlink transmission of Wong per 

my analysis of claim element 1(b)) “over at least one forward transmission path” (for 

example, over the multipath fading channel of the BS-to-mobile link of Wong). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious the 

limitations of this claim element, then any of Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a 

POSITA, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA or Wong in view of Minn 

further in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious the limitations 

of this claim element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 130 of 181 PageID #:

2285
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 130 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 4

4. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein said reverse path data signal includes at 

least one type of data selected from a group of different types of data comprising 

Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) data and Quadrature Phase Shift 

Keying (QPSK) data. 

4. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein said reverse path data signal includes at least 

one type of data selected from a group of different types of data comprising Orthogonal 

Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) data and Quadrature Phase Shift Keying 

(QPSK) data. 

I note that during the prosecution of the ‘369 Patent that applicant did not dispute 

the patent examiner’s finding that if “a QPSK modulation scheme is used at the forward path, the 

reverse path has to use the same type of modulation as well” or the patent examiner’s finding 

that the additional limitations of this claim are met by prior art that discloses only one of 

“Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) data” or “Quadrature Phase Shift 

Keying (QPSK) data” as opposed to requiring a showing of a “group of different types of 

data” comprising both (see, for example, ¶¶ 78-82 and 106 above). 

A POSITA would understand that Wong’s disclosure of OFDM for “downlink 

transmission in a time division duplex (TDD) wireless communication system” also indicates that 

OFDM would normally be used for the “received uplink transmissions” per my analysis of claim 

element 1(a) (see, for example, ¶ 301 above). 

Additionally, Wong discloses an exemplary “system that employs M-ary 

quadrature amplitude modulation (MQAM)” using “Square signal constellations (4-QAM, 16-

QAM, and 64-QAM)” (see, for example, ¶ 144 above). 

A POSITA would understand that the terms “4-QAM” and “QPSK” were 

routinely used interchangeably at the time of the alleged invention of the ‘369 Patent (see, for 

example, ¶¶ 220 and 230-231 above) at least because the “4-QAM” and “QPSK” signal 

constellations are effectively interchangeable prior to acquiring a coherent phase reference in a 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 131 of 181 PageID #:

2286
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 131 - 

receiver since each signal constellation has 4 constellation points of equal amplitude and 90o 

phase separation (see, for example, ¶¶ 220 and 230 above). For example, the prior art explicitly 

teaches in reference to a depiction of a “Square signal constellation” for “4-QAM” that such 

“4QAM constellation” is “more commonly known as a QPSK constellation” (see, for example, 

¶¶ 230-231 above). 

Thus, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious “The method as 

recited in claim 1” (for example, my analysis for Claim 1), wherein “said reverse path data 

signal” (for example, the received uplink transmissions of Wong per my analysis of claim 

element 1(a)) includes “at least one type of data selected from a group of different types of 

data comprising Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) data and 

Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (QPSK) data” (for example, when such received uplink 

transmissions of Wong use either or both of OFDM or 4-QAM or QPSK modulation as would be 

obvious in view of the disclosures of Wong). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious the 

limitations of this claim element, then any of Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a 

POSITA, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA or Wong in view of Minn 

further in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious the limitations 

of this claim element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 132 of 181 PageID #:

2287
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 132 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 5

5. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein said modified forward path data signal 

includes at least one type of data selected from a group of different types of data 

comprising Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) data and Quadrature 

Phase Shift Keying (QPSK) data. 

5. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein said modified forward path data signal 

includes at least one type of data selected from a group of different types of data 

comprising Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) data and Quadrature 

Phase Shift Keying (QPSK) data. 

I note that during the prosecution of the ‘369 Patent that applicant did not dispute 

the patent examiner’s finding that the additional limitations of this claim are met by prior art that 

discloses only one of “Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) data” or 

“Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (QPSK) data” as opposed to requiring a showing of a 

“group of different types of data” comprising both (see, for example, ¶¶ 78 and 82 above). 

See ¶¶ 388-389 above. 

See ¶¶ 395-396 above. 

Accordingly, in view also of my analysis for claim element 1(b) above describing 

Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA with respect to “modifying a forward path data signal 

that is to be transmitted to the receiving device”, a POSITA would also understand that 

Wong’s disclosure of OFDM “downlink transmission” using at least “4-QAM” (i.e. “QPSK”) 

discloses at least that “said modified forward path data signal includes at least one type of 

data selected from a group of different types of data comprising Orthogonal Frequency 

Division Multiplexing (OFDM) data and Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (QPSK) data”.

Thus, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious “The method as 

recited in claim 1” (for example, my analysis for Claim 1), wherein “said modified forward 

path data signal” (for example, the downlink transmission of Wong per my analysis of claim 

element 1(b)) includes “at least one type of data selected from a group of different types of 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 133 of 181 PageID #:

2288
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 133 - 

data comprising Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) data and 

Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (QPSK) data” (for example, when such downlink 

transmission of Wong uses either or both of OFDM or 4-QAM or QPSK modulation per the 

disclosures of Wong). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious the 

limitations of this claim element, then any of Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a 

POSITA, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA or Wong in view of Minn 

further in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious the limitations 

of this claim element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 134 of 181 PageID #:

2289
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 134 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 6

6. The method as recited in claim 5, wherein said modified forward path data signal 

includes sub-carrier pre-equalized OFDM data. 

6. The method as recited in claim 5, wherein said modified forward path data signal 

includes sub-carrier pre-equalized OFDM data. 

I note that during the prosecution of the ‘369 Patent that applicant did not dispute 

the patent examiner’s finding that the additional limitations of this claim were obvious to a 

POSITA without citation to a combining reference even though the base reference did not 

disclose either of a “sub-carrier” or “OFDM data” (see, for example, ¶¶ 79 and 82 above). 

See ¶¶ 388-389 above. 

Accordingly, in view also of my analysis for claim element 1(b) above describing 

Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA with respect to “modifying a forward path data signal 

that is to be transmitted to the receiving device”, a POSITA would understand that Wong’s 

teaching to apply a “multiuser OFDM subcarrier, bit, and power allocation algorithm” by 

“assigning each user a set of subcarriers” and by “determining the number of bits and the 

transmit power level for each subcarrier” and by using at least the “Adaptive modulator” blocks 

of annotated Fig. 1 of Wong is also an exemplary disclosure of “wherein said modified 

forward path data signal includes sub-carrier pre-equalized OFDM data”.

Thus, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious “The method as 

recited in claim 5” (for example, my analysis for Claim 5), wherein “said modified forward 

path data signal” (for example, the downlink transmission of Wong per my analysis of claim 

element 1(b)) includes “sub-carrier pre-equalized OFDM data” (for example, Wong’s 

disclosure of the adaptive modulator blocks of annotated Fig. 1 that at least apply the determined 

the number of bits and the transmit power level for each subcarrier). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 135 of 181 PageID #:

2290
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 135 - 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious the 

limitations of this claim element, then any of Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a 

POSITA, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA or Wong in view of Minn 

further in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious the limitations 

of this claim element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 136 of 181 PageID #:

2291
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 136 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 7

7. The method as recited in claim 6, further comprising: generating corresponding 

Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (QPSK) modulation values based on said sub-carrier 

pre-equalized OFDM data. 

7. The method as recited in claim 6, further comprising: generating corresponding 

Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (QPSK) modulation values based on said sub-carrier preequalized OFDM data. 

See ¶ 407 above. 

See ¶¶ 395-396 above. 

See ¶ 409 above. 

Thus, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious “The method as 

recited in claim 6” (for example, my analysis for Claim 6), further comprising: “generating 

corresponding Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (QPSK) modulation values” (for example, 

when the downlink transmission of Wong uses 4-QAM or QPSK modulation in one or more of 

the adaptive modulator blocks of annotated Fig. 1) “based on said sub-carrier pre-equalized 

OFDM data” (for example, Wong’s disclosure of the adaptive modulator blocks of annotated 

Fig. 1 that at least apply the determined the number of bits and the transmit power level for each 

subcarrier). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious the 

limitations of this claim element, then any of Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a 

POSITA, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA or Wong in view of Minn 

further in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious the limitations 

of this claim element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 137 of 181 PageID #:

2292
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 137 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 9

9. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein said reverse path data signal includes 

identifiable training data. 

9. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein said reverse path data signal includes 

identifiable training data. 

Wong discloses a “time division duplex (TDD) wireless communication system” 

wherein “the base station (BS) can estimate the instantaneous channel characteristics of all the 

BS-to-mobile links based on the received uplink transmissions” (see, for example, ¶ 122 above). 

Additionally, as I have noted in my analysis of claim element 1(a) herein, a 

POSITA would understand that such “received uplink transmissions” disclose this antecedent 

“said reverse path data signal” and a POSITA would have found meeting the additional 

limitations of claim element 1(a) in view of the methods taught by Wong that include such need 

to “estimate the instantaneous channel characteristics” and the knowledge of a POSITA on 

how to perform such estimation to be obvious for at least the reasons I recited at ¶¶ 299-332 

above. 

More specifically, I note that for the 3 different known prior art methodologies 

that a POSITA would have been most motivated to combine with Wong with a high expectation 

of success that such prior art “time domain” approaches to channel estimation in OFDM at the 

base station (BS) of Wong assumed that such “received uplink transmissions” would include at 

least a “training symbol (i.e., pilot tones on all subcarriers)”, “insert[ed] pilot tones into all of 

the carriers in an OFDM symbol”, or “IEEE 802.11a standard training symbols”, respectively 

(see, for example, ¶¶ 328-330 above). 

Accordingly, a POSITA would have found obvious in view of Wong and the 

knowledge of a POSITA that the “received uplink transmissions” used to “estimate the 

instantaneous channel characteristics” would include at least “identifiable training data” such 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 138 of 181 PageID #:

2293
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 138 - 

as a “training symbol (i.e., pilot tones on all subcarriers)”, “insert[ed] pilot tones into all of the 

carriers in an OFDM symbol”, or “IEEE 802.11a standard training symbols”. 

Thus, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious “The method as 

recited in claim 1” (for example, my analysis for Claim 1), wherein “said reverse path data 

signal” (for example, the received uplink transmissions of Wong per my analysis of claim 

element 1(a)) includes “identifiable training data” (for example, one or more training symbols 

with pilot tones across the subcarriers as described for time domain approaches to channel 

estimation in OFDM of such received uplink transmissions at the base station (BS) of Wong). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element. 

Minn discloses that “Pilot tones can be inserted in all subcarriers of a particular 

OFDM symbol forming an OFDM training symbol, in which case training symbols are 

transmitted at an appropriate regular rate determined by the time varying nature of the wireless 

channel” (see, for example, ¶ 152 above). 

More specifically, Minn discloses the “MST dual form DFT-based method” as 

specifically applicable for a “system with training symbol (i.e., pilot tones on all subcarriers)” 

(see, for example, ¶ 175 above). 

As have noted in my analysis of claim element 1(a) herein, a POSITA would have 

combined Wong and Minn including at least the “MST dual form DFT-based method” and such 

combination would meet all of the limitations of claim element 1(a) (see, for example, ¶¶ 346-

356 above). 

Accordingly, a POSITA would have found obvious in view of the combination of 

Wong and Minn and the knowledge of a POSITA that the “received uplink transmissions” used 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 139 of 181 PageID #:

2294
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 139 - 

to “estimate the instantaneous channel characteristics” would include at least “identifiable 

training data” such as a “training symbol (i.e., pilot tones on all subcarriers)”.

Thus, Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

“The method as recited in claim 1” (for example, my analysis for Claim 1), wherein “said 

reverse path data signal” (for example, the received uplink transmissions of Wong per my 

analysis of claim element 1(a)) includes “identifiable training data” (for example, one or more 

training symbols with pilot tones across the subcarriers as described for the MST dual form 

DFT-based method of Minn when applied to channel estimation in OFDM of such received 

uplink transmissions at the base station (BS) of Wong). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a 

POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because each of Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA and Wong in 

view of Minn and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim 

element, then either of Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA or Wong in 

view of Minn further in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 140 of 181 PageID #:

2295



Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 143 - 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a 

POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because each of Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA and Wong in 

view of Minn and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim 

element, then either of Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA or Wong in 

view of Minn further in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 144 of 181 PageID #:

2299
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 144 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 12

12. The method as recited in claim 3, wherein said at least one reverse transmission path 

is substantially reciprocal to said at least one forward transmission path. 

12. The method as recited in claim 3, wherein said at least one reverse transmission path is 

substantially reciprocal to said at least one forward transmission path. 

I note that during the prosecution of the ‘369 Patent that applicant did not dispute 

the patent examiner’s finding that the additional limitations of this claim are met by prior art 

based on citation to disclosure that assumes that a forward path is the “inverse characteristic of 

the propagation path” for a reverse path (see, for example, ¶¶ 78 and 82 above). 

In my analysis of Claim 3 above, I noted that Wong discloses at least “said at 

least one reverse transmission path” by “uplink transmission” in Wong and at least “said at 

least one forward transmission path” by “downlink transmission” in Wong. 

More specifically, Wong discloses a “time division duplex (TDD) wireless 

communication system” wherein “the base station (BS) can estimate the instantaneous channel 

characteristics of all the BS-to-mobile links based on the received uplink transmissions” such 

that “The multiuser subcarrier, bit, and power allocation can then be used” specifically for 

“downlink transmission” in order to “improve the downlink capacity” (see, for example, ¶¶ 121-

122 above). 

A POSITA would understand that Wong is teaching that the “uplink” and 

“downlink” are “substantially reciprocal” in Wong because the disclosed “multiuser 

subcarrier, bit, and power allocation” being applied to the “downlink transmission” relies upon 

having “estimate[d] the instantaneous channel characteristics” in the “uplink transmissions”, 

which the prior art also teaches as being based applicable to a “time division duplex (TDD) 

system” where the “mobile station and base station use the same carrier frequency” (see, for 

example, ¶ 253 above). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 145 of 181 PageID #:

2300
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 145 - 

Thus, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious “The method as 

recited in claim 3” (for example, my analysis for Claim 3), wherein “said at least one reverse 

transmission path is substantially reciprocal to said at least one forward transmission 

path” (for example, when the multiuser subcarrier, bit, and power allocation applied to the 

downlink transmission of Wong uses channel estimation information from the received uplink 

transmissions within a TDD wireless communication system). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element. 

Lehne teaches that “For the base station to be able to estimate the radio channel, 

a reference or training sequence is normally necessary, i.e., a known bit sequence must be 

transmitted periodically” because to “maximize the SIR” will “require knowledge of the 

instantaneous channel response” (see, for example, ¶ 250 above). 

Lehne discloses that “In a time division duplex (TDD) system the mobile station 

and base station use the same carrier frequency only separated in time” such that “In this case 

the weights calculated on uplink will be optimal on downlink if the channel does not change 

during the period from uplink to downlink transmission” (see, for example, ¶ 253 above). 

As have noted in my analysis of Claim 19 herein, a POSITA would have 

combined Wong and Lehne as a “base station” operating within a “time division duplex (TDD) 

system” that comprises at least a “smart antenna” system of Lehne and that operates according 

to the “multiuser subcarrier, bit, and power allocation” approach applied to OFDM of Wong 

(see, for example, ¶¶ 478-486 below). 

Accordingly, a POSITA would have found obvious in view of the combination of 

Wong and Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA that using the “received uplink 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 146 of 181 PageID #:

2301
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 146 - 

transmissions” to “estimate the instantaneous channel characteristics” at a “base station” in a 

“time division duplex (TDD) system” for “weights calculated on uplink” that are also “optimal 

on downlink” discloses at least that “said at least one reverse transmission path is 

substantially reciprocal to said at least one forward transmission path”.

Thus, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

“The method as recited in claim 3” (for example, my analysis for Claim 3), wherein “said at 

least one reverse transmission path is substantially reciprocal to said at least one forward 

transmission path” (for example, when the base station in a TDD system using a smart antenna 

uses channel estimation information from the received uplink transmissions to determine optimal 

weights and subcarrier power allocation for the downlink transmission). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a 

POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because each of Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA and Wong in 

view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim 

element, then either of Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a POSITA or Wong in 

view of Minn further in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 147 of 181 PageID #:

2302
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 147 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 13

13. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein identifying said at least one multipath 

transmission delay, determining said at least one forward path pre-equalization 

parameter, and modifying said forward path data signal are performed by a transmitting 

device. 

13. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein identifying said at least one multipath 

transmission delay, determining said at least one forward path pre-equalization parameter, 

and modifying said forward path data signal are performed by a transmitting device. 

In my analysis of Claim 1 above, I noted that Wong discloses at least “identifying 

at least one multipath transmission [channel condition]” (or in view of the knowledge of a 

POSITA and/or Minn renders obvious the recited “identifying said at least one multipath 

transmission delay”), “determining at least one forward path pre-equalization parameter” 

and “modifying a forward path data signal” were performed at the “base station (BS)” of 

Wong, which a POSITA would understand to be disclosure at a “transmitting device”. 

Thus, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious “The method as 

recited in claim 1” (for example, my analysis for Claim 1), wherein “identifying said at least 

one multipath transmission delay, determining said at least one forward path preequalization parameter, and modifying said forward path data signal are performed by a 

transmitting device” (for example, when these method steps are disclosed or rendered obvious 

by the base station of Wong as shown at least in annotated Fig. 1). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious the 

limitations of this claim element, then any of Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a 

POSITA, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA or Wong in view of Minn 

further in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious the limitations 

of this claim element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 148 of 181 PageID #:

2303
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 148 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 14

14. The method as recited in claim 13, wherein said transmitting device includes a base 

station device that is operatively configured for use in a wireless communication system. 

14. The method as recited in claim 13, wherein said transmitting device includes a base 

station device that is operatively configured for use in a wireless communication system. 

In my analysis of Claim 13 above, I noted that Wong discloses and/or renders 

obvious (based on the knowledge of a POSITA and/or Minn) the recited steps at a “transmitting 

device” that is a “base station (BS)”, which Wong also discloses as being for use in a “time 

division duplex (TDD) wireless communication system” that uses “orthogonal frequency 

division multiplex (OFDM)”. 

Thus, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious “The method as 

recited in claim 13” (for example, my analysis for Claim 13), wherein “said transmitting 

device includes a base station device that is operatively configured for use in a wireless 

communication system” (for example, by the OFDM base station in a TDD wireless 

communication system of Wong). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious the 

limitations of this claim element, then any of Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a 

POSITA, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA or Wong in view of Minn 

further in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious the limitations 

of this claim element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 149 of 181 PageID #:

2304
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 149 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 15

15. The method as recited in claim 13, further comprising: using at least one 

transmitting device receive antenna operatively coupled to said transmitting device to 

receive said reverse path data signal over at least one reverse transmission path from the 

receiving device. 

15. The method as recited in claim 13, further comprising: using at least one transmitting 

device receive antenna operatively coupled to said transmitting device to receive said 

reverse path data signal over at least one reverse transmission path from the receiving 

device. 

I note that during the prosecution of the ‘369 Patent that applicant did not dispute 

the patent examiner’s finding that the additional limitations of this claim are met by prior art 

based on inherency for a “transmitting device” of including “an antenna coupled thereto to 

receive data signal from the receiving device” even though such prior art that “relates to a radio 

communication system” did not disclose any “antenna” either by text or within its figures (see, 

for example, ¶¶ 78, 82, 102-103 and 105 above). 

In my analysis of Claim 2 above, I noted that Wong discloses at least “said 

reverse path data signal over at least one reverse transmission path from the receiving 

device” by at least the “uplink transmission” from the “mobile” or “user” to the “base station 

(BS)” in Wong. 

A POSITA would understand that Wong’s disclosure of a “base station (BS)” for 

use in a “time division duplex (TDD) wireless communication system” that uses “orthogonal 

frequency division multiplex (OFDM)” indicates that such “base station (BS)” would be using 

“at least one transmitting device receive antenna operatively coupled to said transmitting 

device to receive” at least because such an “antenna” would be needed at such “base station 

(BS)” in order to perform as described in Wong. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 150 of 181 PageID #:

2305
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 150 - 

Additionally, a POSITA would know that prior art “orthogonal frequency 

division multiplex (OFDM)” and/or “time division duplex (TDD)” wireless communications 

devices comprise such an “antenna” (see, for example, ¶¶ 204, 253 and 256-257 above). 

Thus, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious “The method as 

recited in claim 13” (for example, my analysis for Claim 13), further comprising: “using at 

least one transmitting device receive antenna operatively coupled to said transmitting 

device to receive said reverse path data signal over at least one reverse transmission path 

from the receiving device” (for example, by an antenna at the OFDM base station used to 

receive uplink transmissions in the TDD wireless communication system of Wong). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious the 

limitations of this claim element, then any of Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a 

POSITA, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA or Wong in view of Minn 

further in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious the limitations 

of this claim element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 151 of 181 PageID #:

2306
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 151 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 19

19. The method as recited in claim 15, wherein said transmitting device is operatively 

coupled to a plurality of first device receive antennas. 

19. The method as recited in claim 15, wherein said transmitting device is operatively 

coupled to a plurality of first device receive antennas. 

I note that during the prosecution of the ‘369 Patent that applicant did not dispute 

the patent examiner’s finding that the additional limitations of this claim were obvious to a 

POSITA without citation to a combining reference or showing that the base reference discloses 

any “plurality of first device receive antennas”, but instead the examiner stated that “it would 

have been obvious to couple the device with a plurality of antenna to enhance signal detection” 

(see, for example, ¶¶ 79 and 82 above). 

In my analysis of Claim 15 above, I noted that Wong discloses at least “using at 

least one transmitting device receive antenna operatively coupled to said transmitting 

device” at least because such an “antenna” would be needed at a “base station (BS)” (i.e. “said 

transmitting device”) in order to perform as described in Wong. 

Lehne discloses a “cellular system” wherein “the radio communication is between 

the user and a base station, which provides radio coverage within a certain area, which is called 

a cell” (see, for example, ¶ 233 above). 

Lehne notes that “Normally, the term “antenna” comprises only” the “radiating 

element” (see, for example, ¶ 236 above). 

But Lehne teaches that advantageously a “cellular system” should use “smart 

antennas” at the “base station” in the form of “array antennas” that include “a number of 

radiating elements, a combining/dividing network and a control unit” to produce “an adaptive ... 

lobe-pattern” in order to “optimize the communications link” (see, for example, ¶¶ 234-236 

above). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 152 of 181 PageID #:

2307
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 152 - 

For example, Lehne discloses that “Figure 12 shows schematically the elements 

of the reception part of a smart antenna” for an “antenna array” that “contains N elements” (see, 

for example, ¶ 246 above, annotated Figure 12 as reproduced below). 

Thus, a POSITA would understand that Lehne discloses a “base station” (i.e. 

“said transmitting device”) that includes at least a “number of radiating elements” (i.e. “a 

plurality of first device receive antennas”). 

In my opinion, a POSITA would have been highly motivated to combine Wong in 

view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA in a manner that would render obvious all of the 

limitations of this claim element for at least the following reasons. 

First, a POSITA would understand that Wong discloses a “multiuser OFDM 

subcarrier, bit, and power allocation algorithm” at a “base station (BS)” for “assigning each 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 153 of 181 PageID #:

2308
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 153 - 

user a set of subcarriers” and “determining the number of bits and the transmit power level for 

each subcarrier” specifically in order to “improve the downlink capacity” for “downlink 

transmission in a time division duplex (TDD) wireless communication system” subject to 

“multipath fading channels” (see, for example, ¶¶ 114-115, 117 and 121-122 above). 

A POSITA would also understand from the prior art at the time of the alleged 

invention of the ‘369 Patent that there is “tremendous capacity potential for wireless 

communication systems using antenna diversity”, as well as “OFDM”, particularly “When the 

channel” is “fading” such as, for example, when there is “sufficient spacing between the 

antenna elements at the transmitters and receivers such that there is no or very little correlation 

amongst their respective signals” such that “antenna diversity can be used to either improve the 

link performance of a signal or increase data throughput” and thereby “increase capacity” (see, 

for example, ¶¶ 221-222 above). 

Additionally, a POSITA would understand that Lehne discloses that “The 

principle reason for the growing interest in smart antennas is the capacity increase” because 

while “mobile systems are normally interference-limited”, “Smart antennas” operate by 

“simultaneously increasing the useful received signal level and lowering the interference 

level”, thereby providing a “capacity increase of 300 percent” or alternatively a “fivefold 

capacity gain” (see, for example, ¶¶ 254-255 above). 

Accordingly, at least because the disclosures of Wong are directed to “improve 

the downlink capacity”, because the prior art teaches that combining “OFDM” such as used in 

Wong with “antenna diversity” such as used in Lehne would “increase capacity”, and because 

Lehne also teaches “smart antennas” provide a significant “capacity increase”, then a POSITA 

would have been highly motivated to combine the “smart antennas” disclosures of Lehne with 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 154 of 181 PageID #:

2309
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 154 - 

the “multiuser OFDM subcarrier, bit, and power allocation algorithm” at a “base station (BS)” 

in a “time division duplex (TDD) wireless communication system” of Wong in order to even 

further “increase capacity” for the combination as would be a common sense action in view of 

well-known market forces at the time of the alleged invention of the ‘369 Patent for a “base 

station (BS)” that highly value “capacity”. 

Second, a POSITA would have an expectation of success when combining the 

“smart antenna” disclosures of Lehne with the “multiuser OFDM subcarrier, bit, and power 

allocation algorithm” at a “base station (BS)” in a “time division duplex (TDD) wireless 

communication system” of Wong. 

For example, a POSITA would have known that the output of the “Lobe forming 

unit” in the “Reception part of a smart antenna” (see, for example, ¶ 246 above) is analogous to 

the disclosure of “received uplink transmissions” in the “base station (BS)” of Wong (see, for 

example, ¶ 122 above) and that the input to the “Lobe forming unit” in the “Transmission part 

of a smart antenna” (see, for example, ¶ 252 above) is analogous to the disclosure of “downlink 

transmission” in the “base station (BS)” of Wong (see, for example, ¶ 121 above). 

Accordingly, a POSITA would have known that the “smart antenna” system of 

Lehne can be substituted for the ““dumb”/fixed antenna” (see, for example, ¶ 235 above) that is 

effectively assumed by the disclosures of Wong (see, for example, ¶ 125 above). 

Additionally, Lehne specifically reports that its “smart antenna” approaches have 

been successfully deployed with a “time division duplex (TDD) wireless communication 

system”, which a POSITA would associate with Wong, by real-world examples such as the “first 

trial to demonstrate commercial traffic through base stations equipped with smart antennas” 

for “GSM1800” (a “time division duplex (TDD) system”) as well as “smart antenna solutions 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 155 of 181 PageID #:

2310
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 155 - 

for the GSM standard and for the Japanese Personal Handyphone System (PHS)” (each a 

“time division duplex (TDD) system”) as shown by “Field trials” performed in the USA (see, for 

example, ¶¶ 256-257 above). 

Moreover, a POSITA would have known that prior art teaches that “smart 

antenna” approaches are specifically application to an “OFDM” form of “time division duplex 

(TDD) wireless communication system” because “OFDM” provides “Spectral diversity” that is 

“effective when the fading is frequency-selective”, which a POSITA would associate with 

Wong, while “spatial diversity can be used to provide substantial improvement in system 

performance” through the use of “multiple antennas sufficiently well-separated” even for 

“situations where the fading channel is nonselective” (see, for example, ¶ 224 above), thereby 

teaching a POSITA that the combination of Wong and Lehne as described above would be even 

more reliable across all channel conditions (both “frequency-selective” and “nonselective”) than 

either Wong or Lehne alone. 

Third, a POSITA would understand from the disclosure of Lehne that all “smart 

antenna” approaches of Lehne are applicable to the combination of Wong in view of Lehne. 

For example, Lehne discloses that while “the benefits of using smart antennas 

are many, there are also drawbacks and cost factors” associated with each of the “Switched 

lobe (SL)”, “phased array (PA)” and “Adaptive array (AA)” approaches because the “benefits” 

of “capacity increase” for each respective approach are correlated with being “more expensive” 

for a “base station” using the respective approach (see, for example, ¶¶ 237-243 above). 

More specifically, Lehne teaches that the simplest “Switched lobe (SL)” approach 

is “easier to implement in existing cell structures” but provides only a “limited improvement” 

while the “phased array (PA)” approach has “greater gain potential than switched lobe” but 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 156 of 181 PageID #:

2311
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 156 - 

needs “separate transceiver chains for each of the array antenna elements” and further the 

most complex “Adaptive array (AA)” approach provides an “additional increase in capacity” in 

the form of “more users per carrier” but requires a “computationally intensive process” 

associated with the “beamforming” (see, for example, ¶¶ 238-239 and 241-242 above). 

However, a POSITA would also understand that since the combination of Wong 

in view of Lehne involves a substitution of a ““dumb”/fixed antenna” approach in Wong for 

any one of the 3 “smart antenna” approaches of Lehne, then accordingly, the common sense 

understanding of a POSITA for the market forces applicable to any particular “base station” 

would render obvious the choice of which among the 3 “smart antenna” approaches of Lehne 

would be chosen as a tradeoff between the “benefits” and the “cost factors”.

Thus, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

“The method as recited in claim 15” (for example, my analysis for Claim 15), wherein “said 

transmitting device is operatively coupled to a plurality of first device receive antennas” 

(for example, when the base station in a TDD system has multiple radiating elements within a 

smart antenna coupled to its receiver). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a 

POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA renders 

obvious the limitations of this claim element, then Wong in view of Minn further in view of 

Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious the limitations of this claim 

element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 157 of 181 PageID #:

2312
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 157 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 21

21. The method as recited in claim 15, wherein determining said at least one forward 

path pre-equalization parameter based on said at least one transmission delay further 

includes: determining at least one angle of arrival of said reverse path data signal with 

respect to said at least one transmitting device receive antenna. 

21. The method as recited in claim 15, wherein determining said at least one forward path 

pre-equalization parameter based on said at least one transmission delay further includes: 

determining at least one angle of arrival of said reverse path data signal with respect to 

said at least one transmitting device receive antenna. 

I note that during the prosecution of the ‘369 Patent that applicant did not dispute 

the patent examiner’s finding that the additional limitations of this claim were obvious to a 

POSITA without citation to a combining reference or showing that the base reference discloses 

any “determining at least one angle of arrival of said reverse path data signal with respect 

to said at least one transmitting device receive antenna”, but instead the examiner stated that 

“it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to determine at least one angle of arrival of 

said reverse path with respect to said receive antenna so as to so as to detect delays associated 

with the received signal” (see, for example, ¶¶ 79 and 82 above). 

See, for example, ¶¶ 472-491 above, which are also applicable to my analysis of 

this claim. 

See also my analysis for claim element 1(a) above, which shows that a POSITA 

would understand that the “magnitude of the channel gain” in Wong as determined by known 

prior art “time domain” approaches to channel estimation in OFDM at a base station (BS), 

including specifically the “MST dual form DFT-based method” of Minn, discloses 

“determining said at least one forward path pre-equalization parameter based on said at 

least one transmission delay” based upon at least the “received uplink transmissions” of 

Wong. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 158 of 181 PageID #:

2313
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 158 - 

Lehne teaches to use a “direction of arrival (DoA) algorithm” on the “signal 

received from the user” such that the “received power is maximized” in order to “maximize the 

signal to interference ratio (SIR)” and Lehne also discloses that this general approach is 

applicable to exemplary forms of “smart antennas” disclosed in Lehne (see, for example, ¶¶ 

237-239 and 251 above). 

More specifically, Lehne teaches that “The signal processing unit will, based on 

the received signal, calculate the complex weights w1 – wN with which the received signal from 

each of the array elements is multiplied” such that these “weights can be optimized” for the 

“maximization of received signal from the desired user” (see, for example, ¶ 249 above). 

Lehne also notes that to “maximize the SIR” will “require knowledge of the 

instantaneous channel response” and thus that the “base station” must “be able to estimate the 

radio channel” by, for example, using a “reference or training sequence” that is “transmitted 

periodically” (see, for example, ¶ 250 above), which a POSITA would understand to be in 

accordance with the methodologies I described in reference to Wong and/or Minn and/or the 

knowledge of a POSITA in my analysis of claim element 1(a) herein. 

Additionally, Lehne teaches that the “direction-of-arrival (DoA) is first estimated

and then the weights are calculated” with the “amplitude and phase in accordance with the 

desired steering angle” wherein “well documented methods exist for estimating the DoA” (see, 

for example, ¶ 251 above). 

Accordingly, a POSITA would understand that Wong in view of Lehne (or Wong 

in view of Minn further in view of Lehne) not only discloses “determining said at least one 

forward path pre-equalization parameter based on said at least one transmission delay” as 

I have described previously in my analysis of claim element 1(a) herein, but that in view of 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 159 of 181 PageID #:

2314
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 159 - 

Lehne such determination based upon at least the “received uplink transmissions” of Wong 

would also be applicable for “estimating the DoA” using at least a “direction of arrival (DoA) 

algorithm” on the “signal received from the user” such that the “received power is maximized” 

with respect to the “array elements” of the “smart antennas” disclosed in Lehne. 

Thus, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

“The method as recited in claim 15” (for example, my analysis for Claim 15), wherein 

“determining said at least one forward path pre-equalization parameter based on said at 

least one transmission delay” (for example, determining the magnitude of the channel gain at 

the base station based upon received uplink transmissions for OFDM using a time domain 

approach) further includes: “determining at least one angle of arrival of said reverse path 

data signal with respect to said at least one transmitting device receive antenna” (for 

example, when such determining also uses a direction of arrival (DoA) algorithm on the signal 

received from the user across the array elements of the smart antenna such that the received 

power is maximized). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a 

POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA renders 

obvious the limitations of this claim element, then Wong in view of Minn further in view of 

Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious the limitations of this claim 

element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 160 of 181 PageID #:

2315
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 160 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 28

28. The method as recited in claim 13, further comprising: using at least one 

transmitting device transmit antenna operatively coupled to said transmitting device to 

transmit said modified forward path data signal over at least one forward transmission 

path to the receiving device. 

28. The method as recited in claim 13, further comprising: using at least one transmitting 

device transmit antenna operatively coupled to said transmitting device to transmit said 

modified forward path data signal over at least one forward transmission path to the 

receiving device. 

I note that during the prosecution of the ‘369 Patent that applicant did not dispute 

the patent examiner’s finding that the additional limitations of this claim are met by prior art 

based on inherency for a “transmitting device” of including “an antenna coupled thereto to 

receive data signal from the receiving device” even though such prior art that “relates to a radio 

communication system” did not disclose any “antenna” either by text or within its figures (see, 

for example, ¶¶ 78, 82, 102-103 and 105 above). 

In my analysis of Claim 3 above, I noted that Wong discloses at least “said 

modified forward path data signal over at least one forward transmission path to the 

receiving device” by at least the “downlink transmission” to the “mobile” or “user” from the 

“base station (BS)” in Wong. 

A POSITA would understand that Wong’s disclosure of a “base station (BS)” for 

use in a “time division duplex (TDD) wireless communication system” that uses “orthogonal 

frequency division multiplex (OFDM)” indicates that such “base station (BS)” would be using 

“at least one transmitting device transmit antenna operatively coupled to said transmitting 

device to transmit” at least because such an “antenna” would be needed at such “base station 

(BS)” in order to perform as described in Wong. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 161 of 181 PageID #:

2316
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 161 - 

Additionally, a POSITA would know that prior art “orthogonal frequency 

division multiplex (OFDM)” and/or “time division duplex (TDD)” wireless communications 

devices comprise such an “antenna” (see, for example, ¶¶ 204, 253 and 256-257 above). 

Thus, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious “The method as 

recited in claim 13” (for example, my analysis for Claim 13), further comprising: “using at 

least one transmitting device transmit antenna operatively coupled to said transmitting 

device to transmit said modified forward path data signal over at least one forward 

transmission path to the receiving device” (for example, by an antenna at the OFDM base 

station used to transmit downlink transmissions in the TDD wireless communication system of 

Wong). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious the 

limitations of this claim element, then any of Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a 

POSITA, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA or Wong in view of Minn 

further in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious the limitations 

of this claim element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 162 of 181 PageID #:

2317
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 162 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 32

32. The method as recited in claim 28, further comprising: setting at least one antenna 

pointing parameter associated with said at least one transmitting device transmit antenna 

based on said at least one forward path pre-equalization parameter. 

32. The method as recited in claim 28, further comprising: setting at least one antenna 

pointing parameter associated with said at least one transmitting device transmit antenna 

based on said at least one forward path pre-equalization parameter. 

I note that during the prosecution of the ‘369 Patent that applicant did not dispute 

the patent examiner’s finding that the additional limitations of this claim were obvious to a 

POSITA without citation to a combining reference or showing that the base reference discloses 

any “setting at least one antenna pointing parameter associated with said at least one 

transmitting device transmit antenna based on said at least one forward path preequalization parameter”, but instead the examiner stated that “it would have been obvious to 

one skill in the art to set at least one antenna pointing parameter or phase array associated 

with said transmit antenna based on the pre-equalization parameter so as to improve signal 

detection” (see, for example, ¶¶ 79 and 82 above). 

See, for example, ¶¶ 496-502 above, which are also applicable to my analysis of 

this claim. 

Lehne discloses that “Electronically steerable antenna patterns are most often 

generated using array antennas” that are “consisting of a number of antenna elements on which 

the signal is divided or combined in both phase and amplitude” (see, for example, ¶ 245 above). 

Lehne discloses that “The transmission part of the smart antenna will be 

schematically very similar to the reception part” wherein “The signal is split into N branches, 

which are weighted by the complex weights z1 – zN in the lobe forming unit” and these “weights, 

which decide the radiation pattern in the downlink direction, are calculated by the signal 

processing unit” (see, for example, ¶ 252 above). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 163 of 181 PageID #:

2318
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 163 - 

Lehne teaches that “In a time division duplex (TDD) system the mobile station and 

base station use the same carrier frequency only separated in time” such that “In this case the 

weights calculated on uplink will be optimal on downlink if the channel does not change during 

the period from uplink to downlink transmission” (see, for example, ¶ 253 above). 

Accordingly, a POSITA would understand that Wong in view of Lehne (or Wong 

in view of Minn further in view of Lehne) not only discloses “said at least one forward path 

pre-equalization parameter” as I have described previously in my analysis of claim element 

1(a) herein, but that in view of Lehne such determination based upon at least the “received 

uplink transmissions” of Wong would also be applicable for “estimating the DoA” using at least 

a “direction of arrival (DoA) algorithm” on the “signal received from the user” such that the 

“received power is maximized” using “weights calculated on uplink” with respect to the “array 

elements” of the “smart antennas” disclosed in Lehne, and then because the “channel does not 

change during the period from uplink to downlink transmission” as I have described 

previously in my analysis of Claim 12 herein, such “weights calculated on uplink” will be 

“optimal on downlink”, thereby setting the “radiation pattern in the downlink direction” that is 

“Electronically steerable” to be the same as the optimum “direction of arrival (DoA)” on the 

uplink (i.e. “setting at least one antenna pointing parameter associated with said at least one 

transmitting device transmit antenna”) as determined by the calculation of the “magnitude of 

the channel gain at the base station” (i.e. “based on said at least one forward path preequalization parameter”). 

Thus, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

“The method as recited in claim 28” (for example, my analysis for Claim 28), further 

comprising: “setting at least one antenna pointing parameter associated with said at least 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 164 of 181 PageID #:

2319
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 164 - 

one transmitting device transmit antenna” (for example, using a direction of arrival (DoA) 

algorithm on the signal received from the user across the array elements of the smart antenna to 

calculate both the magnitude of the channel gain and the optimal complex weights and then 

applying these results as optimal downlink weights to set the direction of the radiation pattern for 

downlink transmission from the base station) based on “said at least one forward path preequalization parameter” (for example, the magnitude of the channel gain at the base station). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a 

POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA renders 

obvious the limitations of this claim element, then Wong in view of Minn further in view of 

Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious the limitations of this claim 

element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 165 of 181 PageID #:

2320
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 165 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 33

33. The method as recited in claim 28, further comprising: setting at least one phased 

array antenna transmission directing parameter associated with said at least one 

transmitting device transmit antenna based on said at least one forward path preequalization parameter. 

33. The method as recited in claim 28, further comprising: setting at least one phased array 

antenna transmission directing parameter associated with said at least one transmitting 

device transmit antenna based on said at least one forward path pre-equalization 

parameter. 

I note that during the prosecution of the ‘369 Patent that applicant did not dispute 

the patent examiner’s finding that the additional limitations of this claim were obvious to a 

POSITA without citation to a combining reference or showing that the base reference discloses 

any “setting at least one phased array antenna transmission directing parameter associated 

with said at least one transmitting device transmit antenna based on said at least one 

forward path pre-equalization parameter”, but instead the examiner stated that “it would have 

been obvious to one skill in the art to set at least one antenna pointing parameter or phase 

array associated with said transmit antenna based on the pre-equalization parameter so as to 

improve signal detection” (see, for example, ¶¶ 79 and 82 above). 

See, for example, ¶¶ 514-518 above, which are also applicable to my analysis of 

this claim. 

Additionally, Lehne specifically discloses a “Dynamically phased array (PA)” 

wherein “continuous tracking can be achieved” for the “Electronically steerable antenna 

patterns” by using “a direction of arrival (DoA) algorithm for the signal received from the user” 

(see, for example, ¶¶ 238 and 245 above). 

Accordingly, a POSITA would understand that Wong in view of Lehne (or Wong 

in view of Minn further in view of Lehne) not only discloses “said at least one forward path 

pre-equalization parameter” as I have described previously in my analysis of claim element 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 166 of 181 PageID #:

2321
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 166 - 

1(a) herein, but that in view of Lehne such determination based upon at least the “received 

uplink transmissions” of Wong would also be applicable for “estimating the DoA” using at least 

a “direction of arrival (DoA) algorithm” on the “signal received from the user” such that the 

“received power is maximized” using “weights calculated on uplink” with respect to the “array 

elements” of the “smart antennas” disclosed in Lehne including specifically the “Dynamically 

phased array (PA)”, and then because the “channel does not change during the period from 

uplink to downlink transmission” as I have described previously in my analysis of Claim 12 

herein, such “weights calculated on uplink” will be “optimal on downlink”, thereby setting the 

“radiation pattern in the downlink direction” that is “Electronically steerable” to be the same 

as the optimum “direction of arrival (DoA)” on the uplink (i.e. “setting at least one phased 

array antenna transmission directing parameter associated with said at least one 

transmitting device transmit antenna”) as determined by the calculation of the “magnitude of 

the channel gain at the base station” (i.e. “based on said at least one forward path preequalization parameter”). 

Thus, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

“The method as recited in claim 28” (for example, my analysis for Claim 28), further 

comprising: “setting at least one phased array antenna transmission directing parameter 

associated with said at least one transmitting device transmit antenna” (for example, using a 

direction of arrival (DoA) algorithm on the signal received from the user across the array 

elements of a dynamically phased array antenna to calculate both the magnitude of the channel 

gain and the optimal complex weights and then applying these results as optimal downlink 

weights to set the direction of the radiation pattern for downlink transmission from the base 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 167 of 181 PageID #:

2322
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 167 - 

station) based on “said at least one forward path pre-equalization parameter” (for example, 

the magnitude of the channel gain at the base station). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a 

POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA renders 

obvious the limitations of this claim element, then Wong in view of Minn further in view of 

Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious the limitations of this claim 

element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 168 of 181 PageID #:

2323
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 168 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 35

35. The method as recited in claim 28, further comprising: selecting said at least one 

transmitting device transmit antenna from a plurality of transmitting device transmit 

antennas that are each operatively coupled to said transmitting device. 

35. The method as recited in claim 28, further comprising: selecting said at least one 

transmitting device transmit antenna from a plurality of transmitting device transmit 

antennas that are each operatively coupled to said transmitting device. 

I note that during the prosecution of the ‘369 Patent that applicant did not dispute 

the patent examiner’s finding that the additional limitations of this claim were obvious to a 

POSITA without citation to a combining reference or showing that the base reference discloses 

any “selecting said at least one transmitting device transmit antenna from a plurality of 

transmitting device transmit antennas that are each operatively coupled to said 

transmitting device”, but instead the examiner stated that “it would have been obvious to one 

skill in the art to select one antenna from a plurality of antenna to improve system flexibility” 

(see, for example, ¶¶ 79 and 82 above). 

In my analysis of Claim 28 above, I noted that Wong discloses at least “at least 

one transmitting device transmit antenna operatively coupled to said transmitting device” 

at least because such an “antenna” would be needed at a “base station (BS)” (i.e. “said 

transmitting device”) in order to perform as described in Wong. 

See, for example, ¶¶ 473-475 above, which are also applicable to my analysis of 

this claim. 

For example, Lehne discloses that “The transmission part of the smart antenna

will be schematically very similar to the reception part” as “shown in Fig. 16” (see, for example, 

¶ 252 above, annotated Figure 16 as reproduced below). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 169 of 181 PageID #:

2324
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 169 - 

Thus, a POSITA would understand that Lehne discloses a “base station” (i.e. 

“said transmitting device”) that includes at least a “number of radiating elements” (i.e. “a 

plurality of transmitting device transmit antennas that are each operatively coupled to said 

transmitting device”). 

Additionally, Lehne explains that the “Switched lobe (SL)” or “switched beam” 

approach, which is “easier to implement in existing cell structures”, uses a “switching function 

between separate directive antennas or predefined beams of an array” wherein a “setting that 

gives the best performance, usually in terms of received power, is chosen” (see, for example, ¶¶ 

237 and 241 above). 

See, for example, ¶¶ 478-491 above, which are also applicable to my analysis of 

this claim. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 170 of 181 PageID #:

2325
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 170 - 

Accordingly, a POSITA would understand that Wong in view of Lehne (or Wong 

in view of Minn further in view of Lehne) not only discloses “at least one transmitting device 

transmit antenna operatively coupled to said transmitting device” as I have described 

previously in my analysis of claim element 28 herein, but that in view of Lehne some “number 

of radiating elements” (i.e. “at least one transmitting device transmit antenna from a 

plurality of transmitting device transmit antennas that are each operatively coupled to said 

transmitting device”) is “chosen” for “best performance” as a “separate directive antenna” or 

as a “predefined beam of an array” (i.e. “selecting said at least one transmitting device 

transmit antenna”) . 

Thus, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

“The method as recited in claim 28” (for example, my analysis for Claim 28), further 

comprising: “selecting said at least one transmitting device transmit antenna from a 

plurality of transmitting device transmit antennas that are each operatively coupled to said 

transmitting device” (for example, when the base station in a TDD system has multiple 

radiating elements within a smart antenna coupled to its transmitter wherein at least one such 

radiating element within a separate directive antenna or predefined beam of an array is chosen 

based on a setting that gives best performance for received power). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a 

POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA renders 

obvious the limitations of this claim element, then Wong in view of Minn further in view of 

Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious the limitations of this claim 

element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 171 of 181 PageID #:

2326
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 171 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 36

36. The method as recited in claim 35, further comprising: selectively transmitting a 

plurality of beams using two or more transmitting device transmit antennas. 

36. The method as recited in claim 35, further comprising: selectively transmitting a 

plurality of beams using two or more transmitting device transmit antennas. 

I note that during the prosecution of the ‘369 Patent that applicant did not dispute 

the patent examiner’s finding that the additional limitations of this claim were obvious to a 

POSITA without citation to a combining reference or showing that the base reference discloses 

any “selectively transmitting a plurality of beams using two or more transmitting device 

transmit antennas”, but instead the examiner stated that “it would have been obvious to one 

skill in the art to selectively transmit a plurality of beam using at least two transmit antenna in 

order to improve signal detection” (see, for example, ¶¶ 79 and 82 above). 

See, for example, ¶¶ 515-518 and 530-536 above, which are also applicable to my 

analysis of this claim. 

Additionally, Lehne describes for the “Adaptive array (AA)” that with “space 

diversity techniques, the radiation pattern can be adapted to receive multipath signals which can 

be combined” as “illustrated in Fig. 3” (see, for example, ¶¶ 237 and 239 above, excerpted and 

annotated Figure 3 as reproduced below). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 172 of 181 PageID #:

2327
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 172 - 

Accordingly, a POSITA would understand that Lehne describes the “Adaptive 

array (AA)” approach as shown by excerpted and annotated Figure 3 as having a “radiation 

pattern in the downlink direction” that is “adapted” to have multiple “beams” (i.e. 3 such 

“beams” being depicted in Figure 3, or hence “a plurality of beams”) that are transmitted across 

the multiple “antenna elements” in the “array” (i.e. “two or more transmitting device 

transmit antennas”) on which the “signal is divided” in “both phase and amplitude” (i.e. 

“selectively transmitting”). 

Thus, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

“The method as recited in claim 35” (for example, my analysis for Claim 35), further 

comprising: “selectively transmitting a plurality of beams using two or more transmitting 

device transmit antennas” (for example, when the base station in a TDD system uses an 

adaptive antenna array that is adapted by both phase and amplitude for each antenna element to 

produce multiple beams within its radiation pattern in the downlink direction). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 173 of 181 PageID #:

2328
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 173 - 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a 

POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA renders 

obvious the limitations of this claim element, then Wong in view of Minn further in view of 

Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious the limitations of this claim 

element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 174 of 181 PageID #:

2329
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 174 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 37

37. The method as recited in claim 36, wherein each of said transmitted plurality of 

beams is selectively adjusted in phase and amplitude to reduce multipath affects when 

received by said receiving device. 

37. The method as recited in claim 36, wherein each of said transmitted plurality of beams 

is selectively adjusted in phase and amplitude to reduce multipath affects when received by 

said receiving device. 

I note that during the prosecution of the ‘369 Patent that applicant did not dispute 

the patent examiner’s finding that the additional limitations of this claim were obvious to a 

POSITA without citation to a combining reference or showing that the base reference discloses 

any “of said transmitted plurality of beams is selectively adjusted in phase and amplitude 

to reduce multipath affects when received by said receiving device”, but instead the examiner 

stated that “it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to adjust the plurality of beams in 

amplitude and in phase so as to improve signal detection” (see, for example, ¶¶ 79 and 82 

above). 

See, for example, ¶¶ 541-543 above, which are also applicable to my analysis of 

this claim. 

Lehne discloses for the “transmission part of the smart antenna” that “The signal 

is split into N branches, which are weighted by the complex weights z1 – zN in the lobe forming 

unit” and these “weights, which decide the radiation pattern in the downlink direction, are 

calculated by the signal processing unit” (see, for example, ¶ 252 above). 

I note that a POSITA would understand this disclosure of “complex weights” to 

mean that each “weight” comprises a real and an imaginary component as a Cartesian coordinate 

representation of the polar coordinate combination of amplitude and phase. 

Lehne also discloses that “Electronically steerable antenna patterns are most 

often generated using array antennas” that are “consisting of a number of antenna elements on 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 175 of 181 PageID #:

2330
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 175 - 

which the signal is divided or combined in both phase and amplitude” such that “By using a 

narrow antenna beam at the base station the multipath propagation can be somewhat reduced” 

(see, for example, ¶ 245 above). 

See also, excerpted and annotated Figure 3 at ¶ 542 above which shows, as a 

POSITA would understand, that Lehne discloses multiple such “narrow antenna beam[s] at the 

base station” for the “radiation pattern in the downlink direction” that as “combined” when 

“received by said receiving device” (i.e. the “user”) cause such “multipath propagation” to be 

“reduced”.

Accordingly, a POSITA would understand that Lehne describes the “Adaptive 

array (AA)” approach as shown by excerpted and annotated Figure 3 as having a “radiation 

pattern in the downlink direction” that is “adapted” to have multiple “narrow antenna beams” 

(i.e. 3 such “beams” being depicted in Figure 3, or hence the “each of said transmitted 

plurality of beams”) that are transmitted across the multiple “antenna elements” in the “array” 

on which the “signal is divided” in “both phase and amplitude” when “weighted by the complex 

weights” (i.e. “selectively adjusted in phase and amplitude”) such that the effects of 

“multipath propagation” is “reduced” for the “user” (i.e. “to reduce multipath affects when 

received by said receiving device”). 

Thus, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

“The method as recited in claim 36” (for example, my analysis for Claim 36), wherein “each 

of said transmitted plurality of beams is selectively adjusted in phase and amplitude to 

reduce multipath affects when received by said receiving device” (for example, when the 

base station in a TDD system uses an adaptive antenna array that is adapted by both phase and 

amplitude for each antenna element to produce multiple beams within its radiation pattern in the 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 176 of 181 PageID #:

2331
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 176 - 

downlink direction that when combined at the receiver in the user cause the effects of multipath 

propagation to be reduced). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a 

POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA renders 

obvious the limitations of this claim element, then Wong in view of Minn further in view of 

Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious the limitations of this claim 

element. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 177 of 181 PageID #:

2332
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 177 - 

‘369 Patent: Claim 41

41. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein determining said at least one forward path 

pre-equalization parameter based on said at least one transmission delay further 

includes: sub-band equalizing said forward path data signal using corresponding 

frequency domain reverse path data. 

41. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein determining said at least one forward path 

pre-equalization parameter based on said at least one transmission delay further includes: 

sub-band equalizing said forward path data signal using corresponding frequency domain 

reverse path data. 

I note that during the prosecution of the ‘369 Patent that applicant did not dispute 

the patent examiner’s finding that the additional limitations of this claim were obvious to a 

POSITA without citation to a combining reference or showing that the base reference discloses 

any “sub-band equalizing”, whether using any “corresponding frequency domain reverse 

path data” or otherwise, but instead the examiner stated that “it would have been obvious to one 

skill in the art to subband equalize said forward path using corresponding reverse path data so 

as to remove interference” (see, for example, ¶¶ 79 and 82 above). 

A POSITA would understand that the plain, ordinary meaning of the term “subband equalizing said forward path data signal” in the context of an OFDM system would at 

least include performing equalization in the forward path across a group or band of related 

subcarriers instead of across each subcarrier individually. 

For example, the ‘369 Patent describes a “frequency domain equalization 

technique” that “essentially acts a sub-band equalizer in the transmitting node (here, the base 

station device)” wherein “power may be set to be equal in each of the sub-bands, allowing 

regulatory rules, such as FCC rules, to be satisfied” while “the power may be substantially 

flattened over the spectrum” (see, for example, ¶ 68 above), which is consistent with the plain, 

ordinary meaning of “sub-band equalizing said forward path data signal” as equalization in 

the forward path across a group or band of related subcarriers. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 178 of 181 PageID #:

2333

Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 179 - 

“received uplink transmissions” (i.e. “equalizing said forward path data signal using 

corresponding frequency domain reverse path data”) that Wong also discloses to instead 

perform such application of the “power allocation algorithm” to a “contiguous band of 

subcarriers with similar fading characteristics as a group” (i.e. to a “sub-band” in the 

terminology of this claim element). 

Thus, Wong and/or Minn and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious “The 

method as recited in claim 1” (for example, my analysis for Claim 1), wherein “determining 

said at least one forward path pre-equalization parameter based on said at least one 

transmission delay” (for example, my analysis of claim element 1(a)) further includes: “subband equalizing said forward path data signal” (for example, applying the power allocation 

algorithm to downlink transmission at the base station in Wong to multiple ones of a contiguous 

band of subcarriers with similar fading characteristics as a group) using “corresponding 

frequency domain reverse path data” (for example, using the magnitude of the channel gain as 

derived from received uplink transmissions as shown for claim element 1(a)). 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element. 

Therefore, in my opinion, Wong in view of Minn and the knowledge of a 

POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim element. 

At least because each of Wong and the knowledge of a POSITA and Wong in 

view of Minn and the knowledge of a POSITA renders obvious the limitations of this claim 

element, then either of Wong in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA or Wong in 

view of Minn further in view of Lehne and the knowledge of a POSITA also renders obvious 

the limitations of this claim element.

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 180 of 181 PageID #:

2335
Expert Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,369

- 180 - 

IX. CONCLUSION 

In my opinion, the claims of the ‘369 Patent are invalid for at least the reasons 

stated above. 

I reserve the right to supplement my opinions in the future to respond to any 

arguments raised by Patent Owner or its experts and to take into account new information that 

becomes available to me. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that all statements made herein are of my own 

knowledge and are true and correct and were made with the knowledge that willful false 

statements are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the 

United States Code. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Date: Jan. 2, 2024 

Kevin J. Negus 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 86-1 Filed 08/12/24 Page 181 of 181 PageID #:

2336