Exhibit 2

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 513
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY and 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

Petitioners,

v.

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS LLC,

Patent Owner.

____________

Case IPR2024-00707

Patent 7,924,802

EXHIBIT 2001

DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR TODOR V. COOKLEV, PH.D.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 2 of 31 PageID #: 514
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

II. QUALIFICATIONS .......................................................................................4

III. LEGAL STANDARDS...................................................................................7

A. Priority Date Of a Patent.......................................................................7

B. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art. .....................................................7

C. Claim Construction...............................................................................9

D. Obviousness Legal Standard...............................................................10

IV. CLAIMS-AT-ISSUE ....................................................................................12

V. OPINIONS....................................................................................................13

A. The Meaning Of “Center Frequency” In Light Of The Patent’s 

Specification Is The Carrier Signal Frequency The Baseband Signal Is 

Up-converted To.................................................................................13

B. The 40 MHz Channel In IEEE 802.11n D2.0 Does Not Disclose Two 

“Center Frequenc[ies]” As Claimed In The ’802 Patent. ...................20

C. The 40 MHz Channel In Shearer Does Not Disclose Two “Center 

Frequenc[ies]” As Claimed In The ’802 Patent..................................25

VI. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................29

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 3 of 31 PageID #: 515
I. INTRODUCTION

1. My name is Todor V. Cooklev. I am an expert in mobile 

telecommunications and wireless technology. I have been retained as an expert 

witness to provide my independent opinion regarding certain matters at issue in 

inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,924,802 (“the ’802 patent”) in IPR2024-

00707. I have been retained by Cobblestone Wireless LLC (“Cobblestone”), the 

Patent Owner in the above proceedings. Petitioners are Hewlett Packard 

Enterprise Company and Cisco Systems Inc. (collectively “Petitioner”). 

2. For my work on this case, I am being compensated for my time at my 

typical consulting rate of $700 per hour. I am also being reimbursed for expenses 

that I incur during the course of this work. My compensation does not depend on 

the substance of my opinions or the outcome of any issues in this case.

3. My analysis of the materials produced in this matter is ongoing and I 

will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration 

represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to amend 

or supplement my opinions based on additional documents or evidence I am 

presented, including without limitation any arguments or expert declarations 

advanced by Petitioner in this case.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 4 of 31 PageID #: 516
4. I am not a legal expert and offer no opinions on the law. However, I 

have been informed by counsel of the various legal standards that apply, and I have 

applied those standards in arriving at my conclusions.

II. QUALIFICATIONS

5. I am currently the Professor in the Department of Electrical and 

Computer Engineering at Purdue University in Fort Wayne, Indiana, where I have 

had several faculty and administrative positions. 

6. My teaching responsibilities have included courses in communication 

systems and networks, signals and systems, software-defined radio, and digital 

signal processing. My research interests include most aspects of modern wireless 

systems, including hardware and software architectures. A significant part of my 

research is specifically focused on standards-related issues. I have received a 

number of research grants in these areas. 

7. I am a named inventor on more than thirty U.S. patents, most of which 

relate to the hardware or software aspects of communication systems. In 1999, I 

was inducted into the Purdue Inventors Hall of Fame. I have also authored and coauthored more than one hundred peer-reviewed articles. A list of my publications 

and patents appears in my curriculum vitae attached as Exhibit 2002.

8. I graduated from the Technical University of Sofia, Bulgaria in 1988 

with a Diploma of Engineering in the field of Electrical Engineering. I graduated 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 5 of 31 PageID #: 517
from Tokyo Institute of Technology in Tokyo, Japan in 1995 with a Doctor of 

Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in Electrical Engineering.

9. My experience is not only academic. I have worked in the computer 

and data communications industries. I worked in research and development, but 

also contributed to product firmware and software development, including digital 

signal processing algorithms for communication systems. 

10. I have contributed to the development of several major standards for 

communication systems and numerous amendments, including Bluetooth, DSL, 

Wi-Fi, cellular, and military radio systems. I have participated in many meetings 

of standards committees and I have chaired some committee meetings and served 

in other leadership roles. 

11. Around 1998 - 1999 I participated in the Bluetooth Special Interest 

Group (SIG). I was among the authors of the Bluetooth 1.0 specification, 

contributing to the Host Controller Interface (HCI). In 1999 I participated in the 

group that established the license agreement between the Bluetooth SIG and the 

IEEE 802. Subsequently I joined IEEE 802. 

12. From 2000 to 2002, and from 2005 to 2008 I was a Voting Member of 

the IEEE 802.11 Working Group and attended almost all meetings during those 

years. Generally, meetings were held every other month. During that time, I 

prepared, submitted, and presented documents to IEEE 802.11. On a couple of 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 6 of 31 PageID #: 518
occasions, I was involved in the drafting of liaison letters between 802.11 and 

other standards committees. 

13. From 2005-2006 to around 2007-2008 I was Chair of a Study Group 

within 802.11 until I convinced the entire Working Group to approve the creation 

of another Task Group. For my work I received an IEEE Standards Association 

award in 2012. 

14. Even after 2008 I continued my involvement with 802.11. For 

example, until about 2020 I was reviewing and voting on most amendments to 

IEEE 802.11. 

15. Consequently, I have extensive experience in connection with the 

development of the IEEE 802.11 standard that forms the basis of the references in 

both of the Petition’s grounds. 

16. In 2020 I was elected to serve on the Board of Governors of the IEEE 

Standards Association as Member-at-Large. The Board of Governors provides 

overall leadership of the IEEE Standards Association. 

17. Since 2017 I have been the Series Editor for Wireless and Radio 

Communications for the IEEE Communications Standards Magazine (which is the 

premier journal in the field of communication standards). As member of the 

Editorial Board I coordinate the review of scholarly manuscripts that relate to the 

most recent communications standards. 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 7 of 31 PageID #: 519
18. A detailed record of my professional qualifications is set forth in 

Exhibit 2002, which is my curriculum vitae, including a list of publications, 

awards, courses I teach in electrical and computer engineering subjects, research 

grants, and professional activities. My curriculum vitae also lists the depositions, 

hearings, and trial at which I have testified. 

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

19. I am not a lawyer, and I do not intend to offer any opinions as to the 

interpretation of the law. When considering the ’083 patent and stating my 

opinions, I rely on the following legal standards as described to me by the 

attorneys for Smart Mobile.

A. Priority Date Of a Patent.

20. I understand that the analysis of alleged obviousness of the Patent 

should be performed from the perspective of a POSITA as of the priority date of 

the Patent. The Patent claims priority to January 23, 2008. My opinions in this 

matter are from the perspective of a POSITA as of that date; however, my opinions 

do not change if the priority date is slightly changed.

B. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art.

21. My opinions in this declaration are based on the understandings of a 

person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the time of the invention. I understand that 

the person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 8 of 31 PageID #: 520
have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. By “relevant,” I mean 

relevant to the challenged claim of the ’083 patent.

22. I understand that various factors should be considered when 

determining the person of ordinary skill in the art in connection with a particular 

patent. I understand that these factors include, without limitation, the type of 

problems encountered in the art, the prior solutions to those problems found in the 

prior art references, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the 

sophistication of the technology, the level of education of active workers in the 

field, and my own experience working with those of skill in the art at the time of 

the invention.

23. I am readily familiar with the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the 

priority date of the Patent. My qualifications at that time far exceeded that of a 

POSITA, and I had worked with, as well as supervised, many POSITA’s 

throughout my work in the field.

24. Dr. Negus opines that 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 wireless communications product based 

upon IEEE 802 standards. 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 9 of 31 PageID #: 521
wireless communications products based upon IEEE 802 Standards.” Ex. 1003 

[Negus-Decl.] ¶ 25. For the purpose of this declaration, I will apply the same 

definition of the level of skill of a POSITA.

25. Based on my experience, education, and training, I met the definition 

of a POSITA as of the priority date of the Patent. My qualifications at that time far 

exceeded that of a POSITA, and I had worked with, as well as supervised, many 

POSITA’s throughout my work in the field. My opinions concerning the ’802

Patent claims and the prior art are from the perspective of a POSITA, as set forth 

above.

26. As further discussed below, my opinions as stated in this declaration 

are valid even if the Board adopts a slightly different level of ordinary skill in the 

art.

C. Claim Construction.

27. I understand that claims in a patent-at-issue in an IPR are generally 

interpreted according to the district court-type claim construction.

28. I further understand that claim terms are interpreted as they would 

have been interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the 

invention, in light of the specification and the patent’s prosecution history in the 

patent office.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 522
D. Obviousness Legal Standard.

29. I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if the claimed 

invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the 

time of the invention. 

30. I understand that an obviousness analysis involves comparing a claim 

to the prior art to determine whether the claimed invention would have been 

obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view 

of the prior art and in light of the general knowledge in the art as a whole. I also 

understand that obviousness is ultimately a legal conclusion based on underlying 

facts of four general types, all of which must be considered: (1) the scope and 

content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences 

between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) any objective indicia of 

non-obviousness, including any praise of the invention. Objective indicia of nonobviousness may include, for example, commercial success of an embodiment, a 

long-felt need, skepticism, failure by others to find the solution provided by the 

claimed invention, copying by others of the subject matter of the claim 

invention, unexpected results of the claimed invention, acceptance of others and 

industry praise, and licensing of the patents.

31. I also understand that obviousness may be established under certain 

circumstances by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art. However, 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 11 of 31 PageID #: 523
I have been informed that a claim is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating 

that each of the elements was independently known in the prior art. I have been 

informed that many, if not all, inventions rely on building blocks already 

previously known, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will likely be 

combinations of what is already known. I have been informed that it is important 

to identify whether a reason existed at the time of the invention that would have 

motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant field to combine the 

known elements in the way the claimed invention does. Specific teachings, 

suggestions, or motivations to combine any first prior art reference with a second 

prior art reference can be explicit or implicit, but must have existed before the date 

of purported invention. I understand that prior art references themselves may be 

one source of a specific teaching or suggestion to combine features of the prior art, 

but that such suggestions or motivations to combine art may come from the 

knowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had. 

32. I understand that a reference may be relied upon for all that it teaches, 

including uses beyond its primary purpose, but also including teachings that lead 

away from the invention. I understand that a reference may be said to teach away 

when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged 

from following the path set out in the reference, although the mere disclosure of 

alternative designs does not teach away.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 524
33. I further understand that whether there is a reasonable expectation of 

success in combining references in a particular way is also relevant to the analysis. 

34. I understand that it is improper to use hindsight to combine references 

or elements of references to reconstruct the invention using the claims as a guide. 

My analysis of the prior art is made from the perspective of a person of ordinary 

skill in the art at the time of the invention. 

35. I am not offering any legal opinions in this declaration nor am I 

qualified to do so. I only consider such legal standards in framing my opinions and 

conclusions as well as placing assertions made by Petitioner in the Petition into the 

proper context. Additionally, from a subject matter perspective, I understand that 

the petitioner always has the burden of persuasion regarding a challenge of 

patentability of an invention under an inter partes review.

IV. CLAIMS-AT-ISSUE

36. I understand that Petitioner has challenged claims 1-9 of the ’802

Patent. As only claim 1 is in independent form, my opinions here only address 

claim 1.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 13 of 31 PageID #: 525
V. OPINIONS

A. The Meaning Of “Center Frequency” In Light Of The Patent’s 

Specification Is The Carrier Signal Frequency The Baseband 

Signal Is Up-converted To.

37. Claim 1 requires transmitting information across two frequency 

ranges, each with a different “center frequency.” More specifically, “first 

information” must be transmitted across a “first frequency range having a first 

center frequency,” and simultaneously, “second information” must be transmitted 

across a “second frequency range having a second center frequency greater than 

the first center frequency.” Ex. 1001 [’802] cl. 1. Thus, the claim requires two 

frequency ranges, each with a different “center frequency” with one “center 

frequency” greater than the other. The ’802’s specification confirms that the 

claimed “center frequency” refers to the carrier signal frequency the baseband 

signal is upconverted to. To have two, different, “center frequencies,” there must 

therefore be two up-conversions to two carrier signals with different frequencies. 

38. I will first provide a brief discussion of the underlying technology to 

better illustrate the meaning of “center frequency.”

39. A baseband signal represents the information to be transmitted in its 

raw form. It can be either an analog electrical waveform (e.g., voice) or a digital 

signal. Baseband signals generally include frequencies that are very low and close 

to zero. However, antennas cannot emit zero-frequency signals and are ineffective 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 14 of 31 PageID #: 526
when the frequency is low. Therefore, the frequency of many baseband signals is 

too low for them to be effectively or feasibly transmitted over a wireless system. 

As another issue, frequency ranges are typically assigned (e.g., by a governmental 

regulatory body) such that baseband frequencies are not available for use.

40. Therefore, the baseband signal often cannot be transmitted wirelessly. 

It would instead have to be modulated on a signal at a much higher frequency prior 

to transmission. This higher frequency signal is called a carrier signal. In such 

instances, the baseband signal is said to be “up-converted” to the carrier signal’s 

higher frequency. As I will explain later in my declaration, the “center frequency” 

is the carrier signal frequency to which the baseband signal is up-converted prior to

transmission. 

41. The distinction between a baseband signal and a “center frequency” 

(interchangeably referred to in the ’802 as a carrier frequency) to which the 

baseband signal is up-converted is shown in the figure below. The top image 

shows a baseband signal with a low frequency1. The middle image shows the 

carrier signal with a much higher “center frequency” fc. In practice this carrier 

signal is generated by a local oscillator (LO). The third image shows the carrier 

1 For ease of illustration, the shown signal is real-valued, even though baseband 

signals are generally complex-valued. 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 15 of 31 PageID #: 527
signal after it has been amplitude modulated by the baseband signal. This 

modulated carrier signal is what would be transmitted out of the transmitter.

42. The ’802 patent mentions “center frequency” more than 90 times, 

including in its background of the invention and in all of its embodiments. Every 

time it is used, it means the frequency of the carrier signal to which the baseband 

signal is upconverted.

43. In the background of the invention, the ’802 patent explains that the 

baseband signal is “up-convert[ed]” to the frequency of the “local oscillator (LO)”. 

Ex. 1001 [’802] 1:25-27. The output of this up-conversion is amplified and 

transmitted through the antenna. Id., 27-30. The ’802 patent then explains that its 

prior art Figure 1 transmitter was “limited to up-converting a [baseband] signal to 

one center frequency (or modulation frequency), which is the LO frequency.” Id., 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 16 of 31 PageID #: 528
1:30-32. Thus, from the very outset of its disclosure, the ’802 patent uses “center 

frequency” as the carrier signal frequency the baseband signal upconverted to.

44. In light of the background discussion in the ’802 patent, the use of two 

“center frequencies” as claimed is a major focus of the invention. The ’802 patent 

explains that in the prior art the ’802 patent sought to improve upon, baseband 

signals were upconverted to a single carrier frequency and, thus, the amount of 

information that could be transmitted was limited by the bandwidth around that 

single up-conversion frequency. Ex. 1001 [’802] 1:32-35. To maximize 

throughput, the prior art increased the bandwidth around the single up-conversion

frequency. Ex. 1001 [’802] 1:25-32. 

45. In contrast to the prior art, which sought to improve throughput by 

increasing bandwidth around a single center frequency, the ’802 patent increases 

throughput in an altogether different fashion. It increases throughput by, inter alia, 

disclosing up-conversion to two, different, center frequencies (rather than just one). 

By utilizing two, different, center frequencies, the bandwidth can effectively be 

increased by aggregating the capacities of two different communication channels 

together.

46. In accord with this insight, every embodiment of the ’802 patent 

similarly uses “center frequency” to mean the carrier signal frequency the 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 17 of 31 PageID #: 529
baseband signal is upconverted to. For example, Figure 2, annotated below, is 

illustrative:

47. Figure 2 discloses a wireless digital baseband processor 250 that 

provides data via two separate digital baseband signals 251 and 252. Ex. 1001 

[’802] 5:60-66. After being converted to analog in DAC 201/202 and filtered, 

signals 251 and 252 are fed into respective up-converters 205 and 206. Upconverter 205 accordingly upconverts data 251 into a first “center frequency” f1 

and, similarly, data 252 is up-converted by element 206 into a second “center 

frequency” f2. Id., 6:22-56. These two up-converted signals are then combined, 

amplified and transmitted. Id., 7:4-14. Thus, the ’802 patent uses “center 

frequencies” f1 and f2 to mean the carrier signal frequencies the two baseband 

signals 251 and 252 are upconverted to.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 18 of 31 PageID #: 530
48. The resulting signal is shown schematically in the annotated version 

of the ’802 patent’s Figure 3. The blue region shows the baseband signal 

upconverted to the first carrier signal with a first center frequency f1. The red 

region shows the baseband signal upconverted to the second carrier signal with a 

second center frequency f2.

49. This very same meaning of “center frequency” as the carrier 

frequency the baseband signal is upconverted to is reflected in the ’802 patent’s 

other embodiments as well. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 [’802] 9:9-57 (Figure 6 

embodiment); 12:33-58 (Figure 10 embodiment).

50. Additionally, the ’802 uses the terms “center frequency” and “carrier 

frequency” interchangeably, further reinforcing that “center frequency” means the 

carrier signal frequency the baseband signal is up-converted to. For example, in 

connection with its Figure 8 embodiment, the ’802 explains:

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 19 of 31 PageID #: 531
This example provides a transmitter for sending the same data across a 

communication channel at two different RF carrier frequencies to 

improve reliability and/or increase the range of the system. ... Upconverter 812 includes a second input coupled to an output of a 

synthesizer 814, which may be used to up-convert the analog signal to 

a RF center frequency f1. Similarly, up-converter 813 includes a 

second input coupled to another output of a synthesizer 814 (or to a 

different synthesizer), which may be used to up-convert the analog 

signal to a RF center frequency f2. ... The output of power amplifier 

815 is coupled to antenna 850 to transmit the digital data 

simultaneously as an electromagnetic signal using two different RF 

carrier frequencies.

Ex. 1001 [’802] 10:64-11:20.

51. As can be seen, here, the ’802 patent is using “center frequency” and 

“carrier frequency” interchangeably. Specifically, the ’802 patent explains that it 

obtains a signal with two different “carrier frequencies” through combining signals 

that are separately up-converted to “center frequencies” f1 and f2. “Carrier 

frequency” is a term of art and, like “center frequency” in the ’802 patent, refers to 

the carrier signal frequency the baseband signal is upconverted to. 

52. For the foregoing reasons, a POSITA would understand that “center 

frequency” in light of the ’802 patent’s specification means the carrier signal 

frequency the baseband signal is upconverted to.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 20 of 31 PageID #: 532
B. The 40 MHz Channel In IEEE 802.11n D2.0 Does Not Disclose 

Two “Center Frequenc[ies]” As Claimed In The ’802 Patent.

53. In Ground 1, Petitioners rely on the 40 MHz channel disclosed in 

IEEE 802.11n D2.0 as disclosing two “center frequencies.” Pet., 29-36. 

Petitioners rely in the alternative on two specific data formats to transmit data 

within the 40 MHz channel of IEEE 802.11n D2.0: the HT duplicate and non-HT 

duplicate data formats. Pet., 29-36. The IEEE 802.11n D2.0 is clear that the data 

in the 40 MHz channel for each of the HT duplicate and non-HT duplicate formats 

is represented by a single baseband signal that is subsequently up-converted to a 

single carrier signal which has a single “center frequency” (carrier frequency).

54. The standard discloses that the baseband signal in the 40 MHz 

channel for the HT duplicate format is represented by , which is a 

single baseband signal obtained by the standard’s equation 20-60. Ex. 1004 

[802.11n D2.0] 279 (cited by Pet., 30). Similarly, the standard discloses that the 

baseband signal in the 40 MHz channel for the non-HT duplicate format is 

represented by , which is a single baseband signal obtained by the 

standard’s equation 20-61. Ex. 1004 [802.11n D2.0] 280 (cited by Pet., 31). The 

standard is clear that those equations represent a single baseband signal. Ex. 1004 

[802.11n D2.0] 240 (“The transmitted signal is described in complex base-band 

signal notation.”).

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 21 of 31 PageID #: 533
55. As the standard explains, the signal actually transmitted by the 

transmitter is obtained by up-converting this single, complex baseband signal on a 

single carrier signal with a single center frequency fc:

Ex. 1004 [802.11n D2.0] 240-241.

56. In the equation above, rRF(t) is the real-valued signal that is 

transmitted from the antenna. It is obtained by up-converting the complex 

baseband signal r(t) to the frequency fc of the carrier signal. The complex 

baseband signal r(t) is the baseband signal obtained from either equation 20-60 for 

HT duplicate format, or equation 20-61 for non-HT duplicate format. As is clear 

from the above, regardless of which format is used, a single baseband signal is upconverted to a single carrier signal with a single center frequency. 

57. This is further confirmed by the standard’s explanation of the 

“overview” of the encoding process, where it explains that the single baseband 

signal of the 40 MHz channel is up-converted in equation 20-1 to “the center 

frequency of the desired carrier signal”:

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 22 of 31 PageID #: 534
Up-convert the resulting complex baseband waveform

associated with each transmit chain to an RF signal according 

to the center frequency of the desired channel and transmit. 

Refer to 20.3.7 (Mathematical description of signals) for 

details.

Ex. 1004 [802.11n D2.0] 237. Thus, the standard makes clear that only one 

“center frequency” is utilized.

58. In fact, the 40 MHz channel relied upon by Petitioners from IEEE 

802.1n D2.0 is an attempt at increasing throughput through increasing bandwidth, 

which is what the ’802 patent distinguished as its prior art. 

59. The old IEEE 802.11-2007 standard provided channels that were 20 

MHz in bandwidth. See Ex. 1005 [802.11-2007] at p. 594 (“The allowed values of 

the DATARATE are 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, or 54 Mb/s for 20 MHz channel 

spacing”). The newer IEEE 802.11n standard relied upon by Petitioner for the 

disclosure of the 40 MHz channel “is the high throughput amendment to the 

802.11 standard.” Ex. 1006 [Perahia] 101. One of the ways IEEE 802.11n 

increased throughput was to increase the channel bandwidth from 20 MHz to 40 

MHz. Ex. 1004 [802.11n D2.0] 292 (“When using 20 MHz channels it uses 

channels defined in 17.3.8.3 (5 GHz band) or 18.4.6 (2.4 GHz band). When using 

40 MHz channels, it can operate in the channels defined in 20.3.14.1 (Channel 

allocation in the 2.4 GHz Band) and 20.3.14.2 (Channel allocation in the 5 GHz 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 23 of 31 PageID #: 535
band).”); see also Ex. 1006 [Perahia] 101(“The other significant increase in data 

rate is derived from the new 40MHz channel width.”); Pet., 14 (“As particularly 

relevant here, IEEE 802.11n D2.0 introduced 40 MHz channels ....”).

60. But increasing channel bandwidth around a single center frequency is 

precisely the approach the ’802 patent explained is its prior art. The ’802 patent 

explained that in its Figure 1 prior art, the transmitters were “limited to upconverting a signal to one center frequency (or modulation frequency).” Ex. 1001 

[’802] 1:29-31. Thus, the ’802 patent explains, “the amount of information 

transmitted around the center frequency is limited by the bandwidth of the 

transmitter around the center frequency,” which limits the amount of data that can 

be transmitted. Ex. 1001 [’802] 1:32-35. The ’802 patent then explains that 

“[t]ypical prior art approaches to improving the information capacity in a wireless 

communication system involve maximizing the bandwidth around the center 

frequency to increase the amount of information that may be modulated onto the 

carrier frequency.” Ex. 1001 [’802] 1:25-32. 

61. Thus, the IEEE 802.11n D2.0’s approach of increasing the channel 

bandwidth from 20 MHz to 40 MHz is precisely the prior art discussed in the ’802 

patent.

62. I would also like to address another aspect of the standard for 

completeness. The standard refers to the 20 MHz subparts of the 40 MHz channel 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 24 of 31 PageID #: 536
as “primary” and “secondary” channels within the 40 MHz channel. Ex. 1004 

[IEEE 802.11n-D2.0] at 292 (“The 40 MHz channels are specified by two fields: 

(Nprimary_ch, Secondary)”). This allows the standard to specify what is 

transmitted in different portions of the 40 MHz channel for various reasons. For 

example, to allow legacy devices that were designed for the old 20 MHz channel to 

operate with the new 40 MHz channel, the standard provides that in the non-HT 

duplicate format, the primary and secondary 20 MHz portions of the 40 MHz 

channel are duplicates of each other. Ex. 1004 [IEEE 802.11n-D2.0] at p. 301 

(“And furthermore, if the FORMAT field is set to NON_HT and 

CH_BANDWIDTH indicates NON_HT_CBW40, follow the transmit procedure as 

in Clause 17 duplicated on both channels.”).

63. This logical division of the 40 MHz channel, however, does not 

change the fact that, as I discussed above, the entire signal of the 40 MHz channel, 

containing both the 20 MHz primary and secondary portions within it, is a single 

baseband signal that is up-converted to a single center frequency. See ¶¶ 54-57, 

supra. I understand that Dr. Negus also agrees with me on this point. Ex. 1003 

[Negus-Decl.] ¶318 (“a POSITA would understand that the ‘first information’ and 

the ‘second information’ are disclosed by either of the ‘HT duplicate format’ and 

‘non-HT duplicate format’ as being within a single composite complex baseband 

signal ....”).

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 25 of 31 PageID #: 537
64. Therefore, this is not a case where the two 20 MHz primary and 

secondary portions of the 40 MHz channel are separately up-converted to a 

different carrier signal with a different center frequency. Instead, as explained (see 

¶¶ 54-57, supra), the standard is clear that the data within the 40 MHz channel is 

contained within a single baseband signal up-converted to a single frequency. Ex. 

1004 [802.11n D2.0] 240-241, 237.

65. Therefore, for the reasons I explained above, the 40 MHz channel 

within IEEE 802.11n D2.0 does not disclose two “center frequenc[ies]” as claimed.

C. The 40 MHz Channel In Shearer Does Not Disclose Two “Center 

Frequenc[ies]” As Claimed In The ’802 Patent.

66. Petitioners’ Ground 2 relies on Shearer alone. Pet., 22. As I will 

explain below, this ground fails for reasons similar to Petitioners’ ground 1.

67. Shearer explains that the “legacy” IEEE 802.11a/g systems utilized 20 

MHz channels. Ex. 1007 [Shearer] [0044]. Shearer then discloses a method to 

create a 40 MHz channel. Id., [0047]. Shearer creates this new 40 MHz channel 

by aggregating two legacy 20 MHz channels. Id. Shearer Figure 7 shows three 

ways of combining the legacy 20 MHz channels. Id. All three ways shown in 

Figure 7 are materially the same for the purposes of this discussion as they only 

differ in which subcarriers are set to zero as guard subcarriers within the channel. 

Id.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 26 of 31 PageID #: 538
68. As I will explain below, Shearer obtains the new 40 MHz channel by 

first creating the baseband signals for each of the legacy 20 MHz channels, then 

aggregating the two baseband signals to create a single baseband signal for the new 

40 MHz channel, and then upconverting the single baseband signal to a single 

carrier signal with a single center frequency. Thus, Shearer’s 40 MHz channel 

does not disclose two center frequencies because its transmitted signal does not 

contain two carriers with two different frequencies.

69. Shearer’s Figure 3, reproduced below, discloses a legacy transmitter 

for transmitting a 20 MHz baseband signal. Ex. 1007 [Shearer] [0040]. 

70. Once the baseband signal is created, it is “sent to mixer 314 where it 

is upconverted to the desired transmit frequency.” Ex. 1007 [0043]. Thus, 

Shearer’s Figure 3 discloses a single “center frequency.” 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 27 of 31 PageID #: 539
71. To create the 40 MHz signal, Shearer duplicates element 320 to create 

two 20 MHz baseband signals, which are then combined in element 310 into a 

single 40 MHz baseband signal. That single 40 MHz baseband signal is then upconverted in mixer 314 to a single carrier signal with a single center frequency. 

Shearer’s Figure 13, reproduced below, discloses the parallel components to create 

the baseband signals for the upper and lower portions of the 40 MHz channel. Ex. 

1007 [Shearer] [0062].

72. The baseband signal for the lower 20 MHz portion of the 40 MHz 

signal is created in element 1100. Ex. 1007 [Shearer] [0062]. Similarly, the 

baseband signal for the upper 20 MHz portion of the 40 MHz signal is created in 

element 800. Id. This is shown schematically in Shearer’s Figures 10 and 12, 

reproduced below:

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 28 of 31 PageID #: 540
73. These two baseband signals are then “aggregated in adder 310e” to 

create a 40 MHz baseband signal. Ex. 1007 [Shearer] [0062]. The aggregated 40 

MHz baseband signal is shown in Figure 14, reproduced below:

74. Note that, as Dr Negus also showed in his annotation (Ex. 1003 

[Negus-Decl.] ¶ 428), a POSITA would understand that the summer 310e in Figure 

13 corresponds to element 310 in Figure 3. Ex. 1007 [Shearer] [0012] (“In the 

figures, like reference numerals designate corresponding parts throughout the 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 29 of 31 PageID #: 541
different views.”); [0041] (“The symbol wave shaper/interpolator/shifter/summer 

310 also comprises interpolation, shifting, and summing functionality as described 

below.”); [0060] (“Interpolator stage 310c corresponds to 

shaper/interpolator/shifter/summer 310 of FIG. 3. ... Frequency shift stage 310d 

corresponds to shaper/interpolator/shifter 310 of FIG. 3.”).

75. Thus, as shown in Fig. 3, after the two 20 MHz baseband signals are 

separately produced and aggregated in element 310e, the produced 40 MHz 

baseband signal is upconverted by mixer 314 to a single carrier with a single center 

frequency.

76. Therefore, for the reasons I explained above, Shearer does not 

disclose two “center frequenc[ies]” as claimed in the ’802 patent.

VI. CONCLUSION

77. For the foregoing reasons, based on my expertise and experience and 

the record of this case that I have reviewed, it is my opinion that the challenged 

claims are not shown to be disclosed or obvious.

78. I understand that my opinions discussed above support a legal 

conclusion that the challenged claims are nonobvious.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 30 of 31 PageID #: 542
In signing this declaration, I recognize that the declaration will be filed as 

evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the 

United States Patent and Trademark Office. I also recognize that I may be subject 

to cross-examination in the case and that cross-examination will take place within 

the United States. If cross-examination is required, I will appear for crossexamination within the United States during the time allotted.

I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are 

true and all statements made herein on information and belief were and are 

believed by me to be true, and that all statements herein were and are made with 

the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by 

fine or imprisonment, or both, under section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States 

Code and that any such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the 

application or any patents issued thereon.

Respectfully Submitted,

June 27, 2024 ______________________________

Todor V. Cooklev, Ph.D.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 64-2 Filed 09/26/24 Page 31 of 31 PageID #: 543