Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 589

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT Samsung's Opening Claim Construction Brief (Unredacted Version) filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Briggs Declaration and Ex. A-F in support of Samsung's Opening Claim Construction Brief, # 2 Exhibit Briggs Declaration Ex. G-I, # 3 Declaration Wesel Declaration in Support of Samsung's Proposed Claim Construction for US Patent No. 7,200,792, # 4 Declaration Cole Declaration in Support of Samsung's Proposed Claim Construction for US Patent No. 7,698,711, # 5 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 1, # 6 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 2, # 7 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 3, # 8 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 4, # 9 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 5, # 10 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 6, # 11 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 7A-7G, # 12 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 8, # 13 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 9A-9C, # 14 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 10, # 15 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 11, # 16 Exhibit Cole Decl. Ex. 12)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 1/6/2012)

Download PDF
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)  charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22nd Floor  San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600  Facsimile: (415) 875-6700  Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129) kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com  Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603) victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com th  555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5 Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065  Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100  Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)  michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor  Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000  Facsimile: (213) 443-3100  Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung  Telecommunications America LLC  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION  APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK  DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792  Plaintiff, vs.  SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean business entity; SAMSUNG  ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNG  TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,  Defendants.  Date: January 20, 2012 Time: 10:00 am Courtroom 4, 5th Floor Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh     02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 1 1 I, Richard Wesel, declare: 2 1. I am a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the field of 3 Electrical Engineering, specializing in communications. I have been asked to provide an expert 4 declaration on behalf of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and 5 Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) as to the meaning of the 6 term “symbol” in claims 11 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,200,792, as it would have been 7 understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (on or around 8 December 2001). If called upon as a witness, I could competently testify to the truth of each 9 statement herein. 10 2. I am being compensated for my work in this matter at the rate of $450 per hour. 11 My compensation does not depend in any way on the outcome of this investigation or the 12 particular testimony or opinions I provide. 13 3. In preparing this declaration, I have considered my own experiences in the field, 14 the items discussed herein, and the items listed below: 15 A. U.S. Patent No. 7,200,792 (“ '792 patent”). 16 B. U.S. Patent No. 7,200,792 prosecution history. 17 C. Declaration of Prof. Richard D. Gitlin in Support of Apple's Proposed Claim Construction for U.S. Patent No. 7,200,792, dated November 14, 2011 (“Gitlin Decl.”). D. Gitlin, Hayes and Weinstein, DATA COMMUNICATIONS PRINCIPLES, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers (1992) (“Gitlin, et. al., DATA COMMUNICATIONS PRINCIPLES”). E. Apple's PLR 4-2 disclosure, dated Oct. 31, 2011, for the term “symbol,” i.e., Apple's PLR 4-2 disclosure at 12-17. F. Samsung's PLR 4-2 disclosure, dated Oct. 31, 2011, for the term “symbol,” i.e., Samsung's PLR 4-2 disclosure, Exhibit A at 46. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. I reserve the right to supplement or amend this declaration based on any new information received that is relevant to my opinions. 27 28 02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 2 1 I. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND 2 5. I have a bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering from the 3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a doctorate in electrical engineering from Stanford 4 University. 5 6. I am currently a Professor in the Electrical Engineering Department and Associate 6 Dean of Academic and Student Affairs for the Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied 7 Science (HSSEAS) at the University of California, Los Angeles. 8 7. I have been an electrical engineering professor at UCLA since 1996 teaching 9 courses in error control coding and communication systems among other topics. I received the 10 HSSEAS TRW Excellence in Teaching Award in 2000. 11 8. I have authored or co-authored over 130 conference and journal publications on 12 communications and signal processing. 13 9. I have received the National Science Foundation CAREER Award and an Okawa 14 Foundation Award for Excellence in Telecommunications Research. 15 10. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of my curriculum vitae setting forth my 16 qualifications and publications. 17 18 II. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART 19 11. I understand that to determine the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term, 20 one looks to the meaning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have given the term at the 21 time of the invention, which in this case is at least as early as December 2001. Based on my 22 experiences and the materials I have reviewed, it is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the 23 field of the '792 patent is a person in the field of electrical engineering specializing in 24 communications, with either a Bachelor's degree and approximately three years of experience or a 25 Master's degree with approximately one year of experience. 26 27 28 02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 3 1 III. MEANING OF “SYMBOL” – PLAIN AND ORDINARY MEANING 2 12. I have been asked to provide my opinion about the meaning of the word “symbol” 3 as used in claims 11 and 14 of the '792 patent. I understand that the meaning of a term is 4 considered in the context of the patent as a whole, including the claim language and the 5 specification, as well as the patent's prosecution history – collectively described as intrinsic 6 evidence. I also understand that claim construction may take into account extrinsic evidence, such 7 as dictionaries and treatises; however, such evidence is considered less reliable than intrinsic 8 evidence, and is examined in the context of the available intrinsic evidence. 9 13. I am informed and understand that district courts are not required to construe every 10 limitation present in a patent's claim. In particular, a district court is not obligated to construe 11 terms with ordinary meanings, lest trial courts be inundated with requests to parse the meaning of 12 every word in the asserted claims. However, a determination that a claim term “needs no 13 construction” or can be understood according to its “plain and ordinary meaning” may be 14 inadequate when a term has more than one ordinary meaning or when reliance on a term's ordinary 15 meaning does not resolve the parties' dispute. 16 14. The '792 patent is directed to the field of communications, specifically to data 17 transmission in a communication system. In that field, “symbol” is such a ubiquitous and well18 understood term in data communications that some data communications textbooks use it without 19 any definition. See Gitlin, et. al., DATA COMMUNICATIONS PRINCIPLES. In my opinion, it would 20 be immediately apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the '792 patent uses “symbol” 21 in a manner similar to other books, documents, and writings in the communications field. Thus, a 22 person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Claims 11 and 14 of the ’792 patent are 23 properly understood using the plain and ordinary meaning of “symbol.” Because “symbol” is 24 being used in this ordinary and customary sense, no construction of this term is necessary. 25 15. The plain and ordinary meaning is clear in the context of data transmission and 26 reception. In that context, “symbol” is widely understood to describe a modulated signal 27 representing a number of bits of information. The signal is “modulated” in the sense that one or 28 02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 4 1 more of its properties, such as phase, frequency, or amplitude, are altered to convey the 2 information. The selected modulation technique specifies the number of bits that a symbol 3 represents. Therefore, if the Court decides a construction of the term “symbol” is necessary, it 4 should be given its plain and ordinary meaning: “a modulated signal representing a number of 5 bits specified according to the modulation technique.” Apple's and Samsung's proposed 6 constructions are summarized in the table below. 7 Claim No. Disputed Term 8 9 11 and 14 “symbol” 10 Apple's Proposed Construction “a modulated pattern in a sequence of such patterns that represents a plurality of bits” 11 12 13 14 a.) 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16. Plain and ordinary meaning If the Court decides a construction is necessary: “a modulated signal representing a number of bits specified according to the modulation technique” “a modulated signal” v. “a modulated pattern” 1.) 16 Samsung's Proposed Construction Intrinsic Evidence – “a modulated signal” A “symbol” is a “modulated signal,” and not a “modulated pattern.” The language of the claims indicates that symbol is used in this plain and ordinary sense. Claims 11 and 14 both claim a “received symbol.” In order for a “symbol” to be “received,” it must have been transmitted by a source. The transmission and reception of a symbol indicate the “symbol” is a signal. 17. Moreover, Claims 11 and 14 include the language “demodulating a received symbol into a plurality of systematic bits and parity bits.” The ordinary meaning of “demodulating” requires a demodulator to receive a modulated signal. The understanding of “symbol” in its ordinary sense as a “signal” is fully consistent with the use of “demodulating” in the claim language. 18. The specification further confirms that a “received symbol” refers to a “signal.” Columns 21-24 of the specification teach the functionality of the receivers that is described in 02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 5 1 Claims 11 and 14. Near the beginning of that section, entitled “Receiver According to Invention,” 2 the specification states, “Since a received signal is in the form of a symbol modulated by a 3 modulator in the transmitter, the received signal is first demodulated by a demodulator and then 4 provided to a deinterleaver.” '792 patent at 21:48-51 (emphasis added). The specification 5 describes a “received signal” as a “symbol” because “symbol” refers to a type of signal under its 6 ordinary meaning. 7 19. Indeed, the phrase “received signal” in the specification is used in a parallel manner 8 to the term “received symbol” in Claims 11 and 14. The specification language cited above 9 (21:48-51) closely tracks the language of Claims 11 and 14. Both the specification and the claim 10 language describe receiving information in the form of a signal/symbol, demodulating that 11 information, and then deinterleaving that information. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art 12 would have recognized that this specification language describes “symbol” as used in Claims 11 13 and 14. Below is a side-by-side comparison of the specification language and the claim language 14 that highlights the parallel use of “signal” and “symbol” in the specification and the claims of the 15 ’792 patent. 16 17 18 19 20 '792 Patent, 21:48-51 “Since a received signal is in the form of a symbol modulated in the transmitter, the received signal is first demodulated by a demodulator and then provided to a deinterleaver.” 21 22 Claim 11 “An apparatus for receiving data in a communication system comprising: Claim 14 “A method for receiving data in a communication system, comprising: a demodulator for demodulating a received symbol into a plurality of systematic bits and parity bits; a first deinterleaver …” demodulating a received symbol into a plurality of systematic bits and parity bits; writing the plurality of systematic bits on a column by column basis in a first deinterleaver…” 23 2.) 24 25 20. Extrinsic Evidence – “a modulated signal” As mentioned above in ¶14, Dr. Gitlin's book does not even define “symbol,” 26 which is not surprising because “symbol” is a widely understood term. However, Dr. Gitlin 27 implicitly uses “symbol” in its plain and ordinary sense to mean a “modulated signal,” by using 28 02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 6 1 “signal” and “symbol” interchangeably in his textbook. See generally Gitlin, et. al., DATA 2 COMMUNICATIONS PRINCIPLES. For example, in Chapter 2 (“Theoretical Foundations of Digital 3 Communications”), pages 72-78, Dr. Gitlin repeatedly alternates between “transmitted signal” and 4 “transmitted symbol.”1 On the other hand, the book never uses the word “pattern” in this excerpt. 5 Dr. Gitlin's own book confirms that in its plain and ordinary meaning, a symbol is a “modulated 6 signal,” and not a “modulated pattern.” 7 21. Dr. Gitlin's declaration also acknowledges that the plain meaning of “symbol” 8 refers to “signals.” His declaration explains that Quadrature Amplitude Modulation is represented 9 by a “signal constellation of symbols.” Gitlin Decl. at ¶57. A signal constellation is a set of 10 points in the two-dimensional plane. Each point represents a symbol. The magnitude and angle of 11 each point identifies the symbol by specifying, respectively, the amplitude and phase of a 12 sinusoidal signal. Thus in Dr. Gitlin's statement, “symbol” is used in its plain and ordinary sense 13 to refer to a type of modulated signal. This usage is the same usage of “symbol” in the '792 14 patent, and is the same plain and ordinary usage of “symbol” by one of ordinary skill in the art. 15 3.) 16 22. Apple's construction, “a modulated pattern,” is incorrect Apple's use of “modulated pattern” is incorrect, because “pattern,” as used in the 17 '792 patent, refers to a pattern of systematic and parity bits. These bits are then encoded by the 18 mapper to produce a signal. Under the plain and ordinary meaning of “symbol” in the claims, a 19 symbol may represent a pattern of systematic and parity bits, but a symbol itself is not a pattern. 20 A symbol is a signal. The plain language of the claims does not suggest that a “symbol” is the 21 same as a “pattern.” 22 23 24 1 See, for example, page 75 where the book manipulates an equation regarding the probability of error. Equation (2.6b) presents a criterion for a decision rule governing when to "choose s1 as 25 the transmitted symbol." Equation (2.7b) presents the corresponding criterion for the case of a 26 discrete observation space for a decision rule governing when to "choose s1 as the transmitted signal." In both cases, s1 is being chosen as both the transmitted signal and the transmitted 27 symbol. 28 02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 7 1 23. The plain language of the claims is contrary to the idea that a “symbol” is a 2 “pattern.” In Claims 11 and 14, the received symbol is demodulated into “systematic bits and 3 parity bits.” Here, the demodulator is acting in an ordinary fashion to convert a received signal 4 into bits. Only after demodulation does the system generate a “pattern” of bits. Thus, the plain 5 language of the claims confirms that a “symbol” is not itself a “pattern.” 6 24. The specification confirms that a “symbol” is distinct from a “pattern.” It states, “if 7 the size of the buffer (buffer size={the number of systematic bits}+{the number of parity bits}) is 8 minimized, a symbol pattern for the 64QAM cannot be optimally mapped.” '792 patent at 10:539 56. Here, “symbol pattern” describes the pattern of systematic and parity bits that will be mapped 10 onto a symbol, and not the symbol itself. Thus, the specification further confirms that a “symbol” 11 is not a “pattern.” See also id. at 20:13 (describing “symbol pattern” as a pattern of bits in a 12 modulator). 13 25. Similarly, the patent Abstract distinguishes “symbol” from the pattern of bits, 14 stating, “A modulator alternatively collects the permutated bits on a column by column basis from 15 the first and second interleavers, and maps collected bits from the first and second interleavers 16 onto one modulation symbol.” Again, a “symbol” may represent a pattern of bits, but the symbol 17 is itself a modulated signal. 18 b.) “representing a number of bits specified according to the modulation technique” v. “that represents a plurality of bits” 26. Under plain and ordinary meaning, a symbol represents a number of bits specified 19 20 21 according to the modulation technique. In customary usage, “symbol” encompasses a wide 22 variety of modulated signals that represent various numbers of bits. The modulation scheme fixes 23 the number of bits. For example, BPSK (Binary Phase-Shift Keying) uses only two distinct 24 symbols, and each symbol represents a single bit. QPSK (Quadrature Phase-Shift Keying) uses 4 25 distinct symbols to represent 2 bits. 64QAM (64-ary Quadrature Amplitude Modulation) uses 64 26 distinct symbols to represent 6 bits. While the number of bits varies, the modulation technique 27 28 02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 8 1 determines the number of bits that the symbol represents. This understanding is included in the 2 plain and ordinary meaning of “symbol.” 3 1.) 4 5 27. Intrinsic Evidence - “representing a number of bits specified according to the modulation technique” The ‘792 patent claims confirm that the number of bits is specified by the 6 modulation technique. For instance, Claim 5 states, “[Claim 1], wherein if the modulation scheme 7 is 16QAM (16-ary Quadrature Amplitude Modulation), mapping onto one modulation symbol 2 8 bits from the first interleaver and 2 bits from the second interleaver.” See also ‘792 patent, Claim 9 10. Claims 5 and 10 implicitly acknowledge that the number of bits is specified according to the 10 modulation technique. Systems using the 16QAM modulation technique produce symbols 11 representing 4 bits (in this particular case, 2 each from the first and second interleaver). Again, a 12 person of ordinary skill would be aware of this plain meaning. 13 28. The specification also explains that the number of bits represented by a symbol is 14 specified by the modulation technique. For instance, it states, “The DEMUX demultiplexes as 15 many input bits as a prescribed number according to a modulation technique….” ‘792 patent at 16 22:11-13, see also id. at 9:33-37 (describing that symbols are “commonly” mapped “according to 17 … a modulation technique.”). The specification provides specific examples of this relationship, 18 such as: “if the modulation technique is 16QAM, 4 coded bits are mapped to one symbol.” Id. at 19 13:49-53. The figures confirm that the number of bits is specified by the modulation technique, 20 with 16QAM generating symbols representing 4 bits, and 64QAM generating symbols 21 representing 6 bits. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ('792 patent, Fig. 5, annotations added) 8 9 29. The specification identifies other modulation techniques as well. The specification 10 states, “The interleaved coded bits are subject to symbol mapping in a modulator according to a 11 modulation technique of QPSK (Quadrature Phase Shift Keying), 8PSK (8-ary Phase Shift 12 Keying), 16QAM (16-ary Quadrature Amplitude Modulation) or 64QAM.” Id. at 2:40-44. Thus, 13 the specification encompasses a wide range of symbols that are generated “according to a 14 modulation technique.” This relationship between the modulation technique and the number of 15 bits represented by a symbol is basic, foundational knowledge for one of ordinary skill in the art. 16 2.) 17 18 30. Extrinsic Evidence - “representing a number of bits specified according to the modulation technique” Dr. Gitlin agrees that a “symbol” represents a number of bits specified according to 19 the modulation technique. For example, Dr. Gitlin states, “in 16QAM, there are sixteen unique 20 symbols and each symbol represents 4 bits.” Gitlin Decl. at ¶58. Furthermore, “Some forms of 21 modulation, e.g., binary phase-shift keying (BPSK), use only two distinct symbols and each 22 symbol represents a single bit.” Gitlin Decl. at ¶53. In both these examples, the number of bits is 23 specified according to the modulation technique. 3.) 24 25 31. Apple's construction, “that represents a plurality of bits” is incorrect As discussed above in ¶¶27-30, a person of ordinary skill would know that the 26 number of bits represented by a symbol varies according to the modulation technique used. Thus, 27 a “symbol” might represent only one bit using the BPSK modulation technique, six bits using 28 02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 10 1 64QAM, or some other number of bits. While the number of bits may vary, the number can be 2 one and it is specified according to the modulation technique that is used. The plain and ordinary 3 meaning of “symbol” encompasses signals generated by all these modulation techniques. Thus, 4 no construction is needed. 5 32. Indeed, Dr. Gitlin himself acknowledges that “symbol” ordinarily refers to symbols 6 that may represent only one bit. As he states, “Some forms of modulation, e.g., binary phase-shift 7 keying (BPSK), use only two distinct symbols and each symbol represents a single bit. In other 8 words, one of ordinary skill in the field of the '792 patent would be aware of symbols that do 9 not represent a plurality of bits.” Gitlin Decl. ¶53 (emphasis added). 10 33. Dr. Gitlin proceeds to argue that “symbol” as used in the '792 patent deviates from 11 ordinary meaning because it refers only to signals with “a plurality of bits.” See Gitlin Decl. ¶53. 12 However, Dr. Gitlin's definition needlessly limits the meaning of “symbol” within the context of 13 Claims 11 and 14. The term “symbol” need not be limited to symbols representing two or more 14 bits; instead, Claims 11 and 14 themselves contain explicit limitations. Claim 11 reads, “… a 15 demodulator for demodulating a received symbol into a plurality of systematic bits and parity 16 bits.” If “symbol” inherently meant signals representing “a plurality of bits,” then the use of 17 “plurality” in Claim 11 would be redundant. In other words, “symbol” is used according to its 18 plain and ordinary meaning in Claims 11 and 14, while the claim itself contains explicit 19 limitations with respect to “a plurality of systematic bits and parity bits.” 20 C.) “representing a number of bits specified according to the modulation 21 technique” v. “in a sequence” 22 1.) 23 34. Intrinsic Evidence – “in a sequence” is incorrect Apple's interpretation that a symbol must exist “in a sequence” is inconsistent with 24 the plain and ordinary meaning of “symbol.” While a symbol may appear in a sequence of 25 symbols, it does not necessarily do so. A symbol can exist by itself. Although as a matter of 26 practice, data communications systems nearly always transmit symbols in a sequence, there is no 27 28 02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 11 1 reason to define “symbol” this way. As an analogy, a word normally appears in a sequence of 2 words, as in a sentence or a paragraph. However, a word standing alone is still a word. 3 35. I agree with Dr. Gitlin when he says, “Digital communication systems of the type 4 disclosed in the ‘792 patent communicate by transmitting a sequence of symbols.” Gitlin Decl. at 5 ¶58. As Dr. Gitlin states, “[I]n a communication system of the type disclosed in the ‘792 patent, 6 any one symbol would be part of a larger sequence of symbols that carry the transmitted bits.” Id. 7 at ¶59. The specification clearly teaches that the deinterleaver described by Claims 11 and 14 8 respectively do operate on sequences of symbols, because the deinterleaving process only makes 9 sense in the context of a sequence of symbols. However, I disagree that this aspect of the 10 invention should be imported into the construction of the term “symbol.” 11 12 2.) 36. Extrinsic Evidence – “in a sequence” is incorrect Dr. Gitlin's own hypothetical confirms that signals do not necessarily exist in a 13 sequence. Dr. Gitlin states, “For example, in 16QAM, there are sixteen unique symbols and each 14 symbol represents four bits. To transmit 40 bits, a 16QAM based system would need to transmit 15 ten symbols (i.e. ten symbols of four bits each results in communicating forty bits).” Gitlin 16 Declaration at ¶58. By extension, to transmit 4 bits, a 16QAM system would need to transmit 17 only one symbol. Under Apple's definition, however, a symbol representing four bits, if isolated, 18 would suddenly cease to be a “symbol” because it is by itself, and not “in a sequence.” Such an 19 interpretation defies ordinary common sense. 20 37. Moreover, Dr. Gitlin himself uses “symbol” to refer to a single bit that is not in a 21 sequence of bits. See Gitlin, et. al., DATA COMMUNICATIONS PRINCIPLES at 72-78 (discussing the 22 probability of error of a single symbol). Dr. Gitlin is simply using “symbol” in its plain and 23 ordinary sense, which does not require a sequence of symbols. 24 38. Dr. Gitlin appears to be concerned about the ability to distinguish a single symbol 25 from a sequence of symbols. See Gitlin Decl. ¶ 74. Specifically, Dr. Gitlin suggests that a 26 sequence of symbols might incorrectly be construed as one giant “super-symbol” with many bits. 27 However, Apple's proposed definition, requiring “a sequence” of symbols does not solve Dr. 28 02198.51855/4458776.1 DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 12 EXHIBIT A TO DECLARATION OF RICHARD WESEL IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 7,200,792 02198.51855/4465239.1 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT • UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES Room 6730A/6426 Boelter Hall • Box 951594 • Los Angeles, CA 90095-1594 Phone (310) 267-2150 • Cell (310) 922-7831 • Email: wesel@ee.ucla.edu http://www.ee.ucla.edu/~wesel RICHARD DALE WESEL EDUCATION 1991 – 1996 Stanford University, Stanford, CA Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering Dissertation: Trellis Code Design for Correlated Fading and Achievable Rates for Tomlinson-Harashima Precoding. 1984 – 1989 Massachusetts Institute of Tech., Cambridge, MA S. M. and S. B. in Electrical Engineering Dissertation: Adaptive Equalization for Modem Constellation Identification. EMPLOYMENT 1996 – present University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA Associate Dean of Academic and Student Affairs for the Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science since July 2007 Professor of Electrical Engineering since July 2006 Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering 2002-2006 Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering 1996-2001 1992-present Various Firms, CA Consultant to various firms including Xerox PARC, Elantec, Metricom, Townsend and Townsend and Crew, Clarity Wireless (now part of Cisco), Kyocera Wireless Corporation, Latham & Watkins, Aktino Corporation, Fulbright & Jaworski, McAndrews, Held, & Malloy, Weil Gotshcal & Manges, Kirkland & Ellis, Townsend and Townsend and Crew, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton. 1991 – 1996 Stanford University, Stanford, CA Research Assistant and Teaching Assistant. 1989 – 1991 AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ Member of Technical Staff. 1989-1991. Also at AT&T as MTS during summer 1994 and an intern 1986-1989. TEACHING RESPONSIBILITIES Courses taught: EE131A Probability, EE132A Communications Systems, EE231A Information Theory, EE232A Stochastic Processes, and EE231E Channel Coding Winner 2000 TRW Excellence in Teaching Award AWARDS • Selected for the National Academy of Engineering Frontiers of Engineering Program • TRW Excellence in Teaching Award (UCLA School of Engineering) • Okawa Foundation Award for Excellence in Telecomm. Research • National Science Foundation CAREER Award • AT&T Foundation Ph.D. Fellow. • IEEE Senior Member, Tau Beta Pi MIT chapter president 1987-1988, Etta Kappa Nu, Sigma Xi, National Merit Scholar. GRADUATED PH.D. STUDENTS 1. Christina Fragouli, Ph.D. Sept. 2000, Dissertation: Turbo Code Design for High Spectral Efficiency, 2000-2001 UCLA EE Dept. Ph.D. Student of the Year Award. FNS Assistant Professor at EPFL. 2. Christos Komninakis, Ph.D. Dec. 2000, Dissertation: Joint Channel Estimation and Decoding for Wireless Channels, AWR Corp., El Segundo, CA. 3. Xueting Liu, Ph.D. Dec. 2000, Dissertation: Trellis Code Design for Periodic Erasures and Adaptive Coded, Modulation Schemes for Time-Varying Channels, Nokia, San Diego, CA. 4. Wei Shi, Ph.D. Dec. 2000, Dissertation: New Results in Wireless Communications, Qualcomm, San Diego, CA. 5. Tom Sun, Ph.D. Dec. 2002, Dissertation: Error Protection Techniques for Source and Channel Coding, Qualcomm, San Diego, CA. 6. Chris Jones, Ph.D. Dec. 2003, Dissertation: Constructions, applications, and implementations of low-density parity-check codes, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA 7. Adina Matache, Ph. D. June 2004, Dissertation: Coding Techniques for High Data Rates in Wireless Multiple-Input Multiple-Output Communications, Marvell, San Jose, CA 8. Cenk Kose,Ph.D. Dec. 2004, Dissertation: Universal trellis codes and concatenated trellis-coded modulations for the compound linear vector Gaussian channel, Conexant, San Diego, CA 9. Aditya Ramamoorthy, June 2005, Generalized ACE Codes and Theoretic Results in Network Coding, Assistant Profesor at Iowa State University starting Fall 2006 10. Jun Shi, Ph.D. Sept. 2005, Dissertation: Universal Channel Codes and Trellis State-Diagram Reduction 11. Wen-Yen Weng, Ph.D. March 2007, Dissertation: Universal Serially Concatenated Trellis Coded Modulations and Rate-Compatible High-Rate LDPC Codes 12. Esteban Valles (Primary Advisor John Villasenor), Ph.D. March 2007, Dissertation: Timing Recovery Using Soft Information Feedback and Efficiency of Array Codes 13. Andres Vila Casado, Ph.D. December 2007, Dissertation: Improving LDPC Decoders: Informed Dynamic Message-Passing Scheduling and Multiple-Rate Code Design 14. Herwin Chan (Primary Advisor Ingrid Verbauwhede), Ph.D. December 2007, Dissertation: Accelerating Applications Through Cross-Layer Co-Design 15. Miguel Griot, Ph.D. Sept. 2008, Dissertation: Nonlinear Codes for Multiple Access to Binary Channels and Higher-Order Modulations over the AWGN Channel 16. Bike Xie, Ph.D. June 2010, Dissertation: Encoding for Degraded Broadcast Channels and Resource Allocation for content Distribution in Peer-To-Peer Networks PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES • Associate Editor, IEEE Transactions on Communications 1999-2005. • Technical Program Committee Member, regularly for Globecom and ICC. • Technical Program Chair, Communication Theory Symposium at Globecom 2002. • Organizer and Session Chair for Special Session on Concatenated codes and iterative decoding at the 2001 Asilomar Conf. on Signals, Systems, and Computers. • Organizer and Session Chair for Special Session on Communication over Time Varying Channels at the 1999 Asilomar Conf. on Signals, Systems, and Computers. • Session Organizer and Chair for Communication Theory Symposium at the 2001 International Conference on Communications. • Panel member for three National Science Foundation Proposal Review Panels. • Organizer and lecturer for UCLA Extension course on Error Control Coding (annually since 2000). Received an award for being among the top 10% of UCLA extension lecturers. • Instructor for 1997 UCLA Extension course on wireless multimedia communications. • Invited speaker 1998 and 2000 IEEE Communication Theory Workshops. • Invited speaker Office of Naval Research, Naval Research Labs 1998 Turbo Codes Workshop. • Invited speaker 1998 DARPA GloMo workshop on emerging technologies for hand-held wireless devices in military communication. • Invited speaker at various universities and companies including Stanford, Berkeley, U.C. San Diego, the Ohio State University, University of Arizona, the Johns Hopkins University, Cornell, Telia Research, Lulea, Sweden, Lucent, Boeing, Xetron, Texas Instruments, Conexant, and Microsoft Research. • Reviewer for various IEEE conferences and journals. Regularly reviewing submissions to Trans. on Information Theory, Trans. On Communications, Journal on Selected Areas of Communications, Communications Letters, Globecom, and International Conference on Communications, 1994-present. ACADEMIC SERVICE • Member of the Executive Enrollment Management Group October 2011-present • Member of the Undergraduate Non-Resident Implementation Task Force August 2010 – July 2011 • Member of UCLA Undergraduate Council July 2006- July 2008. • Member of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with Schools July 2006- July 2008 • Electrical Engineering Department Vice Chair for Undergraduate Affairs July 2005 – July 2007. Successfully managed the 2006 ABET Accreditation visit. • Member of the School of Engineering Faculty Executive Committee 2003-2006. • Chair of the Electrical Engineering Department Courses and Curriculum Committee 2003-2005. • Chair of the Communications Major Field in the Electrical Engineering Department at the University of California, Los Angeles, 1999-2004. • Chair of the Cubicle Allocation Committee for the Electrical Engineering Department at UCLA, managing the allocation of 150 student cubicles among approximately 20 professors who share this space, 1998-2005. • Chair of 2002 Annual Research Review (annual departmental research symposium). Also Vice Chair of 2001 Annual Research Review. • Member of 2001 UCLA EE Annual Report Committee. • Elected Member of the Legislative Assembly of the UCLA Academic Senate, 1997-2001. • Chair for quarterly Seminar Series in Signals and Systems. Established this seminar series in spring 1997. Recruit a professor each quarter to organize speakers for the series. Personally organized speakers for four of these quarters. • Local Exhibits Chair, 1997 UCLA EE Research Symposium PUBLISHED/ACCEPTED JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS 1. M. Griot, A. I. Vila Casado, W.-Y. Weng, H. Chan and R. D. Wesel," Nonlinear Trellis Codes for Binary-Input Binary-Output Multiple Access Channels With Single-User Decoding," Accepted in IEEE Transactions on Communications. 2. T. A. Courtade and R. D. Wesel," Optimal Allocation of Redundancy Between Packet-Level Erasure Coding and Physical-Layer Channel Coding in Fading Channels," Transactions on Communications, Vol. 59, No. 8, pp. 2101-2109, August 2011. 3. A. I. Vila Casado, M. Griot, and R. D. Wesel, "LDPC Decoders with Informed Dynamic Scheduling ," IEEE Transactions on Communications, Vol. 58, No. 12, pp 3470-3479, Decembber 2010 4. A. I. Vila Casado, W.-Y. Weng, S. Valle, and R. D. Wesel, " Multiple-Rate Low-Density ParityCheck Codes with Constant Blocklength ," IEEE Transactions on Communications, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp 75-83, January 2009. 5. H. Chan, A. I. Vila Casado, J. Basak, M. Griot, W.-Y. Weng, R. D. Wesel, B. Jalali, E. Yablonovitch, I. Verbauwhede, " Demonstration of Uncoordinated Multiple Access in Optical Communications ," IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems-I: Regular Papers, Vol. 55, No. 10, pp 3259-3269, November 2008. 6. W.-Y. Weng, C. Kose, B. Xie and R. D. Wesel, " Universal Serially Concatenated Trellis Coded Modulation for Space-Time Channels ," IEEE Transactions on Communications, Vol. 56, No. 10, pp 1636-1646, October 2008. 7. B. Xie, M. Griot, A. I. Vila Casado, and R. D. Wesel, " Optimal Transmission Strategy and Explicit Capacity Region for Broadcast Z Channels ," IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. 53, No. 9, pp 4296-4304, September 2008. 8. J. Shi and R. D. Wesel, " A Study on Universal Codes with Finite Block Lengths," IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. 54, No. 9, pp 3066-3074, September 2007. 9. M. Griot, W.-Y. Weng and R. D. Wesel, " A Tighter Bhattacharyya Bound for Decoding Error Probability," IEEE Communications Letters, Vol.11, No. 4, pp 346-347, April 2007. 10. C. R. Jones, T. Tian, J. Villasenor and R. D. Wesel, " The Universal Operation of LDPC Codes Over Scalar Fading Channels," IEEE Transactions on Communications, Vol. 55, no. 1, pp 122132, Jan. 2007 11. Kose C. and Wesel R. D., " Universal Space-Time Codes from Demultiplexed Trellis Codes," IEEE Transacations on Communications. Vol.54. No 7. July 2006. 12. F.Peng, W.Ryan. and R.D.Wesel," Surrogate-Channel Design of Universal LDPC Codes," IEEE Communications Letters, Jun. 2006, vol. 10, no. 6, pp 480-482 13. A. Ramamoorthy, J. Shi and R. D. Wesel, " On the Capacity of Network Coding for Random Networks," IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Aug. 2005, Vol. 51, no. 8, pp 2878-2885 14. Wesel R. D., "Reduced-State Representations for Trellis Codes Using Constellation Symmetry," IEEE Transactions on Communications, Aug. 2004, vol. 52(8) pp 1302-1310 15. Tian T., Jones C., Villasenor J. D. and Wesel R. D., "Selective Avoidance of Cycles in Irregular LDPC Code Construction," IEEE Transactions on Communications, Aug. 2004, vol. 52(8), pp 12421247. 16. Sun T. W., Wesel R. D., Shane M. R. and Jarett K., "Superposition Turbo-TCM for Multi-Rate Broadcast," IEEE Transactions on Communications, Mar. 2004, vol. 52( 3), pp 368-371. 17. Shi J. and Wesel R. D., "Efficient Computation of Trellis Code Generating Functions," IEEE Transactions on Communications, Feb. 2004, vol. 52(2), pp 219-227. 18. Matache A. and Wesel R. D., "Universal Trellis Codes for Diagonally Layered Space-Time Systems," IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, Nov. 2003, vol. 51(11) pp 2773-2783, Special Issue on "MIMO Wireless" 19. Kose C. and Wesel R. D., "Universal Space-Time Trellis Codes," IEEE Trans. on Info. Theory, Oct. 2003, vol. 40(10) pp 2717-2727 Special Issue on "Space-Time Transmission, Reception, Coding and Signal Design" 20. Q. Zhang, P. K. Varshney, and R. D. Wesel, “Optimal Bi-level quantization of I.I.D Sensor Observations for Binary Hypothesis Testing,” IEEE Trans. on Info Theory, July 2002, 48(7) pp. 2105-2110. 21. C. Komninakis, C. Fragouli, A. H. Sayed, and R. D. Wesel, “Multi-Input, Multi-output Fading Channel Tracking and Equalization Using Kalman Estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, May 2002, vol. 50(5), pp. 1065-1076. 22. A. Bernard, X. Liu, R. D. Wesel, and A. Alwan, "Multi-rate Transmission of Speech Using RateCompatible Trellis Codes and Embedded Source Codes," IEEE Transactions on Communications, February 2002, vol. 50(2) pp. 309-320. 23. P. Ormeci, D. L. Goeckel, X. Liu, and R. D. Wesel, “Adaptive Bit-Interleaved Coded Modulation for Time-Varying Channels Using Outdated Fading Estimates” IEEE Transactions on Communications, Sept. 2001, 49(9), pp. 1572-1581. 24. R. D. Wesel, X. Liu, J. M. Cioffi, and C. Komninakis, “Constellation Labeling for Linear Encoders,” IEEE Trans. on Info. Theory, Sept. 2001, 47(6), pp. 2417-2431. 25. C. Komninakis and R..D. Wesel, “Joint Iterative Channel Estimation and Decoding in Flat Correlated Rayleigh Fading,” IEEE Journal on Sel. Areas in Comm., Sept. 2001, 19(9), pp. 1706-17. 26. C. Fragouli and R. D. Wesel, “Turbo encoder design for symbol interleaved parallel concatenated trellis coded modulation,” IEEE Trans. on Comm., 49(3), Mar. 2001, pp. 425-435. 27. W. Shi, T. W. Sun, and R. D. Wesel, “Quasi-convexity and Optimal Binary Fusion for Distributed Detection with Identical Sensors in Generalized Gaussian Noise,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Jan. 2001, 47(1), pp. 446-450. 28. R. D. Wesel, X. Liu, and W. Shi, “Trellis Codes for Periodic Erasures,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, June 2000, 48(6), pp. 938-947. 29. R. D. Wesel and J. M. Cioffi, “Trellis Codes for Periodic Interleavers,” IEEE Communications Letters, April 1999, 3(4), pp. 103-105. 30. R. D. Wesel, and J. Cioffi, “Achievable Rates for Tomlinson-Harashima Precoding,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Mar. 1998, 44(2), pp. 824-831 CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS (LONG PAPERS) 1. A. Marinoni, P. Savazzi and R. D. Wesel, "On q-ary LDPC Code Design for a Low Error Floor". Globecom 2011, Houston, Texas, USA, December 2011. 2. T.-Y. Chen, D. Divsalar, J. Wang and R. D. Wesel, "Protograph-Based Raptor-Like LDPC Codes for Rate Compatibility with Short Blocklengths". Globecom 2011, Houston, Texas, USA, December 2011. 3. J. Wang, H. Shankar and R. D. Wesel, "Soft Information for LDPC Decoding in Flash:MutualInformation Optimized Quantization". Globecom 2011, Houston, Texas, USA, December 2011. 4. T. A. Courtade, J. Wang, and R. D. Wesel, "Superposition Coding to Support Multiple Streams, Priorities, and Channel Capacities in the Context of GMSK", to appear in MILCOM, 2011. 5. T. A. Courtade and R. D. Wesel, "Weighted Universal Recovery, Practical Secrecy, and an Efficient Algorithm for Solving Both". Forty-Ninth Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing, 2011. 6. B. Xie, M. van der Schaar, T. A. Courtade and R. D. Wesel, "Minimizing Weighted Sum Finish Time for One-To-Many File Transfer in Peer-To-Peer Networks". Forty-Ninth Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing, 2011. 7. T. A. Courtade and R. D. Wesel, "Multiterminal Source Coding with an Entropy-Based Distortion Measure". ISIT 2011, Saint-Petersburg, Russia, August 2011. 8. J. Wang, L. Dolecek, Z. Zhang and R. D. Wesel, "Absorbing Set Spectrum Approach for Practical Code Design". ISIT 2011, Saint-Petersburg, Russia, August 2011. 9. J. Wang, L. Dolecek and R. D. Wesel, "Controlling LDPC Absorbing Sets via the Null Space of the Cycle Consistency Matrix". ICC 2011, Kyoto, Japan, June 2011. 10. T.-Y Chen, N. Seshadri and R. D. Wesel, "A Sphere-Packing Analysis of Incremental Redundancy with Feedback". ICC 2011, Kyoto, Japan, June 2011. 11. J. Wang, L. Dolecek and R. D. Wesel, "LDPC Absorbing Sets, the Null Space of the Cycle Consistency Matrix, and Tanner’s Constructions". ITA 2011, San Diego, CA, USA, Feb. 2011. 12. T.-Y Chen, N. Seshadri and R. D. Wesel, "Incremental Redundancy: A Comparison of a SpherePacking Analysis and Convolutional Codes". ITA 2011, San Diego, CA, USA, Feb 2011. 13. T. A. Courtade and R. D. Wesel, "Efficient Universal Recovery in Broadcast Networks". FortyEighth Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing: Monticello, IL, Sept. 29-Oct. 1, 2010. 14. E. L. Valles, R. D. Wesel, J. D. Villasenor, C. R. Jones and M. Simon, "Pilotless Carrier PhaseSynchronization via LDPC Code Feedback". MILCOM 2010: San Jose, CA, Oct. 31 - Nov 3, 2011. 15. T. A. Courtade, B. Xie, and R. D. Wesel, "Optimal Exchange of Packets for Universal Recovery in Broadcast Networks". MILCOM 2010: San Jose, CA, Oct. 31 - Nov 3, 2010. 16. A. Marinoni, P. Savazzi and R. D. Wesel, "Protograph-based q-ary LDPC Codes for HigherOrder Modulation". ISTC 2010: Brest, France, Sept 6-10, 2010. 17. T. A. Courtade and R. D. Wesel, "A Deterministic Approach to Rate-Compatible Fountain Communication". ITA 2010: La Jolla, CA, Jan. 31 - Feb. 5, 2010. 18. B. Xie and R. D. Wesel, "Optimal Natural Encoding Scheme for Discrete Multiplicative Degraded Broadcast Channels". ISIT 2009: Seoul, Korea, June 28-July 3, 2009. 19. A. Marinoni, T. A. Courtade and R. D. Wesel, "Spectrally Efficient LDPC Coded Modulations". GTTI 2009: sessione Trasmissione, Parma, Italy, June 23-25, 2009. W inner of the Francesco Carassa award for the best paper from a young scientist in the sessione Trasmissione. 20. T. A. Courtade and R. D. Wesel, "A Cross-Layer Perspective on Rateless Coding for Wireless Channels". ICC 2009, Dresden, Germany, June 14-18, 2009. 21. B. Xie and R. D. Wesel, Optimal Independent-Encoding Schemes for Input-Symmetric Degraded Broadcast Channels". ITA 2008, San Diego, USA, Jan. 27 - Feb. 1, 2008. 22. B. Xie and R. D. Wesel, "A Mutual Information Invariance Approach to Symmetry in Discrete Memoryless Channels". ITA 2008, San Diego, USA, Jan. 27 - Feb. 1, 2008. 23. Miguel Griot, A. I. Vila Casado, and R. D. Wesel, "Nonlinear Turbo Codes for Higher-Order Modulations". ICC 2008, Beijing, China, May 2008. 24. Y.M. Chang, A. I. Vila Casado, M.F. Chang, and R. D. Wesel, "Lower-Complexity Layered Belief Propagation Decoding of LDPC Codes". ICC 2008, Beijing, China, May 2008. 25. M. Griot, A. I. Vila Casado, and R. D. Wesel, "On the Design of Arbitrarily Low-Rate TurboCodes". Globecom 2007, Washington, D.C., November 2007. 26. A. I. Vila Casado, M. Griot and R. D. Wesel, "Improving LDPC Decoders via Informed Dynamic Scheduling". ITW 2007, Lake Tahoe, CA, USA, September 2007, pp 208-213. 27. B. Xie, M. Griot, A. I. Vila Casado and R. D. Wesel, "Optimal Transmission Strategy and Capacity Region for Broadcast Z Channels". ITW 2007, Lake Tahoe, CA, USA, September 2007, pp 390-395. 28. A. I. Vila Casado, M. Griot and R. D. Wesel, "Informed Dynamic Scheduling for BeliefPropagation Decoding of LDPC Codes". ICC 2007, Glasgow, Scotland, July 2007, pp 932-937. 29. H. Chan, M. Griot, A. Vila Casado, R. Wesel, I. Verbauwhede "High Speed Channel Coding Architectures for the Uncoordinated OR Channel". IEEE 17th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON Application-specific Systems, Architectures and Processors (ASAP), Steamboat Springs, Colorado, September 2006. 30. M.Griot, A. I. Vila Casado and R. D. Wesel "Non-linear Turbo Codes for Interleaver-Division Multiple Access on the OR Channel". Globecom 2006, 27 Nov. - 1 Dec., San Francisco, USA. 31. W.-Y. Weng, B. Xie and R. D. Wesel "Universal Space-Time Serially Concatenated Trellis Coded Modulations". Globecom 2006, 27 Nov. - 1 Dec., San Francisco, USA. 32. A. I. Vila Casado, S. Valle, W.-Y. Weng, and R. D. Wesel "Constant-Blocklength Multiple-Rate LDPC Codes for Analog-Decoding Implementations". Proceedings Analog Decoding Workshop, June 2006. 33. E.Valles, C. Jones, R. Wesel and J. Villasenor "Carrier and Timing Synchronization of BPSK via LDPC Code Feedback". IEEE 40th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers. Pacific Grove,CA. Nov.2006. 34. M. Simon, E. Valles, C. Jones, R. Wesel and J. Villasenor "Information-Reduced Carrier Synchronization of BPSK and QPSK Using Soft Decision Feedback" The IEEE 44th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control and Computing. Urbana,IL Sep. 2006. 35. M. Griot, A. I. Vila Casado, W.-Y. Weng, H. Chan, J. Basak, E. Yablonovitch, I. Verbauwhede, B. Jalali, and R. D. Wesel "Trellis Codes with Low Ones Density for the OR Multiple Access Channel" , IEEE ISIT, Seatte, USA, July 2006. 36. M.Griot, A. I. Vila Casado, W.-Y. Weng, H. Chan, J. Basak, E. Yablonovitch, I.Verbauwhede, B. Jalali, and R. D. Wesel "Interleaver-Division Multiple Access on the OR Channel" Information Theory and Applications workshop. San Diego, 2006. 37. Yang Han, William E. Ryan and Wesel R. D. "Dual-Mode Decoding of Product Codes with Application to Tape Storage" , IEEE GlobeCom 2005. St Louis, MO., vol. 3, 28 Nov.-2 Dec. 2005, pp 1255-1260. 38. Valles E., Vila Casado A. I., Blaum M., Villasenor J and Wesel R. D., "Hamming Codes Are RateEfficient ArrayCodes" , IEEE GlobeCom 2005. St Louis, MO., Vol. 3, 28 Nov.-2 Dec. 2005, pp 1320-1324. 39. Kose C. and Wesel R. D., "Universal Space-Time Codes from standard trellis codes" , GlobeCom 2004, Dallas, TX, Nov. 29-Dec. 3, 2004, pp 391-395. 40. Shi J. and Wesel R. D., "Channel Eigenvector-Invariant Space-Time Constellations" , GlobeCom 2004, 29 Nov.-3 Dec. 2004, pp 530-534 41. Shi J. and Wesel R. D., "Universal Codes with Finite Block Lengths" , MilCom 2004, 31 Oct.-3 Nov. 2004, pp 1338-1344 42. Ramamoorthy A. and Wesel R. D., "Analysis of an Algorithm for Irregular LDPC Code Construction," ISIT 2004, Chicago, Illinois 43. Shi J. and Wesel R. D., "Rotationally Invariant Space-Time Constellations," ISIT 2004, Chicago, Illinois Shi J. and Wesel R. D., "Channel Eigenvector-Invariant Space-Time Constellations" GlobeCom 2004, Dallas, TX, Nov. 29-Dec. 3, 2004, pp 391-395. 44. Vila Casado A. I., Weng W. and Wesel R. D., "Multiple-Rate Low-Density Parity-Check Codes with Constant Block Length" , Conference Record of Thirty-Eighth Asilomar Conf. on Signals, Systems and Computers, Pacific Grove, CA, Nov. 7-10, 2004, pp 2010-2014. 45. Matache A., Jones C and Wesel R. D., "Reduced Complexity MIMO Detectors for LDPC Coded Systems" , MilCom 2004, 31 Oct.-3 Nov. 2004, pp 1073-1079 46. Ramamoorthy A. and Wesel R. D., "Expansion Properties of Generalized ACE Codes", 42nd Allerton Conference on Communication, Control and Computing 2004, Monticello, Illinois 47. Weng W., Ramamoorthy A. and Wesel R. D., "Lowering the Error Floors of High-Rate LDPC Codes by Graph Conditioning," VTC 2004, September 2004, Los Angeles, California, pp 25492553. 48. Chan H., Hodjat A., Shi J., Wesel R. D. and Verbauwhede I., "Streaming Encryption for a Secure Wavelength and Time Domain Hopped Optical Network," IEEE Intl. Conf. on Information Technology (ICIT) 2004. 49. Ramamoorthy A. and Wesel R. D., "Construction of Short Block Length Irregular LDPC Codes,", ICC 2004, Paris, June 2004. 50. Ramamoorthy A., Shi J., and Wesel R. D., "On the Capacity of Network Coding for Random Networks," Allerton Conference on Communication,Control and Computing, October 2003 51. Jones C., Matache A., Tian T., Villasenor J. and Wesel R. D., "The Universality of LDPC Codes on Wireless Channels," MilCom 2003, Boston, MA, October 2003 52. J. Shi and R. D. Wesel, “Further Error Event Diagram Reduction Using Algorithmic Techniques,” International Conference on Communications (ICC) 2003, Ankorage, AK, May 2003. 53. C. Kose, W. Weng, and R. D. Wesel, “Serially Concatenated Trellis Coded Modulation for the Compound Periodic Erasures Channel,” International Conference on Communications (ICC) 2003, Ankorage, AK, May 2003,pp2953-2957. 54. T. W. Sun, R. D. Wesel, M. R. Shane, and K. Jarett, “Superposition Turbo TCM for Multi-Rate Broadcast,” International Conference on Communications (ICC) 2003, Ankorage, AK, May 2003. 55. T. Tian, C. Jones, J. D. Villasenor, and R. D. Wesel, “Construction of Irregular LDPC Codes with Low Error Floors,” International Conference on Communications (ICC) 2003, Ankorage, AK, May 2003. 56. C. Kose and R. D. Wesel, “Universal Space-Time Trellis Codes,” Globecom 2002, Taipei, Taiwan, November 2002. 57. C. Jones, T. Tian, A. Matache, R.D. Wesel, and J. Villasenor, “Robustness of LDPC Codes on Periodic Fading Channels,” Globecom 2002, Taipei, Taiwan, November 2002. 58. M. R. Shane and R. D. Wesel,, “Reduced Complexity Iterative Demodulation and Decoding of Serial Concatenated CPM,” International Conference on Communications (ICC) 2002, New York, NY, April 28-May 2, 2002. 59. A. Matache and R. Wesel, “Trellis Coding for Diagonally Layered Space-Time Systems,” International Conference on Communications (ICC) 2002, New York, NY, April 28-May 2, 2002. 60. C. Kose and R. D. Wesel,, “Performance of Likelihood Ratio Tests under Incorrect Models” 35th Asilomar Conference on Signals,Systems, and Computers, Pacific Grove, CA, Nov. 2001.  61. M. R. Shane and R. D. Wesel, “Reduced Complexity Iterative Demodulation and Decoding of Serial Concatenated CPM,” 35th Asil. Conf. on Signals,Systems, and Computers, Pacific Grove, CA, Nov. 2001. 62. A. Matache and R. Wesel, “Trellis Coding for Layered Space-Time Systems,” 35th Asilomar Conference on Signals,Systems, and Computers, (invited) Pacific Grove, CA, Nov. 2001. 63. C. Komninakis and R. D. Wesel, “Trellis Turbo-codes in Flat Rayleigh Fading with Diversity,” Globecom 2001, San Antonio, TX, November 25-29, 2001. 64. C. Fragouli and R. Wesel, “Bit vs. Symbol Interleaving for Parallel Concatenated Trellis Coded Modulation,” Globecom 2001, San Antonio, TX, November 25-29, 2001. 65. C. Komninakis, R. D. Wesel, and L. Vandenberghe, “Capacity of the Binomial Channel, or Minimax Redundancy for Memoryless Sources,” IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, June 24-29, 2001, Washington D. C., page 127. 66. C. Fragouli, R. Wesel, Dirk Sommer, and Gerhard Fettweis, “Turbo Codes with Non-Uniform QAM Constellations,” International Conference on Communications (ICC) 2001, Helsinki, Finland, June 2001, pp.70-73. 67. C. Kose and R. D. Wesel, “Code Design Metrics For Space-Time Systems Under Arbitrary Fading,” ICC 2001, Helsinki, Finland, June 2001, pp. 1099-1103. 68. C. Fragouli, C. Komninakis, and R. D. Wesel, “Minimality Under Periodic Puncturing,” ICC 2001, Helsinki, Finland, June 2001, pp. 300-304. 69. X. Liu, P. Ormeci, R. Wesel, and D. Goeckel, “Bandwidth-Efficient, Low-Latency Adaptive Coded Modulation Schemes for Time-Varying Channels,” ICC 2001, Helsinki, Finland, June 2001, pp. 2211-2215. 70. W. Shi, C. Komninakis, R. Wesel, and B. Daneshrad, “Robustness of Space-Time Turbo Codes,” ICC 2001, Helsinki, Finland, June 2001, pp. 1700-1704. 71. T. W. Sun and R. D. Wesel, “Constellation Labeling for Error-Resilient Source Coding of PAM,” 35th Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, March 21-23, 2001, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, page 295. 72. M. Shane and R. D. Wesel, “Tight Bounds on the Mutual Information of the Binary Input AWGN Channel,” 35th Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, March 21-23, 2001, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, page 117. 73. M. Shane and R. Wesel, “Parallel Concatenated Turbo Codes for Continuous Phase Modulation,” (invited) 2000 Wireless Comm. and Networking Conf., Sept 24-28, 2000, 6 pages. 74. W. Shi, T. Sun, and R. D. Wesel, “Optimal Binary Distributed Detection,” 2000 International Symposium on Information Theory, Sorrento, Italy, June 2000, pp. 437. 75. R. D. Wesel and X. Liu, “Edge-Profile Optimal Constellation Labeling,” IEEE International Conference on Communications 2000, New Orleans, LA, June 2000, pp. 1198-1202. 76. C. Komninakis, C. Fragouli, A. H. Sayed, and R. D. Wesel, “Adaptive Multi-Input Multi-Output Fading Channel Equalization Using Kalman Estimation,” ICC 2000, New Orleans, LA, June 2000, pp. 1655-1659. 77. Q. Zhang, P. K. Varshney, and R. D. Wesel, “Optimal Distributed Binary Hypothesis Testing with Independent Identical Sensors,” 2000 Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, Princeton University, March 15-17, 2000, 6 pages. 78. C. Komninakis and R. D. Wesel, “Pilot-Aided Joint Data and Channel Estimation in Flat Fading,” Comm. Theory Symp. at Globecom 99, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Dec. 5-9, 1999, pp. 2534-9. 79. C. Fragouli and R. D. Wesel, “Semi-Random Interleaver Design Criteria,” Communication Theory Symposium at Globecom 99, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, December 5-9, 1999, pp. 2352-6. 80. C. Komninakis and R. D. Wesel, “Non-Pilot-Aided Iterative Decoding for Joint Data Recovery and Channel Estimation in Fading,” 33rd Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, Pacific Grove, CA. October 24-27, 1999, pp. 1122-1126. 81. C. Fragouli, C. Komninakis, A. H. Sayed, R.D. Wesel, “Channel Estimation and Equalization in Fading,” 33rd Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, Pacific Grove, CA. October 2427, 1999, pp. 1159-1163. 82. W. Shi, T. Sun, R. Wesel, “Optimal Binary Thresholds for Distributed Detection in Gaussian Noise,” 33rd Asilomar Conf. on Sig., Sys., Comp., Pac. Grove, CA. Oct. 24-27, 1999, pp. 675-9. 83. K. Lakovic, J. Villasenor, and R. D. Wesel, “Robust Joint Huffman and Convolutional Decoding,” VTC-Fall-99, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, September 19-22, 1999, pp. 2551-5. 84. C. Komninakis and R. D. Wesel, “Iterative Joint Data and Channel Estimation in Correlated Flat Rayleigh Fading,” in proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Advances in Communications and Control, June 28-July 2, 1999, Athens, Greece, pp. 385-390. 85. C. Fragouli and R. D. Wesel, “Convolutional Codes and Matrix Control Theory,” in proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Advances in Communications and Control, June 28-July 2, 1999, Athens, Greece, pp. 317-328. 86. R. D. Wesel, “Reduced Complexity Trellis Code Transfer Function Computation,” in the Communication Theory Miniconference in conjunction with ICC 99, June 6-10, 1999, pp. 37-41. 87. C. Fragouli and R. D. Wesel, “Symbol Interleaved Parallel Concatenated Trellis Coded Modulation,” in the Comm. Theory Miniconf. in conj. with ICC 99, June 6-10, 1999, pp. 42-46. 88. P. Ormeci, D. L. Goeckel, and R. D. Wesel, “Adaptive Bit-Interleaved Coded Modulation for Time-Varying Channels Using Outdated Fading Estimates,” in proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, 6 pages. 89. H. Zou, H. J. Kim, S. Kim, B. Daneshrad, R. Wesel, W. Mangione-Smith, “Equalized GMSK, Equalized QPSK, and OFDM: A Comparative Study for High-speed Wireless Indoor Data Communications,” in 1999 Veh. Tech. Conf., May 16-20, 1999, Houston, TX, pp.1106-10. 90. A. Bernard, X. Liu, R. Wesel and A. Alwan, “Embedded Joint Source-Channel Coding of Speech using Symbol Puncturing in Trellis Code,” in the Proceedings of ICASSP 99, vol. 5, Phoenix, AZ, March 1999., pp. 2427-2430. 91. A. Bernard, X. Liu, R. Wesel and A. Alwan,“Channel Adaptive Joint Source-Channel Coding of Speech,” Proc. 32nd Asilomar Conf. on Sig.., Sys, and Comp.., Pac. Grove, CA, Nov. 98, pp. 357-361. 92. W. Shi and R. D. Wesel, “The Effect of Mismatch on Decision-Feedback Equalization and Tomlinson-Harashima Precoding,” in Thirty-Second Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, Pacific Grove, CA, November 2-5, 1998, pp. 1743-1747. 93. R. D. Wesel and X. Liu, “Analytic Techniques for Periodic Trellis Codes,” in Thirty-Sixth Annual Allerton Conf. on Communications, Control, and Computing, Sept. 23-25, 1998, pp. 39-48. 94. X. Liu and R. D. Wesel, “Profile Optimal 8-QAM and 32-QAM Constellations,” in Thirty-Sixth Annual Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control, and Computing, Sept. 23-25, 1998, pp. 136-145. 95. W. Shi and R. D. Wesel, “When the Best Decision Feedback Equalizer is a Linear Equalizer,” in Thirty-Sixth Annual Allerton Conference on Control, and Computing, Sept. 23-25, 1998, pp. 338-39. 96. R. D. Wesel, X. Liu, W. Shi, and J. M. Cioffi, “Trellis Codes for Compound Periodic Gaussian Channels,” in Proceedings of the 1998 International Symposium on Information Theory, August 16-21, 1998, Cambridge, MA, pp. 462. 97. R. D. Wesel, X. Liu, and W. Shi, “Periodic Symbol Puncturing of Trellis Codes,” in proceedings of Thirty-First Asilomar Conf. on Sig., Sys., and Computers, Nov. 2-5, 1997, pp. 172-6. 98. R. D. Wesel, C. Komninakis, and X. Liu, “Towards Optimality in Constellation Labeling,” in proceedings of the Communication Theory Mini Conference at Globecom 97, Phoenix, AZ, November 38, 1997, pp. 23-27. 99. R. D. Wesel, and J. M. Cioffi, “Joint Interleaver and Trellis Code Design,” in proceedings of Globecom 97, Phoenix, AZ, November 3-8, 1997, pp. 939-943. 100.R. D. Wesel, and J. Cioffi, “Fundamentals of Coding for Broadcast OFDM,” in Twenty-Ninth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, October 30, 1995, pp. 2-6. 101.R. D. Wesel, and J. Cioffi, “Achievable Rates for Tomlinson-Harashima Precoding,” 1995 International Symposium on Information Theory, September 1995, pp. 399. 102.R. D. Wesel, and J. Cioffi, “Precoding and the MMSE-DFE,” Invited paper in Twenty-Eighth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, November 1, 1994, pp. 1144-1148. 103.R. D. Wesel and R. M. Gray, “Bayes risk weighted VQ and Learning VQ,” in Data Compression Conference, Snowbird, Utah, March 1994, pp. 400-409. 104.T. M. Cover and R. D. Wesel, “A Gambling Estimate of the Rate-Distortion Function for Images,” in Data Compression Conference, Snowbird, Utah, March 1994 (abstract only). BOOK CHAPTERS 1. H. Chan, A. Hodjat, J. Shi, R. D. Wesel and I. Verbauwhede, "Streaming Encryption for a Secure Wavelength and Time Domain Hopped Optical Network," Ch. 14 in Embedded Cryptographic Hardware (N. Nedjah and L. Mourelle, eds.). Nova Science Publishers, 2004 2. R. D. Wesel, “Convolutional Encoding” in Wiley Encyclopedia of Telecommunications, Edited by John Proakis, John Wiley, 2003. 3. R. D. Wesel, “Error Control” Chapter 6 in Wireless Multimedia Communications, Addison Wesley Longman, 1998. PATENTS 1. A. I. Vila Casado, W.-Y. Weng, R. D. Wesel, N. Moschini, M. Siti, S. Valle, E. Yeo, "Variable-Rate Low-Density Parity Check Codes with Constant Blocklength". U.S. Patent #7802172, September 21, 2010. 2. I. S. Djokovic, R. D. Wesel, E. J. Infusino, M. K. Tsatsanis, "Multi-channel communication system for multiple input, multiple output processing of an encoded signal". U.S. Patent #7415086, August 19, 2008. 3. G. G. Raleigh, Michael A. Pollak, V. K. Jones, R. D. Wesel, “System and Method for I/Q Trellis Coded Modulation,” U.S. Patent #6158041, December 5, 2000. 4. R. D. Wesel and J. M. Cioffi, “Transmission System Using Code Designed for Transmission with Periodic Interleaving,” U.S. Patent #6125150, September 26, 2000. 5. R. D. Wesel, “Adaptive Frequency Dependent Compensation for Telephone Channels,” U. S. Patent #5280525, January 18, 1994. 6. R. L. Daggett and R. D. Wesel, “Echo Protection Tone Detection and Regeneration for Digital Transmission of Facsimile Calls,” U. S. Patent #5216519, June 1, 1993.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?