`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 78
`Entered: October 27, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`____________
`
`Held: September 11, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, JAMES A. TARTAL,
`and PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday,
`September 15, 2015, commencing at 1:01 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`W. KARL RENNER, ESQUIRE
`INDRANIL MUKERJI, ESQUIRE
`JOSEPH V. COLAIANNI, JR., ESQUIRE
`ADAM R. SHARTZER, ESQUIRE
`Fish & Richardson, PC
`1425 K Street, N.W., 11th Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`HERBERT D. HART III, ESQUIRE
`KIRK A. VANDER LEEST, ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL J. CARROZZA, ESQUIRE
`PETER McANDREWS, ESQUIRE
`McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd.
`500 West Madison Street, 34th Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So good afternoon, everyone.
`
`We are here for a final hearing in three separate IPRs. All have
`
`the same caption but involve different patents. Marvell
`
`Semiconductor, Inc., Petitioner, versus Intellectual Ventures I
`
`LLC, Patent Owner. The cases are IPR2014-00548, 2014-00552
`
`and 2014-00553. Those are the three cases that we will hear
`
`argument on this afternoon.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`I want to go over -- oh, first, let me introduce the panel.
`
`11
`
`To my right is Judge Tartal. Judge Boucher is participating
`
`12
`
`remotely from Detroit on the screen to my left and I am Judge
`
`13
`
`Giannetti and I will be presiding.
`
`14
`
`Let's get appearances of counsel. Who is appearing
`
`15
`
`today on behalf of the Petitioner?
`
`16
`
`MR. RENNER: Your Honor, this is Carl Renner from
`
`17
`
`Fish & Richardson. I'm joined by Indy Mukerji, also of Fish &
`
`18
`
`Richardson.
`
`19
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. Would you spell that,
`
`20
`
`please?
`
`21
`
`MR. MUKERJI: Yes, Your Honor. It's I N D Y and
`
`22
`
`the last name is M U K E R J I.
`
`23
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Thanks, Mr. Mukerji.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. RENNER: And also, Your Honor, David Holt
`
`from our office.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. Mr. Renner, will you be
`
`presenting the argument?
`
`MR. RENNER: Your Honor, Mr. Murkerji will be
`
`presenting for '870.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay.
`
`MR. RENNER: And we're joined also by Joseph
`
`Colaianni who will be presenting in the second matter, as well as
`
`10
`
`Adam Shartzer.
`
`11
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. And you all have either
`
`12
`
`been admitted or have pro hac petitions that have been granted,
`
`13
`
`correct?
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`MR. RENNER: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. Thank you very much.
`
`And now for the Patent Owner, who is appearing today?
`
`MR. HART: Good afternoon, Your Honors. My name
`
`18
`
`is Herb Hart. I am lead counsel for Patent Owner, and with me
`
`19
`
`today arguing the 548 case is backup counsel, Kirk Vander Leest,
`
`20
`
`and arguing for the 552 and 553 proceedings are backup counsel,
`
`21
`
`Michael Carrozza and Peter McAndrews.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`MR. McANDREWS: Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`
`MR. HART: And, Your Honor, in view of the
`
`24
`
`allocation of time that's been provided, 90 minutes for each side,
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`we would like to take 30 minutes for the 548 proceeding and we
`
`understand there will be a brief recess. And then when we
`
`resume, the argument for Patent Owner for 552 and 553 will be
`
`presented in two parts, the first part being the technical issues and
`
`those will be addressed by Mr. Carrozza and he'll take about 35 or
`
`40 minutes, and the remaining time will be Mr. McAndrews
`
`addressing the Section 103(c) issue that we have in the case.
`
`And with regard to Mr. McAndrews' time, if the panel
`
`agrees, the parties have an understanding that because Patent
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Owner is the party with the burden of proof on the 103(c) issues
`
`11
`
`that Mr. McAndrews would open and close on that issue and so
`
`12
`
`he would like to reserve a few minutes of his time to do that.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. Is that -- go ahead.
`
`MR. HART: Is that acceptable?
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Anything further on the
`
`16
`
`schedule?
`
`17
`
`MR. HART: There's one last housekeeping item, Your
`
`18
`
`Honor. As you know, there's been some third-party discovery in
`
`19
`
`this case. And as a consequence of that, there are just a couple of
`
`20
`
`documents that are subject to a protective order and so we just
`
`21
`
`might inquire whether there's anyone in the room who is not
`
`22
`
`subject to the obligations of the protective order.
`
`23
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: You can ask that. We're not
`
`24
`
`going to clear the courtroom, though, Mr. Hart, but we'll have to
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`work around it, if you plan on discussing those documents. We're
`
`not going to exclude anyone from -- any members of the public
`
`from this hearing, so we'll have to figure out a way around that.
`
`But I suggest that if there is someone here who is not
`
`under the protective order that you figure a way to either not put
`
`them up on the screen and hand them up to us or find some way
`
`around it. Because at this late stage, I don't think we can exclude
`
`anyone from this hearing.
`
`MR. HART: Oh, we quite understand, Your Honor,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`and we do want to make it clear that these are not documents that
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner has identified as confidential, but they're third-party
`
`12
`
`documents.
`
`13
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay. Well, whoever's
`
`14
`
`confidentiality claim it is, I can tell you that we're not going to
`
`15
`
`exclude any members of the public.
`
`16
`
`Are there any members of the public here that are not
`
`17
`
`involved in this case?
`
`18
`
`19
`
`(No response.)
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: All right. Well, we're not going
`
`20
`
`to exclude anyone. So you can proceed, but it sounds like it will
`
`21
`
`be okay from your standpoint, but I just wanted to make it clear
`
`22
`
`that this is an open hearing, open to members of the public and it
`
`23
`
`will stay that way.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. HART: We understand, Your Honor, and the final
`
`housekeeping, we do have for the panel members present here, if
`
`you would like, we have paper copies of the demonstratives.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: That's up to you. If you'd like
`
`to hand them up, we'll take them.
`
`MR. HART: May I approach?
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Sure.
`
`MR. RENNER: Your Honor --
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: It's not required. We have the
`
`10
`
`electronic copies.
`
`11
`
`MR. RENNER: Understood. We also brought paper
`
`12
`
`copies. We might as well distribute those also at this time.
`
`13
`
`And just to note, Jennifer Oakes of Marvell is with us as
`
`14
`
`well and I just wanted to make that known, particularly to
`
`15
`
`opposing counsel with respect to the confidentiality issue.
`
`16
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Mr. Renner, while you're up on
`
`17
`
`your feet, how is that schedule, is that schedule okay with you?
`
`18
`
`Particularly I'm talking about the idea of providing rebuttal on the
`
`19
`
`103(c) issue.
`
`20
`
`MR. RENNER: Yes, Your Honor. The parties had
`
`21
`
`come to that agreement prior. It's represented. As to the timing,
`
`22
`
`however, we intend to divide the time slightly differently and
`
`23
`
`maybe we'll make that known as we get up and speak as to how
`
`24
`
`that schedule looks.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: That's fine, and you will have
`
`the opportunity to have rebuttal time on the merits of both of
`
`these cases with the possible exception of the 103(c) issue it
`
`sounds like. By agreement, rebuttal is going to be in the Patent
`
`Owner's camp.
`
`MR. RENNER: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: All right. So we'll proceed.
`
`Just one other housekeeping detail and then we can start. Both
`
`sides have handed up and filed demonstratives -- served
`
`10
`
`demonstratives and also we have cross objections to the parties.
`
`11
`
`We're not going to -- the panelreviewed the objections, we've
`
`12
`
`reviewed the demonstratives. We're not going to rule on the
`
`13
`
`objections at this point.
`
`14
`
`It's at least my judgment that both sides have gone a bit
`
`15
`
`beyond what we normally approve in terms of demonstrative
`
`16
`
`exhibits. They seem to be a little bit beyond what the rules
`
`17
`
`permit. However, we will allow you to use them as aids to
`
`18
`
`argument, but I want you to understand that at least until we
`
`19
`
`authorize them to be filed, and we may not do that at all, but they
`
`20
`
`are not part of the record. They're not part of the record of this
`
`21
`
`proceeding or this case.
`
`22
`
`The record of this hearing will be the transcript. So if
`
`23
`
`you want to make something of record in this proceeding, put it
`
`24
`
`on the record in the transcript. We will not rule on the objections
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`now. We will defer and we will determine after the hearing
`
`whether we want any of the demonstratives filed.
`
`Understood?
`
`MR. RENNER: Understood. Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Okay.
`
`MR. MUKERJI: Your Honor, may I approach with our
`
`demonstratives?
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Sure. Sure, that's fine.
`
`Okay. I'll get my clock started here. So --
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE BOUCHER: And before we begin, I just want
`
`11
`
`to make sure that you can hear me all right.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Yes, we can.
`
`I'll set the timer here. We will proceed in two stages.
`
`14
`
`We'll have first the argument on the 548 case and then we will
`
`15
`
`take a short recess of 10 or 15 minutes and then proceed with the
`
`16
`
`argument on the two remaining cases. All right?
`
`17
`
`18
`
`You can proceed when you're ready, counsel.
`
`MR. MUKERJI: Well, good afternoon, Your Honors,
`
`19
`
`and may it please the Board, I know we've drawn the coveted
`
`20
`
`Friday afternoon after lunch slot, so I guess we'll just get right to
`
`21
`
`it. Obviously we're happy to entertain any questions the Board
`
`22
`
`may have.
`
`23
`
`This is a clear cut case of obviousness. The Board did a
`
`24
`
`thorough job in assessing the claims of the '870 patent and that is
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`the one that corresponds to the 548 IPR that's before the Board
`
`today and the prior art references in the Institution Decision were
`
`in our view very correctly assessed.
`
`We've taken months of discovery and cross examination
`
`testimony and in those intervening months what's become clear is
`
`where the Board started is exactly where we are. What the Board
`
`said in the Institution Decision is how the proof has played out.
`
`What we'll see is that every important element of the
`
`'870 patent claims are rendered obvious by the combination of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Fischer and Nakamura, that is Fischer expressly shows that you
`
`11
`
`can have a single device that can be programmed to handle both
`
`12
`
`BPSK and QPSK modulated spread spectrum signals and the
`
`13
`
`header of those signals can be a variable length.
`
`14
`
`From Nakamura we will take the teachings of control
`
`15
`
`and timing of switching between demodulating the BPSK signal
`
`16
`
`and the QPSK signal. And when I say the signal, obviously we're
`
`17
`
`talking about portions of the packet. I don't think that's in dispute
`
`18
`
`that, you know, the structure of a packet or anything like that is
`
`19
`
`being disputed here today.
`
`20
`
`So we'll be talking about headers and the data portion or
`
`21
`
`the payload of the packet.
`
`22
`
`For Nakamura we also take the ability to handle
`
`23
`
`switching in a situation where you have a variable length header
`
`24
`
`and, finally, we'll discuss how adding a third reference, Tsuda, to
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`the combination of Fischer and Nakamura. It takes care of the --
`
`a couple of the stray dependent claims, if you will. We'll cover
`
`that in detail.
`
`So just to recap the evidence before the Board, we've
`
`got the patent obviously, the prior art. The only thing I want to
`
`point out here is that Petitioner's expert, Marvell's expert, Dr.
`
`Ding, has submitted two declarations in this matter. One is the
`
`opening that went with the petition and the second is his reply
`
`declaration that was submitted to rebut some of the arguments
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner made in its response and we'll be relying on both.
`
`11
`
`JUDGE BOUCHER: I just wanted to ask you to make
`
`12
`
`sure to refer to the slide numbers, please, because I'm looking at
`
`13
`
`them on a computer screen and for me to follow along.
`
`14
`
`MR. MUKERJI: Yes, Your Honor, I apologize. My
`
`15
`
`colleagues here have passed me three notes in the past five
`
`16
`
`minutes reminding me to do that and I've already forgotten.
`
`17
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: And I meant to remind you at
`
`18
`
`the beginning, too, so -- and that goes for both sides.
`
`19
`
`MR. MUKERJI: So for the moment I just have slide 4
`
`20
`
`up from Petitioner's demonstratives. It is a slide titled Evidence
`
`21
`
`Before the Board.
`
`22
`
`Turning now to slide 5, just a brief introduction to Dr.
`
`23
`
`Ding. I know the Board can read his qualifications in his
`
`24
`
`declarations, but he's very, very accomplished. He's a professor.
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`He's been a professor for more than 15 years at UC Davis. He's
`
`an IEEE fellow, which I think is a distinction that's not lost on the
`
`Board, and he's a prolific author in this case. So his expertise I
`
`think is beyond dispute.
`
`Speaking of matters beyond dispute, looking at slide 7
`
`now, the sort of low hanging fruit here, things that the parties are
`
`not disputing, Fischer, Nakamura, Tsuda. These are all prior art
`
`references. No issues with dates or anything like that. None of
`
`the claim constructions that the Board rendered with the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Institution Decision are being disputed, so that's easy.
`
`11
`
`Dr. Ding's qualifications, we don't believe anyone is
`
`12
`
`disputing and, finally, for purposes of today's discussion,
`
`13
`
`obviously there are a lot of claims at issue in the proceeding. I
`
`14
`
`think we are going to focus on the independent claims principally
`
`15
`
`and I don't think there's any debate among the parties that these
`
`16
`
`dependent claims in the last bullet of slide 7 are -- you know,
`
`17
`
`they'll stand or fall with the independent claims.
`
`18
`
`Turning now to slide 10, the '870 patent, and, again, I
`
`19
`
`know the Board is familiar. I'll just take a moment to remind the
`
`20
`
`Board that what we're talking about at the core is a system where
`
`21
`
`you can have a preamble that's modulated in BPSK format and a
`
`22
`
`payload, including CRC perhaps at the end. It's modulated in
`
`23
`
`QPSK format.
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`And so what's up on slide 10 is just a snip out of the
`
`Institution Decision where the Board reviewed this patent and
`
`characterized it and we also reproduced here Figure 1 from the
`
`patent itself.
`
`And what we see at the bottom there on slide 10 is that
`
`we've got certain preamble fields. So you've got sync, power
`
`ramp, length, seed, signal field and UW, which stands for unique
`
`word that we'll talk about a little bit later today. And then
`
`everything following UW is the payloads. You've got the data
`
`10
`
`field, which is QPSK modulated and then a CRC at the end,
`
`11
`
`which is also QPSK modulated.
`
`12
`
`Further narrowing I think the scope of today's argument,
`
`13
`
`we did take the cross examination testimony of Patent Owner's
`
`14
`
`expert, Dr. Heidari. And in that cross examination and looking
`
`15
`
`on slide 9 -- so this is Petitioner's slide 9 and we've got the
`
`16
`
`citations to the transcript if the Board is interested, but Dr.
`
`17
`
`Heidari did not contest that things like analog receivers and A to
`
`18
`
`D converters and digital demodulators, both for BPSK and
`
`19
`
`QPSK, and timers that all of these elements were known in the
`
`20
`
`art.
`
`21
`
`So really what they're focusing on is a combination of
`
`22
`
`these elements and saying it's new.
`
`23
`
`Dr. Heidari also had no evidence of any secondary
`
`24
`
`considerations of nonobviousness, so we have none of that messy
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`stuff to get into, if you will. We can focus purely on the
`
`technology here.
`
`We have taken the liberty of highlighting what we
`
`believe are the three elements that are being disputed as to
`
`whether these elements are present or not present looking now at
`
`slide 13.
`
`Thank you. Looking now at slide 13, so what is
`
`disputed as to whether these show up in the prior art
`
`combinations before the Board are the means for converting said
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`analog signal into a digital signal. The means for demodulating
`
`11
`
`from BPSK -- switching demodulation from BPSK to QPSK and
`
`12
`
`then a timing means that times that switch from the BPSK
`
`13
`
`modulation -- demodulation to the QPSK demodulation.
`
`14
`
`Just on slide 14 we've listed the claims that are in play
`
`15
`
`in this proceeding. We have two separate grounds. I think I
`
`16
`
`mentioned at the outset, we have Fischer plus Nakamura for most
`
`17
`
`of the claims and then Fischer plus Nakamura plus Tsuda for just
`
`18
`
`a couple of the claims, Claims 9 and 15.
`
`19
`
`So let's look at Fischer and Nakamura. This is --
`
`20
`
`looking now at slide 21 from Petitioner's deck, this is an excerpt
`
`21
`
`from Fischer itself and what it shows is Fischer calls it a
`
`22
`
`communicator. It's basically a node in a network that
`
`23
`
`communicates wirelessly with other nodes.
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`The important part is this RF modem. That's where the
`
`intelligence lies of Fischer. So let's take a closer look at that.
`
`What we see is you've got multiple antennas and we'll go through
`
`the signal flow in looking now at slide 22 from Petitioner's deck.
`
`We'll go through the signal flow in a bit more greater
`
`detail, but you've got two antennas, you've got a bunch of signal
`
`conditioning and processing happening and then the signal hits
`
`this thing called a coherent demodulator and that is a big deal for
`
`the dispute before the Board because the parties are talking about
`
`10
`
`what's going on inside that box.
`
`11
`
`So let's orient ourselves just a bit with Fischer. We're
`
`12
`
`now looking at slide 23. Fischer tells us that it can handle BPSK,
`
`13
`
`it can be programmed to handle QPSK. So there's no real debate
`
`14
`
`that, you know, Fischer was contemplating only BPSK or only
`
`15
`
`QPSK. Fischer expressly says it can handle both. And we're
`
`16
`
`looking here at the snip at the upper left-hand side of slide 23.
`
`17
`
`One point that Fischer makes and that it's a simple
`
`18
`
`point, but one that's I think important for the Board to internalize
`
`19
`
`as it's deliberating. The two modulation schemes we're talking
`
`20
`
`about, BPSK and QPSK, they have certain differences between
`
`21
`
`them. Pertinent for our discussion is the fact that BPSK is a
`
`22
`
`slower modulation scheme. So you're sending fewer bits through.
`
`23
`
`So you'd be sending, say one bit through, you know, in
`
`24
`
`a given period of time, whereas using QPSK it's a faster scheme.
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`You would send two bits through in that same period of time, and
`
`we'll see why that matters in just a moment.
`
`The other thing I'd like to bring to the Board's attention
`
`is the snip in the lower right of slide 23. That snip is, again, from
`
`Fischer and what it says is that Fischer has these registers and that
`
`register has a bit basically and, you know, flipping that bit is what
`
`allows Fischer to act in a BPSK demodulation mode or you can
`
`flip that bit and have it act in a QPSK modulation mode.
`
`Now, I don't mean to imply that Fischer is saying you
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`can do this all the time, flipping bits, flipping bits, but it's saying
`
`11
`
`that, you know, by flipping that bit you can change the
`
`12
`
`modulation mode and I think what you'll hear Petitioner say -- or,
`
`13
`
`excuse me, Patent Owner say is that, well, Fischer, you know,
`
`14
`
`you flip the bit and it's BPSK all the time or you flip the bit and
`
`15
`
`it's QPSK all the time.
`
`16
`
`But what's important to keep in mind is we're not
`
`17
`
`reading Fischer in isolation. We're reading Fischer plus
`
`18
`
`Nakamura. So when we talk about that combination, this register
`
`19
`
`with the bit, that it becomes important.
`
`20
`
`Confirming our understanding of Fischer is Dr. Ding's
`
`21
`
`testimony and he is unquestionably one of skill in the art and now
`
`22
`
`I'm looking at slide 24 from Petitioner's deck where Dr. Ding
`
`23
`
`confirms that it would be apparent to one of skill that Fischer is
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`capable of handling BPSK and capable of handling QPSK and it's
`
`selectable between those modulation modes.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: But isn't the issue whether it can
`
`handle both at the same time?
`
`MR. MUKERJI: Absolutely, that's the issue, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`that?
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: What does he have to say about
`
`MR. MUKERJI: So the build that I was doing was this
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`is Fischer, this is Nakamura and here's how you put them
`
`11
`
`together. I can jump to the punch line. I'm sorry, Your Honor?
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: The grand synthesis is coming.
`
`MR. MUKERJI: It's coming, I promise.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: All right.
`
`MR. MUKERJI: Okay. Looking now at Petitioner's
`
`16
`
`slide 26, what we've done is trace that signal flow, as I promised
`
`17
`
`we would, and you see it comes in, it goes to this coherent
`
`18
`
`demodulator. So, first of all, looking at where the signal is
`
`19
`
`entering, the upper left of slide 26, we see that these are, in fact,
`
`20
`
`direct-sequence spread spectrum signals coming in. So there's no
`
`21
`
`debate about that.
`
`22
`
`Then looking at what's going on in the coherent
`
`23
`
`demodulator, Fischer tells us that this box includes comparators
`
`24
`
`to establish digital waveforms and provide in-phase and
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`quadrature phase data outputs in a form compatible -- and I
`
`apologize, the highlighting ended there -- but in a form
`
`compatible with the other digital components in the
`
`communicator.
`
`So let's break that down. So the comparators I think it's
`
`undisputed these are analog to digital converters. It's just another
`
`word for it.
`
`What the snip is telling us is that these comparators
`
`output digital waveforms. So you can imagine a waveform that's
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`made of ones and zeros. So that's clue one that what's coming out
`
`11
`
`of box 114 is going to be digital.
`
`12
`
`It's also telling us that it's outputting I and Q phase data
`
`13
`
`in a form compatible with other digital components of the
`
`14
`
`communicator, which means the data that's coming out is
`
`15
`
`something that these digital components on the bottom part of the
`
`16
`
`slide can use, which tells us it's digital data coming out of 114.
`
`17
`
`Now, I think the Patent Owner is going to talk about
`
`18
`
`this spread spectrum correlator and decoder and the evidence here
`
`19
`
`and Dr. Ding's opinion, which we'll touch on in just a second,
`
`20
`
`tells us that what's coming out is digital and it goes down and is
`
`21
`
`then despread. I think they may have a different view, so I just
`
`22
`
`want to preview that for you.
`
`23
`
`But if you look at what it says for the spread spectrum
`
`24
`
`correlator and decoder, it says it's handling the demodulation --
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`excuse me, handling the demodulator of 114 output to regenerate
`
`the unspread data. So we know that this is outputting data that
`
`can be used by digital components and we know this is using the
`
`output of of this. So it's not that complicated in our view.
`
`Moving to slide 58, this is, as I mentioned, Dr. Ding has
`
`confirmed our view of what's happening in Fischer in that box
`
`114. What he's told us is a person of skill would have understood
`
`that the signal passing through the comparators -- so those are the
`
`A to D converters -- contained in the coherent demodulator 114
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`necessarily remains in spread spectrum baseband form.
`
`11
`
`He further tells us that that demodulator converts the
`
`12
`
`analog signal to digital signals and outputs those digital signals in
`
`13
`
`I and Q form to spread spectrum correlator and decoder 130. So,
`
`14
`
`again, it's confirming that signal path I just went through. So in
`
`15
`
`our view that means for converting the signal, that's taken care of
`
`16
`
`certainly with Fischer.
`
`17
`
`Let's move now to the demodulation of BPSK and
`
`18
`
`QPSK packets basically. So this is where we come to Nakamura
`
`19
`
`and what Nakamura talks about is a PLL, a phase lock loop, that
`
`20
`
`can be used to -- I'm sorry, and this is looking at slide 28 -- that
`
`21
`
`can be used to deal with BPSK signals. And then if you look in
`
`22
`
`here, there's a switch, the switch 15 in Nakamura.
`
`23
`
`That switch is what switches from dealing with it in
`
`24
`
`BPSK format to QPSK format. And if you follow the line down,
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`that is being controlled by this timer 34 in Nakamura and that
`
`timer in turn is being informed by this bandpass filter 31,
`
`comparator 32 and the threshold generator 33.
`
`So this notion of being able to deal with a signal, deal
`
`with a packet that has a BPSK portion, a header, and a QPSK
`
`portion is clearly talked about in Nakamura.
`
`Now, looking further at Nakamura, what we have is
`
`Nakamura confirming that the preamble of the signal it's dealing
`
`with is BPSK and, again, QPSK is for the data signal, which is
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`the payload.
`
`11
`
`Now, we looked briefly -- and this is slide 30 in
`
`12
`
`Petitioner's deck. We looked briefly at that timer. Here are snips
`
`13
`
`from Nakamura that describe what's going on with that timer. So
`
`14
`
`what it's saying is that that switch is transferred to terminal A for
`
`15
`
`preamble reception -- that's BPSK -- and transferred to terminal B
`
`16
`
`near the end of the preamble. Because near the end of the
`
`17
`
`preamble is where you're going to switch the data portion. So
`
`18
`
`you're switched to QPSK. That's what that is saying.
`
`19
`
`Now, Nakamura in one embodiment talks about how
`
`20
`
`you would do this by using a predetermined threshold. So it's
`
`21
`
`basically a predetermined amount of time before you switch. So
`
`22
`
`you start getting the signal, you wait and then you switch. Okay.
`
`23
`
`So that's one way Nakamura talks about it.
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`But there's another way in Nakamura, which is very
`
`important, and we're going to spend time on that in just a bit, but
`
`just to, you know, nail down the fundamentals in Nakamura, let's
`
`just finish doing this.
`
`The timer permits the switch -- looking at the lower left
`
`of the slide 30 -- to transfer from A to B after a lapse of
`
`predetermined time, which is what I just described, following the
`
`reception of the output signal from the comparator 32. So that
`
`confirms that signal flow that I described to you.
`
`10
`
`Okay. So now we're starting to come to the fun part and
`
`11
`
`this is the payoff. Let's see, first of all, is Fischer and Nakamura
`
`12
`
`properly combined? Is there a motivation to combine these?
`
`13
`
`Now, what we have -- and this comes straight out of our
`
`14
`
`petitions. This has been in play from the very beginning of this
`
`15
`
`proceeding, but there's a recognition certainly in the '870 patent
`
`16
`
`that reliability is important. I think reliability is important to
`
`17
`
`anyone in this field working on a way to move data around.
`
`18
`
`Obviously you want your data to be reliable.
`
`19
`
`But there's a countervailing consideration and that
`
`20
`
`consideration is efficiency. So reliability is not the sole
`
`21
`
`benchmark that we look at to decide whether or not a
`
`22
`
`combination would make sense to someone of skill in the art.
`
`23
`
`You would look at reliability. You would also look at efficiency.
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)
`IPR2014-00552 (Patent 6,754,195)
`IPR2014-00553 (Patent 6,754,195)
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Now, looking at slide 34, this is the combination, Judge
`
`Giannetti. So you take the PLL of Nakamura and you put it in the
`
`coherent demodulator and you don't have to literally take this
`
`PLL. What you do is you take the teachings of that PLL
`
`described by Nakamura, the control, the timing and you apply it
`
`to the coherent demodulator of Fischer. So that is the
`
`combination here.
`
`So the payoff -- and this is slide 34 from Petitioner's
`
`deck -- the payoff is that that bit that we talked about in Fischer in
`
`10
`
`a register that can be flipped to go from BPSK to QPSK, you
`
`11
`
`would inform that bit using the teachings of Nakamura.
`
`12
`
`Nakamura says, hey, BPSK header, QPSK payload and, you
`
`13
`
`know, by tracking what's going on with that packet, you decide
`
`14
`
`when to flip from BPSK demodulation to QPSK demodulation.
`
`15
`
`That is the teaching you apply to that register of Fischer.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So in Nakamura it's a timing.
`
`MR. MUKERJI: Timing and control.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Timing and control.
`
`MR. MUKERJI: Yes, because you're controlling when
`
`20
`
`that switch happens.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: Right, with a timer.
`
`MR. MUKERJI: In part with a timer, absolutely, yes.
`
`JUDGE GIANNETTI: So why wouldn't you
`
`24
`
`incorporate that teaching also if you're looking to Nakamura? For
`
` 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00548 (Patent 5,712,870)