Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 56
`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.
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 56
`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 5,712,8
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
