trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00915, Paper No. 36
`IPR2014-00919, Paper No. 36
`September 30, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ERICSSON INC. and TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM
`ERICSSON,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00915
`Patent 8,396,079 B2
`
`Case IPR2014-00919
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`____________
`
`Held: August 25, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: JOSIAH C. COCKS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
`DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`August 25, 2015, commencing at 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00915, Paper No. 36
`IPR2014-00919, Paper No. 36
`September 30, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ERICSSON INC. and TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM
`ERICSSON,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00915
`Patent 8,396,079 B2
`
`Case IPR2014-00919
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`____________
`
`Held: August 25, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: JOSIAH C. COCKS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
`DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday,
`August 25, 2015, commencing at 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`J. ANDREW LOWES, ESQ.
`
`
`CLINT WILKINS, ESQ.
`
`
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`
`2505 North Plano Road, Suite 4000
`
`
`Richardson, Texas 75082-4101
`
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JENNIFER B. WELLS, ESQ.
`Ericsson
`6300 Legacy Drive
`Plano, Texas 75024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`HERBERT D. HART, III, ESQ.
`
`
`STEVEN J. HAMPTON, Ph.D., ESQ.
`
`
`McAndrews Held & Malloy LTD
`
`
`500 West Madison Street, 34th Floor
`
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAMES R. HIETALA, ESQ.
`Intellectual Ventures
`3150 139th Avenue, S.E.
`Bellevue, Washington 98005
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Good morning.
`
`COUNSEL: Good morning.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: We're here for a consolidated oral
`
`argument in two proceedings, IPR2014-00915 and 00919
`
`involving patents 8,396,079 and 7,848,353. Let's begin by having
`
`counsel introduce themselves for the record, starting with
`
`Petitioners.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`MR. LOWES: Andrew Lowes, lead counsel for
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Ericsson. With me at counsel today is Clint Wilkins,
`
`12
`
`backup counsel. Also in attendance today is Jennifer Wells,
`
`13
`
`in-house counsel for Ericsson.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Thank you, Mr. Lowes.
`
`And for the Patent Owner?
`
`MR. HART: Yes, Your Honor, Herbert Hart, lead
`
`17
`
`counsel for Patent Owner. With me today and presenting our
`
`18
`
`argument is backup counsel Steve Hampton.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Thank you, Mr. Hart.
`
`As we set forth in our trial hearing order, each side has
`
`21
`
`up to 60 minutes of argument time. The Petitioner will go first
`
`22
`
`and present their argument. You may reserve rebuttal time. The
`
`23
`
`Patent Owner will then argue their opposition of Petitioners' case,
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`and then we will conclude with Petitioner reserving any time for
`
`rebuttal.
`
`So, with that said, Mr. Lowes, you may approach
`
`whenever you are ready to begin.
`
`Let me make one point, we are joined by Judge
`
`McKone remotely from Detroit, he cannot see what you have put
`
`up on the screen, so if you can just refer to the slide number when
`
`you refer to it.
`
`MR. LOWES: Yes, I am aware.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`JUDGE McKONE: And also, I can't hear what you say
`
`11
`
`unless you speak into the microphone at the podium. Thank you.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`MR. LOWES: Judge McKone, can you hear me now?
`
`JUDGE McKONE: Yes.
`
`MR. LOWES: Very good.
`
`Well, I will go ahead and begin the presentation. As I
`
`16
`
`said, my name is Andrew Lowes, lead counsel for Petitioner,
`
`17
`
`Ericsson. Of the 60 minutes allotted for today's presentation, I
`
`18
`
`would like to reserve 20 minutes for rebuttal after the Patent
`
`19
`
`Owner's presentation.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Thank you.
`
`MR. LOWES: Additionally, to make the transcript
`
`22
`
`clear, since we have two IPR proceedings, when I refer to
`
`23
`
`exhibits, I'll refer to the exhibit numbers of IPR2014-00915. For
`
`24
`
`my argument today, first, I will have a brief overview of the
`
`25
`
`challenges, an overview of the patents with respect to
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`representative claim, along with an overview of the two primary
`
`references. Then I'll provide additional evidence and arguments
`
`from the record, some of which has occurred after the institution
`
`decision. This evidence will further support and confirm the
`
`Board's initial conclusion that the claims are unpatentable as set
`
`forth in the institution decision.
`
`Slide 2, please, of Exhibit 1034. Here is an overview of
`
`the challenges that are present in both IPR proceedings. The first
`
`four challenges are based on the primary reference McFarland.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`These cover all the claims in both proceedings, based on
`
`11
`
`McFarland, based on various combinations with van Nee, Shahar,
`
`12
`
`Richardson, and the McFarland reference is Exhibit 1002.
`
`13
`
`The second set of challenges is based on the
`
`14
`
`Trompower reference. Trompower, likewise, covers the same set
`
`15
`
`of claims as McFarland, and is combined with different sets of
`
`16
`
`references for most of the challenges. So, we have two sets of
`
`17
`
`challenges that are parallel, so each claim has two bases for
`
`18
`
`unpatentability.
`
`19
`
`Next slide, please, slide 3 of Exhibit 1034. This is
`
`20
`
`claim 6 of the '079 patent. Just in simple terms, the '079 patent
`
`21
`
`and '353, one is a continuation of the other, so they both have a
`
`22
`
`similar specification, but both patents relate to communication
`
`23
`
`systems which offer dynamic change of transmission bandwidths.
`
`24
`
`So, depending on the conditions, the transmitter can decide to
`
`25
`
`change the bandwidth of transmission. When the transmitter
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`wants to make that change, it needs to have a way to let the
`
`receiver know it's changing the transmission, how is it -- how is
`
`the receiver going to know what is the new transmission
`
`bandwidth.
`
`The solution to that problem is to place an indication in
`
`the first part of the message that indicates the operating
`
`bandwidth of the remainder of the message. For the '353 and '079
`
`patents, that indication is an indication of the chipping rate. So,
`
`the chipping rate is identified at the beginning of the message,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`that chipping rate that's identified is for the remainder of the
`
`11
`
`message. During prosecution, there was very little substantive
`
`12
`
`prosecution, there was a double patenting rejection based on a
`
`13
`
`parent application. In the parent, it talked about transmitting an
`
`14
`
`indication of the chipping rate, in these patents that's been
`
`15
`
`changed to an indication of an operating bandwidth.
`
`16
`
`So, here you can see it's simply transmitting, in this case
`
`17
`
`by a wireless network, a signal having a first signal portion, that
`
`18
`
`first signal portion containing an indication of an operating
`
`19
`
`bandwidth for a further signal portion, and then the claim requires
`
`20
`
`that the indication is recoverable from the first signal portion and
`
`21
`
`information in the further signal portion is recoverable at that
`
`22
`
`operating bandwidth.
`
`23
`
`As it turns out, other patents had already disclosed this
`
`24
`
`technology well in advance of priority date of the '353 and '079
`
`25
`
`patents. Specifically, the McFarland reference disclosed
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`transmitting the mode of the packet, the first mode in the header
`
`that indicates the mode of transmission for the remainder of the
`
`packet. And the mode, the reason it's different than the words
`
`chipping rate is because McFarland relates to orthogonal
`
`frequency division multiplexing, OFDM, and mode is the way
`
`that the various transmission bandwidths are communicated.
`
`The additional reference of Trompower utilizes spread
`
`spectrum technology, just like the '079 and '353, and in
`
`Trompower, there is an indication of the chipping rate for the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`remainder of the message that's communicated through the
`
`11
`
`system.
`
`12
`
`Next slide, please. Referring to slide 4 of Exhibit 1034.
`
`13
`
`This is just a graphic illustration of the claim. There is simply a
`
`14
`
`signal that has a first signal portion in the patent. That
`
`15
`
`information, the SCH is the synchronization channel and that is
`
`16
`
`the portion that contains an indication of the chipping rate. And
`
`17
`
`that's the chipping rate of the further signal portion, which
`
`18
`
`contains the data. In terms of the patent, that bundle of data is
`
`19
`
`called a data burst.
`
`20
`
`Next slide, please. So, why are there two sets of
`
`21
`
`references? The reason is, is because unlike the parent patent,
`
`22
`
`these claims require -- they don't require chipping rate, they talk
`
`23
`
`in terms of just an indication of operating bandwidth, and they
`
`24
`
`have been asserted against products that utilize OFDM
`
`25
`
`technology. So, in an effort to demonstrate that, we've utilized
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`the McFarland reference that has the same technology as the
`
`accused products utilizing OFDM communications to show that
`
`the concept that's in the claims is already known before the filing
`
`date.
`
`Additionally, following the disclosure of the patents for
`
`spread spectrum technology, and communication of chipping rate,
`
`we've utilized the Trompower reference as well.
`
`Next slide, please. So, overall, through the petition and
`
`the reply, Petitioner has demonstrated that the two distinct sets of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`references render the challenged claims obvious, and therefore
`
`11
`
`unpatentable to the Patent Owner. With respect to the
`
`12
`
`transmission of signal, it is just semantics. Patent Owner says
`
`13
`
`that the wireless packets and the transmission of those packets
`
`14
`
`through a wireless system as disclosed in both McFarland and
`
`15
`
`Trompower are not examples of transmitting a signal as set forth
`
`16
`
`in the claims and that signal has to convey information.
`
`17
`
`Both McFarland and Trompower are replete with
`
`18
`
`reference to transmission of signals, even modulated signals. As
`
`19
`
`we have shown, Patent Owner is clearly incorrect with respect to
`
`20
`
`transmitting a signal.
`
`21
`
`With respect to indication of operating bandwidth,
`
`22
`
`McFarland's transmission of the mode at the beginning of the
`
`23
`
`packet indicating the mode of the remainder of the packet is an
`
`24
`
`indication of the operating bandwidth, and we've clearly shown
`
`25
`
`that in the petition, as well as discussed it in the reply.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Similarly, Trompower's indication of chipping rate is
`
`the same indication utilized in the '353 and '079 patents to
`
`indicate the chipping rate of the remainder of the message.
`
`With respect to indication of operating bandwidth,
`
`Patent Owner has now attempted to narrow the claims to avoid
`
`this invalidating prior art and save validity. In doing so, rather
`
`than utilize indication of operating bandwidth, the Patent Owner
`
`is now saying that that has to mean something special, although
`
`there's no special meaning set forth in the patent, and their
`
`10
`
`position is that it has to identify a particular operating bandwidth.
`
`11
`
`So, they are now requiring particularity from those claims and
`
`12
`
`actually identify a particular operating bandwidth. As we'll
`
`13
`
`discuss, that's inconsistent with the patent and there's no
`
`14
`
`disclosure of that actually in the '353 or '079 patents.
`
`15
`
`Finally, with respect to data burst, there's no meaningful
`
`16
`
`distinction between the transmission of data burst of the '353 and
`
`17
`
`'079 patents and transmission of the packets of McFarland,
`
`18
`
`Trompower and an additional reference, Shahar. Each of the
`
`19
`
`references disclose transmissions that have an increased rate of
`
`20
`
`transmission to shorten the temporal duration of the transmission,
`
`21
`
`such a transmission is defined as a data burst in Petitioners'
`
`22
`
`petition, and even under Patent Owner's proposed plain and
`
`23
`
`ordinary meaning, those transmissions satisfy the claim
`
` 9
`
`24
`
`limitations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`And Patent Owner has not identified any particular
`
`technical reason why the transmission of the disclosed patents of
`
`the references are not the claimed data burst.
`
`Next slide, please. Referring to slide 7, this is a front
`
`page of the McFarland reference, which is Exhibit 1002. This,
`
`the reference itself indicates that it's a multi-carrier
`
`communication system and it employs variable symbol rates and
`
`number of carriers.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, may I interrupt briefly?
`
`MR. LOWES: Absolutely.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Could you go back one slide. I do
`
`12
`
`have one question. Just for clarity, I've seen a couple of the items
`
`13
`
`you've listed there, you refer only to the Petitioners' reply and not
`
`14
`
`to the petition itself. Why is that?
`
`15
`
`MR. LOWES: Simply for ease of reference that there's
`
`16
`
`a direct correlation to the Petitioners' reply.
`
`17
`
`JUDGE COCKS: So, those arguments made are also in
`
`18
`
`the petition, it's fairly general, the first one, but they are also
`
`19
`
`contained in the petition itself?
`
`20
`
`MR. LOWES: Yes, and I will get to slides that have
`
`21
`
`that.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Okay, thank you.
`
`MR. LOWES: With respect to McFarland, as
`
`24
`
`mentioned, it's an OFDM system. Even here in the abstract, it
`
`25
`
`indicates that the receiver, so the receiver can determine the
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`correct symbol rate and number of carriers, which is, in fact,
`
`going to indicate the occupied bandwidth for the transmission,
`
`through an indication in the header of the data packet, which is
`
`transmitted in a base mode of operation that all nodes in the
`
`system can understand.
`
`So, clearly, McFarland is providing an indication in the
`
`header for the remainder of the packet.
`
`Next slide. Another quote from McFarland that
`
`recognized that in a preferred approach would be to have a short
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`header on the packet that would be in the base mode, and within
`
`11
`
`that header, would be an indication, the exact language of the
`
`12
`
`claim, of which mode the remainder of the packet will be in. And
`
`13
`
`as we'll describe further in the slides, mode, in fact, indicates
`
`14
`
`operating bandwidth.
`
`15
`
`So, for McFarland, the transmitted packet header is the
`
`16
`
`first signal portion, and the transmitted packet remainder is the
`
`17
`
`further signal portion. McFarland, in terms of dynamically
`
`18
`
`changing its transmission, discloses dynamically changing the
`
`19
`
`number of carriers, the symbol rate and the occupied bandwidth.
`
`20
`
`So, it's clearly setting forth changes in bandwidth, which are
`
`21
`
`indicated by number of carriers and symbol rate, which is the
`
`22
`
`mode.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Next slide.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Mr. Lowes, go back to that slide.
`
`25
`
`There's something I want to get on the table early today, and I
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`want to focus your attention on the words "symbol rate" that
`
`you've got at the bottom of the slide. Some of us came through
`
`the ranks in the early days of patent litigation during the dial-up
`
`modem wars, and back in those days, we were pretty much
`
`dealing with a carrier frequency that was just voice data over the
`
`telephone, and yet the rate at which transmission could be sent
`
`over the wire improved with time because they improved the
`
`methods of modulation, they went from just frequency shift
`
`keying to start with the phase shift keying on it, eventually went
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`all the way up to 56K before we then transitioned into broadband.
`
`11
`
`There's an issue that's really hasn't been very well
`
`12
`
`fleshed out by the parties in terms of what the word "bandwidth"
`
`13
`
`means and whether it just means from one frequency to another
`
`14
`
`frequency in a range of frequencies, or it also addresses the
`
`15
`
`subject of the overall data rate that's being transmitted, because
`
`16
`
`the data rate can be changed within a certain band of frequency.
`
`17
`
`Do you agree with that?
`
`18
`
`19
`
`MR. LOWES: Yes, I do.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: So, when the Patent Owner is talking
`
`20
`
`about operating bandwidth, is it your understanding that he's only
`
`21
`
`talking about a frequency range, or are they also talking about the
`
`22
`
`symbol rate and the overall transmission rate that's being affected
`
`23
`
`not just by the range of frequencies they are in, but also by the
`
`24
`
`modulation scheme that they're using?
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. LOWES: It's my understanding that bandwidth,
`
`and I think the parties would address this to some degree, is
`
`actually the spectral bandwidth and not data rate. So, bandwidth
`
`in the claims is not necessarily the data rate, although there is a
`
`relationship that as the more bandwidth you use the higher your
`
`data rates can be, but the claims themselves are talking about the
`
`use of the spectral bandwidth.
`
`Does that answer your question? So, with respect to
`
`symbol rate, if you want to send more symbols, as you increase
`
`10
`
`the rate of the symbols, you're going to need to increase the
`
`11
`
`bandwidth to get those greater symbols through the system.
`
`12
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Go ahead and keep going, but we're
`
`13
`
`going to come back to this when we look at Trompower in a
`
`14
`
`minute.
`
`15
`
`MR. LOWES: Right. Next slide, please. Slide 9 of
`
`16
`
`Exhibit 1034, this is a front page of Trompower. As you can see
`
`17
`
`here, it's a cellular communication system with dynamically
`
`18
`
`modified data transmission parameters. In this system, it enables
`
`19
`
`dynamic modification of the communication system, including
`
`20
`
`the PN code, the chipping rates and modulation techniques for
`
`21
`
`transmission of data packets.
`
`22
`
`Next slide, please. Here's a quote from Trompower that
`
`23
`
`describes their setup. So, they have a packet, here shown in
`
`24
`
`figure 3A, packet 300, within that header 302, and then followed
`
`25
`
`that by a plurality of data bits 304. The entire packet may be
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`transmitted in fast, mid or slow rates, but in this embodiment, the
`
`header is transmitted in the mid or slow rate while the remainder
`
`of the packet can be transmitted in the fast, mid or slow rate. And
`
`the header also will include receiver system setup data signifying
`
`the data rate at which the data bits will be transmitted. And we'll
`
`come back to your point a little bit later.
`
`Next slide, please. So, here's just a graphic illustration
`
`annotated figure 3A, that in one embodiment of Trompower, they
`
`actually set the data rate using chipping rate. So, you change the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`chipping rate, it changed the data rate, and as Trompower
`
`11
`
`discloses, changing that chipping rate also changes the utilized
`
`12
`
`bandwidth.
`
`13
`
`Next slide, please. Move on past that. So, in terms of
`
`14
`
`the parties, there are four claim terms under consideration. The
`
`15
`
`first is signal or transmitting of the signal. Data burst, indication
`
`16
`
`of operating bandwidth, and bandwidth. We're now on slide 13,
`
`17
`
`Judge McKone.
`
`18
`
`For signal, the Petitioners' construction is that it should
`
`19
`
`be a physical representation of the data that's actually being
`
`20
`
`transmitted. It need not be wireless transmission, for the '353
`
`21
`
`patent, the independent claims aren't limited to wireless, and
`
`22
`
`those claims, it's not until the dependent claims that it requires
`
`23
`
`wireless transmission.
`
`24
`
`The Patent Owner's construction is that physical
`
`25
`
`representation must be in a modulated wave form that's used to
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`convey information. But as the Board properly recognized,
`
`between those two claim constructions, it's not material for the
`
`purposes of this proceeding. All the references relied upon are
`
`wireless transmission systems, and so even if you choose Patent
`
`Owner's construction, the references still satisfy that, and we'll
`
`walk through that.
`
`Actually, next slide, please. With respect to signal,
`
`there's no special meaning for signal set forth in the patent, and
`
`none has been really suggested, and in the institution decision, the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Board recognized that all of our references contemplate a wireless
`
`11
`
`transmission, transmissions that use modulating carriers.
`
`12
`
`Next slide. This is slide 15 of Exhibit 1034. So, in
`
`13
`
`terms of the structure of McFarland that does the transmission,
`
`14
`
`here we have, from figure 8, in McFarland, a data packet would
`
`15
`
`enter on the left, and go to the serial to parallel processor and then
`
`16
`
`be fed into the iFFT, and the iFFT would then generate on OFDM
`
`17
`
`symbol, be passed from parallel to serial converter and then it
`
`18
`
`would exit here in a serial format. With respect to our
`
`19
`
`construction, that's -- that can be the signal. That's what's being
`
`20
`
`transmitted and it need not be modulated if it's still in a base band
`
`21
`
`mode for a wired communication.
`
`22
`
`Next slide, please. Now, with respect to Patent Owner's
`
`23
`
`construction, it's simply the combination of McFarland and van
`
`24
`
`Nee as set forth in the petition, and further in the reply, applying
`
`25
`
`van Nee. Here you have McFarland generating the OFDM
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`symbol, its output, and McFarland recognizes that it could be a
`
`wireless system, so wireless transmission. To accomplish that, a
`
`Patent Owner of ordinary skill in the art would understand you
`
`need to convert it and apply it to an RF carrier wave. And van
`
`Nee expressly indicates that along with the structure. It's got the
`
`digital to analog converter, the RF carrier wave applied to the
`
`antenna.
`
`And looking at van Nee, we've quoted the language
`
`there. The OFDM symbol is input into a digital to analog
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`converter, after which it is sent to the transmitter front end 22 that
`
`11
`
`converts the base band wave form to the appropriate RF carrier
`
`12
`
`frequency for transmission over antenna 24.
`
`13
`
`So, even under Patent Owner's construction, it's a
`
`14
`
`modulated wave form conveying information. Now, what
`
`15
`
`information is that? It's the packet that's fed in right here. That's
`
`16
`
`the information that's being transmitted via the signal. The
`
`17
`
`modulated wave form.
`
`18
`
`Next slide, please. Next slide. Turning now, staying
`
`19
`
`with McFarland, but turning now to indication of operating
`
`20
`
`bandwidth, it's our position that no construction is necessary for
`
`21
`
`that term. As I indicated in my opening, the Patent Owner's
`
`22
`
`construction is that this actually needs to be much narrower and it
`
`23
`
`should be directly an identification of a particular operating
`
` 16
`
`24
`
`bandwidth.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Next slide. And now referring to slide 20 of Exhibit
`
`1034. The top portion of that, a discussion of McFarland, the
`
`combination of symbol rate and number of carriers corresponds to
`
`the mode of operation, which in turn corresponds to the
`
`bandwidth. If you know the symbol rate, that corresponds
`
`proportionally to carrier spacing, and as shown in McFarland's
`
`figure 3, as well as figures 4 and 5, with the number of carriers in
`
`the carrier spacing, you know the occupied bandwidth.
`
`So, clearly, the designation of the mode, the symbol rate
`
`10
`
`and number of carriers, it is clearly showing the occupied
`
`11
`
`bandwidth. So, McFarland's indication of mode is identifying
`
`12
`
`what is the bandwidth that's being occupied by the signals that are
`
`13
`
`later transmitted, transmitting the data portion of the packet.
`
`14
`
`In response to that, Patent Owner takes the position that,
`
`15
`
`well, there's something wrong with McFarland's indication of the
`
`16
`
`operating bandwidth. And what that problem is, according to the
`
`17
`
`Patent Owner, is there's at least one other factor in determining
`
`18
`
`bandwidth that McFarland does not account for. And in their
`
`19
`
`view, that's guard-band. So, with respect to guard-band, that
`
`20
`
`proposed construction and the inclusion or requirement that you
`
`21
`
`include the guard-band is wrong for at least three reasons.
`
`22
`
`Next slide, please. Looking at slide 21, first, this is the
`
`23
`
`plain meaning of indication doesn't require a special and
`
`24
`
`particular identification of the bandwidth. It simply is an
`
`25
`
`indication, just like the chipping rate is an indication of
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`bandwidth, but it doesn't set forth a numeric value for that chip
`
`rate. Moreover, the requirement that guard-band be taken into
`
`account for the McFarland reference is contrary to the patent
`
`itself. For the '079, we asked Patent Owner's expert for the -- is
`
`the concept of guard-band discussed in the '353 or the '079
`
`patents? And Dr. Zeger, Patent Owner's expert said, "I believe
`
`it's implicitly discussed, but the words -- I don't know if the
`
`words 'guard-band' are actually and explicitly in there."
`
`So, even their own expert -- you know, they criticize
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`McFarland for not talking about guard-band in indicating
`
`11
`
`bandwidth, but the patent itself doesn't take into account
`
`12
`
`guard-band. There's no disclosure of that consideration in the
`
`13
`
`patent itself.
`
`14
`
`Next slide, slide 22. The second reason that guard-band
`
`15
`
`is not a relevant issue, and there is no need to identify a particular
`
`16
`
`operating bandwidth with respect to the patent is that there's not a
`
`17
`
`direct correlation between the chip rate that's disclosed in the
`
`18
`
`patents, and the operating bandwidth, because as, again, this is
`
`19
`
`Patent Owner's expert, as he recognized, as the chip rate goes up,
`
`20
`
`the operating bandwidth goes up, but not in a proportional sense.
`
`21
`
`Then because there's also guard-band which is added on to that.
`
`22
`
`So, there's not necessarily a proportional increase in the
`
`23
`
`bandwidth as chipping rate goes up. And then he wanted to
`
`24
`
`clarify and said, well, it may be proportional, but it need not be.
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, even under the Patent Owner's understanding, the
`
`patent is unclear whether guard-band would take it into account,
`
`whether chip rate indicates their definition of operating
`
`bandwidth because the guard-band may or may not have changed.
`
`So, that's a second reason why their construction is improper.
`
`Next slide, slide 23. The third reason their construction
`
`is improper is that with respect to guard-band, the claims require
`
`that information be recovered from that operating bandwidth.
`
`And the experts agree, and again, this is Patent Owner's expert
`
`10
`
`testifying, when we asked him about that, there's no information
`
`11
`
`in that band, and he's referring to the guard-band.
`
`12
`
`So, there's no information in the guard-band, it need not
`
`13
`
`be disclosed that that's the operating bandwidth, because there's
`
`14
`
`no information to recover in that band. So, again, for those three
`
`15
`
`reasons, Patent Owner's construction of indication of an operating
`
`16
`
`bandwidth as requiring identification of a particular bandwidth is
`
`17
`
`improper, and beyond the scope of their patent in terms of the
`
`18
`
`limitations they actually disclose.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Next slide, please.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, let me ask you.
`
`MR. LOWES: Yes?
`
`JUDGE COCKS: What if we were to think that
`
`23
`
`operating bandwidth does include guard-band? What happens to
`
`24
`
`the ground based on McFarland?
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. LOWES: Well, McFarland actually, there is some
`
`disclosure in McFarland, to the extent that you can determine
`
`from the patent that chipping rate takes into account or designates
`
`guard-band, there's that same kind of disclosure in McFarland, it
`
`expressly says that the occupied bandwidth is carrier spacing
`
`times symbol rate, so that it's got as much identification of the
`
`operating bandwidth as the patents themselves.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Okay.
`
`MR. LOWES: Next slide. So, in conclusion,
`
`10
`
`McFarland has in that short header of the packet, within that
`
`11
`
`header would be an indication of which mode the remainder of
`
`12
`
`the packet will be in. It's clearly providing an indication of the
`
`13
`
`operating bandwidth where the information can be recovered for
`
`14
`
`the remainder of the packet.
`
`15
`
`Next slide. You can skip that slide. So, we've been
`
`16
`
`talking about McFarland, and now I want to turn to the second
`
`17
`
`primary reference, the Trompower reference. And the discussion
`
`18
`
`has been about signal, and whether transmitting a packet is a
`
`19
`
`signal or whether the references themselves, in fact, disclose
`
`20
`
`transmitting signals. Here in Patent Owner's response, they
`
`21
`
`recognize that Trompower does, indeed, disclose transmitting RF
`
`22
`
`signals. So, clearly, there's recognition that Trompower itself is
`
`23
`
`transmitting the RF signals.
`
`24
`
`They have said that Trompower -- the transmission of
`
`25
`
`the packets are not transmitted signals. Clearly, Trompower's
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`transmitting those packets through their RF carrier, and
`
`Trompower in many places talks about that. Here's one example.
`
`Transmission between the devices in the cellular communication
`
`system 200, and I'm sorry, Judge McKone, I'm on slide 26,
`
`preferably occur in a packet format. So, those transmissions are
`
`occurring in a packet format, as shown in figure 3, we've already
`
`talked about, using spread spectrum wireless communication
`
`techniques.
`
`So, it's the same spread spectrum that they're utilizing in
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`the '353 patent and '079 to transmit what they call their
`
`11
`
`information bundles, data bursts, and they are using in the '353
`
`12
`
`and '079 spread spectrum techniques. The same thing is
`
`13
`
`happening in Trompower. So, exactly the same transmissions, it's
`
`14
`
`transmitting what? It's transmitting packets of information.
`
`15
`
`Next slide. Here's some detailed disclosure from
`
`16
`
`Trompower. We've already gone through the quotation on the
`
`17
`
`left, and this just graphically shows how Trompower's packet is
`
`18
`
`divided up between the header and the data bits. I think we can
`
`19
`
`go to the next slide.
`
`20
`
`With respect to chipping rate, even the Patent Owner
`
`21
`
`recognizes that there is an embodiment, a disclosure in
`
`22
`
`Trompower that Trompower does mention that a different
`
`23
`
`embodiment may provide for adjusting the chipping rate. Now,
`
`24
`
`they spent a lot of time talking about the embodiment that holds
`
`25
`
`the chipping rate constant and changes other aspects to change
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00815
`Patent 6,404,953 B1
`
`the data rate of the transmission, changing the coding or
`
`modulation, but holding that chipping rate constant can hold the
`
`bandwidth constant.
`
`But in the embodiment that we're referring to, they're
`
`actually changing the data rate, I'm sorry, changing the data rate
`
`via changing the chip rate. In one example it's between 22
`
`megahertz and 11 megahertz, which they describe as actually
`
`changing the spectral bandwidth being utilized.
`
`Next slide, please.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`
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
