Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 40
`Entered: February 12, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`ERICSSON INC. and
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
`DAVID C. MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION ON REMAND
`35 U.S.C. § 144 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 40
`Entered: February 12, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`ERICSSON INC. and
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
`DAVID C. MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION ON REMAND
`35 U.S.C. § 144 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively
`“Petitioner”) filed a Corrected Petition (Paper 6, “Pet.”) to institute inter
`partes review of claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,952,408 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’408 patent”). Intellectual Ventures I LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314, in our Decision to Institute, we instituted this proceeding as to all of
`the challenged claims of the ’408 patent. Paper 10 (“Dec. Inst.”), 26.
`After the Decision to Institute, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 16, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent
`Owner Response (Paper 18, “Reply”). An oral hearing was held on August
`26, 2015. Paper 28 (“Tr.”).
`We issued a Final Written Decision in this proceeding on October 22,
`2015, ruling that Petitioner had not shown, by a preponderance of the
`evidence, that claims 1–10 and 12–16 are anticipated by the ’480 patent
`(Ex. 1006) or that claims 1–16 would have been obvious over the ’480
`patent, the ’435 patent, and GSM 05.02 (Ex. 1012). Paper 29 (“FWD”). We
`maintained that ruling upon request for rehearing. Paper 31. The Federal
`Circuit reversed our decision as to claim 1, holding claim 1 anticipated and
`obvious, vacated our decision as to claims 2–16, and remanded the case to us
`for determination of patentability of claims 2–16. See Ericsson v.
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC, 890 F.3d 1336, 1347, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`Petitioner relies on the testimony of Wayne Stark, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003,
`“Stark Decl.”; Ex. 1022, “Stark Reply Decl.”) in support of its contentions.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`Patent Owner relies on the testimony of Jonathon Wells, Ph.D. (Ex. 2007,
`“Wells Decl.”) in support of its contentions.
`Consistent with the agreement of the parties, no further briefing or
`evidence is necessary and we decide the patentability of claims 2–16 on the
`record already established. Paper 35, 2.
`Based on the record before us, Petitioner has demonstrated, by a
`preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2–16 are unpatentable.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Patent Owner has asserted the ’408 patent against various companies
`in several lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the District of
`Delaware. Pet. 1; Paper 5, at 1.
`
`C. References Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`Ex. 1006 US 5,592,480
`Jan. 7, 1997
`(“the ’480 patent”)
`Ex. 1007 US 5,537,435
`July 16, 1996
`(“the ’435 patent”)
`Recommendation GSM 05.02, Radio Sub-system Link Control,
`EUROPEAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS INSTITUTE,
`v. 3.8.0 (Dec. 1995) (Ex. 1012, “GSM 05.02”)
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`We instituted this proceeding based on the following specific grounds
`(Dec. Inst. 26)1:
`Reference(s)
`The ’480 patent
`
`Claims Challenged
`1–10, 12–16
`
`Basis
`§ 102(b)
`
`The ’480 patent, the ’435
`patent, and GSM 05.02
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1–16
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. The ’408 Patent
`The ’408 patent is directed to a method for frequency hopping in
`cellular wireless communication. Ex. 1001, Abstract. Frequency hopping is
`a modulation technique in which a transmission frequency is changed
`according to a schedule in order to reduce the amount of interference
`experienced at particular frequencies. Id. at 2:23–29, 2:33–36, 11:19–24.
`According to the ’408 patent, the Groupe Spécial Mobile (“GSM”) set of
`mobile communications standards developed by the European
`Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”) provides for frequency
`hopping. Id. at 3:1–5. Communications between mobile stations (e.g.,
`cellular phones) and basestations can include several logical channels time
`division multiplexed into recurring time slots of a single radio frequency
`(“RF”) channel. Id. at 11:43–45. In frequency hopping, a mobile station
`
`
`1 The Petition also raised grounds based on additional references, and we
`denied those grounds. Dec. Inst. 2–3, 17–25. However, both parties have
`represented that they currently do not seek, and will not seek in the future, to
`have us address those grounds. Paper 35, 2–3.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`maintains its time slot when hopping to a different frequency. Id. at 11:45–
`50.
`
`A preferred embodiment of the invention of the ’408 patent is
`illustrated in Figure 1, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of wideband digital basestation 10 in
`communication with mobile subscriber terminals 40a, 40b. Id. at 3:46–48,
`4:36–38. Wideband digital tuner 12 receives a composite RF modulated
`signal (e.g., modulated voice or data) from a mobile subscriber terminal
`(e.g., 40a, 40b), down converts the signal to an intermediate frequency, and
`converts it from analog to digital. Id. at 4:53–59. Digital channelizer 14
`receives the composite digital signal 13 from digital tuner 12 and separates it
`into a plurality of digital channel signals 15. Id. at 5:1–3.
`
`The digital channel signals are provided to a plurality of digital signal
`processors (“DSPs”) over time division multiplex (“TDM”) bus 16. Id. at
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`31–34. The DSPs (e.g., 18-1-1 to 18-1-P) demodulate the digital channel
`signals. Id. at 5:31–34, 5:49–51. The TDM bus is configured to route the
`same recurring time slot to a particular demodulator DSP such that the DSP
`performs baseband processing for the same mobile station before and after a
`change in RF frequency. Id. at 12:22–24. In other words, the TDM bus
`routes a physical RF channel to the DSP corresponding to the correct logical
`channel for the mobile station.
`Figure 8, reproduced below, is an example of a structure to indicate to
`the TDM bus how to map digital channel signals to DSPs. Id. at 11:50–58.
`
`Figure 8 is a block diagram of a TDM dual port (“DP”) driver 144 within
`digital channelizer 14. Id. A control processor for the basestation supplies
`indications of current and next physical RF channel-to-logical channel
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`mappings to frequency hop dual port random access memory (“FHOP DP-
`RAM”) 312, which stores the current and next values in address locations
`that differ by the most significant address bit. Id. at 11:57–11. RX
`PING/PONG signal 304 toggles according to a hop sequence interval,
`causing the TDM bus to be remapped at a rate corresponding to the hop
`sequence interval. Id. at 12:15–21. The hop sequence interval can be
`synchronized to a timing signal from a Global Positioning System (“GPS”)
`receiver (see Fig. 1, items 35–37). Id. at 12:31–56.
`
`Data to be transmitted from the basestation to mobile stations are
`handled similarly. Id. at 6:44–45. With reference to Figure 1, DSPs 18-2-1
`through 18-2-Q modulate the data, which are routed to digital combiner 24
`via TDM bus 16. Id. at 6:47–56. Digital combiner 24 combines the data,
`which it receives in multiple RF frequencies, into a composite signal. Id. at
`7:7–9, 8:5–7. Digital exciter 26 then generates a composite RF signal to be
`transmitted over an antenna to the mobile stations. Id. at 7:9–13.
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
`matter:
`
`A method for frequency hopping in a cellular
`1.
`communications system having multiple mobile subscribers
`communicating on a plurality of different physical RF channels
`on any time division multiplexed scheme with a basestation
`having a broadband transceiver, said method comprising the
`steps of:
`operating said broadband transceiver using a plurality of
`transceiver RF frequencies, each of which
`represents one of said physical RF channels; and
`changing from a first of said physical RF channels upon
`which said mobile subscribers communicate with
`said basestation to a second of said physical RF
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`
`channels, while maintaining a same logical
`channel.
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Claim terms generally are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`In the Decision to Institute, in light of an agreement between the
`parties, we preliminarily determined that “broadband transceiver,” recited in
`claim 1, means “a transceiver that covers a substantial portion of the
`bandwidth available to the wireless service provider who is operating the
`basestation,” with the clarification that such a transceiver does not include a
`set of single-frequency transceivers. Inst. Dec. 10. Neither party contests
`this construction. We maintained this construction in the FWD and maintain
`it here.
`It is unnecessary to construe any other term to resolve the dispute
`between the parties.
`
`C. Anticipation by the ’480 Patent
`To anticipate, a reference must “show all of the limitations of the
`claims arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claims.”
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008);
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`accord In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, as
`Petitioner argues (Pet. 21–22), “a prior art reference must be ‘considered
`together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.’”
`In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting In re Samour,
`571 F.2d 559, 562, (CCPA 1978)).
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–10 and 12–162 are anticipated by the
`’480 patent, in light of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`as exemplified by GSM 05.02. The Federal Circuit held that the ’480 patent
`anticipates claim 1. Ericsson, 890 F.3d at 1346. We address below whether
`the ’480 patent anticipates claims 2–10 and 12–16.
`
`
`1. Overview of the ’480 Patent
`The ’480 patent, also assigned to Patent Owner, describes a wideband
`wireless basestation. Ex. 1006, Abstract. Figure 1 of the ’480 patent,
`reproduced below, illustrates an example:
`
`
`2 In our Decision to Institute, we determined that Petitioner had not shown a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claim 11 as
`anticipated by the ’480 patent. Inst. Dec. 15. As noted above, both parties
`have represented that they currently do not seek, and will not seek in the
`future, to have us address claims and grounds on which we did not institute.
`Paper 35, 2–3.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of a wideband digital basestation. Id. at 4:26–
`28.
`
`The ’480 and ’408 patents are not related; however, they share
`significant disclosure. For example, wideband digital tuners 12, 26, digital
`channelizer 14, digital combiner 24, TDM bus 16, modulators 18-2, and
`demodulators 18-1 are described similarly to the components sharing those
`designations in Figure 1 of the ’408 patent, reproduced above. Compare
`Ex. 1006, 5:28–6:26, 6:60–7:35, with Ex. 1001, 4:60–5:56, 6:35–7:12.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`Figure 3 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is a block diagram of an addressable bus driver using dual port
`RAM. Ex. 1006, 4:33–34. Figure 3 is a detailed diagram of TDM DP driver
`144, a component of digital channelizer 14 shown in Figure 1. Id. at 8:41–
`42. In one embodiment, digital channelizer 14 uses a set of convolutional
`digital filters 140 and a Fast Fourier Transform (“FFT”) processor 142 (both
`shown in Figure 2) to separate a combined signal into N individual channels.
`Id. at 5:42–56. TDM DP driver 144 operates to assert the output samples
`from FFT 142 in the proper time slots on TDM bus 16. Id. at 8:43–44.
`DP-RAM Enable 202 is a memory with locations corresponding to
`each time slot on TDM bus 16. Id. at 9:54–58. During the process of setting
`up a new call, controller 30 writes to DP-RAM Enable 202 a mapping of
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`“1’s” and “0’s” indicating whether each time slot on TDM bus 16 is active
`(the time slot has been assigned to TDM driver 144 and data is to be asserted
`at that time slot) or inactive (no data is to be asserted at that time slot). Id. at
`9:59–63. TDM Slot Counter 200 uses a pair of signals (TDM CLK and
`TDM FRAME SYNC) received from synchronization circuit 32 (shown in
`Figure 1) to keep track of the presently active TDM slot. Id. at 8:60–9:4.
`DP-RAM Data 204 receives digital channel signal samples output by FFT
`142 and stores the samples until addressed by TDM Slot Counter 200. Id. at
`10:4–8. Using the programmed mapping and the presently active TDM slot
`from TDM Slot Counter 200, DP RAM Enable 202 generates enable signal
`203 to driver 208 to indicate when TDM DP driver 144 may assert data from
`DP RAM Data 204 on TDM bus 16. Id. at 9:48–50.
`According to the ’480 patent, “[t]he particular modulation . . . used [in
`the described system] may be any one of a number of different wireless (air
`interface) standards such as . . . frequency hopping standards such as the
`European Groupe Speciale Mobile (GSM) . . . .” Ex. 1006, 5:9–17.
`
`
`2. Overview of GSM 05.02
`GSM 05.02 is one of the various documents defining the GSM
`standard. According to Dr. Stark,
`The cellular system developed, now known as GSM (Global
`System for Mobile Communications), was deployed in the early
`1990ʼs by the European Telecommunications Standards
`Institute (“ETSI”) and is a set of protocols for second
`generation (2G) digital cellular networks used by mobile
`phones. It is the de facto global standard for mobile
`communications with over 90% market share and is available in
`over 219 countries and territories.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 20.
`GSM 05.02 is a recommendation from ETSI that “defines the physical
`channels of the radio sub-system required to support the logical channels”
`and “includes a description of the logical channels and the definition of
`frequency hopping, TDMA frames, timeslots and bursts.” Ex. 1012, 5.
`GSM 05.02 describes an algorithm for mapping logical channels onto
`physical channels. Id. at 15. In particular, GSM 05.02 describes an
`algorithm for hopping sequence generation. Id. at 16 (Section 6.2.3).
`
`
`3. Claim 1
`As noted above, the Federal Circuit held that the ’480 patent
`anticipates claim 1. Because claims 2–10 and 12–12 depend from claim 1,
`we first analyze claim 1 in light of the Federal Circuit’s holding.
`In the system of the ’480 patent, “the basestation exchanges radio
`frequency (RF) signals with a number of mobile subscriber terminals
`(mobiles) 40a, 40b” and “[a]s the basestation’s demand increases, . . .
`additional RF channels can be serviced by simply adding more DSPs, and
`without having to reconfigure the RF front end.” Ex. 1006, 5:4–6, 2:41–44.
`The basestation’s receiver includes “a time division multiplexed (TDM) data
`bus, to provide switching functionality between the various channel outputs
`and other basestation receiver resources such as digital demodulators.” Id. at
`2:63–3:2. Thus, the ’480 patent discloses “a cellular communications
`system having multiple mobile subscribers communicating on a plurality of
`different physical RF channels on any time division multiplexed scheme
`with a basestation having a broadband transceiver” and “operating said
`broadband transceiver using a plurality of transceiver RF frequencies, each
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`of which represents one of said physical RF channels,” as recited in claim 1.
`Ericsson, 890 F.3d at 1344.
`According to the ’480 patent, “[t]he RF carrier signals are modulated
`with voice and/or data (channel) signals which are to be coupled to the
`public switched telephone network (PSTN) by the basestation 10” and “[t]he
`particular modulation in used [sic] may be anyone of a number of different
`wireless (air interface) standards such . . . frequency hopping standards such
`as the European Groupe Speciale Mobile (GSM), personal communication
`network (PCN) standards, and the like.” Ex. 1006, 5:6–17. Thus, the ’480
`patent discloses “[a] method for frequency hopping” and “changing from a
`first of said physical RF channels upon which said mobile subscribers
`communicate with said basestation to a second of said physical RF channels,
`while maintaining a same logical channel,” as recited in claim 1. See
`Ericsson, 890 F.3d at 1344–45. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit ruled that
`the ’480 patent anticipates claim 1. Id. at 1346.
`
`
`4. Claims 2–10 and 12–16
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds
`providing a mapping signal to a structure for allocating ones of
`baseband outputs from a digital channelizer to ones of logical
`inputs of digital signal processors and allocating ones of
`baseband inputs of a digital combiner to ones of logical outputs
`of said digital signal processors according to said mapping
`signal, said mapping signal directing allocation according to a
`frequency hopping schedule characterized by a hopping period,
`said frequency hopping schedule synchronizable to said
`physical RF channels.
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`Petitioner maps the ’480 patent’s channelizer 14 to claim 2’s “digital
`channelizer” and DSPs 18-1 to claim 2’s “digital signal processors.” Pet. 30
`(citing Ex. 1006, 5:62–6:11). We agree, and find that the ’480 patent
`discloses a digital channelizer and digital signal processors. Similarly, the
`’480 patent describes that “digital combiner 24 combines the TDM bus
`outputs to produce a composite IF digital signal 25 representing the N
`channels to be transmitted.” Ex. 1006, 7:30–32. Thus, we find that the ’480
`patent discloses “a digital combiner,” as recited in claim 2.
`Petitioner maps the ’480 patent’s TDM bus 16 to claim 2’s “structure
`for allocating ones of baseband outputs from a digital channelizer to ones of
`logical inputs of digital signal processors and allocating ones of baseband
`inputs of a digital combiner to ones of logical outputs of said digital signal
`processors according to said mapping signal.” Pet. 24, 30–31. According to
`the ’480 patent,
`[The] N digital channel signals are then provided over the time
`division multiplex (TDM) bus 16 to a plurality of digital signal
`processors (DSPs) 18-1-1, 18-1-2, . . . , 18-1-P (collectively,
`demodulator-DSP 18-1). . . . TDM bus 16 operates as a time
`division multiplexed cross-bar switch. That is, anyone of the N
`digital channel signals 15 may be connected to anyone of the
`demodulator DSPs 18-1 via the TDM bus 16.
`Ex. 1006, 6:3–11. We find that this discloses “allocating ones of baseband
`outputs from a digital channelizer to ones of logical inputs of digital signal
`processors,” as recited in claim 2. The ’480 patent also describes that “the
`TDM bus 16 permits any one of the modulator DSPs 18-2 to be connected to
`any one of the channel signal inputs 23.” Ex. 1006, 7:10–13. We find that
`this discloses “allocating ones of baseband inputs of a digital combiner to
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`ones of logical outputs of said digital signal processors,” as recited in
`claim 2.
`Petitioner contends that the mapping structure for basestation 10 is
`written into Enable DP RAM 202 (shown in Figure 3 of the ’480 patent) by
`controller 30. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1006, 9:47–10:3). According to the ’480
`patent, “[t]he AI and DI inputs to the enable DP-RAM 202 are typically
`written into by the basestation controller 30 during the process of setting up
`a new call. In particular, as shown in the table [in Fig. 3] depicting the
`contents of the Enable DP-RAM 202, a location in the RAM is associated
`with each time slot on the TDM bus 16.” Ex. 1006, 9:51–56. Petitioner
`argues that “for a given logical channel, the frequency hopping algorithm
`generates a new physical RF channel, each new successive TDMA frame.”
`Pet. 24–25. Thus, under Petitioner’s theory, basestation controller 30 must
`reprogram Enable DP-RAM 202 for each new successive TDMA frame, not
`merely during the process of setting up a new call. Petitioner argues that
`“[t]he frequency hopping schedule [of GSM 05.02] is easily programmed
`into controllers, such as the ‘basestation controller 30’ described by the ʼ480
`Patent” and that “[t]he ʼ480 Patentʼs basestation would ‘synchronize’ the
`‘frequency hopping schedule’ to the physical RF channels by use of the
`TDM synchronization clock generator (32 in Fig. 1), TDM slot counter (200
`in Fig. 3) and TDM CLK and TDM FRAME SYNC signals.” Pet. 25 (citing
`Ex. 1006, 8:60–65; Ex. 1003 ¶ 99. Thus, it is Petitioner’s position that
`basestation controller 30 reprograms Enable DP-RAM 202 each new
`successive TDMA frame according to the algorithm described in GSM
`05.02.
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`Petitioner does not point to any example in the ’480 patent of
`reprogramming Enable DP-RAM 202 at intervals other than during the
`process of setting up a new call. Petitioner does not contend that GSM
`05.02 is incorporated by reference into the ’480 patent. Reply 4 (“Patent
`Owner’s assertion that Ground 1 is based on an ‘incorporation by reference’
`of GSM 05.02 is a straw man. Petitioner made no such assertion. Instead,
`Petitioner argues that the ’480 Patent must be read in view of what a POSA
`would have known about GSM frequency hopping, which is evidenced by
`GSM 05.02.”). Petitioner also does not contend that programming
`basestation controller 30 with the algorithm of GSM 05.02, and the
`subsequent programming of other components using controller 30, is
`inherent in the system of the ’480 patent.3 Rather, it is Petitioner’s position
`that “the ’480 Patent’s basestation controller or DSPs could easily and
`simply have been programmed to implement frequency hopping according
`to GSM” and that “[t]his programming would have required as little as 20
`lines of code.” Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 102; Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 9–10, 37).
`The Federal Circuit has held that “unless a reference discloses within
`the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but
`also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in
`the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and,
`thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at
`1371. Petitioner does not argue that the knowledge of a skilled artisan
`
`
`3 Petitioner indicates in its analysis and claim chart where it contends a claim
`element is inherently disclosed. Pet. 26–28. Petitioner does not argue
`inherency for claim 2. Id. at 18–26, 30–31.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`evidences that the ’480 patent’s basestation 10 is programmed to supply
`Enable DP-RAM 202 addresses pursuant to the algorithm of GSM 05.02.
`Rather, Petitioner argues that a skilled artisan would have been able to
`implement that algorithm with little difficulty using the basestation’s
`components. Thus, Petitioner does not show that claim 2 is disclosed,
`expressly or inherently, within the four corners of the ’480 patent and, thus,
`has not proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the ’480 patent
`anticipates claim 2. Instead, Petitioner’s position is one of obviousness,
`which we address below.
`Each of claims 3–10 and 12–16 depends, directly or indirectly, from
`claim 2. Thus, Petitioner has not shown that the ’480 patent anticipates
`claims 3–10 and 12–16. We evaluate these claims for obviousness below.
`
`D. Obviousness Over the ’480 Patent, the ’435 Patent, and
`GSM 05.02
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`matter pertains.” We resolve the question of obviousness on the basis of
`underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.4 Graham v. John Deere
`Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`Petitioner contends that claims 2–16 would have been obvious over
`the ’480 patent, the ’435 patent, and GSM 05.02. Pet. 3, 35. At the hearing,
`Petitioner clarified that it is asserting the ’435 patent only against claims 3,
`4, and their dependents (claims 5–16). Tr. 8:16–9:1. Accordingly, we
`evaluate whether claim 2 would have been obvious over the ’480 patent and
`GSM 05.02 and whether claims 3–16 would have been obvious over the
`’480 patent, the ’435 patent, and GSM 05.02.
`Petitioner raises its obviousness ground “[t]o the Extent the Board
`disagrees that the frequency hopping features of GSM as described in
`Ground 1 [anticipation by the ’480 patent] would be understood by a [person
`of ordinary skill in the art] from the teachings of the ’480 patent.” Pet. 36.
`Petitioner provides explicit citations to GSM 05.02 for claims 1, 2, and 4,
`and refers to its evidence of anticipation to show obviousness of claims 5–
`16. Pet. 39–42. Petitioner contends that a skilled artisan would have
`combined the ’480 patent and GSM 05.02 because the ’480 patent expressly
`references frequency hopping standards such as GSM. Id. at 38.
`
`
`1. Level of Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have had at least a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer
`Engineering, or the like, and at least three years of additional academic or
`industry experience. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 (Stark Decl.) ¶ 45). Dr. Wells
`
`
`4 The record does not contain any evidence of secondary considerations.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`“generally agree[s] with Dr. Stark in paragraph 45 of his declaration.”
`Ex. 2007 ¶ 20. We adopt the parties agreed statement of the level of skill of
`a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`2. Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`The ’480 patent and GSM 05.02 are summarized above. The ’435
`patent describes
`a new and improved transceiver apparatus, a receiver section of
`which contains a wideband, fast Fourier transform based (FFT)
`channelizer to extract multiple channels from a digitized
`intermediate frequency (IF) signal, and a set of digital sample
`rate converters to effect optimum sample timing adjustment for
`each channel and a transmitter section of which contains a
`wideband inverse FFT based combiner to combine multiple
`digitized baseband channels into a single IF signal for
`transmission.
`Ex. 1007, 1:10–21. Petitioner contends that the ’435 patent provides further
`details regarding digital channelizers and combiners in basestations,
`including dynamic mapping of digital channelizer outputs to DSP inputs
`(Pet. 36–38) and cites the ’435 patent as further evidence of the obviousness
`of claims 3 and 4 (id. at 41–42). In particular, the ’435 patent describes
`dynamic allocation of TDM time slots on a TDM bus, in which “[t]ime slots
`may be allocated dynamically by the system controller, which configures the
`channelizer with all active time slots. If data is available in dual port RAM
`473 [of Fig. 5C] and the time slot is active, the channelizer outputs the data
`via buffer unit 481 and a data available signal on TDM bus 480.” Ex. 1007,
`22:34–46.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`
`3. Claim 1
`The Federal Circuit ruled that claim 1 would have been obvious over
`the ’480 patent and GSM 05.02. Id. at 1346–48. The court noted that “the
`experts were in agreement that a person having ordinary skill in the field
`would have known how to implement frequency hopping.” Id. at 1347
`(citing Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 37–39; Ex. 1023, 13:12–17). In particular, the Federal
`Circuit accepted Petitioner’s position that DP RAM Enable 202 in Figures 3
`and 6 of the ’480 patent would have been reprogrammed, with the algorithm
`of GSM 05.02, each time frame by basestation controller 30, routing data off
`TDM bus 16 and on to the correct DSP 18-1. Id. at 1347–48. In this
`configuration,
`As diagrammed in Figure 6, data [is] routed off the TDM bus to
`a single DSP, a single destination. The DP RAM Enable 202 in
`Figure 6 of the ’480 patent informs receiver 212 and FIFO
`DATA 214 that available data should be retrieved off the TDM
`bus, and transmitted onto the corresponding DSP Processor.
`Each TDM FIFO Receiver is connected to a single DSP
`Processor, and the instance of DP RAM Enable 202 contained
`in the TDM FIFO Receiver communicates with its
`corresponding receiver 212, also contained therein, as to the
`appropriate timeslot to pull data off the bus.
`Id. at 1348. The Federal Circuit explained that DP RAM Enable 202 permits
`or blocks data to pass through an enabled time slot to FIFO Data 214, and it
`is this activity across the plurality of TDM FIFO Receivers, one contained in
`each DSP, that determines which slot is associated with which DSP. Id.
`Thus, the Federal Circuit ruled that claim 1 would have been obvious over
`the ’480 patent and GSM 05.02. Id.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`
`4. Claims 2–4
`Petitioner argues that “[t]o the extent the Board disagrees that the
`frequency hopping features of GSM as described in [Petitioner’s anticipation
`ground] would be understood by a POSA from the teachings of the ʼ480
`Patent, GSM 05.02 is included as a reference in [Petitioner’s obviousness
`ground].” Pet. 36. Against this backdrop, Petitioner incorporates its
`anticipation evidence for its argument as to claim 2’s alleged obviousness.
`Id. at 40.
`As explained above, the Federal Circuit ruled that a skilled artisan
`would have used controller 30 to reprogram DP RAM Enable 202 of
`Figures 3 and 6 of the ’480 patent each frame according to the algorithm of
`GSM 05.02. See Ericsson, 890 F.3d at 1347–48. In light of this
`determination as to claim 1, we agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan
`would have understood “that the ‘mapping structure’ [of claim 2] is the ʼ480
`Patentʼs basestation control processor 30 and the TDM bus acting as a cross-
`bar switch writing the proper configuration parameters in the DP RAM
`ENABLE 202 of the TDM dual-port (‘DP’) driver 144 and the TDM dual-
`port (‘DP’) receiver 244 (in both cases via VME bus 17).” Pet. 24. Thus,
`the ’480 patent and GSM 05.02 teach a “mapping signal directing allocation
`according to a frequency hopping schedule characterized by a hopping
`period, said frequency hopping schedule synchronizable to said physical RF
`channels,” as recited in claim 2. Accordingly, the ’480 patent and GSM
`05.02 teach each limitation of claim 2.
`Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and recites “wherein said structure for
`allocating comprises a time division multiplexed (TDM) bus, wherein said
`TDM bus is remapped each said hopping period.” Claim 4 depends from
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00963
`Patent 6,952,408 B2
`
`claim 2 and adds “the step of utilizing dynamic TDM mapping of said
`physical RF channels to said logical channel.” Petitioner argues that,
`pursuant to the algorithm of GSM 05.02, the TDM bus would be remapped
`each hopping period. Pet. 26. Dr. Sta
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
