trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01031, Paper No. 39
`October 2, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`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 2:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01031, Paper No. 39
`October 2, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`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 2:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JOHN C. ALEMANNI, ESQ.
`
`
`THEODORE G. BROWN, III, ESQ.
`
`
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`
`
`1001 West Fourth Street
`
`
`Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
`
`
`
`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 IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`- - - - -
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Good afternoon, this is oral argument
`
`for IPR2014-01031, involving patent 7,848,353. If counsel for
`
`Petitioner would introduce themselves for the record.
`
`MR. ALEMANNI: Thank you, Your Honor, my name
`
`is John Alemanni for Fitzpatrick Townsend on behalf of
`
`Petitioner Google. With me at the table is Ted Brown, also for
`
`Petitioner Google. We also have in attendance with us Mr. Gary
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Butter and Mr. Joseph Shear of Google and helping us on the
`
`11
`
`demonstratives of is Mr. Harvin, Steve Harvin.
`
`12
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Thank you, Mr. Alemanni, would
`
`13
`
`counsel for Patent Owner please introduce themselves.
`
`14
`
`MR. HART: Good afternoon, Your Honor, I'm Herb
`
`15
`
`Hart, lead counsel for Patent Owner, and with me at counsel table
`
`16
`
`is Steve Hampton, backup counsel who will be presenting our
`
`17
`
`argument today.
`
`18
`
`JUDGE COCKS: All right, thank you, Mr. Hart. Now,
`
`19
`
`as we set forth in the trial hearing order, each side has up to 60
`
`20
`
`minutes of argument time. Petitioner will go first and may save
`
`21
`
`rebuttal time. Patent Owner will then present and argue in
`
`22
`
`opposition to the Petitioner's case, and the Petitioner may reserve
`
`23
`
`rebuttal time.
`
`24
`
`Mr. Alemanni, you may begin whenever you're ready.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. ALEMANNI: Thank you, Your Honor. I expect
`
`to take on the order of 35 to 40 minutes, I would like to reserve
`
`the remaining approximately 20 minutes for rebuttal.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: All right, thank you.
`
`MR. ALEMANNI: Good morning, again my name is
`
`John Alemanni, I am here on behalf of Petitioner Google. We are
`
`here on IPR2014-01031. Our petition and reply have
`
`demonstrated that the '353 patent is unpatentable and I will
`
`explain some of the details of that today. Let's go to slide 3,
`
`10
`
`please.
`
`11
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Also, if I could briefly interrupt, we
`
`12
`
`are joined remotely by Judge McKone from Detroit, if you could
`
`13
`
`please speak into the microphone and identify any slide in the
`
`14
`
`slide deck by numbers.
`
`15
`
`MR. ALEMANNI: And Judge McKone, are you able
`
`16
`
`to look at the exhibits as well if I ask Mr. Harvin to bring one up?
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`JUDGE McKONE: Yes, I can, thank you.
`
`MR. ALEMANNI: Okay, great, thank you.
`
`So, quickly, slide 3 sets out the claims that are at issue
`
`20
`
`here along with the prior art references in combination with each
`
`21
`
`other and each of the claims. I won't go into detail at this point.
`
`22
`
`I will mention that there was a proceeding this morning,
`
`23
`
`the Ericsson versus IV. One of the patents at issue in that case
`
`24
`
`was the '353 patent that's at issue today. One difference between
`
`25
`
`those two proceedings is that we're dealing -- well, first that we're
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`dealing with only the '353. Secondly, that our claims are directed
`
`to the transmitter, they're not directed to the -- I'm sorry, to the
`
`receiver, they do not include the transmitter.
`
`And then, finally, one of our primary prior art
`
`references is Pierzga, the Pierzga patent application, which was
`
`not referenced in that case.
`
`Let me go forward to slide 5. Briefly, just a brief
`
`overview of the '353 patent. It describes methods and systems for
`
`determining an operating bandwidth. So, methods and systems
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`for determining an operating bandwidth in a multi-bandwidth
`
`11
`
`system.
`
`12
`
`Slide 6. And briefly, there are two independent claims
`
`13
`
`at issue in this case, claim 1 is illustrative, it's a method. It's a
`
`14
`
`method for operating bandwidth determination for determining
`
`15
`
`the operating bandwidth in a multi-bandwidth communication
`
`16
`
`system that comprises, in a remote unit, in a receiver, receiving a
`
`17
`
`signal that has a first portion and that has a further signal portion.
`
`18
`
`That first signal portion at a first predetermined bandwidth
`
`19
`
`contains an indication of an operating bandwidth selected from a
`
`20
`
`plurality of bandwidths, used for a further signal portion, and then
`
`21
`
`the second step is recovering the indication from the first signal
`
`22
`
`portion, second step is recovering the information in the second
`
`23
`
`signal portion, based on the indication.
`
`24
`
`Let me move forward to slide 7. I'll end my overview
`
`25
`
`there and talk about claim construction, I think it makes more
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`sense to talk about it in the context of the disputes here. So, we
`
`will talk about claim construction.
`
`Slide 8, please. So, this is merely claim 1, again, and
`
`I've highlighted the three terms that are disputed here. I'll point
`
`out that the disputes here rest on the Patent Owner's construction.
`
`So, to the extent you don't employ or can adopt Patent Owner's
`
`construction, there's not a dispute that the prior art shows what's
`
`claimed in the patent. So, it is limited to the dispute and the
`
`dispute is limited to these terms, remote unit, signal, and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`indication of an operating bandwidth.
`
`11
`
`So, with that let me move forward to slide 10, please.
`
`12
`
`So, our respective positions, you know, Patent Owner's position is
`
`13
`
`that indication of an operating bandwidth should be construed to
`
`14
`
`be identification of a particular operating bandwidth. Our
`
`15
`
`position is that that's too narrow, that rather the indication of
`
`16
`
`operating bandwidth should be given its plain and ordinary
`
`17
`
`meaning. And we've provided a summary of our position in our
`
`18
`
`reply, and that is that we believe that the claims construed with
`
`19
`
`indication of an operating bandwidth, with its plain and ordinary
`
`20
`
`meaning, are broad enough to encompass determining the
`
`21
`
`frequency range used to transmit or used to receive the signal, the
`
`22
`
`further signal portion, based on information that's in the -- that's
`
`23
`
`provided by the indication.
`
`24
`
`So, our position is that as long as there is sufficient
`
`25
`
`information in the indication, so that the receiver is able to
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`determine the operating bandwidth, then that's sufficient to meet
`
`the claim.
`
`Now, we think that introducing identification in
`
`particular narrows the claim beyond what's reasonable. We're not
`
`entirely sure what those two terms are supposed to mean, how
`
`they narrow the claim, but clearly they add additional terms to the
`
`claim language and so that they're meant to narrow, and Patent
`
`Owner uses that to differentiate over the prior art. So, clearly
`
`their narrowing amendment, we feel, are improper.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Slide -- actually, go to slide 8 for just a second. Just
`
`11
`
`talking about this in context. So, what does our position boil
`
`12
`
`down to? We think anything sufficient to be able to determine
`
`13
`
`the operating bandwidth is enough. So, on the one end, you could
`
`14
`
`provide everything you need. You could provide the frequency
`
`15
`
`range that the receiver is going to tune to that it's going to set the
`
`16
`
`filters to in order to receive the signal. We think at the other end,
`
`17
`
`it's sort of a spectrum, although perhaps not continuous, but at the
`
`18
`
`other end you could provide the receiver with every single
`
`19
`
`possible piece of information that you need to figure out what the
`
`20
`
`operating bandwidth is.
`
`21
`
`We feel what the patent describes and what the prior art
`
`22
`
`describes, what Pierzga and McFarland describes is something a
`
`23
`
`little different. You provide some of the information. So, you
`
`24
`
`provide the chipping rate in the '353, you provide the ensemble
`
`25
`
`plan in Pierzga, you provide the mode in McFarland. The
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`receiver, in each of those three cases, knows enough, has enough
`
`additional information to be able to determine the operating
`
`bandwidth based on that indication. So, that -- so that phrase, in
`
`our reply, the phrase that I put up on the screen, I believe it's a
`
`phrase that Patent Owner repeats in its slides, is meant to explain
`
`our interpretation of the claim, not to try to construe that
`
`particular term.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, let me ask you, in
`
`McFarland and Pierzga, did any of those receivers of those two
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`patents actually calculate the operating bandwidth or determine
`
`11
`
`the operating bandwidth?
`
`12
`
`MR. ALEMANNI: They must. For example, in
`
`13
`
`Pierzga, the operating bandwidths are set out based on the
`
`14
`
`ensemble plans, and they're stored, and so when the receiver
`
`15
`
`receives the ensemble plan, the receiver knows that out of the --
`
`16
`
`out of the possible ensemble plans and possible operating
`
`17
`
`bandwidths, it knows to set the filter to the particular -- I'm sorry,
`
`18
`
`set the receiver to the particular filter that's appropriate for that
`
`19
`
`particular ensemble plan, so it knows which frequency range to
`
`20
`
`use based on the ensemble plant.
`
`21
`
`And actually, can you pull up the petition? It's papers --
`
`22
`
`this is paper 6. I'd like to turn to page -- it's 27 of the PDF, that
`
`23
`
`makes it a little easier to get to, or 21 internally. So, page 21 of
`
`24
`
`our petition. And can you highlight the first claim? Just the top.
`
` 8
`
`25
`
`That's fine.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`So, there's a couple of issues here. One, I want to
`
`answer your question; and two, I want to point out, the Patent
`
`Owner has made a number of arguments that we didn't
`
`sufficiently point out to them where in the prior art each of the
`
`claim limitations was, and that our reply was somehow outside
`
`the scope of what was in our petition. And, so, our reply is
`
`directly responsive to the issues they raised in their response, but
`
`our petition clearly pointed out where the limitations are in the
`
`spec, and I'll note, in relation to claim 1, paragraph 76 of Pierzga,
`
`10
`
`we pointed out that it says, that the requirements of the broadest
`
`11
`
`system can be adjusted to account for the change in the number of
`
`12
`
`services. Or bandwidth required.
`
`13
`
`So, we pointed specifically in Pierzga, where it said it
`
`14
`
`changes the bandwidth. And then, as I'm sure you know, after
`
`15
`
`hearing this this morning and looking at the materials before this
`
`16
`
`hearing, if you will go to page -- to page 30 of the PDF, 24
`
`17
`
`internally. And I'm sorry, this is paper 6 that we're referring to,
`
`18
`
`for the record.
`
`19
`
`Can you highlight the bottom three paragraphs. Yeah,
`
`20
`
`that was fine. So, I'm looking at -- this is in relation to claim 2.
`
`21
`
`So, this is where the '353 patent claims introduce filtering. So,
`
`22
`
`you asked me the question about does the receiver know how to
`
`23
`
`set to the appropriate bandwidth. If you read these paragraphs, it
`
`24
`
`says, I'm starting about halfway down the first one, "upon
`
`25
`
`detection of the unique order, or the inverse unique word in the
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`stream of bits on the main reference subcarrier, so the first signal
`
`portion, triggers the ensemble plan decoder circuit to decode the
`
`ensemble plan. So, it decodes the ensemble plan at the receiver,
`
`and then what does it do? It rejects out-of-band signals and may
`
`simply have the same spectral response as the transmitter filter
`
`for each ensemble size. So, the filter is meant to match whatever
`
`the transmitter is sending based on the ensemble size.
`
`Accordingly, it comprises stored information defining a
`
`number of filters. So, this is described in terms of being executed
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`on a digital signal processor. So, we've pointed out in Pierzga,
`
`11
`
`it's on our slide 50, Pierzga discloses a DSP, and then if you look
`
`12
`
`at column 4 of the '353 patent, it also discloses that this can be
`
`13
`
`done on a PSP. So, our disclosures are similar, Pierzga is far
`
`14
`
`more detailed than the '353, but I just want to point it out.
`
`15
`
`And then finally, and again, I think this is directly
`
`16
`
`responsive to your question, paragraph 247 of Pierzga, the
`
`17
`
`ensemble plan receiver then sets up the receive filter with a
`
`18
`
`bandwidth sufficient for the ensemble to be received. So, I think,
`
`19
`
`yes, it does set the receiver up for the bandwidth, and we've
`
`20
`
`clearly set it out in our petition.
`
`21
`
`JUDGE CAPP: But when we get to the point of writing
`
`22
`
`this up, if we decide to write a definitive definition of the term, is
`
`23
`
`it sufficient for us to say that enough information is conveyed
`
`24
`
`from the transmitter to the receiver so that the receiver can
`
`25
`
`configure itself to receive that which is transmitted?
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`MR. ALEMANNI: Is that -- are you asking if that's
`
`enough?
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Is that enough? Will that get the job
`
`done?
`
`MR. ALEMANNI: Yes, as long as the receiver -- yes,
`
`that is enough, and the only -- it's not a caveat, but the only
`
`additional thing I would say is that the receiver knows
`
`information about the -- about the system in which it operates.
`
`So, the patent talks about supplying the chipping rate and then the
`
`10
`
`receiver knows enough to set the filters up based on the other
`
`11
`
`parameters of the system in order to receive the signal that's
`
`12
`
`transmitting the further signal portion. So, the answer is yes.
`
`13
`
`Let me go to slide 12, please. So, I'll go back to our
`
`14
`
`demonstratives, slide 12. So, how does the patent describe setting
`
`15
`
`the information at the first signal portion, it describes setting the
`
`16
`
`chipping rate and the chipping rate is added to the
`
`17
`
`synchronization information. This is the only disclosure of
`
`18
`
`sending an indication. What it says is it takes the
`
`19
`
`synchronization, it opens up the place, expands it so that the
`
`20
`
`chipping rate can be sent. That's the only thing there.
`
`21
`
`We asked Dr. Zeger, Patent Owner's expert, about that,
`
`22
`
`about the chipping rate and what was sent and he said that's the
`
`23
`
`only thing sent. There are other things that are implied, and I'll
`
`24
`
`talk about that a little bit later, but chipping rate is the only thing
`
` 11
`
`25
`
`that's sent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Let's go to slide 14, please. So, we know the claim
`
`recites an operating bandwidth. We know that the patent
`
`describes a chip rate. So, how are those two related? As the chip
`
`rate goes up, at least in general terms, the bandwidth increases as
`
`well, but the chip rate alone does not disclose bandwidth, you
`
`need to know the other parameters.
`
`What the patent actually describes is it says, you select
`
`a receiver bandwidth that's appropriate to the chipping rate. So,
`
`it's receiver bandwidth appropriate to the lower chip rate or
`
`10
`
`receiver bandwidth appropriate to the higher chip rate, but that's
`
`11
`
`how the patent describes going about it. It never sets out a
`
`12
`
`particular chip rate and a particular bandwidth, it never sets out
`
`13
`
`specifically how you do it on the receiver end, it's just a high
`
`14
`
`level, very high-level description, and it presumes that one of
`
`15
`
`skill in the art would know based on this description that how to
`
`16
`
`set the receiver up based on the indication of operating bandwidth
`
`17
`
`is supplied, i.e., the chip rate, in terms of the patent.
`
`18
`
`Let's go to slide 16, please. So, again, I'll point out chip
`
`19
`
`rate is not the same thing as bandwidth. I think we all know that
`
`20
`
`by now. And Dr. Zeger testified that the relationship between
`
`21
`
`chip rate and bandwidth is complicated. Actually, can we bring
`
`22
`
`up Exhibit 1020, page 22, thank you, and that wasn't the first time
`
`23
`
`I've asked for that. You may be able to tell.
`
`24
`
`I've highlighted some of the terms here that I think are
`
`25
`
`useful, and I apologize, Judge McKone, that you can't see this
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`directly, but this is page 22 of the transcript and I'm starting about
`
`line 10. I asked Dr. Zeger about the relation between chip rate
`
`and bandwidth and what he responded was it's complicated. And
`
`he said, "if you have a CDMA system and there's chipping
`
`involved, the chip rate can affect the bandwidth, which stands to
`
`reason, because the chip rate gets bigger, the bandwidth is wider,
`
`typically. But it's not the same thing, it can certainly affect it. I
`
`mean, it really depends on the parameters of the situation."
`
`So, later he introduces the idea of guard-bands, I think
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`it's around page 49 of the transcript and he says it's implied in the
`
`11
`
`patent, but he says it's depends on the parameters of the situation.
`
`12
`
`In other words, the receiver needs to know the parameters of the
`
`13
`
`situation. If you raise the chip rate, that might require you to
`
`14
`
`raise the bandwidth, if you don't touch anything else.
`
`15
`
`So, what he's saying is, you know, if other things
`
`16
`
`change, if the guard-band changes, for instance, then the
`
`17
`
`bandwidth and the relation between the two may change. None
`
`18
`
`of that is in the patent, one of skill in the art would have to
`
`19
`
`understand that.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Let's go to slide 16.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Counsel, let me ask you, does one of
`
`22
`
`ordinary skill in the art understand that?
`
`23
`
`MR. ALEMANNI: I think for purposes of this
`
`24
`
`proceeding, yes, one would have to presume that one of skill in
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`the art would understand how to set up the receiver based on the
`
`disclosure that's in the '353 patent.
`
`JUDGE COCKS: So, I understand your first point of
`
`what you're trying to say, chip rate is not the same thing as
`
`bandwidth. What is the emphasis on “complicated”? What
`
`inference are we supposed to draw from that testimony?
`
`MR. ALEMANNI: That they're not directly related.
`
`That you can't take the chip rate and directly determine the
`
`operating bandwidth without knowing, as Dr. Zeger says, the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`other parameters. So, you need to know the -- you need to know,
`
`11
`
`for instance, he talks about the guard-bands being implied. I
`
`12
`
`believe what he means by that is that the receiver knows what the
`
`13
`
`guard-bands are, when it's supposed to implement, because that
`
`14
`
`information is not in the synchronization information. So, in
`
`15
`
`order to receive the signal correctly, it must know that
`
`16
`
`information before it appropriately sets the filters and receives the
`
`17
`
`information.
`
`18
`
`So, that's the point. I think the final point on this slide
`
`19
`
`is it's not clear what "particular" means in this case. When the
`
`20
`
`receivers in Pierzga and McFarland are set up to receive the
`
`21
`
`signal, there's significant disclosure involved about receiving the
`
`22
`
`signal. It's clear they receive the operating bandwidth. I think in
`
`23
`
`some sense they're reading an additional limitation into the claim.
`
`24
`
`If you read the last sentence of the claim, it says, "recovering the
`
`25
`
`information at the operating bandwidth." There's no suggestion
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`that it has to be precisely the same breadth, right? As long as the
`
`bandwidth is broad enough so that you can cover that second
`
`signal portion, it doesn't -- it's not necessary that it has to be right
`
`at the edge. That may be within the scope of the claim but it's not
`
`necessary. There's nothing in the record that supports this
`
`narrowing of the claim.
`
`Slide 17, please. I'll briefly touch on this, Patent
`
`Owner's proposed construction is "a modulated wave form used
`
`to convey information." We disagree with this for a number of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`reasons, it's in our briefing, it's on this slide, but for the purposes
`
`11
`
`of this proceeding, I don't think it makes any difference, because
`
`12
`
`Pierzga clearly discloses a signal and I think McFarland did as
`
`13
`
`well. We disclose that the mode includes the indication, but as
`
`14
`
`Dr. Madisetti said, he testified, and as we maintain, the signal --
`
`15
`
`the packet as it's transmitted is, I mean, if it's a wireless signal
`
`16
`
`and it's digital, it's going to be modulated onto a carrier. So, I
`
`17
`
`don't think there's a dispute about the prior art.
`
`18
`
`So, let me go on. Slide 18, please. Talk briefly about
`
`19
`
`remote unit. Remote unit is only mentioned once in the
`
`20
`
`specification, it's at the very beginning of the background. It only
`
`21
`
`appears once in the claims, it's in claim 1. The Patent Owner
`
`22
`
`proposes that it's a unit that receives transmissions from a base
`
`23
`
`station, which improperly narrows the claim. I think what they're
`
`24
`
`trying to do is narrow it down to be just a UMTS base station and
`
`25
`
`attempt to narrow the claims.
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`There's no support for that in the specification. And, in
`
`fact, under claim differentiation, only the dependent claims 7 and
`
`27 directly recite UMTS. So, it's clear the claim 1 must be
`
`broader than that. So, that is not the appropriate construction of
`
`remote unit.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: Do you think we need to refine the
`
`construction of remote unit and put in the decision to institute?
`
`MR. ALEMANNI: I didn't hear the last part of that, I
`
`apologize, Judge Capp.
`
`10
`
`JUDGE CAPP: We construed remote unit in the
`
`11
`
`decision to institute.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`MR. ALEMANNI: I'm sorry, I still didn't hear you.
`
`JUDGE CAPP: I apologize. We did construe remote
`
`14
`
`unit in the decision to institute. In your mind, do we need to
`
`15
`
`revise that, or are you okay with that construction?
`
`16
`
`MR. ALEMANNI: I don't think you need to revise it, I
`
`17
`
`think the prior art clearly, clearly shows a remote unit under your
`
`18
`
`construction as being remote from infrastructure.
`
`19
`
`Let me go to slide 20, please. Let's talk about Pierzga in
`
`20
`
`a little more detail, although I've given you some of that detail
`
`21
`
`already. Slide 21, please. So, the dispute about Pierzga is remote
`
`22
`
`unit based on that construction, it's also an indication of operating
`
`23
`
`bandwidth and whether or not Pierzga discloses indication of
`
`24
`
`operating bandwidth. Patent Owner's allegations are that the
`
`25
`
`indication of operating bandwidth under their construction must
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`include the guard-bands and the subcarrier spacing. So, the
`
`indication itself must include the guard-bands and the subcarrier
`
`spacing information.
`
`Well, we disagree. I mean, the claims clearly don't call
`
`out guard-band or subcarrier spacing. I mean, it makes sense in
`
`the context as far as subcarrier spacing, but as to guard-bands,
`
`Dr. Zeger argues that that's implied in chipping rate somehow.
`
`And, so, there's no requirement at all in the claims, there's no
`
`mention of guard-band in the patent. And so there's no reason to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`narrow the claim to require that as part of the indication.
`
`11
`
`A couple of technical points we made in our reply, and
`
`12
`
`that is there's no need for inner guard-bands in OFDM, and to the
`
`13
`
`extent that outer guard-bands are required in order to determine
`
`14
`
`what the operating bandwidth is, they're disclosed in Pierzga.
`
`15
`
`They're disclosed as known at the receiver. So, those are the
`
`16
`
`other parameters that Dr. Zeger talks about. They're known at the
`
`17
`
`receiver, the receiver takes the ensemble plan, is able to
`
`18
`
`determine the operating bandwidth based on the guard-bands, and
`
`19
`
`as I'll show, the subcarrier spacing that it knows about.
`
`20
`
`Just a quick point, there is an argument in the response
`
`21
`
`that says that the indication of operating bandwidth is for an
`
`22
`
`entire communication system. It's clear from the claims that it's
`
`23
`
`not so limited. The claim is a signal with a first portion and a
`
`24
`
`second portion, the receiver recovers the indication from the first
`
`25
`
`portion, and then recovers the information based on the second
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`portion. There's no suggestion that that indication should be for
`
`an entire system. It's simply for that signal. So, there's nothing
`
`that substantiates narrowing in that way.
`
`Let's go to slide 22, please. Thank you. So, what does
`
`Pierzga disclose? Can you zoom in on the top so they can
`
`actually see it?
`
`So, what does Pierzga disclose? It's a broadcaster, it
`
`broadcasts a signal to a satellite service provider and it goes to the
`
`satellite and then goes to a remote unit. It's a unit installed in
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`airplanes and cars.
`
`11
`
`Let's go to the next slide. Actually, let's go to slide 25,
`
`12
`
`please. So, what does Pierzga disclose? So, I showed you,
`
`13
`
`Pierzga talks about varying the bandwidth. Varying the
`
`14
`
`bandwidth at the receiver. How does it do it? It stores filters,
`
`15
`
`right? It stores filters that a digital signal processor can use to
`
`16
`
`receive a signal.
`
`17
`
`What else does it disclose? Well, it discloses that a
`
`18
`
`transmitter can vary the number of subcarriers. Transmit or
`
`19
`
`periodically transmits on a particular subcarrier at a particular
`
`20
`
`frequency a signal that specifies the number of subcarriers that
`
`21
`
`are present in the transmission.
`
`22
`
`The signal specifying the number of subcarriers, and
`
`23
`
`I've already said this a number of times, it's called the ensemble
`
`24
`
`plan. So, that's the indication. The ensemble plan is transmitted
`
`25
`
`on the main reference subcarrier. So, you've got the first signal
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`portion at a first bandwidth that's transmitted to the receiver so
`
`that the receiver can receive the signal.
`
`Let's go to slide 26, please. The language is strikingly
`
`similar. Each frame is proceeded -- I'm on slide 26, Judge
`
`McKone, please, if I didn't say that clearly. Each frame is
`
`proceeded by the transmission on the reference frequency of a
`
`data signal indicating the current allocation of the subcarriers and
`
`channels it's indicating. It's an indication, referred to here as the
`
`ensemble plan. That information is required by the receiver, prior
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`to full reception of the signal. So, it shows that the ensemble plan
`
`11
`
`is an indication. I think it's clear just from the text of the patent
`
`12
`
`itself that it shows that. That it discloses what's in the claim.
`
`13
`
`Let's go to slide 27, please. What does the ensemble
`
`14
`
`plan look like? This is another slide, I apologize for the size, it's
`
`15
`
`just hard to get it all on. Can you zoom to the top.
`
`16
`
`So, there's an ensemble configuration, it's a number
`
`17
`
`from 0 to 32 in this example, and essentially the transmitter sends
`
`18
`
`the number, the receiver knows what the ensemble plan is that's
`
`19
`
`coming, it's got the number of subcarriers in it, the receiver takes
`
`20
`
`all the other parameters, it knows all the other information that's
`
`21
`
`known, along with the ensemble plan it sets up or utilizes filters
`
`22
`
`that are stored in order to receive the signal.
`
`23
`
`Slide 20 -- actually, let's go to -- yeah, let's go to slide 8.
`
`24
`
`So, thinking about the ensemble plan, you've got that ensemble
`
`25
`
`configuration with the 0 through 32, that's the indication. You
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`need that information in order to set up the filters. I'd even point
`
`out, you know, this is a -- it's a multi-bandwidth communication
`
`system, it says an indication of an operating bandwidth selected
`
`from a plurality of bandwidths used for the further signal portion.
`
`I mean, I don't think the disclosure could be much clearer. You
`
`have a plurality of possible bandwidths based on the number of
`
`subcarriers, you send an indication of which one of those you're
`
`using, you recover that indication on the receiver side, you set the
`
`filters based on that indication, and then you receive a signal. So,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`it's a clear disclosure of what's in these claims.
`
`11
`
`Let's go to slide 30. So, what are the arguments? One
`
`12
`
`of the arguments is that the guard-band itself does not have the
`
`13
`
`indication -- is not in the indication of operating bandwidth. So,
`
`14
`
`I've already -- I've already put forth our position that the claims
`
`15
`
`certainly don't require that guard-band be there, there's nothing in
`
`16
`
`the spec about guard-band, there's nothing in the claim about
`
`17
`
`guard-band, it's simply not required. But even if you require the
`
`18
`
`guard-band be there so that the receiver can set it, Pierzga
`
`19
`
`discloses guard-band, and what I have done is I've taken an
`
`20
`
`excerpt of figure 15b, this is just the top to show that there are
`
`21
`
`four guards. It's fixed in this particular embodiment, but that's
`
`22
`
`information the receiver knows in order to receive the signal,
`
`23
`
`successfully receive the signal.
`
`24
`
`JUDGE COCKS: Counselor, you had said that the
`
`25
`
`Patent Owner's expert had testified that it's implicit -- guard-band
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01031
`Patent 7,848,353 B2
`
`requirement is implicit to disclosure in the specification in the
`
`'353 patent. What disclosure is that?
`
`MR. ALEMANNI: He was pointing to the disclosure of
`
`chipping rate. I think it's page 49 of his transcript, and I
`
`apologize, I don't have it right in front of me, but he was talking
`
`about guard-bands. The questions that were asked of him were,
`
`well, is guard-band disclosed anywhere in the patent? His answer
`
`was no. Well, is the guard-band -- is the guard-band listed as
`
`being part of the indication? Clearly, it couldn't be explicitly,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`because it's not in the -- it's not in the patent. And his answer
`
`11
`
`was, well, it's implied. There's an implicit -- so, I think maybe
`
`12
`
`that can be read a couple of different ways, but I think the most
`
`13
`
`natural way to read it is that the receiver in order to successfully
`
`14
`
`receive a signal in o
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
