Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: January 28, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET
`LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN BUSCH, PETER P. CHEN, and J. JOHN LEE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: January 28, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET
`LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN BUSCH, PETER P. CHEN, and J. JOHN LEE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Petitioner”)
`
`filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–10, 17, 20–21,
`
`and 23–24 of U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127 (Ex. 1001, “the ’127 patent”).
`
`Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have statutory
`
`authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review
`
`may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`
`the petition.”
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition, we are persuaded Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the
`
`unpatentability of claims 1–10 and 17 of the ’127 patent. Accordingly, we
`
`institute an inter partes review of these claims.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`According to Petitioner, the ’127 patent is involved in the following
`
`district court cases: Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. AT&T Mobility
`
`LLC et al., 1-13-cv-01668 (D. Del.); Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v.
`
`Leap Wireless Int’l et al., 1-13-cv-01669 (D. Del.); Intellectual Ventures I
`
`LLC, et al. v. Nextel Operations et al., 1-13-cv-01670 (D. Del.); Intellectual
`
`Ventures I LLC, et al. v. T-Mobile USA Inc. et al., 1-13-cv-01671 (D. Del.);
`
`and Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. U.S. Cellular Corp., 1-13-cv-01672
`
`(D. Del.).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`B. The ’127 Patent
`
`The subject matter of the challenged claims of the ’127 patent relates
`
`generally to preamble structures in multi-input, multi-output (MIMO) and
`
`single-input, single-output (SISO) wireless communication systems. Ex.
`
`1001, 3:21–24. A MIMO communication system may employ various
`
`signal modulation and demodulation techniques, including orthogonal
`
`frequency division multiplexing (OFDM). Id. at 4:58–62. In MIMO
`
`wireless communications systems, signals are pre-processed to avoid
`
`interference from other signals in common communications channels or
`
`paths. Id. at 1:54–57. Pre-processing techniques can include using frame
`
`structures, which are comprised of preamble structures and data structures.
`
`Id. at 1:58–63. Data or information (e.g., voice, video, audio, text) can be
`
`transmitted as data symbols organized into the data structures. Id. at 1:64–
`
`2:1. An efficient preamble structure for use in wireless communications
`
`systems should provide for both synchronization of data symbols and
`
`estimation of parameters such as noise variance and other parameters. Id. at
`
`2:56–62.
`
`Training symbols are typically added as prefixes to data structures, to
`
`enable synchronization between transmitters and receivers of a
`
`communications system. Id. at 2:10–14. These training symbols can be
`
`referred to as preambles and are part of the preamble structures. Id. at 2:14–
`
`15. The preamble structure can contain an enhanced training symbol, which
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`is divided into sections to perform synchronization and channel parameter
`
`estimation functions. Id. at 11:2–8.
`
`Figure 6 of the ’127 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 is a diagram of frame structures 68 in signal structure 66. Ex.
`
`1001, 10:50–55. Each of frame structures 68 include preamble structure 70
`
`and data structure 72. Id. at 10:57–59. Preamble structure 70 includes
`
`training symbol 74, and enhanced training symbol 79 located at the
`
`beginning of preamble structure 70. Id. at 10:62–11:5. Training block 78 of
`
`enhanced training symbol 79 is divided into several sections, for
`
`synchronization and for channel parameter estimation. Id. at 11:5–8. Data
`
`structure 72 includes one or more data symbols 80, which in turn include
`
`cyclic prefix 76 and data block 82. Id. at 11:27–30.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`
`
`Illustrative Claims
`
`Claims 1–10, 17, 20–21, and 23–24 are the subject of the petition.
`
`Claims 1 and 20 are independent and are reproduced as follows.
`
`1. A transmitter of a communication system, the transmitter
`comprising:
`
`an encoder having a pilot/training symbol inserter, the
`pilot/training symbol inserter configured to insert pilot
`symbols into data blocks and to combine training
`symbols with the data blocks;
`
`at least one modulator, each modulator having an inverse
`discrete Fourier transform (TDFT) stage and a cyclic
`prefix inserter, each modulator outputting a frame
`structure comprising a preamble structure and a data
`structure, the preamble structure comprising at least
`one training symbol and an enhanced training symbol;
`
`and at least one transmit antenna, each transmit antenna
`corresponding to a respective one or the at least one
`modulator, each transmit antenna transmitting the frame structure
`output from the corresponding modulator, wherein the enhanced
`training symbol is a single symbol.
`
`20. A method of forming a frame structure that is transmitted in a
`communication system, the method comprising the steps of:
`
`providing data blocks;
`
`providing training blocks;
`
`combining the data blocks and training blocks in a parallel
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`format to provide a parallel combination;
`
`taking an inverse discrete fourier transform (IDFT) of the
`parallel combination to form IDFT blocks;
`
`inserting the cyclic prefixes between the IDFT blocks to
`form parallel symbols;
`
`converting the parallel symbols to serial format to form a
`preamble structure and a data structure, the preamble
`structure comprising at least one training symbol and
`an enhanced training symbol; the data structure comprising
`a plurality of data symbols;
`
`forming data symbols such that each data symbol comprises
`a cyclic prefix and a data block, the cyclic prefix
`having a number of samples G, the data block having
`a number of samples N; and
`
`forming a preamble structure having an enhanced training
`symbol, the enhanced training symbol comprising a
`cyclic prefix and a training block, the cyclic prefix
`having a number of samples G, the training block
`having a number of samples NI such that NI=N/I, where
`I is an integer and G=NI/4.
`
`
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon four prior art references.
`
`Reference
`
`Title
`
`Date
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Schmidl
`
`US 5,732,113
`
`Mar. 24, 1998
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`Reference
`
`Title
`
`Arslan
`
`US 6,411,649
`
`Kim
`
`US 7,012,881
`
`Heiskala
`
`US 6,298,035
`
`Date
`
`June 25, 2002 (filed
`Oct. 20, 1998)
`
`Mar. 14, 2006 (filed
`Dec. 29, 2000)
`
`Oct. 2, 2001 (filed
`Dec. 21, 1999)
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`
`
`
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner contends the challenged claims are unpatentable based on
`
`five grounds.
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Schmidl and Arslan
`
`§ 103
`
`1–3, 5
`
`Schmidl, Arslan, and Kim
`
`§ 103
`
`4, 6–10
`
`Schmidl, Arslan, Kim, and
`Heiskala
`Schmidl and Kim
`
`Schmidl, Kim, and Heiskala
`
`§ 103
`
`17
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`20, 21
`
`23, 24
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). 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).
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for six terms. With respect to five
`
`terms, “frame structure,” “preamble structure,” “data structure,” “pilot
`
`symbol,” and “training symbol,” we find for purposes of this Decision that
`
`the broadest reasonable construction is apparent from the context of the
`
`claims and specification, and no further express construction is necessary.
`
`For the remaining term, “enhanced training symbol,” the parties’
`
`proposed constructions are as follows.
`
`
`
`Term
`
`Enhanced training
`symbol
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`A training symbol
`comprising a plurality
`of sections in a single
`symbol (Pet. 24–26)
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`A training symbol
`containing redundancy
`(Prelim. Resp. 20–22)
`
`
`As noted above, the broadest reasonable construction must be consistent
`
`with the specification. The ’127 specification repeatedly describes enhanced
`
`training symbols as providing synchronization and channel parameter
`
`estimation functions. Ex. 1001, 11:2–9, 11:63–66, 13:50–14:2 and Fig. 7,
`
`14:32–52 and Fig. 8, 15:8–19 and Fig. 9. The specification further discloses
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`an embodiment where, in a MIMO communication system, “this enhanced
`
`training symbol 84 may perform all the functions as expressed above or may
`
`alternatively perform synchronization only.” Id. at 14:3–6.
`
`In addition, the specification states that the enhanced training symbol
`
`is divided into “sections used for synchronization and other sections are used
`
`for channel parameter estimation.” Ex. 1001, 11:2–8, 11:63–66. The
`
`specification further provides that an enhanced training symbol “is a short
`
`sequence that includes periodically repeating patterns.” Id. at 12:54–56. In
`
`the embodiment depicted in Figure 8, sections in enhanced training symbols
`
`have sequences that are identical to those of other sections. Pet. 21–22; Ex.
`
`1001, 14:9–20.
`
`Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we construe an “enhanced
`
`training symbol” as “a training symbol, comprising a plurality of sections
`
`including repeated sequences, and providing at least a synchronization
`
`function.”
`
`
`B. Claims 1–3 and 5 – Asserted Obviousness over Schmidl and Arslan
`
`Petitioner contends claims 1–3 and 5 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Schmidl and Arslan. Pet. 27–40. Claim
`
`1 is independent and claims 2, 3, and 5 depend from claim 1.
`
`Schmidl (Exhibit 1002)
`
`Schmidl is titled, “Timing and Frequency Synchronization of OFDM
`
`Signals,” and according to Petitioner, is the “primary reference” of its
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`Petition, “directed at synchronization between wireless transmitters and
`
`receivers.”1 Pet. 10, 29. Schmidl discloses a method and apparatus for
`
`attaining rapid synchronization of a receiver to an OFDM signal. Ex. 1002,
`
`Title, Abstract, 8:30–35. Figure 6 of Schmidl is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 6 illustrates the placement of an OFDM training sequence within a
`
`data frame. Id. at 10:14–15, 11:66–67. Data frame 130 includes OFDM
`
`training sequence 132 with first OFDM training symbol 134 and second
`
`OFDM training symbol 136. Id. at 12:1–4. Timing and frequency
`
`synchronization of a receiver to an OFDM signal relies on the detection and
`
`
`
`
`1 Schmidl is listed as a cited reference in the ’127 patent but was not
`specifically addressed by the Examiner as a basis for substantive rejections
`during prosecution of the application for the ’127 patent. Pet. 4; Ex. 1008.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`analysis of OFDM training sequence 132. Id. at 11:60–66. Schmidl further
`
`discloses:
`
`
`
`One of the key advantages of the present invention over
`the prior art is that it enables a receiver to accurately
`synchronize to the symbol/frame timing of an OFDM signal
`with the reception of just one symbol, first OFDM training
`symbol 134. Additionally, establishing timing synchronization
`by evaluating the samples of first OFDM training
`symbol 134 according to the present invention works well
`even for nearby OFDM signal sources transmitting bursts of
`O[F]DM signals. Such large signals may nearly saturate the
`ADCs of the receiver and result in very coarse quantization
`of the OFDM signal. The method of the present invention
`using first OFDM training symbol 134 for timing synchronization
`works well even in such a case, where prior art approaches would fail.
`
`Ex. 1002, 14:27–40. Schmidl further discloses first OFDM training symbol
`
`has two identical halves. Ex. 1002, 12:49–59. The Petition further states
`
`that, “[t]herefore, in Schmidl, the first training symbol is a single symbol
`
`that includes at least two sections (i.e., a number of sections), and is used for
`
`the purpose of synchronization.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002, 12:49–13:4,
`
`14:16–31).
`
`
`
`
`
`Arslan (Ex. 1003)
`
`Arslan is titled, “Adaptive Channel Tracking Using Pilot Sequences,”
`
`and discloses synchronization of a channel tracker using a synchronization
`
`sequence and retraining with known pilot symbols. Pet. 15; Ex. 1003, 3:3–
`
`6.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`Figure 4 of Arslan is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts a frame structure with synchronizing portion 0 to A
`
`using training symbols, information portions B-C, F-G, and J-K, and pilot
`
`portions D-E, H-I, and Y-Z. Ex. 1003, 6:7–11. The pilot portions are
`
`interspersed between information portions to allow retraining of an adaptive
`
`channel estimator. Id. at 6:11–14. The synchronizing portion of the frame is
`
`a series of predefined symbols 0 to A, which are the same for each received
`
`frame. Id. at 6:13–15.
`
`
`
`
`
`Analysis
`
`
`
`Petitioner states that “both Schmidl and Arslan are directed at
`
`improving synchronization between a wireless transmitter and a wireless
`
`receiver, and disclose frame structures including information for the same.”
`
`Pet. 16. Petitioner explains how the subject matter of independent claim 1
`
`is disclosed by Schmidl and Arslan. Pet. 27–35. Petitioner contends
`
`Schmidl and Arslan teach the recited limitations, of a transmitter, including
`
`an encoder having a pilot/training symbol inserter configured to insert pilot
`
`symbols into data blocks and to combine training symbols with the data
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`blocks; at least one modulator, each modulator having an inverse discrete
`
`Fourier transform stage and a cyclic prefix inserter and outputting a frame
`
`structure comprising a preamble structure and a data structure; the preamble
`
`structure comprising at least one training symbol and an enhanced training
`
`symbol; at least one transmit antenna corresponding to one of the at least one
`
`modulators and transmitting the frame structure output from the modulator,
`
`where the enhanced training symbol is a single symbol. Pet. 10–16, 27–35;
`
`Ex. 1002, Figs. 1, 6, 1:5–12, 1:39–49, 1:63–67, 2:1–13, 2:23–25, 2:40–43,
`
`3:7–23, 11:59–12:27, 12:54–59, 14:26–30; Ex. 1003, Fig. 4. 3:1–6. In
`
`particular, Petitioner contends that Figure 6 of Schmidl discloses a first
`
`OFDM training symbol 134 corresponding to the recited “enhanced training
`
`symbol,” and a second OFDM training symbol 136 corresponding to the
`
`recited “training symbol.” Pet. 33; Ex. 1002, 12:1–4, 54–59.
`
`Patent Owner asserts Schmidl and Arslan do not teach a preamble
`
`structure comprising an enhanced training symbol, because Schmidl’s first
`
`OFDM symbol is used only for synchronization and not for parameter
`
`estimation. Prelim. Resp. 26–28. We disagree with Patent Owner. For
`
`purposes of this Decision, we construe enhanced training symbol as a
`
`training symbol, comprising a plurality of sections including repeated
`
`sequences, and providing at least a synchronization function. See Section
`
`II.A supra. Schmidl’s first OFDM training symbol performs
`
`synchronization, comprises a plurality of sections and has two identical
`
`halves, and, thus, discloses, teaches, and suggests the recited enhanced
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`training symbol of claim 1. Pet. 12–14, 33–34; Ex. 1002, 12:49–13:4;
`
`14:16–31. The Petition also describes why it would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schmidl and Arslan. Pet. 16, 29–
`
`30. On the present record, we are persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`of Petitioner prevailing in establishing the unpatentability of claim 1 of the
`
`’127 patent as obvious over Schmidl and Arslan.
`
`Claims 2, 3, and 5 all depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 (Pet.
`
`35–40), and recite further features of the data structure, enhanced training
`
`symbol, and training block of the enhanced training symbol. Ex. 1001,
`
`17:4-16, 17:22–25. Petitioner provides explanations of how Schmidl
`
`discloses the recited features of claims 2 and 3, and with respect to claim 5,
`
`how “it naturally follows” that Schmidl’s training interval comprises twice
`
`the given number of samples. Pet. 35–40 (citing Ex. 1009, 64–65
`
`(Declaration of Zygmunt J. Haas, Ph.D., element 5.1)); Ex. 1002, Figs. 4, 6,
`
`1:42–47, 2:38–43, 12:49–13:9. On the present record, we determine that
`
`Schmidl discloses, teaches, or suggests the limitations of dependent claims
`
`2, 3, and 5, and we are persuaded that the Petition demonstrates a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of
`
`these claims.
`
`
`C. Claims 4 and 6–10: Asserted Obviousness Over Schmidl, Arslan and
`Kim
`
`Petitioner contends claims 4 and 6–10 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Schmidl, Arslan and Kim. Pet. 40–46.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`
`
`Kim (Exhibit 1004)
`
`Kim is titled, “Timing and Frequency Offset Estimation Scheme for
`
`OFDM Systems by Using an Analytic Tone,” and discloses the use of an
`
`analytic signal, or tone, to calculate timing offset and frequency offset
`
`estimations in OFDM systems. Pet. 16; Ex. 1004, 1:7–10, 5:49–52.
`
`Figure 8 of Kim is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 8 depicts a data structure and, in particular, a signal
`
`architecture for a wireless network in an OFDM system. Ex. 1004, 2:22–24,
`
`5:31–32. Guard intervals G1 through G5 are provided at the beginning of
`
`each training symbol R1 through R4 and data symbol D1. Id. at 2:24–26. In
`
`each of the symbols, the guard interval is N/4, where N=64, such that the
`
`length of the guard interval is 16. Id. at 2:32–34.
`
`Analysis
`
`Claims 4 and 6–10 all depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1, and
`
`recite further features of the data block, the training block of the enhanced
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`training symbol, and the cyclic prefix of the enhanced training symbol,
`
`including the number of samples in data blocks, in training blocks of training
`
`symbols and enhanced training symbols, in cyclic prefixes, and in sections
`
`of training symbols. Ex. 1001, 17:17–21, 26–41. Petitioner provides
`
`explanations of how Schmidl and Kim disclose the recited features of claims
`
`6–8 and 10. Pet. 42–46; Ex. 1002, Figs. 4, 6, 4:55–63; Ex. 1008, Fig. 8,
`
`2:22–36. With respect to claim 4, Petitioner contends
`
`[I]t would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
`apply the known techniques of dividing the training symbols into a
`number of sections with each section including a number of samples,
`as taught by Kim, to the known training symbols of Schmidl to yield
`predictable results.
`
`Pet. 40–41. With respect to claim 9, Petitioner contends how it “naturally
`
`follows that the number of samples N1 are equally divided” among the
`
`sections of the training block. Pet. 44–45 (citing Ex. 1009, 79–81 (element
`
`9.1)). On the present record, we determine that Schmidl, Arslan, and Kim
`
`disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of dependent claims 4 and 6–10,
`
`and we are persuaded the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of these claims.
`
`
`D. Claim 17: Asserted Obviousness over Schmidl, Arslan, Kim, and
`Heiskala
`
`Petitioner contends claim 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`as obvious over Schmidl, Arslan, Kim, and Heiskala. Pet. 46–48.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`Heiskala (Ex. 1006)
`
`
`
`Heiskala is titled, “Estimation of Two Propagation Channels in
`
`OFDM,” and discloses an OFDM system with two transmitters to transmit
`
`training symbols over separate channels. Ex. 1006, Abstract, 1:5–9, 6:5–7,
`
`Fig. 4. Schmidl is a cited reference in Heiskala, and Figure 1 of Heiskala,
`
`which is “a block diagram of a typical OFDM transmitter according to the
`
`prior art” (id. at 2:49–50), appears to be a copy of Figure 1 of Schmidl.
`
`Analysis
`
`Claim 17 depends indirectly from claim 1, and further recites two
`
`modulators and “transmit antennas,” and first and second training blocks
`
`corresponding to the transmit antennas. Ex. 1001, 18:4–10. Petitioner
`
`contends that Heiskala discloses using two OFDM transmitters, each
`
`including a modulator and an antenna. Pet. 46–48. Petitioner further
`
`contends that:
`
`both Schmidl and Heiskala are directed at OFDM transmitters for
`transmitting training symbols, and, furthermore, Heiskala examines
`Schmidl’s transmitter and proposes improvements to the same. Id.
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in
`the art to apply the known technique of using two transmitters to
`transmit training symbols, as taught by Heiskala, to the known OFDM
`system of Schmidl, to yield predictable results of transmitting training
`symbols using two OFDM transmitters, each having a modulator and
`an antenna.
`
`Pet. 47. On the present record, we determine that Schmidl, Arslan, Kim, and
`
`Heiskala disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of dependent claim 17,
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`and we are persuaded the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of this claim.
`
`E. Claims 20 and 21: Asserted Obviousness over Schmidl and Kim
`
`Petitioner contends claims 20 and 21 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Schmidl and Kim. Pet. 48–57.
`
`Independent claim 20 is a method claim for forming a frame structure that is
`
`transmitted over a communication system. Ex. 1001, 18:29–54. Petitioner
`
`provides explanations of how each of the eight limitations and their subparts
`
`are disclosed by Schmidl and/or Kim. Pet. 48–55. In particular, for the
`
`limitation of combining data blocks and training blocks “in a parallel format
`
`to provide a parallel combination,” (Ex. 1001, 18:34–35), Petitioner asserts
`
`that Schmidl “discloses converting a received stream of data bits into the
`
`data bits in a parallel format prior to processing by an IFFT [inverse fast
`
`Fourier transformer].” Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1002, Fig. 1 (as annotated), 1:15–
`
`3:6). The Petition concludes that, “[t]hese data bits in the parallel format
`
`form training symbols including the training blocks and data symbols
`
`including the data blocks, and are combined to form a parallel combination
`
`in the data frame.” Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1002, Fig. 6, 11:59–12:27).
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s conclusion “is contradictory to
`
`Petitioner’s use of the term ‘data’ everywhere else in the Petition, as well as
`
`with the term ‘data’ as used” in Schmidl and the ’127 patent. Prelim. Resp.
`
`33. Patent Owner adds, “[d]ata bits do not form training symbols.” Id. We
`
`agree with Patent Owner. The cited figures and portions of the Schmidl
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`specification do not disclose, teach, or suggest that the data bits depicted in
`
`Figure 1 form training symbols and data symbols including data blocks.
`
`Petitioner also cites to the Haas declaration, (Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1009, 90
`
`(element 20.3)), but the Haas declaration (where element 20.3 actually
`
`appears at pp. 87–88) lacks any supporting evidence, and instead simply
`
`cites to Figures 1 and 6 and follows the Petition’s conclusory language,
`
`without evidence or further explanation of how data bits form training
`
`symbols. Ex. 1009, 87–88. This testimony is conclusory in nature and
`
`entitled to little, if any, weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (“Expert testimony
`
`that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is
`
`based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Rohm and Haas Co. v.
`
`Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (nothing requires a fact
`
`finder to credit the inadequately explained testimony of an expert). We find
`
`Petitioner’s “evidence” to be insufficient to show a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing as to the unpatentability of claim 20.
`
`Claim 21 depends directly from claim 20 and, therefore, is similarly
`
`lacking as to the limitation described above. On the present record, we
`
`determine that Schmidl and Kim do not disclose, teach, or suggest all of the
`
`limitations of independent claim 20, and, thus, of dependent claim 21 as
`
`well, and we are not persuaded the Petition demonstrates a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of
`
`these claims.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`F. Claims 23 and 24: Asserted Obviousness over Schmidl, Kim, and
`Heiskala
`
`Petitioner contends dependent claims 23 and 24 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Schmidl, Kim, and Heiskala. Pet.
`
`57–59. Claim 23 depends directly from claim 20, and recites that the
`
`combining step described above further comprises dividing the data blocks
`
`and training blocks “onto two transmit diversity branches.” Ex. 1001,
`
`18:65–19:3. Claim 24 depends from claim 23 and recites five sections for a
`
`first enhanced training symbol and for a second enhanced training symbol on
`
`first and second transmit diversity branches, respectively. Petitioner does
`
`not contend that Heiskala discloses, teaches or suggests the recited
`
`combining limitation of independent claim 20 discussed above. Pet. 57–59.
`
`On the present record, we determine that Schmidl, Kim, and Heiskala do not
`
`disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of dependent claims 23 and 24, and
`
`we are not persuaded the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of these claims.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded the information presented
`
`in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the ’127
`
`patent as obvious over Schmidl and Arslan; of claims 4 and 6–10 as obvious
`
`over Schmidl, Arslan and Kim; and of claim 17 as obvious over Schmidl,
`
`Arslan, Kim, and Heiskala. We are not persuaded the information presented
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 20 and 21 as obvious over
`
`Schmidl and Kim, or of claims 23 and 24 as obvious over Schmidl, Kim,
`
`and Heiskala.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is
`
`hereby instituted as to the following claims and grounds:
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the ’127 patent as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Schmidl and
`
`Arslan;
`
`2.
`
`Claims 4 and 6–10 of the ’127 patent as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Schmidl, Arslan,
`
`and Kim; and
`
`3.
`
`Claim 17 of the ’127 patent as unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Schmidl, Arslan, Kim, and
`
`Heiskala.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability
`
`asserted in the Petition is authorized for this inter partes review; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`
`commences on the entry date of this Decision.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`J. Andrew Lowes
`Andrew.lowes.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`David M. O’Dell
`David.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Lori Gordon
`Lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Michael Specht
`Mspecht-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Donald Coulman
`dcoulman@intven.com
`
`
`22
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
