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
`
`
`———————
`
`Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-01185
`
`
`
`PETITIONER ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET
`LM ERICSSON’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET
`LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`———————
`
`Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-01185
`
`
`
`PETITIONER ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET
`LM ERICSSON’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`II. PO mischaracterizes claim 1.......................................................................... 2
`
`a. Claim 1 and disputed claim portions ............................................................ 2
`
`b. PO misinterprets the claim term “insert pilot symbols into data blocks” 3
`
`c. PO misinterprets the reason for the claimed “pilot symbols” .................12
`
`III. Schmidl in view of Arslan renders the “pilot/training symbol inserter” of
`claim 1 obvious .......................................................................................................13
`
`a. Disclosure of Schmidl ...................................................................................13
`
`b. Disclosure of Arslan .....................................................................................15
`
`c. The combination of Schmidl and Arslan renders claim 1 obvious ..........17
`
`IV. Claim 17 is obvious .......................................................................................19
`
`VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................22
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`ERIC-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127 (the ’127 patent)
`
`ERIC-1002
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,113 (“Schmidl”)
`
`ERIC-1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,649 (“Arslan”)
`
`ERIC-1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,881 (“Kim”)
`
`ERIC-1005
`
`IEEE, Supplement to Standard for Telecommunications and
`Information Exchange Between Systems-LAN/MAN Specific
`Requirements-Part 11: Wireless MAC and PHY Specifications:
`High Speed Physical Layer in the 5-GHz Band, P802.11a/D7.0,
`July 1999, (“IEEE”)
`
`ERIC-1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,298,035 (“Heiskala”)
`
`ERIC-1007
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Expert
`
`ERIC-1008
`
`Prosecution History of the ’127 Patent
`
`ERIC-1009
`
`Expert Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. §1.68
`
`ERIC-1010
`(served but not
`filed)
`ERIC-1011
`(served but not
`filed)
`ERIC-1012
`(served but not
`filed)
`
`ERIC-1013
`(served but not
`filed)
`
`Declaration of Zygmunt J. Haas, Ph.D.
`
`B. Crow, et al., “IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Networks,”
`IEEE Communications Magazine, pp. 116-126, Sept. 1997
`
`M. Umehira, “A 5 GHz-band Advanced Wireless Access
`System for Mobile Multimedia Applications,” Proceedings of
`IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, 2000, pp. 2300-2304,
`
`N. Maeda, et al., “A Delay Profile Information Based
`Subcarrier Power Control Combined with a Partial Non-Power
`Allocation Technique for OFDM/FDD Systems,” IEEE
`International Symposium on Personal, Indoor, and Mobile
`Radio Communications, 2000, pp. 1380-1384.
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`ERIC-1014
`(served but not
`filed)
`
`A. Springer, et al., “A Wireless Spread-Spectrum
`Communication System Using SAW Chirped Delay Lines,”
`IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, pp.
`754-760, April 2001.
`
`ERIC-1015
`(served but not
`filed)
`
`W. Diels, et al., “Single-Package Integration of RF Blocks for a
`5 GHz WLAN Application,” IEEE Transactions on Advanced
`Packaging, pp. 384-391, August 2001.
`
`ERIC-1016
`(served but not
`filed)
`
`J. van de Beek, et al., “Three non-pilot based time-and
`frequency estimators for OFDM,” Signal Processing, pp. 1321-
`1334, 2000.
`
`ERIC-1017
`(served but not
`filed)
`ERIC-1018
`(served but not
`filed)
`ERIC-1019
`(served but not
`filed)
`ERIC-1020
`(served but not
`filed)
`ERIC-1021
`(served but not
`filed)
`ERIC-1022
`(served but not
`filed)
`ERIC-1023
`(served but not
`filed)
`ERIC-1024
`(served but not
`filed)
`ERIC-1025
`(served but not
`filed)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,646,980
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,085,874
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,754,195
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,274,652
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,549,583
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,106,821
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,394,864
`
`Declaration of Robert O’Hara
`
`Task Group A (5 GHz PHY) of 802.11 September 1997
`meeting
`Tentative Minutes, IEEE P802.11–97/87
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`ERIC-1026
`(served but not
`filed)
`ERIC-1027
`(served but not
`filed)
`ERIC-1028
`(served but not
`filed)
`
`IEEE P802.11, Wireless LANs, IEEE 802.11-99/171, May
`1999
`
`H. Takanashi, IEEE P802.11, Wireless LANs, IEEE 802.11-
`99/187, August 1999
`
`IEEE Std. 802.11a-1999 (Supplement to IEEE Std 802.11-
`1999), Supplement to Standard for Telecommunications and
`Information Exchange Between Systems-Local and
`Metropolitan Area Networks, Part 11: Wireless MAC and PHY
`Specifications: High Speed Physical Layer in the 5-GHz Band,
`Dec. 30, 1999
`
`ERIC-1029
`(served but not
`filed)
`
`Copy of web page found at
`http://www.ieee802.org/11/email/stds-802-11/msg01379.html
`as of Feb. 26, 2015
`
`ERIC-1030
`(served but not
`filed)
`ERIC-1031
`(served but not
`filed)
`ERIC-1032
`(served but not
`filed)
`ERIC-1033
`(served but not
`filed)
`ERIC-1034
`
`ERIC-1035
`
`IEEE P802.11, Wireless LANs, Tentative Minutes of the IEEE
`P802.11 Full Working Group, IEEE 802.11-99/151, July 1999
`
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler
`
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler
`
`IEEE –SA Standards Board Review Committee (RevCom)
`APPROVED Meeting Minutes, Sept. 15, 1999
`
`Deposition of Dirk Hartogs, Ph.D. (“Hartogs Dep. Tr.”)
`
`U.S. Provisional Application 60/322,786, filed Sept. 17, 2001
`(“Mody Provisional”)
`
`ERIC-1036
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas (“Supp. Haas
`Decl.”)
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Dystar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Partick Co., 464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..18
`
`Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)…19,
`
`23
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997)……….......20
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)…………………………………………………………….11
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`In its Decision on Institution, the Board considered many of the same
`
`arguments now reasserted by the Patent Owner (PO) and recognized that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that claims 1-10 and 17 are unpatentable over the cited
`
`references. PO’s recycled arguments should not alter the Board’s prior decision.
`
`Although explaining the benefits of the claimed enhanced training symbols
`
`on four pages of the Response, the PO does not even argue that the Petition and
`
`cited references fail to disclose an enhanced training symbol, the primary feature of
`
`the claims. See Resp., pp. 2-5. Instead, PO focuses on a secondary feature, a pilot
`
`symbol, which is only disclosed in passing in the specification and not illustrated
`
`in any of the figures.
`
`Since the PO has not rebutted Petitioner’s arguments and evidence
`
`concerning other elements of the claims, the only issues in dispute are the proper
`
`construction and application of the following elements of claim 1:
`
`1) “the pilot/training symbol inserter configured to insert pilot
`
`symbols into data blocks” and
`
`2) “an encoder.”
`
`For claims 1-10, the only issue in dispute is whether the combination of
`
`Schmidl with Arslan discloses inserting pilot symbols into data blocks. As
`
`explained below, PO improperly creates a new embodiment of the ‘127 patent and
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`reads limitations from that new embodiment into claim 1. But the PO’s new
`
`embodiment is inconsistent with the full disclosure of the ‘127 patent. Specifically,
`
`earlier filed U.S. Provisional Application 60/322,786 (“Mody Provisional” (ERIC-
`
`1035)), which is incorporated by reference into the ‘127 patent (ERIC-1001, 1:15-
`
`18), discloses how pilot symbols are inserted into data blocks.
`
`
`
`For claim 17, which depends from claim 8 which itself depends from claim
`
`1, PO asserts that the term “an encoder” in claim 1 is expressly limited to a single
`
`encoder. As explained below, such a construction conflicts with well-established
`
`claim-construction standards.
`
`
`
`II. PO mischaracterizes claim 1
`
`a. Claim 1 and disputed claim portions
`
`Claim 1 is recited below, with the only disputed portions of the claim
`
`highlighted. PO does not dispute that Schmidl and Arslan disclose everything else.
`
`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) [sic – IDFT] stage and a cyclic
`prefix inserter, each modulator outputting a frame structure
`comprising a preamble structure and a data structure, the preamble
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`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.
`
`b. PO misinterprets the claim term “insert pilot symbols into data
`blocks”
`
`
`PO’s brief spends nearly ten pages defining the term “pilot symbol.” See
`
`Resp., pp. 12-21. Petitioner agrees with PO that a “pilot symbol” as used in claim 1
`
`is a frequency-domain symbol. See id., p. 13. Petitioner also agrees with PO that
`
`“the designation of a ‘symbol’ as a frequency domain symbol or time domain
`
`symbol depends on the point of the transmission or reception process where the
`
`symbol is being used.” Id., p. 13. But the term “pilot symbol” appears in claim 1
`
`only as part of the term “insert pilot symbols into data blocks,” and Petitioner
`
`disagrees with PO’s interpretation of this claim term.
`
`PO interprets the term “insert pilot symbols into data blocks” as “insert pilot
`
`symbols into at least one data block.” That is, PO asserts that the claim requires
`
`that a pilot symbol be inserted into a discrete data block, not into (or among) a set
`
`of data blocks. For example, PO argues that “[t]he pilot symbols are frequency
`
`domain symbols inserted into a data block in the frequency domain.” Id., p. 15. But
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`PO’s expert, Dr. Hartogs, goes further and asserts that the term “insert pilot
`
`symbols into data blocks” excludes any embodiments that would result in a
`
`separate OFDM pilot symbol in the time domain. PO is incorrect on this point.
`
`Dr. Hartogs repeatedly explains that the ’127 patent does not support
`
`embodiments that would result in a separate OFDM pilot symbol in the time
`
`domain. For example,
`
`Q. So is it your opinion then that pilot symbols don’t show up as
`complete symbols in the time domain in the ‘127 patent?
`MR. PICKARD: Object to form.
`A. I believe that’s correct.
`Hartogs Dep. Tr., 136:19-23. As another example:
`Q. So is it then your opinion that, unlike training symbols, which
`show up in the time domain as time domain OFDM symbols, the pilot
`symbols would never show up in the time domain as a separate and
`distinct OFDM time domain symbol?
`A. As long as data was being provided to the system, that’s correct.
`Id., 139:21-140:4. Instead, Dr. Hartogs describes an embodiment where pilots are
`
`“sprinkled” into data blocks to form data blocks “that has a couple of pilot tones
`
`sprinkled in it.” See Hartogs Dep. Tr., 93:6-11.
`
`
`
`PO’s position that there would never be a separate and distinct pilot symbol
`
`in the time domain conflicts with the ’127 patent for several reasons. First—and
`
`most glaringly—U.S. Provisional Application 60/322,786 (“Mody Provisional”
`
`(ERIC-1035)), which is incorporated by reference into the ’127 patent, explicitly
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`shows that the inventors intended for there to be separate and distinct time-domain
`
`pilot symbols. See Supp. Haas Decl., (ERIC-1036) ¶ 6. For example, the Mody
`
`Provisional explains that “[p]ilots in the form of known OFDM symbols are sent
`
`for at least Q symbol periods (QTs) in order to obtain a unique solution for the
`
`channel coefficient estimates. … The OFDM symbol period is given by Ts =
`
`NT+Tg, where 1/T is the sample rate into the OFDM modulator.” ERIC-1035, p. 2.
`
`The pilot symbols are “known OFDM symbols,” which means they are known to
`
`the receiver, do not contain any user data in the frequency domain, and contain
`
`only pilot symbols in the frequency domain. See Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 6. Thus, the
`
`Mody Provisional discloses the use of separate OFDM pilot symbols in the time
`
`domain. See id.
`
`The Mody Provisional’s description of pilot symbols as separate time-
`
`domain symbols is consistent with the ’127 patent specification. For example,
`
`referring to the time domain, the background section of the ’127 patent explains:
`
`Training symbols are typically added as prefixes to the data
`structures (e.g., at the beginning of frame structure) to enable training
`(i.e., time and frequency synchronization) between the transmitter and
`receiver of a MIMO communication system. These training symbols
`can be referred to as preambles and are part of the preamble
`structures. Space-time signal structures are constructed using STP for
`training symbols and data symbols individually. Furthermore, pilot
`structures (or pilots) are symbols that are also constructed by STP
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`and have the same structure as preambles [training symbols].
`However, instead of being placed as a prefix to the data structure, the
`pilot structures are periodically arranged within groups of data
`symbols.
`ERIC-1001, 2:10-25 (emphasis added). Thus, pilot symbols have the same
`
`structure as training symbols (also known as preambles) in the time domain, but
`
`the pilot symbols are arranged within groups of data symbols, as opposed to being
`
`at the beginning of a transmission. See Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 7.
`
`Dr. Hartogs explains that an entire frequency-domain block could be filled
`
`with pilots during transmission of data blocks, but he would call the resulting time-
`
`domain symbol a training symbol, not a pilot symbol.
`
`Q. Is there a limit to how many bills [sic – pilots] could be adjacent to
`one another in a particular data block the way you've represented it
`here?
`A. Only – I’d say the only limitations here are put up by the
`cleverness of the implementer. Obviously, if you get to the point
`where you have the entire block filled with pilots, then it really has
`just become another training symbol and you probably have enough
`information to just reinitialize your transmission.
`Hartogs Dep. Tr., 148:10-21 (emphasis added); see also id, 166:17-169:6.
`Unlike Dr. Hartogs, Dr. Haas considered the Mody Provisional and
`
`recognizes that “[p]ilots in the form of known OFDM symbols” would contain
`
`only frequency-domain pilots and no frequency domain data, thereby filling a
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`block with pilots to the exclusion of data. See Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 6. Dr.
`
`Hartogs’s opinion that a block filled with pilots is just “another training symbol”
`
`should be given little, if any, weight since he did not consider the full disclosure of
`
`the ’127 patent. Specifically, Dr. Hartogs admitted that he never reviewed the
`
`Mody Provisional (incorporated into the ’127 patent by reference) in reaching his
`
`opinions:
`
`Q. And you’ll see at the very top [of the ’127 patent, col. 1] there’s a
`section called “Cross-reference to Related Applications.” You’ll see
`there are a couple of applications there.
`Q. And those are incorporated by reference.
`A. Okay.
`Q. Did you review those documents?
`…
`A. Oh, I’m sorry. I meant the second provisional. I’m sorry, I had
`not looked at the second provisional.
`Hartogs Dep. Tr., 21:10-25; see also id. 22:22-25.
`
`
`
`Other parts of the ’127 patent also support Petitioner’s understanding that
`
`“insert pilot symbols into data blocks” would lead to discrete OFDM pilot symbols
`
`in the time domain. For example, the ’127 patent recites:
`
`Although omitted from FIG. 6 for simplicity, pilot symbols may also
`be intermittently inserted into the data symbols 80 by the pilot/training
`symbol inserter 46, as discussed above.
`
`ERIC-1001, 11:44-47.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`PO agrees that Fig. 6 illustrates OFDM symbols in the time domain.
`Q. All right. Figure 6 is illustrating OFDM symbols in the time
`domain; correct?
`A. Everything in figure 6 is in the time domain, yes.
`
`Hartogs Dep. Tr., 117:11-114. See also id., 129:25-130:10.
`
`The ’127 patent states that pilot symbols are “omitted from FIG. 6 for
`
`simplicity,” but Dr. Hartogs does not know how pilot symbols would be shown in
`
`the time domain in Fig. 6 if they were shown:
`
`Q. Okay. Well, the patent states that the pilot symbols are omitted
`from figure 6 for simplicity. How would one represent pilot symbols
`in figure if one wished to do so?
`A. I don't know.
`Q. Could you represent a pilot symbol in figure 6?
`A. Nothing -- certainly, nothing comes to mind.
`Id., 130:11-19.
`
`Dr. Hartogs also presents Figure E1 in his declaration, which illustrates his
`
`opinion that a time-domain data symbol includes a combination of frequency-
`
`domain pilot symbols and data symbols. See Hartogs Decl. (Ex. 2009), ¶ 46, Fig.
`
`E. Dr. Hartogs admitted that Fig. E is not found in the ’127 patent and represents
`
`his interpretation of the ’127 patent. See ERIC-1034, 140:25-141:9. Dr. Hartogs’s
`
`
`1 The Board previously considered Fig. E and PO’s supporting arguments, as
`
`presented on pp. 16-17 of the Preliminary Response, and found them unpersuasive.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`Fig. E implies that pilot symbols are not actually omitted from Fig. 6 of the ’127
`
`patent (even though the ’127 patent says they are omitted) but rather are embedded
`
`within data symbols 80. See Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 11.
`
`
`
`By contrast, Petitioner’s position is that “inserting pilot symbols into data
`
`blocks” in claim 1 includes an embodiment in which pilot symbols are inserted into
`
`data blocks in the frequency domain so that discrete OFDM pilot symbols are
`
`produced in the time domain. Fig. A below illustrates Petitioner’s position. See
`
`Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 12.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. A
`
`As shown above – and consistent with claim 1 – the pilot/training symbol inserter
`
`“combines training symbols with data blocks” in the frequency domain to form
`
`training blocks in the time domain. See Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 13. A training block
`
`forms part of a training symbol in the time domain (the other part being a cyclic
`
`prefix), as shown in Fig. A’s annotated and modified Fig. 6 of the ’127 patent. See
`
`id. Likewise, the pilot/training symbol inserter “inserts pilot symbols into data
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`blocks” in the frequency domain to form pilot blocks in the time domain. See id.
`
`The pilot blocks form part of OFDM pilot symbols in the time domain, as shown in
`
`Fig. A’s annotated and modified Fig. 6 of the ’127 patent. See id. Fig. A is
`
`consistent with the ’127 patent’s description of pilot symbols. See id. In addition,
`
`Fig. A is consistent with how the Mody Provisional (which is incorporated by
`
`reference into the ’127 patent) describes inserting OFDM pilot symbols into data
`
`blocks. See id. The pilot symbols and training symbols are inserted in a similar
`
`manner to create separate time-domain OFDM symbols. See id.
`
`
`
`PO criticizes Petitioner’s insertion of pilot symbols “between” data blocks
`
`rather than “into” data blocks. See Resp., pp. 23-24. But PO’s criticism is without
`
`merit because inserting pilot symbols “into” data blocks results in pilot symbols
`
`“between” data blocks, as shown in Fig. A above.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s interpretation of “insert pilot symbols into data blocks” is
`
`reasonable–certainly more reasonable than PO’s interpretation. But the Board need
`
`not determine whether the embodiments incorporated by PO’s interpretation (e.g.,
`
`Fig. E of Hartogs Decl.) are proper. Rather, the Board need only determine
`
`whether the broadest reasonable construction (under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)) of
`
`“insert pilot symbols into data blocks” includes the embodiment of the ’127 patent
`
`described by Petitioner (e.g., Fig. A).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`
`
`c. PO misinterprets the reason for the claimed “pilot symbols”
`
`Petitioner and PO agree that the “pilot symbols” inserted into data blocks
`
`refine the calibration between a transmitter and receiver. See, e.g., Resp., p.18. But
`
`PO misstates the purpose of pilot symbols to justify its incorrect interpretation of
`
`“inserting pilot symbols into data blocks” as inserting pilot symbols into at least
`
`one data block:
`
`Although training symbols are also “used to periodically calibrate the
`receiver 16 to the transmitter 14” (’127 patent, 7:44-45), they provide
`such calibration on a large scale by occupying the entire bandwidth
`such that “training symbols may be unique for each sub-channel.”
`(’127 patent, 7:46). Pilot symbols are not placed on every sub-
`channel, but instead are “intermittently inserted into the data symbols”
`(’127 patent, 11:45-46) to refine the calibration.
`Resp., pp. 20-21. But PO completely ignores the Mody Provisional, which states
`
`that a known OFDM symbol is transmitted as a pilot symbol. As Dr. Haas
`
`explains, an OFDM pilot symbol would not include data, and the OFDM pilot
`
`symbols would occupy each subchannel. See Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 6. Further, PO
`
`ignores the ’127 patent’s discussion of the time variation of the channel:
`
`Pilot blocks are typically transmitted with data blocks to calibrate
`(i.e., synchronize) the receiver 16 to the transmitter 14 on a small
`scale. This calibration, or synchronization, accounts for the time
`varying nature of the channel 12, for example. Training symbols,
`however, are typically used to periodically calibrate the receiver 16 to
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`the transmitter 14.
`ERIC-1001, 7:40-45 (emphasis added). Training symbols are used for initial
`
`synchronization at the beginning of a transmission. This is why, for example,
`
`Figure 6 shows multiple training symbols at the beginning of a transmission, with
`
`the first one of the training symbols being an “enhanced” training symbol. See
`
`Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 14. By contrast, for periodic calibration after initial
`
`synchronization as few as one pilot symbol in the time domain (including multiple
`
`pilot symbols in the frequency domain) may be used. See id. The “small scale”
`
`referred to in the passage from the ’127 patent above is a small time scale. See id.
`
`By contrast, the training symbols synchronize on a “large (time) scale” because a
`
`transmitter and receiver are typically not synchronized before transmission takes
`
`place. See id.
`
`III. Schmidl in view of Arslan renders the “pilot/training symbol inserter” of
`claim 1 obvious
`
`
`
`a. Disclosure of Schmidl
`
`Schmidl teaches: 1) the advantages to using and inserting training symbols
`
`in an OFDM system; and 2) that symbols should be combined with data blocks in
`
`the frequency-domain of an OFDM system, with these portions later converted to
`
`time-domain symbols.
`
`Specifically, Schmidl discloses an encoder that inserts frequency-domain
`
`training symbols that then become time-domain training symbols. Schmidl
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`discloses the structure of an OFDM symbol in Fig. 4 and a transmitted data frame
`
`in Fig. 6. The combined teachings of Schmidl’s Figs. 4 and 6 are annotated and
`
`presented below. See Petition, p. 7; see also Haas Decl., (ERIC-1010) p. 46; see
`
`also Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 15.
`
`
`Schmidl’s encoder 14 in Fig. 1 creates the training symbols: “since a 2m -ary
`
`QAM encoder 14 is used to create first OFDM training symbol 134. ...” ERIC-
`
`1002, 13:16-18. This description together with the frequency contents of the
`
`symbols in the transmitted frame in Fig. 6 inform a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (POSA) how the encoder 14 creates the individual symbols suitable to calibrate
`
`and synchronize the receiver to the transmitter. See Supp. Haas Decl., ¶16. A
`
`POSA would have understood that the encoder 14 necessarily includes circuitry
`
`that inserts training symbols in the frequency domain such that a training symbol in
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`the time domain is produced. See id. This circuitry is an example of “a training
`
`symbol inserter.” See id.
`
`In summary, Schmidl teaches the use of training symbols exactly as
`
`described and claimed in the ’127 patent, and further that it is advantageous to
`
`insert symbols in the frequency domain of an OFDM system.
`
`b. Disclosure of Arslan
`
`Arslan teaches the advantages of inserting both training symbols and pilot
`
`symbols during the transmission of data. Specifically, Arslan discloses that “data
`
`sequences are commonly called synchronizing sequences or training sequences and
`
`are typically provided at the beginning of a frame of data.” ERIC-1003, 1:57-59.
`
`Arslan also discloses that “a channel tracker may be synchronized using a
`
`synchronization sequence [or training sequence] and then periodically retrained
`
`using known pilot symbols.” Id., 3:4-6. Arslan further describes the structure of its
`
`frames, using Fig. 4 as an illustration.
`
`FIG. 4 illustrates a frame structure which may be utilized with the
`present invention. As seen in FIG. 4, the frame includes a
`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.
`According to the present invention, the pilot portions are interspersed
`between information portions so as to allow retraining of the
`adaptive channel estimator 30 during the frame. The synchronizing
`portion of the frame is a series of predefined symbols, from 0 to A in
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`FIG. 4, which are the same for each received frame. The information
`portion of the frame, from B to C, F to G and J to K, contains symbols
`which may vary from frame to frame and contain the information to
`be transmitted in the frame. The pilot portions of the frame, from D
`to E, H to I and Y to Z, contain predefined symbols which may be
`used to retrain the adaptive channel estimator 30.
`Id., 6:7-21 (emphasis added). Fig. 4 of Arslan is presented below for reference.
`
`
`As PO recognizes, the modulations described in Arslan are not OFDM, but
`
`
`
`rather single-carrier modulations. See Resp., p. 22. However, Arslan is not limited
`
`to single-carrier modulations. See ERIC-1003, 10:7-11; see also Supp. Haas Decl.
`
`¶ 18.
`
`
`
`Arslan also discloses that pilot symbols and training symbols are inserted in
`
`a frame of data: “known data sequences are inserted periodically into the
`
`transmitted information sequences… [and] are commonly called synchronizing
`
`sequences or training sequences and are typically provided at the beginning of a
`
`frame of data,” ERIC-1003, 1:55-59, emphasis added, and “[t]he present invention
`
`utilizes pilot symbols inserted in a frame of data,” id., 5:26-27, emphasis added.
`
`
`
`
`
`In summary, Arslan teaches that a frame structure beginning with training
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`symbols and containing pilot symbols subsequently interspersed among data
`
`symbols is useful to provide the “ability to track the channel parameters for fast
`
`time-varying systems.” Id., 2:13-14, see also Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 20.
`
`c. The combination of Schmidl and Arslan renders claim 1 obvious
`
`The element of claim 1 in dispute is “the pilot/training symbol inserter
`
`configured to insert pilot symbols into data blocks.” First, Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated that Schmidl discloses an encoder that inserts known symbols to
`
`calibrate or synchronize the receiver to the transmitter. Specifically, training
`
`symbols are inserted in the frequency domain to form time-domain training
`
`symbols with the characteristics required by claim 1. See Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 21.
`
`Second, Petitioner has also shown that Arslan discloses a frame structure
`
`beginning with training symbols and containing pilot symbols subsequently
`
`interspersed among data symbols that provides the ability to track the channel
`
`parameters for fast time-varying systems to calibrate or synchronize the receiver to
`
`the transmitter. See id.
`
`Arslan recognizes the benefit of including pilot symbols within the data
`
`transmission
`
`to maintain calibration and synchronization. See
`
`id., ¶ 22.
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use pilot symbols as separate time-
`
`domain symbols for tracking time variations to calibrate or synchronize the
`
`receiver to the transmitter by using time-domain pilot symbols in Schmidl’s
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`system. See id. As discussed above, Schmidl discloses inserting symbols in the
`
`frequency domain for an OFDM system, for calibration and synchronization. See
`
`id. It would have been obvious to create those time-domain pilot symbols in the
`
`same manner as the time-domain training symbols are created in Schmidl’s
`
`encoder – that is, by inserting blocks of known pilot symbols in the frequency
`
`domain that would result in time-domain pilot symbols. See id. It would be
`
`obvious to a POSA that the same circuitry in Schmidl’s encoder 14 used to insert
`
`training symbols would be used to insert pilot symbols, resulting in the claimed
`
`“pilot/training symbol inserter configured to insert pilot symbols into data blocks.”
`
`See id.
`
`PO argues that Arslan’s insertion of pilot symbols would be performed in
`
`the time domain, in contrast to the insertion of Schmidl’s training symbol which is
`
`performed in the frequency domain. However, Schmidl is clear that in an OFDM
`
`system, it is preferential to insert symbols in the frequency domain, and it would
`
`further make sense to use the symbol inserter already disclosed in Schmidl for
`
`inserting the pilot symbols in the frequency domain. Further:
`
`An implicit motivation to combine exists … when the ‘improvement’
`is technology-independent and the combination of references results
`in a product or process that is more desirable[.] In such situations, the
`proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge
`and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`references.
`Dystar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Partick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006). Such is the case here, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
`
`the benefits of using pilot symbols along with training symbols, as taught in
`
`Arslan, and combine such teachings with the training symbol inserter of Schmidl.
`
`See Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 22
`
`IV. Claim 17 is obvious
`
`
`PO asserts that “the proposed combination [of Schmidl, Arslan, Kim, and
`
`Heiskala] does not result in the transmitter of claim 17, because that claim recites a
`
`single encoder coupled to two modulators and two antennas…” whereas
`
`“Petitioner’s proposed combination results in a system with two encoders coupled
`
`to two modulators and two antennas.” Resp., pp. 28-29, emphasis added. In other
`
`words, PO argues that the proposed combination does not disclose the encoder of
`
`claim 1 because the combination discloses two encoders and claim 1’s limitation of
`
`“an encoder” should be interpreted to require only a single encoder.
`
`
`
`PO improperly reads limitations from the specification into claim 17, which
`
`depends from claim 8 which further depends from claim 1. It is fundamental that
`
`“[a] particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read
`
`into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide
`
`Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, PO
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Reply IPR2014-01185
`
`
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
