`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`
`The ’127 Patent ................................................................................................ 1 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Background ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`The Innovations of the ’127 Patent ....................................................... 4 
`
`III. 
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Claim Construction ................................................ 9 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`“frame structure” ................................................................................. 10 
`
`“Preamble Structure” ........................................................................... 12 
`
`“Data Structure” .................................................................................. 14 
`
`“Pilot Symbol” .................................................................................... 15 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`A “pilot symbol” includes samples in the frequency domain. . 15 
`
`The claims require that a “pilot symbol” is inserted into a data
`block, not a data structure as alleged by Petitioners. ................ 17 
`
`A “pilot symbol” is used “for refining the calibration of a
`receiver to a transmitter.” .......................................................... 18 
`
`“Training Symbol” .............................................................................. 19 
`
`“Enhanced Training Symbol” ............................................................. 20 
`
`IV.  Grounds based on Schmidl and Arslan [Grounds 1-3]. ................................. 22 
`
`A. 
`
`Claims 1-3 and 5 are Patentable over Schmidl and Arslan [Ground 1].
` ............................................................................................................. 22 
`
`1. 
`
`The combination of Schmidl and Arslan fails to disclose an
`“encoder having a pilot/training symbol inserter … configured
`to insert pilot symbols into data blocks.” .................................. 23 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`The combination of Schmidl and Arslan fails to disclose a
`“preamble structure comprising at least one training symbol and
`an enhanced training symbol.” .................................................. 26 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Dependent claims 4 and 6-10 are patentable over the combination of
`Schmidl, Arslan and Kim [Ground 2]. ................................................ 28 
`
`Dependent claim 17 is patentable over the combination of Schmidl,
`Arslan, Kim, and Heiskala [Ground 3]. .............................................. 30 
`
`V.  Grounds based on Schmidl and Kim [Grounds 4-5]. .................................... 30 
`
`A. 
`
`Claims 20 and 21 are Patentable over Schmidl and Kim [Ground 4]. 30 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`The Petition lacks sufficient rational underpinnings to support a
`legal conclusion of obviousness................................................ 31 
`
`Petitioner did not establish that the proposed combination
`discloses “combining the data blocks and training blocks in a
`parallel format to provide a parallel combination” as recited in
`claim 20. .................................................................................... 32 
`
`B. 
`
`Dependent claims 23 and 24 are patentable over the combination of
`Schmidl, Kim and Heiskala [Ground 5]. ............................................. 33 
`
`VI.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 34 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`Cases 
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
`346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... 10
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 18
`
`General Electric Co. v. Brenner,
`407 F.2d 1258 (D.C. Cir.1968) ...................................................................... 29
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................... 31
`
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (S.Ct. 2007) ............................................................................. 31
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ..................................................... 11
`
`Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp.,
`713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ..................................................................... 31
`
`Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ....................................................................... 12
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 31
`
`Regulations 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`37 C.F.R. §1.57(e) .................................................................................................... 29
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit List
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`Exh. No.
`
`IV 2001
`
`IV 2002
`
`Description
`Biography of Gordon Stüber (October 14, 2014),
`http://users.ece.gatech.edu/stuber/
`Biography of Dr. Apurva N. Mody (October 14, 2014),
`http://www.inatel.br/iwt2013/index.php/keynote-speakers-sp-
`212359168/dr-apurva-n-mody
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`The Board should not institute trial on the grounds of unpatentability set
`
`forth in the Petition for claims 1-10, 17, 20, 21, 23, and 24 of the ’127 patent.
`
`Petitioner fails to make the case for instituting trial. First, Petitioner bases its
`
`arguments on flawed constructions of claim terms. Second, none of Petitioner’s
`
`asserted grounds meet the Board’s well-established requirements for instituting
`
`trial. Citations to various pieces of prior art, including Schmidl, are followed, not
`
`by the rational underpinnings required to establish obviousness, but by mere
`
`conclusory statements.
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response demonstrates that none of the art cited
`
`by Petitioner meets the established tests for challenging the validity of the claims
`
`of the ’127 patent.
`
`II. The ’127 Patent
`A. Background
`Wireless communication systems use training sequences for packet
`
`detection, synchronization, and parameter estimation. These training sequences are
`
`known to the receiver, which is therefore able to search for their presence and
`
`measure distortion caused by frequency offset, electromagnetic propagation, or
`
`other transmission impairments between the transmitter and receiver. Assuming
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`that such distortion is constant for some transmission period, a wireless receiver
`
`can use such measurements to correct for distortion of the data symbols in a frame.
`
`Certain embodiments of the ’127 Patent are directed to training in
`
`orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) systems. In these systems,
`
`binary information is mapped to complex symbols, encoding the information into
`
`the amplitude and/or phase of a transmitted signal. One complex symbol may
`
`represent a number of bits, but is represented by a complex number that may also
`
`be referred to as a sample. In OFDM, these complex symbols are transmitted
`
`orthogonally in the frequency domain.
`
`To accomplish the frequency domain transmission, a number of these
`
`complex symbols are simultaneously converted from the frequency domain into
`
`the time domain by taking an inverse discrete Fourier transform (IDFT). The result
`
`of the IDFT is a block of samples, each of which carries information about each of
`
`the frequency domain complex symbols. Together with a cyclic prefix, which may
`
`simply be a copy of the last several samples of the block prepended to its
`
`beginning, this collection of samples forms an OFDM symbol. (See, e.g., ’127
`
`Patent, 7:51-8:18 and FIG. 3.)
`
`Therefore, a number of frequency domain complex symbols are transmitted
`
`through a time domain OFDM symbol. The training requirements in OFDM are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`different than conventional modulations because of this frequency domain aspect.
`
`Specifically, OFDM is more sensitive to frequency offset than conventional
`
`systems, and aspects of the training may be performed in the frequency domain.
`
`At the time of invention, training typically occupied an excessive amount of
`
`transmission time, reducing the overall efficiency of communication. This excess
`
`was due in large part to the provision of different training sequences for different
`
`purposes. For example, as the ’127 patent describes, “the IEEE Standard 802.11a
`
`preamble structure includes a short sequence, which provides time synchronization
`
`and coarse frequency offset estimation, followed by a long sequence, which
`
`provides fine frequency and channel estimation.” (’127 patent, 3:1-5.)
`
`Furthermore, the newly developed multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO)
`
`communication comprising “signals [] typically transmitted over a common
`
`path…by multiple antennas” exacerbated the inefficiencies of these existing
`
`sequences. (Id. at 1:54-56.)
`
`Gordon Stuber, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Georgia Tech
`
`University, and his graduate student Apurva N. Mody, recognized the limitations
`
`of existing training designs. Prof. Stuber, who has received several awards “for his
`
`contributions to theoretical research in wireless communications” (Ex. 2001), is a
`
`well-known expert in the field. Dr. Mody is also an industry leader, acting as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`Chairman of the IEEE 802.22 Working Group on Wireless Regional Access
`
`Networks as well as Chairman of the Whitespace Alliance. (Ex. 2002.) Their
`
`collaboration produced “an efficient preamble structure for use in wireless
`
`communication systems [that] provide[s] both synchronization and parameter
`
`estimation.” (’127 Patent, 2:60-62.)
`
`The Innovations of the ’127 Patent
`
`B.
`An exemplary system described in the ’127 patent includes a transmitter
`
`having an encoder that “encodes data…from a data source” (id. at 5:13-15) and
`
`“one or more modulators…to modulate signals for transmission over the [wireless]
`
`channel.” (Id. at 5:32-34.) The annotated figure below, which combines FIGS. 1-3
`
`of the ’127 patent, illustrates the encoder and modulator of the disclosed
`
`transmitter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`
`
`The encoder 18 of the disclosed transmitter includes a channel encoder 36
`
`that “adds parity to the signals so that the decoder [] can detect errors in the
`
`received channel encoded signals, which may occur…due to environmental
`
`conditions that affect the channel.” (Id. at 6:46-50.) The encoder also includes a
`
`symbol mapper 38 that “map[s] channel encoded signals into data blocks.” (Id. at
`
`6:55-56.) In this context, the ’127 patent uses the term “symbol” to refer to
`
`elements from an alphabet such as binary phase shift keying (BPSK) or quadrature
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`phase shift keying (QPSK), which are modulated on the OFDM subcarriers. (See,
`
`e.g., id. at 6:59-65.)
`
`If the encoder is part of a MIMO system, it may include a space-time
`
`processor 40, which “encode[s] a stream of data blocks, received from the symbol
`
`mapper 38, through space-time processing.” (Id. at 7:3-4.) The encoder also
`
`includes a pilot/training symbol inserter 46 that “typically provides pilot blocks
`
`and training blocks that are inserted into (or combined with) the data blocks.” (Id.
`
`at 7:23-25.) The operation of the pilot/training symbol inserter is discussed below
`
`in relation to FIG. 6.
`
`The modulator of the disclosed transmitter contains a “serial-to-parallel
`
`converter 50 [that] converts the training blocks and data blocks from a serial
`
`format to a parallel format for further processing by other components.” (Id. at
`
`7:59-62.) The inverse discrete Fourier transform (IDFT) stage 52 “converts these
`
`blocks from the frequency domain to the time domain.” (Id. at 8:4-5.) For a data
`
`block, the IDFT stage converts N frequency domain samples into N time domain
`
`samples using an N-point IDFT. (See id. at 8:6-11.) The cyclic prefix inserter 54
`
`then “inserts an additional number of samples ‘G’ with each data block and
`
`training block to form data symbols and training symbols.” (Id. at 8:13-15.) The
`
`modulator then converts the samples from parallel to serial, converts the digital
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPPR2014-011185
`
`UU.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,2699,127
`
`
`sampless to analogg, and uses a mixer too up-converrt the analoog signal tto RF so thhat it
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`may be amplified and transmmitted. (Seee id. at 8:1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9-34.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FFIG. 6, reprroduced in annotatedd form beloow, illustraates a framee structuree
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`embodimment fromm the ’127 ppatent. Foccusing on AAntenna QQ, the framee structure
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“includees a preammble structuure 70 and a data struucture 72.” (Id. at 10::58-59.) “TThe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`preamble structuree 70 typicaally includees one or mmore trainiing symbolls 74” (id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`68
`
`at
`
`
`
`10:62-663) and “ann enhancedd training symbol 79, located att the beginnning of thee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`preamble structuree.” (Id. at 111:3-5.) Thhe trainingg symbol 744 “include
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s a cyclic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`prefix 776 of lengthh G and a ttraining bloock 78 of l
`
`
`length NI…… [and] ha
`
`s a length
`
`of
`
`
`
`G+NI saamples in
`
`
`
`the timee domain.””
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at 10:65-
`
`
`
`11:2.) TTherefore, aa
`
`
`
`
`
`“symbool” in the
`
`of a
`context
`
`
`
`trainingg symbol
`
` a section
`denotes
`
`
`
`
`of sampless includingg a cyclic pprefix and tthe time doomain outpput
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the IDDFT stage.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`The data structure 72 “includes one or more data symbols 80…[which each]
`
`includes a cyclic prefix 76 and a data block 82.” (Id. at 11:28-30.) As disclosed in
`
`the ’127 patent, “pilot symbols may also be intermittently inserted into the data
`
`symbols 80 by the pilot/training symbol inserter 46.” (Id. at 11:45-47.) FIGS. 2 and
`
`3 illustrate that the pilot symbols are “inserted periodically into the data blocks”
`
`(Id. at 7:28) in the frequency domain.
`
`Both training symbols and pilot symbols are output by the pilot/training
`
`symbol inserter. However, “[t]he term training blocks refers to one or more
`
`continuous sections of symbols provided by the pilot/training symbol inserter 46”
`
`(id. at 7:30-32 (emphasis added)), whereas pilot symbols “are inserted periodically
`
`into the data blocks.” (Id. at 7:28.) Furthermore, “[t]raining blocks are preferably
`
`inserted into preamble structures at the beginning of the frame structures and
`
`transmitted once per frame structure.” (Id. at 7:32-34.)
`
`As noted above, “the preamble structure 70 contains one symbol referred
`
`to…as an enhanced training symbol 79, located at the beginning of the preamble
`
`structure 70.” (Id. at 11:2-5.) The training block 78 of the enhanced training
`
`symbol 79 is divided into several sections” (id. at 11:5-6) that are used for various
`
`purposes. For example, the training block 78 in FIG. 7, reproduced below, is
`
`divided into four sections (86-2 through 86-5) and the cyclic prefix 76 forms a fifth
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`section
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`86-1 of thee enhancedd training ssymbol 84.. (See id. aat 13:32-388.) These
`
`
`IPPR2014-011185
`
`UU.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,2699,127
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sectionss can be divvided and combined into variouus intervalls that are uused for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`differennt purposess. For exammple, “[a] ffirst intervaal 88 of thee enhancedd training
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`symbol 84 spans tthe first twwo sections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`86-1, 866-2…[and is used forr] time
`
`
`
`synchroonization annd coarse ffrequency
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`offset estimation.”” (Id. at 13:50-54.) AA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`second
`
`
`
`
`interval 900, which inncludes
`
`
`
`sectionss 86-3 and 86-4, doess not overlaap
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with thee first interrval 88 andd “includess sequencess for proviiding parammeter
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`estimatiion, such aas channel estimationn and noisee variance eestimation
`
`.” (Id. at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13:59-660.) A thirdd interval 992 overlapss with the ffirst and seecond interrvals and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“providdes sequencces for finee frequencyy offset esttimation.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at 13:663-64.) FIGGS.
`
`
`
`
`
`8 and 9 provide allternative eembodimennts of the eenhanced ttraining symmbol with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`various
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sections, iintervals, aand antennaas.
`
`
`
`III. PPatent Owner’s Propposed Claiim Constrruction
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PPatent Ownner proposees the folloowing claimm construcction as thee broadest
`
`
`
`
`
`reasonaable interprretations ass understoood by one oof ordinaryy skill in thhe art. See
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37
`
`
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.100(bb). Patent OOwner reseerves the rright to preesent differrent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`constructions in the District Court litigation where a different claim construction
`
`standard applies.
`
`Petitioner asks the Board to construe six terms. As set forth below, the Board
`
`should decline to construe three of these terms (“frame structure,” “preamble
`
`structure,” and “data structure”) because the meaning of those terms is clear from
`
`the explicit language of the claims and therefore no construction is required. For
`
`the remaining terms (“pilot symbol,” “training symbol,” and “enhanced training
`
`symbol”), the Board should adopt Patent Owner’s constructions because they are
`
`consistent with the explicit language of the claims and the teachings of the
`
`specification.
`
`“Frame Structure”
`
`A.
`The Parties’ proposed constructions of “frame structure” are:
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`No construction required
`
`“a unit of transmission comprising a preamble
`
`structure followed by a data structure”
`
`
`
`The analytical focus of claim construction must begin and remain centered
`
`on the language of the claims. ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082,
`
`1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In its proposed construction of the term “frame
`
`structure” (and also its proposal for the terms “preamble structure” and “data
`
`structure”), Petitioner ignores the explicit language of the claims, importing
`
`embodiments from the specification into the claims without justification.
`
`In the case of the term “frame structure” no construction is required because
`
`the meaning of the term is clear from the explicit language of the ’127 patent’s
`
`claims: “a frame structure comprising a preamble structure and a data structure.”
`
`Ignoring the language of the claims, Petitioner asks the Board to construe “frame
`
`structure” as “a unit of transmission comprising a preamble structure followed by
`
`a data structure.” (Petition, p. 20 (emphasis added).) Petitioner’s construction is
`
`inconsistent with the language of the claims that merely require that “a frame
`
`structure compris[es] a preamble structure and a data structure” and does not limit
`
`the order of the preamble and data.
`
`Petitioner attempts to support its improper position by citing to one sentence
`
`in the background section of the specification stating that a “frame structure
`
`generally includes a preamble structure followed by a data structure.” (Petition, p.
`
`20 (quoting ’127 patent, 2:7-9) (emphasis added).) However, contrary to
`
`Petitioner’s argument, this portion of the specification does not limit a frame
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`structure to a preamble structure followed by a data structure. Petitioner’s
`
`construction therefore improperly imports an embodiment from the specification
`
`into the claims, which is impermissible. Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises,
`
`Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(“it is important not to import into a claim
`
`limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment
`
`appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim
`
`language is broader than the embodiment.”)
`
`Because the meaning of the term “frame structure” is clear from the explicit
`
`language of the claims, no construction is required and the Board should reject the
`
`Petitioner’s interpretation of this claim term.
`
`“Preamble Structure”
`
`B.
`The Parties’ proposed constructions of “preamble structure” are:
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`No construction required
`
`“a portion of the frame structure located near
`
`the beginning of the frame structure, before the
`
`data structure, and comprising at least two
`
`training symbols”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`No construction of the term “preamble structure” is required because the
`
`meaning of the term is also clear from the explicit language of the claims: “the
`
`preamble structure comprising at least one training symbol and an enhanced
`
`training symbol.” Petitioner again ignores the language of the claim proposing the
`
`construction “a portion of the frame structure located near the beginning of the
`
`frame structure, before the data structure, and comprising at least two training
`
`symbols.” (Petition, p. 21 (emphasis added).) As with its construction of “frame
`
`structure,” Petitioner improperly imports embodiments from the specification into
`
`the claims. Specifically, the specification does not require that a preamble structure
`
`be the portion of the frame structure located near the beginning of the frame
`
`structure, as Petitioner contends. Petitioner cites to two portions of the ’127 patent
`
`in support of its position. However, Petitioner’s alleged support highlights that the
`
`claims should not be interpreted this narrowly stating that “[t]raining symbols are
`
`typically added as prefixes to the data structures” (’127 patent, 2:10-11 (emphasis
`
`added)) and stressing that FIG. 6 merely depicts “exemplary data frames” (Id. at
`
`4:17-19 (emphasis added).)
`
`The claims and the specification also do not support Petitioner’s contention
`
`that a preamble includes “at least two training symbols.” The explicit language of
`
`the claims requires a preamble to include a training symbol and an enhanced
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`training symbol – not merely any two training symbols. For these reasons, the
`
`Board should reject Petitioner’s construction.
`
`“Data Structure”
`
`C.
`The Parties’ proposed constructions of “data structure” are:
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`No construction required
`
`“a portion of the frame structure following the
`
`preamble structure and comprising at least one
`
`data symbol”
`
`
`
`Continuing the theme of trying to impose an order where no order is
`
`required, Petitioner asks the Board to construe “data structure” as “a portion of the
`
`frame structure following the preamble structure and comprising at least one data
`
`symbol.” (Petition, p. 22 (emphasis added).) No construction of the term “data
`
`structure” is required because the meaning of the term is clear. As with its
`
`proposed construction of “preamble structure,” Petitioner refers to the same
`
`embodiments of the specification to support the importation of ordering into its
`
`construction of the term “data structure.” However, as discussed above for the
`
`terms “frame structure” and “preamble structure”, both the claims and the
`
`specification fail to require an order for the preamble structure and the data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`structure. The Board should therefore reject Petitioner’s construction because it
`
`improperly imports embodiments into the claims.
`
` “Pilot Symbol”
`
`D.
`The Parties’ proposed constructions of “pilot symbol” are:
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`“samples inserted in a data block in the
`
`“a symbol located in the data structure
`
`frequency domain for refining the
`
`and used for performing
`
`calibration of a receiver to a transmitter”
`
`synchronization”
`
`
`
`The Board should adopt Patent Owner’s construction for the term “pilot
`
`symbol” because it is consistent with the claims and the specification of the ’127
`
`patent. Petitioner’s construction of the term should be rejected because it conflicts
`
`with the explicit language of the claims and the teachings of the specification and
`
`further introduces ambiguity rather than clarity in the proceeding.
`
`A “pilot symbol” includes samples in the frequency domain.
`
`1.
`The ’127 patent describes several types of different symbols including a
`
`pilot symbol, a training symbol, and a data symbol. Training symbols and data
`
`symbols are both types of OFDM symbols, as the ’127 patent makes clear.
`
`Specifically, these symbols are formed by “insert[ing] an additional number of
`
`samples ‘G’ [a cyclic prefix] with each data and training block.” (’127 patent,
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`8:13-144.) Thus, a “training ssymbol” annd a “data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPPR2014-011185
`
`UU.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,2699,127
`
`
`ach comprrises a nummber
`
`symbol” e
`
`
`
`
`
`of contiinuous sammples in thhe time dommain. A “p“pilot symbbol”, conveersely, doess
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`not havee a cyclic pprefix of itts own andd corresponnds to sampples intermmittently
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`insertedd in the freqquency dommain.
`
`
`
`TThe figure pprovided bbelow furthher illustrattes variouss details rellating to thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`types off symbols ddisclosed iin the ‘127 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe above ffigure showws data bloocks and trraining bloocks in bothh time andd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`frequenncy domainns, illustrating how a “pilot symmbol” compprises sampples in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`frequenncy domainn while a ““training syymbol” is ccomprised
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`domainn samples. FIGs. 2 annd 3 of thee ’127 patennt provide
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of a numbber of timee
`
`
`
`
`
`additionall clarificatiion
`
`
`
`
`
`inserter 466 is
`
`
`
`with reggards to thiis concept,, indicatingg that the ppilot/traininng symbol
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-- 16 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`arranged before the inverse discrete Fourier transform (IDFT), meaning that the
`
`pilot/training symbol inserter 46 outputs frequency domain samples. The pilot
`
`symbols “are inserted periodically into the data blocks” (’127 patent, 7:27-28.) The
`
`data blocks (having the inserted pilot symbols) are comprised of frequency domain
`
`samples before the IDFT stage: “the IDFT stage 52 receives N samples for each
`
`data block…and converts the samples in the frequency domain to N samples for
`
`each data block…in the time domain.” (Id. at 8:6-11.)
`
`Since pilot symbols are periodically placed within data blocks in the
`
`frequency domain, and are not “continuous sections of symbols” in the time
`
`domain like training blocks (id. at 7:30-31), a pilot symbol is comprised of
`
`frequency domain samples and is not analogous to a training symbol, as
`
`Petitioner’s faulty claim construction proposal would suggest.
`
`2.
`
`The claims require that a “pilot symbol” is inserted into a
`data block, not a data structure as alleged by Petitioners.
`
`The claimed pilot symbol of the ‘127 patent is inserted into a data block, not
`
`a data structure, as proposed by Petitioner. Claim 1 explicitly recites “an encoder
`
`… to insert pilot symbols into data blocks.” (emphasis added.) This claim
`
`language is also consistent with the specification which states that the pilot
`
`symbols are “inserted periodically into the data blocks.” (’127 patent, 7:26-28
`
`(emphasis added).) Petitioner’s construction completely disregards the “into data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`blocks” language of the claim which is legally impermissible. Aspex Eyewear, Inc.
`
`v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Petitioner’s
`
`construction is further inconsistent with the specification because it encompasses
`
`circumstances where a pilot symbol is not inserted into data blocks. For example,
`
`Petitioner’s construction would include an OFDM symbol inserted between data
`
`symbols, rather than frequency domain samples inserted into data blocks.
`
`3.
`
`A “pilot symbol” is used “for refining the calibration of a
`receiver to a transmitter.”
`
`A “pilot symbol” is a symbol known to both the transmitter and receiver that
`
`is “transmitted with data blocks to calibrate (i.e., synchronize) the receiver 16 to
`
`the transmitter 14 on a small scale.” (’127 patent, 7:40-42.) That is, the “pilot
`
`symbol” refines the calibration that exists between a transmitter and receiver.
`
`Petitioner’s construction that a “pilot symbol” is “used for performing
`
`synchronization” is overly broad because it fails to distinguish between a training
`
`symbol which is also used for calibration (synchronization) and a pilot symbol.
`
`Although training symbols are also “used to periodically calibrate the receiver 16
`
`to the transmitter 14” (id. at 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.” (Id. at 7:46.) Pilot symbols are not arranged on every sub-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`channel, but instead are “intermittently inserted into the data symbols” (id. at
`
`11:45-46) to refine the calibration.
`
`“Training Symbol”
`
`E.
`The Parties’ proposed constructions of “training symbol” are:
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`“a symbol used for synchronization and
`
`“a symbol located in the preamble
`
`channel parameter estimation”
`
`structure and used for performing
`
`synchronization and/or parameter
`
`estimation”
`
`
`
`As discussed above, a training symbol comprises a number of time domain
`
`samples and a cyclic prefix, distinguishing it from the pilot symbol which
`
`comprises frequency domain samples inserted into data blocks. The specification
`
`consistently describes that a “training symbol” is used for both synchronization and
`
`channel parameter estimation: “[t]he training symbols provide coarse and fine time
`
`synchronization, coarse and fine frequency synchronization, channel estimation,
`
`and noise variance estimation.” (Id. at 3:37-39 (emphasis added).) The ’127 patent
`
`groups channel estimation and noise variance estimation under the umbrella term
`
`“parameter estimation,” as the Petitioner acknowledges. (See Petition, p. 24.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01185
`U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127
`
`
`Despite citing to this explicit discussion in the specification, Petitioner
`
`proposes a construction where the training symbol is “used for performing
`
`synchronization and/or parameter estimation.” (Id. at 24 (emphasis added).)
`
`Petitioner provides no support for the overly broad inclusion of “and/or.” In fact,
`
`the claim construction arguments Petitioner does provide with respect to this claim
`
`term support Patent Owner’s construction. Furthermore, Petitioner’s inclusion of
`
`the limitation “located in the preamble structure” is unnecessary and redundant to
`
`the claim language, since both independent claims 1 and 20 recite “the preamble
`
`structure comprisi