IPR2014-01185, Paper No. 34
`December 17, 2015
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`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
`____________
`
`Held: October 21, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: JUSTIN BUSCH, PETER P. CHEN, and J. JOHN
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`October 21, 2015, commencing at 2:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, 9th Floor, Hearing
`Room D, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`December 17, 2015
`
`trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`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
`____________
`
`Held: October 21, 2015
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: JUSTIN BUSCH, PETER P. CHEN, and J. JOHN
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`October 21, 2015, commencing at 2:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent
`and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, 9th Floor, Hearing
`Room D, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`J. ANDREW LOWES, ESQ.
`
`CLINT WILKINS, ESQ.
`
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`2505 North Plano Road, Suite 4000
`
`Richardson, Texas 75082-4101
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`and
`
`JENNIFER WELLS, ESQ.
`Ericsson
`6300 Legacy Drive
`Plano, Texas 75024
`
`LORI A. GORDON, ESQ.
`STEVEN W. PETER, Ph.D., ESQ.
`Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`- - - - -
`JUDGE LEE: Good afternoon. This is the oral hearing
`in case IPR2014-01185, concerning U.S. Patent Number
`7,269,127. In a moment, I will ask the parties to identify
`themselves for the record, but first, I am Judge John Lee, we have
`Judges Chen and Busch attending from the Silicon Valley and
`Detroit offices, respectively. Because of that, I would just like to
`remind the parties, please speak into the microphone at all times
`so that Judges Chen and Busch can hear what you are saying, and
`when you are referring to documents, be they papers or exhibits
`or demonstratives, please refer to things by number, paper
`number, slide number, et cetera, so that they can follow along.
`So, let's start with counsel for Petitioner, please identify
`yourselves for the record.
`MR. LOWES: Yes, Your Honor, I'm Andrew Lowes,
`lead counsel for Petitioner.
`JUDGE LEE: Could you just speak into the
`microphone, please.
`MR. LOWES: I'm sorry, Your Honor, I'm Andrew
`Lowes, lead counsel for Petitioner, Ericsson. With me at counsel
`table is Clint Wilkins, backup counsel. Also in attendance today
`is Jennifer Wells, who is in-house counsel for Ericsson.
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you, Mr. Lowes.
`For Patent Owner?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`MS. GORDON: Yes, Your Honor, I'm Lori Gordon,
`from the law firm of Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox and I'm going
`to be arguing today on behalf of the Patent Owner, Intellectual
`Ventures, and with me at counsel table is Steve Peters, also from
`Sterne Kessler.
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you. Before we begin arguments,
`does either party have any preliminary matters they wish to raise?
`Mr. Lowes?
`MR. LOWES: No, Your Honor, other than the
`projector currently is not working, if we could have a moment to
`try to make that connection.
`JUDGE LEE: I'll give you that before we begin.
`Anything from Patent Owner?
`MS. GORDON: No, Your Honor. Thank you.
`JUDGE LEE: Thank you. All right, Mr. Lowes, both
`parties have 45 minutes for their arguments. Petitioner, you may
`reserve some time for rebuttal, if you'd like; are you going to
`reserve some time?
`MR. LOWES: Yes, Your Honor, I would like to use 35
`minutes for my primary presentation, reserve 10 minutes for
`rebuttal.
`JUDGE LEE: That would be fine. And take whatever
`time you need to get your equipment hooked up.
`MR. LOWES: Thank you. Okay, I believe we're ready
`to go with the AV equipment.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`JUDGE LEE: All right, Mr. Lowes, you may begin
`when you're ready.
`MR. LOWES: Thank you, Your Honor. As I indicated,
`I am lead counsel for Petitioner, Ericsson, and this is, for the
`record, IPR2014-01185, and today I'll be referring to
`demonstrative exhibits marked as Ericsson or ERIC 1037.
`So, in terms of my presentation today, I first want to
`give a little background about the '127 patent, which is the patent
`involved in the IPR, as well as then moving to the claim itself,
`and going through the claim, and some claim construction issues,
`followed by an application of the prior art to the claim.
`Turning now to slide 2 of Exhibit 1037, these are the
`claims that are involved in the IPR, for which trial is instituted.
`Claims 1 through 3 and 5, trial was instituted on a combination of
`Schmidl and Arslan, as demonstrating that the claims were
`unpatentable. For claims 4 and 6 through 10, it's the combination
`of Schmidl, Arslan and Kim that demonstrate that the claims are
`unpatentable. And for claim 17, it's Schmidl, Arslan, Kim and
`Heiskala. Of the claims in the trial, only claim 1 is in
`independent form.
`Slide 3, please. The '127 patent, which is Exhibit 101 in
`our exhibits, is directed to synchronization of a data frame
`between a transmitter and a receiver, as set forth in the
`background of that patent, it was known to use training symbols
`in the data frame for synchronization, and also to use pilot
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`symbols in that data frame for synchronization. The patent,
`rather than focusing on the pilot symbols that are part of the data
`structure, it's focused on providing efficient preambles, so it's
`trying to make the preamble structure of the data frame as
`efficient as possible to make the synchronization quick.
`And you can see here, on slide 3, I've copied in a
`portion of the background, where it indicates that there is a need
`for an efficient preamble structure that provides time and
`frequency synchronization, and then with respect to summarizing
`what the invention is about, the present invention provides a
`system for providing efficient preamble structures.
`So, here, the patent is recognizing that it wants to
`generate efficient preamble structures. A portion of figure 6 from
`the '127 patent is illustrated at the bottom of slide 3. You can see
`there that on the left-hand portion, it's showing the preamble
`structure 70, and to the right-hand side is the data structure 72.
`Within that preamble structure, it's got a first training symbol
`that's called the enhanced training symbol, and then it's followed
`by another training symbol as well as can be followed by other
`overhead items in the frame. So, here, again, the patent is about
`this preamble structure, and really it's about generating this
`enhanced training symbol.
`Can I go to slide 4, please. Turning now to the claim,
`on slide 4 we have reproduced claim 1. You can see that the
`claim is about a transmitter of a communication system, that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`transmitter comprising an encoder, and then it also refers to a
`modulator and at least one transmit antenna. And as to the
`modulator, that's where the elements of the preamble are
`described. So, it talks about midway through the claim, a
`preamble structure and a data structure, the preamble structure
`comprising at least one training symbol and an enhanced training
`symbol. And then what's transmitted, it's discussing transmitting
`the enhanced training symbol in a single symbol.
`Now, these elements were disclosed by the primary
`reference, the Schmidl reference, in our filing, and in the Patent
`Owner's filings, they're really unrebutted that those elements were
`disclosed with respect to the modulator and the at least one
`transmit antenna. So, the dispute is about the encoder element of
`the claim. And that element requires an encoder having a pilot/
`training symbol inserter, the pilot/training symbol inserter
`configured to insert pilot symbols into data blocks and then to
`combine training symbols with data blocks.
`You'll notice that the word "training" symbol here for
`the encoder is used with -- in an encoder element. The same
`claim language is used with respect to the modulator, at the
`bottom there at line 63, where it says, "at least one training
`symbol." So, we have the same term being used twice in the
`claims, and as we'll discuss, those actually have different
`meanings.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`Next slide, slide 4, of Exhibit 1037. Here's a
`combination of figures 2 and 3 from the '127 patent, and this is
`coming from the Patent Owner's response, and it's indicating that
`we have different domains described both within the patent, as
`well as set forth in the claim. And the domain depends on
`whether you're in the frequency domain to the left of the [I]DFT,
`so here in the modulator in figure 3, the [I]DFT component
`transforms the output of the encoder into the time domain, so
`everything to the right of the [I]DFT is in the time domain, and
`everything to the left is in the frequency domain.
`So, going back, if you would, please, go back to slide 4,
`with respect to the claim, the training symbol referred to in the
`encode element would be in the frequency domain, because that's
`the domain that it's operating in, while the training symbol
`referred to with respect to the modulator component, it says that
`each modulator outputting a frame structure comprising, among
`other things, a training symbol. That's going to be in the time
`domain. So, just to be clear, there is some domain switching
`going on and it creates some confusion by the way the patent is
`worded.
`If you would go, please, to slide 6. So, with respect to
`the encoder element, the parties have different views on what it
`means to insert pilot symbols into data blocks, and whether that
`insertion could encompass embodiments that result in separate
`OFDM pilot symbols in the time domain, or whether the patent --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`the claim actually excludes such embodiments. So, it's our
`position that, indeed, if you insert pilot symbols into data blocks
`in the frequency domain, you can, in fact, end up with OFDM
`pilot symbols in the time domain. It's within the scope of the
`claim, it encompasses it, it's at least one embodiment that satisfies
`the claim.
`The Patent Owner has taken the position that pilot
`symbols are not continuous sections of symbols, and therefore
`cannot generate pilot symbol in the OFDM time domain, and
`also, in their response, they said pilot symbols are not placed on
`every subchannel. As we'll discuss, that's not correct, as well as
`their expert during cross examination agreed with us that there's
`no limitation that says you can't place pilot symbols on every
`subchannel.
`Next slide, please.
`JUDGE CHEN: Counsel?
`MR. LOWES: Yes, Judge?
`JUDGE CHEN: What is Petitioner's proposed
`construction for "pilot symbol" and where is the support for that
`in the specification of the '127 patent?
`MR. LOWES: We initially proposed that it be a -- a
`symbol in the data structure for synchronization, and the Board's
`institution decision indicated that no construction was necessary,
`and we think since the prior art utilizes the term "pilot symbols,"
`that, indeed, no construction is necessary.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`In terms of the support for our understanding of what's
`in the -- disclosed in the patent, I would definitely get to that, and
`I could certainly jump to that now if you'd like, or it's coming up
`in just a couple of slides.
`JUDGE CHEN: Okay. Proceed.
`MR. LOWES: Okay, thank you.
`So, next slide, slide 7. Here, here is displayed from the
`Patent Owner's response, in the upper left-hand corner, Hartogs
`figure F, which Dr. Hartogs is Patent Owner's expert and he is
`illustrating the checkerboard effect where the hashed or dashed
`symbols are pilots that have been inserted in the data blocks and
`the data blocks run left to right horizontally, so that first data
`block has four pilot symbols inserted in it.
`In his declaration, he said that the figure G below that
`would not satisfy the claim, as it has data blocks and then a
`complete and filled block of pilots, and then more data blocks.
`During cross examination, we asked him, here you can
`see we've highlighted his testimony on the right, "is there a limit
`to how many pilots could be adjacent to one another in a
`particular data block the way you've represented it here?" His
`response, "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."
`
` 10
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`So, even Dr. Hartogs recognized there's no limitation to
`how many pilot symbols you can put in the data blocks.
`JUDGE BUSCH: Counsel, in those figures F and G,
`are you saying that each row is one symbol, one data symbol?
`MR. LOWES: No, Your Honor, each row is one data
`
`block.
`
`Chen --
`
`JUDGE BUSCH: Data block.
`MR. LOWES: Each of the squares is a symbol.
`JUDGE BUSCH: Okay.
`MR. LOWES: Next slide, please, slide 8. And, Judge
`
`JUDGE CHEN: Counsel?
`MR. LOWES: Yes, sir?
`JUDGE CHEN: Before we get to that, so is it
`Petitioner's position that the testimony at deposition of
`Dr. Hartogs undercuts to an extent figures F and G, which he
`created for purposes of this IPR?
`MR. LOWES: It certainly undercuts his explanation of
`figure G, and figure F is maybe a possible figure, but certainly the
`claims are not limited to an embodiment like figure F. There's
`nothing in the claims that designates where those pilot symbols
`have to be and that's where his testimony undercuts it, because he
`recognizes that the entire data block, running left to right, all six
`of those symbols could be filled with pilot symbols.
`Anything further?
`
` 11
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`JUDGE CHEN: Please continue. Thank you.
`MR. LOWES: Moving to slide 8 of Exhibit 1037, this
`is from Petitioner's expert, Dr. Haas, he is showing his
`understanding from the patent of how the patent operates to insert
`pilot and training symbols into the data blocks, and ultimately,
`the net result in the time domain.
`So, beginning at the top of the drawing, you have a
`series of data blocks entering the encoder. You also have a series
`of pilot and training symbols on the right-hand side, they're
`shaded blue. The encoder then inserts those, the training
`symbols, in the front of the data, and then the pilot symbols are
`inserted into the data blocks and in this illustration, it fills the data
`block. Those are then fed into the [I]DFT, where they're
`converted to the time domain, which outputs a series of time
`domain blocks. A cyclic prefix is added and ultimately you end
`up with the time domain frame shown in figure A, which is
`essentially a portion of figure 6 of the '127 patent actually
`showing the pilot symbols.
`We'll go further into kind of what supports this, but this
`is our position --
`JUDGE BUSCH: And, counsel, in this figure, in this
`figure, each one of the squares, again, is one symbol and each
`group that's separated off is a separate block is the position here?
`MR. LOWES: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BUSCH: So, there are three symbols in each of
`these little sections labeled "pilot symbols?"
`MR. LOWES: Yes. Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BUSCH: Okay.
`JUDGE CHEN: Counsel, why are the recited pilot
`symbols not limited to the frequency domain as the Patent Owner
`alleges?
`MR. LOWES: Certainly there is a number of reasons,
`one of which there is an express disclosure in the patent itself,
`through incorporation by reference, that the pilot symbol will be a
`known OFDM symbol. OFDM symbols are in the time domain,
`that's exactly what you have illustrated here where you have a
`time domain block with a cyclic prefix added to it. In addition,
`the patent describes that pilot blocks are transmitted with the data
`blocks, exactly as shown in this figure A that's been annotated, in
`the upper portion there shown in green it has a data block, and
`then next to that you have a pilot block, each of those separated
`by a guard symbol, the cyclic prefix.
`I believe some of that will become apparent in the next
`couple of slides, if you'll indulge me.
`Next slide, please, slide 9. This is portions of the
`specification that support Dr. Haas' understanding of the patent
`and the disclosure, as well as inform us about the scope of the
`claims.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`Next slide, please. Referring to slide 10 of Exhibit
`1037, we have here from the patent, the '127 patent, that the
`patent itself incorporates an earlier provisional of the inventor's,
`which we refer to as the Mody provisional, Exhibit 1035. That
`was incorporated by reference into the '127 patent. Patent
`Owner's expert in reaching his conclusion that it needs to be that
`checkerboard pattern or a sprinkled pattern into the data blocks
`did not consider the earlier work that was incorporated by
`reference, which we have here his testimony, "Did you review
`those documents?
`"I'm sorry, I had not looked at that second provisional."
`If you would advance to the next slide, please. So,
`what's in that Mody provisional is recognition by the inventors,
`again, incorporated into the '127, that pilot in the form of known
`OFDM symbols can be sent for at least Q symbol periods. So,
`the inventors themselves are recognizing that the pilots in the
`time domain are actually going to be known OFDM symbols.
`They're not composite with data, and as Dr. Haas recognizes in
`his testimony, since the pilot symbols, which we have reproduced
`on the slide 11, since the pilot symbols are known OFDM
`symbols, this implies that they are known to the receiver, so the
`transmitter/receiver can synchronize, do not contain any user data
`in the frequency domain and contain pilot symbols in the
`frequency domain. That would make it a known symbol, the
`receiver is going to get what it expects.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`And then, finally, the Mody provisional discloses
`separate OFDM pilot symbols in the time domain. Again, going
`back to Dr. Haas' figure, that's what's represented in figure A.
`JUDGE CHEN: Counsel?
`MR. LOWES: Yes, sir?
`JUDGE CHEN: So, the Mody provisional that is
`Ericsson 1035, what's the serial number on that one? Is that the
`60/322, 786?
`MR. LOWES: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE CHEN: And it's Petitioner's position that this
`testimony of Dr. Hartogs was that he did not review 60/322,786,
`but did review 60/322,785?
`MR. LOWES: Your Honor, he testified that he did not
`review 60/322,786, I don't believe there is any testimony whether
`he reviewed the first provisional.
`JUDGE CHEN: Okay. Continue, please.
`MR. LOWES: So, moving on to slide 12, this is a
`portion of the patent that's just been reproduced, describing a pilot
`symbol. It's a relatively large portion so we have broken it up
`into two slides, B-1 and B-2.
`Move to slide 13, please. Here, you can --
`JUDGE CHEN: Well, counsel, the specification does
`follow the claim language about the insertion of the pilot symbols
`into the data blocks. So, I'll await your presentation on Schmidl
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`and Arslan and how they address the insertion into data blocks,
`but please continue.
`MR. LOWES: Yes, Your Honor. So, next slide, slide
`13, please. Here, it's a portion of the specification, the term "pilot
`blocks" as used in this description refers to symbols provided by
`the pilot/training symbol inserter which are periodically
`inserted -- are inserted periodically into the data blocks.
`Typically pilot symbols can be inserted at any point into the data
`blocks. So, there's no limitation here that you have to have them
`spaced from one another or where they appear in the data blocks.
`The next slide, slide 14 of Exhibit 1037. With respect
`to this portion, which is from column 7 of the patent, lines 40 to
`45, it recognizes that pilot blocks are typically transmitted with
`the data blocks to calibrate, i.e. synchronize, the receiver to the
`transmitter on the small scale. Here again, the training symbols
`disclosed in the '127 patent are for the large-scale synchronization
`at the beginning of a transmission, where you -- the receiver and
`the transmitter haven't necessarily been in communication and
`they need to do a large-scale synchronization.
`As Dr. Haas recognizes here, the pilot symbols are for
`the smaller scale synchronization, and he says, "whereas for a
`periodic calibration, after the initial synchronization, which is
`accomplished by the training symbols, as few as one pilot symbol
`in the time domain (from multiple pilot symbols in the frequency
`domain) may be used for periodic calibration." So, this is also
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`disclosing that with respect to what is transmitted, not what the
`encoder generates, but what is transmitted in the time domain,
`that the pilot blocks themselves are actually transmitted with the
`data blocks. So, that's also from the specification.
`Next slide, please.
`JUDGE CHEN: You mean the pilot symbols are
`transmitted?
`MR. LOWES: Well, the pilot blocks are transmitted. If
`we went back to slide -- if we go back to slide 8, please. Here at
`the bottom of slide 8, showing figure A, you can see that a pilot
`symbol in the time domain is made up of a pilot block, as well as
`a guard G, a cyclic prefix, just like a data symbol is made up of a
`data block, as well as a cyclic prefix guard G, and similarly the
`training symbols in the time domain are made up of training
`blocks, as well as a guard G.
`JUDGE CHEN: Okay, thank you.
`MR. LOWES: So, if we could go to slide 15, please.
`Slide 15 of Exhibit 1037. So, here we have from the patent, the
`closest example we have of, you know, what does the frame
`structure look like in the time domain? What's represented here
`on slide 15 is a portion of figure 6 showing just one antenna from
`the multiple antenna system. Here we've already talked about
`this, it's got the preamble structure 70 on the left, followed by the
`data structure on the right. In terms of the description of what it
`is in the time domain, the patent says, although omitted from
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`figure 6 for simplicity, "pilot symbols may also be intermittently
`inserted into the data symbols by the pilot/training symbol
`inserter 46, as discussed above."
`So, the patent itself is recognizing that pilot symbols
`would be in the time domain frame structure illustrated in figure
`6. It's simply a question of, well, how would you illustrate those?
`They're missing, obviously they're in the claims, but they chose
`not to illustrate them, but how does one understand how you
`would illustrate those in the patent?
`If we can go to the next slide. We put that question to
`Dr. Hartogs, Patent Owner's expert, during his deposition, and we
`asked him, "Well, the patent states that the pilot symbols are
`omitted from figure 6 for simplicity. How would one represent
`pilot symbols in figure 6 if one wished to do so?"
`His answer: "I don't know."
`We said, "Could you represent a pilot symbol in figure
`
`6?
`
`"Nothing -- certainly, nothing comes to mind."
`So, Dr. Hartogs was not able to demonstrate how one
`would illustrate pilot symbols in the data structure of figure 6.
`Next slide, please. Dr. Haas, Petitioner's expert, also
`addressed this issue, and we have his testimony here concerning
`that quotation from the patent. He points to, in response to
`questions during cross examination, toward the bottom here, he
`says, "If you take figure 6 -- more precisely, one frame of figure
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`6, which is number 68, one of the 68s, and you modify it to -- not
`to omit the pilot symbols as figure 6 does, then the result would
`be something similar to my bottom of figure A." So, he's
`referring to his figure A.
`Slide 8, please, of Exhibit 1037. Here you can see a
`comparison between on the bottom Dr. Haas' figure A, the bottom
`is his figure A, and the existing portion of figure 6 from the '127
`patent. And the only --
`JUDGE BUSCH: Counsel, I need to clarify something.
`MR. LOWES: Yes, sir?
`JUDGE BUSCH: You mentioned earlier that there's
`two different symbols and I guess I want to make sure I
`understand what you're saying. So, the pilot symbols shown, I
`guess higher up on that figure A, where there were three symbols
`that made up a block in the frequency domain, those were pilot
`symbols in the frequency domain that made up a block, and now
`a pilot symbol in the time domain is what you're alleging here in
`the bottom of this figure?
`MR. LOWES: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE BUSCH: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. LOWES: You're welcome.
`And that comes about, and I believe that is our next
`slide. Yeah, we could actually flip to the next slide, slide 19, it's
`just another representation here. It comes about because the pilot
`symbols in the frequency domain are then provided to the [I]DFT,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`which converts them into the time domain, and turns them into a
`pilot block. Then a cyclic prefix is added and you end up with
`what's shown in the bottom, figure A.
`Would you please go back to slide 18. So, here, the
`difference is that in Dr. Haas' version, he's added an extra data
`symbol, as well as he's illustrating two pilot symbols, again, this
`is in the time domain. So, these are OFDM pilot symbols, just
`like the provisional incorporated by reference says, "pilot
`symbols of known OFDM symbols would be transmitted," that's
`exactly what's shown here in the bottom portion of figure A on
`slide 18.
`And what makes up a pilot symbol? It's the pilot block,
`which has been transformed from pilot symbols by the [I]DFT,
`and then what's added to that is the G, which is a cyclic prefix,
`and here you have them interspersed in the data symbols.
`Next --
`JUDGE BUSCH: And again, just to make sure I
`understand your argument, your argument is that if it's a known
`OFDM symbol, if it were intermixed with the data and became
`part of the data symbol or data block, I guess if you're ignoring
`the cyclic prefix, that that wouldn't be a known symbol because
`it's intermixed with the data?
`MR. LOWES: Correct. If you have data inside the
`pilot symbol then it's no longer a known symbol and it can't be
`used for synchronization.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`Next slide. We've already gone through this, I'm happy
`to answer more questions, but I think we'll keep moving, if you
`would.
`
`So, turning now back to claim 1, claim 1, element 1.1, is
`the primary element in dispute. The remaining elements are
`disclosed by Schmidl, including Schmidl discloses two different
`training symbols, one having equal halves, which satisfies the
`enhanced training symbol, as well as it has the antenna for
`transmitting it, and additional features.
`So, the element in contention is "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 data blocks." And as we'll show,
`the combination of Schmidl and it's encoder that inserts training
`symbols would be modified to achieve the benefits of having
`pilots in the data symbols as taught by Arslan.
`Next slide, please, turning to slide 21. Here's figure 1
`from the Schmidl reference. You can see on the far left side, the
`baseband data bits are coming into the encoder, that's just the data
`coming from some user device. The encoder 14 then bundles that
`data and adds and inserts training symbols to the data to create
`frames of data. Each of those bundles is then sent from the
`encoder in parallel format to the IFFT, which converts it into the
`time domain. The DSP adds a cyclic prefix and then ultimately
`it's transmitted via the antenna on the far right.
`
` 21
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`
`JUDGE CHEN: Counsel, how does the encoder in
`Schmidl accomplish the inserting function that's recited in the
`claim?
`
`MR. LOWES: It accomplishes it via controlling the
`inputs on the various subcarriers. It's described, I believe, in
`column 12 of the patent. It talks about how it inserts -- each of
`the subchannels can be controlled either for the enhanced training
`symbol version, the odd numbered subcarriers are held to zero,
`and the even ones, a pseudo-noise code is applied to those, within
`a single symbol interval. So, it's actually controlling the inputs
`for each symbol interval, and then those inputs are -- on the
`various subcarriers are passed to the IFFT for conversion into the
`time domain.
`Moving to slide 22. Here is the output of the Schmidl
`transmitter, in the time domain, figure 6, which is also similar to
`figure 6 of the '127 patent. Here you've got the two training
`symbols. In time period one you have a training symbol, time
`period two, also, and then three through M are data symbols, and
`as we'll discuss, these are OFDM training symbols, so they have a
`training block as well as cyclic prefix.
`Figure 6 illustrates that the placement of the training
`symbols within a data frame, you have two in the front of the data
`frame, that it describes that training symbols 134 and 136 are
`preferably placed at the beginning of the data frame, as shown in
`the figure. It also recognizes, while that's a preferred
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01185
`Patent 7,269,127 B2
`
`embodiment, so that the second OFDM training symbol
`immediately follows the first OFDM training symbol 34.
`Schmidl also recognizes that although the two symbols need not
`be placed next to each other, doing so minimizes the effect of
`time variation of the channel, but it's recognizing that those
`symbols themselves could be spaced from each other and could
`be separated by data if desired.
`Next slide, please. Moving to slide 23, this is just
`adding the detail from f
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
