UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANTENNATECH LLC,
`
`Listed Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,180,279
`
`“Wireless Hotspot Arrangement”
`
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2015-_____
`
`
`\
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.   MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................... 1  
`
`A.   Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ........................................................1  
`
`B.   Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ..................................................................1  
`
`1.   Related Patent Office Proceedings ................................................................1  
`
`2.   Related Litigation ............................................................................................1  
`
`3.   Related Applications .......................................................................................1  
`
`C.   Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and Service
`Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ..............................................................2  
`
`D.   Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)) ....................................................................2  
`II.   REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R §§
`42.101, 42.104, and 42.108) .......................................................................... 3  
`
`A.   Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.101(a)-(c)) ...........3  
`
`B.   Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)) ...............................................3  
`
`C.   Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2)) ....................................................4  
`III.  BACKGROUND OF THE ‘279 PATENT ...................................................... 5  
`
`A.   Technology Background Relevant to the ‘279 Patent .............................................5  
`
`B.   Overview of the ‘279 Patent ......................................................................................7  
`
`C.   Prosecution History of the ‘279 Patent ....................................................................8  
`IV.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................. 8  
`V.   IDENTIFICATION OF HOW CHALLENGED CLAIMS 1-2, 4-20
`ARE UNPATENTABLE .............................................................................. 9  
`
`A.   Claims 1-2, 4-20 are Obvious over van der Kaay in view of Dennis .......................9  
`
`1.   Overview ..........................................................................................................9  
`
`2.   Claim Charts .................................................................................................13  
`
`B.   Claims 1-2, 4-20 are Obvious over Ito in view of Dennis ......................................31  
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`1.   Overview ........................................................................................................31  
`1. Overview ...................................................................................................... ..31
`
`2.   Claim Charts .................................................................................................34  
`2. Claim Charts ............................................................................................... ..34
`VI.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 53  
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. ..5 3
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`EXHIBITS
`
`
`No.
`EXHIBIT
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,180,279 to Crowley et al., titled “Wireless
`Hotspot Arrangement” (“the ‘279 Patent”)
`Ex. 1002 Prosecution History of Application No. 12/931,050 which matured
`into U.S. Patent No. 8,180,279
`
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Matthew B. Shoemake, Ph.D. (“Shoemake Decl.”)
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,774,789 to van der Kaay et al., titled “RF
`Communication Signal Distribution Signal and Method” (“van der
`Kaay”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,276,686 to Ito, titled “Mobile Radio
`Communication System Having Mobile Base and Portable Devices
`as a Mobile Station” (“Ito”)
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`“On the phone at 30,000 feet” by Tom L. Dennis, published in
`Aerospace America (June 1985) (“Dennis”)
`
`Ex. 1007 Declaration of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`
`Ex. 1008 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`
`Ex. 1009 MARC Record for Dennis article
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. H6-
`244617 to Keiichi Uchiyama (“Uchiyama”)
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`Mercedez-Benz USA LLC, Daimler AG, and Daimler North America
`
`Corporation are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`1.
`
`Related Patent Office Proceedings
`
` The United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted ex parte
`
`reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,180,279 (“the ‘279 Patent”) over one of the
`
`same counts of invalidity raised here: Ito in combination with Dennis. See Control
`
`No. 90/013,460.
`
`2.
`
`Related Litigation
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,180,279 (“the ‘279 Patent”) is asserted in the following
`
`cases in the District of Delaware: Antennatech LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC,
`
`1:14-cv-00949; Antennatech LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., 1:14-cv-
`
`948; Antennatech LLC v. BMW of North America LLC, 1:14-cv-569. Antennatech
`
`is the assignee of record for the ‘279 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`Related Applications
`
`The ‘279 Patent was prosecuted as application no. 12/931,050, which is a
`
`continuation of application no. 12/218,324, filed on Jul. 14, 2008, now patent no.
`
`7,881,664, and a division of application no. 12/931,661, filed on Feb. 7, 2011,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`which is a continuation of application no. 12/378,452, filed on Feb. 13, 2009, now
`
`patent no. 7,904,124, and a continuation of application no. 11/020,450, filed on
`
`Dec. 22, 2004, now patent no. 7,400,858, and a continuation of application no.
`
`11/728,487, filed on Mar. 26, 2007, which is a continuation of application no.
`
`10/619,770, filed on Jul. 15, 2003, now patent no. 7,197,285, each of which is a
`
`continuation of application No. 09/634,140, filed on Aug. 8, 2000, now patent no.
`
`6,885,845, which is a continuation of application no. 08/604,105, filed on Feb. 20,
`
`1996, now patent No. 6,594,471.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) and Service
`Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`
`Petitioner provides the following counsel and service information:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Jim Glass (Reg. No. 46729)
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address:
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
`LLP
`51 Madison Ave, 22nd Fl.
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel:
`(212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Marc Kaplan (Reg. No. 69748)
`marckaplan@quinnemanuel.com
`Postal and Hand Delivery Address:
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
`LLP
`500 W. Madison St., Ste 2450
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel:
`(312) 705-7400
`Fax: (312) 705-7401
`
`D.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a))
`
`
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee required for this
`
`Petition for inter partes review to Deposit Account No. 505708. Any additional
`
`fees that might be due are also authorized.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (37 C.F.R §§
`42.101, 42.104, and 42.108)
`
`A. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a); 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.101(a)-(c))
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the ‘279 patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes
`
`review challenging the claims of the ‘279 patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`Petitioner further certifies that the ‘279 patent has not been subject to a previous
`
`estoppel-based proceeding of the AIA, and the prohibitions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 315
`
`(a)-(b) are inapplicable.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b))
`
`B.
` Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1-2 and 4-20 of the ‘279
`
`patent and requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) cancel those
`
`claims as unpatentable. This Petition cites the following prior art references:
`
`Ex. 1004 – U.S. Patent No. 5,774,789 to van der Kaay et al., titled “RF
`
`Communication Signal Distribution Signal and Method,” and is prior art to the
`
`‘279 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). van der Kaay was not considered
`
`during the original prosecution of the ‘279 patent and is not cumulative of any
`
`prior art considered by the examiner(s).
`
`Ex. 1005 – U.S. Patent No. 5,276,686 to Ito, titled “Mobile Radio
`
`Communication System Having Mobile Base and Portable Devices as a Mobile
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Station,” and is prior art to the ‘279 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b),
`
`and (e). Ito was not considered during the original prosecution of the ‘279 patent
`
`and is not cumulative of any prior art considered by the examiner(s).
`
`Ex. 1006 – “On the phone at 30,000 feet” by Tom L. Dennis, published in
`
`Aerospace America in June 1985, and is prior art to the ‘279 patent under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and/or 102(b). A declaration by Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis (Ex.
`
`1007), the verifying indicia on the face of the document, and the fact that
`
`Aerospace America is a widely published and well-known publication
`
`demonstrates that Dennis was available to the public at least by July 1986. Dennis
`
`was not considered during the original prosecution of the ‘279 patent and is not
`
`cumulative of any prior art considered by the examiner(s).
`
`C. Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2))
`Inter partes review of claims 1-2, 4-20 of the ‘279 Patent should be
`
`instituted because this Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Each
`
`reference listed above qualifies as prior art to the ‘279 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(a), and/or (b) and/or (e). The grounds on which this petition is based are:
`
`#
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Ground for Challenge
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-20 are obvious over van der Kaay in view of Dennis
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-20 are obvious over Ito in view of Dennis
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`(The combination of Ito and Dennis was accepted as presenting a
`
`substantial new question of patentability in a concurrent ex parte
`
`reexamination of the ‘279 Patent. See Control Number
`
`90/013,460.)
`
`
`
`A detailed explanation of why each challenged claim is unpatentable under
`
`the statutory grounds identified above is provided in Part V below, including
`
`identification of where each element of the claim is found in the prior art. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).
`
`This petition and the Declaration of Dr. Matthew B. Shoemake (“Shoemake
`
`Decl.”) (Ex. 1003), submitted herewith, cite prior art to provide background on the
`
`relevant technology and describe the state of the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`III. BACKGROUND OF THE ‘279 PATENT
`A. Technology Background Relevant to the ‘279 Patent
`
`This section of the Petition provides a technology background and describes
`
`the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention. The accompanying
`
`Shoemake Declaration provides further information on this technology
`
`background. (See Shoemake Decl. ¶¶ 35-57.)
`
`Mobile devices allowing connectivity while untethered to “land-lines” or
`
`wired telephone connections were already developed and refined in the decades
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`leading up to the filing of the ‘279 patent application in 1996. (See van der Kaay
`
`at 1:24-25 (“There are many mobile subscribers who enjoy the benefits of
`
`telephone service in their vehicles, and an ever increasing number of portable
`
`subscribers who have become accustomed to receiving telephone service wherever
`
`they go”).) Given the growing popularity of mobile telephones, many entities
`
`developed enhancements to these phones in order to improve the quality of the
`
`reception on those devices.
`
`In particular, innovators recognized that mobile device reception may
`
`decline in shielded or enclosed environments such as vehicles. (van der Kaay at
`
`1:33-34 (“coverage inside a structure is often inadequate”).) The obvious solution
`
`to this problem was to include an antenna on the outside of the shielding structure,
`
`which could receive a wireless signal from a broadcasting station without
`
`interference from the vehicle’s body. (See van der Kaay at 1:41-48 (“In response
`
`to this signal strength inadequacy, there are systems available that are designed to
`
`distribute RF communication signals within a building. In operations, such a
`
`system typically receives and amplifies incoming signals from an existing RF
`
`communication system . . . and distributes the amplified signals to antenna units
`
`scattered throughout the building via coaxial cable”).) This outside antenna could
`
`then be connected via a wire to an antenna on the inside of the shielding structure.
`
`(Id.) The interior antenna could then repeat the broadcast received by the exterior
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`antenna, to give the devices on the inside of the shielding material a clear signal.
`
`(van der Kaay at Fig. 1.) This allowed the mobile devices inside of the vehicle or
`
`other interfering structure to maintain their wireless mobility, while greatly
`
`increasing the received signal quality.
`
`The technology relevant to the ‘279 Patent is therefore the conventional
`
`technology of wireless broadcast repeaters to strengthen signal quality. (See also
`
`Shoemake Decl. ¶58-67.)
`
`B. Overview of the ‘279 Patent
`
`The basic idea of wirelessly repeating a broadcasted signal, as discussed
`
`above, had already been explored well-prior to the ‘279 patent. In fact the ‘279
`
`patent admits, in the “prior art” section of the specification, that wireless “re-
`
`transmission of [a user’s] signal, to avoid the necessity of connecting and
`
`disconnecting cables,” was known. (‘279 Patent at 1:63-65.)
`
`The system described in the ‘279 patent consists of well-known wireless
`
`system elements: RF antennas, mobile communication devices, transmission lines
`
`between antennas, and controllers to amplify the communications. (See, e.g., ‘279
`
`Patent at claim 6.) The ‘279 patent does not purport to have invented mobile
`
`devices, mobile antennas, controllers, amplifiers, or any other communication
`
`elements identified in the claims. Accordingly, as shown below, the ‘279 patent
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`merely describes the use of standard communications elements, already well-
`
`known in the art, for re-transmission of a signal in a manner well-known in the art.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History of the ‘279 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/931,050 was filed on January 20, 2011, with
`
`claims 1-15. (Ex. 1002 at 14-17.) Applicant added claims 16-28 in a preliminary
`
`amendment, filed on January 20, 2011, and then cancelled claims 1-15, modified
`
`claims 16-28, and added new claims 29-35 in a supplemental preliminary
`
`amendment, filed March 15, 2011. On December 15, 2011, the Examiner rejected
`
`every claim based on non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over related
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,881,664. On March 8, 2012, the Applicant responded, filing a
`
`notice of terminal disclaimer, amending the Abstract to include reference to a “hot
`
`spot,” amending various claims to include the term “hot spot” along with various
`
`other modifications, and adding new claims 36-38. The term “hot spot” never
`
`appears in the specification. The Applicant requested that the Examiner withdraw
`
`the obviousness-type rejections in view of the claim amendments. On March 22,
`
`2012, the Examiner passed the Application to issuance, including detailed “reasons
`
`for allowance.”
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted
`
`according to their broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in view of the
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`specification in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Thus the claim
`
`constructions implicitly presented in this Petition do not necessarily reflect the
`
`claim constructions that Petitioner believes should be adopted by a district court
`
`under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW CHALLENGED CLAIMS 1-2, 4-20
`ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), this section demonstrates that the
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable. Further, the accompanying Shoemake
`
`Declaration provides a detailed description of the scope and content of the prior art
`
`at the time of the application of the ‘279 patent. (See generally Shoemake Decl.)
`
`A. Claims 1-2, 4-20 are Obvious over van der Kaay in view of Dennis
`1. Overview
`van der Kaay discloses a “RF Communication Signal Distribution System
`
`and Method.” As described in van der Kaay, although wireless service is generally
`
`available in most areas, “coverage inside a structure is often inadequate.” van der
`
`Kaay at 1:34-35. van der Kaay’s invention is a solution to this problem, and is
`
`illustrated in Figure 1.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`In that figure, 104 designates a cell site or base station, and 103 indicates RF
`
`communication between the base station and the structure. (Id. at 6:7-9.) 102
`
`indicates a portable communication unit, such as a cellphone, that would not
`
`receive a strong signal because of its position within the shielding structure. (Id. at
`
`5:63-67.) Instead, the signals from the base station 104 are received at an external
`
`antenna 105, which then feeds those signals to various internal antennas, 110,
`
`which rebroadcast the received transmission to the portable communication units
`
`102. (Id. at 6:49-54.) Just as in the ‘279 patent, then, van der Kaay discloses a
`
`communication system using a first antenna (110), a second antenna (105), and
`
`signal processing units (106, 108). As further described in van der Kaay, the
`
`incoming signals are “applied to a programmable gain amplifier,” as shown below
`
`in Figure 3. (See also id. at 4:13-16.) Indeed, Figure 3 also shows controlling the
`
`signals and amplification using computers and filters, and mixing the incoming and
`
`outgoing signals to different frequencies.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`This description in van der Kaay discloses the claimed “monitor and control
`
`computer . . . to monitor, control, and affect amplification of an RF signal.” van
`
`der Kaay discloses monitoring and controlling the signal because the
`
`programmable amplifier can output a signal according to an “attenuation value” or
`
`a specific gain, and outputs the signal at a “controlled” value. van der Kaay at
`
`11:51-64. One of ordinary skill in the art would consider this an express disclosure
`
`of the claimed “control computer.”
`
`Therefore van der Kaay discloses the precise invention described and
`
`claimed in the ‘279 patent, and to the extent that there are any differences between
`
`van der Kaay and the ‘279 patent, those differences would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art. As two examples, any limitation regarding (1)
`
`controlling the amount of time that the personal communication units can be
`
`utilized or (2) utilizing a satellite network rather than a terrestrial network would
`
`have been obvious because they were both well-known in the art at the time of the
`
`‘279 patent. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine van der Kaay
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`with another reference, for example Dennis described below, that is in the same
`
`field and discloses any missing limitations. (See generally Shoemake Decl. ¶69-
`
`71.)
`
`Like van der Kaay, Dennis relates to rebroadcasting a wireless signal to
`
`allow communication within an otherwise shielded structure. Specifically, Dennis
`
`describes a system for allowing passengers to make phone calls from airplanes
`
`while they are in flight. As described in Dennis, a set of antennas on the outside of
`
`an airplane hull (“four 900-MHz air-to-ground transceivers”) receive and transmit
`
`signals to the ground, and those signals are rebroadcast within the cabin via “an
`
`antenna running the full length of the passenger cabin’s ceiling” to “cordless
`
`handset[s].” Incoming and outgoing signals are amplified to improve the “signal to
`
`noise ratio” so that passengers have a good quality signal for telephone
`
`conversations. Passengers pay to use the service by swiping their credit cards,
`
`which activates the wireless phone in the cabin and makes it available for use.
`
`Dennis also discloses that a satellite relay could be used rather than an airplane-to-
`
`ground system. Dennis therefore discloses a system nearly identical to that in van
`
`der Kaay and the ‘279 patent. The Dennis system uses an antenna on the interior
`
`of the airplane to transmit to wireless phones, an antenna on the outside of the
`
`airplane to transmit to the ground or a satellite system, and discloses amplifying,
`
`and controlling the system. It therefore would have been obvious to combine van
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`der Kaay with Dennis if any limitations from the ‘279 patent were found missing
`
`from van der Kaay. Dennis and van der Kaay are in the same field of art relating
`
`to wireless rebroadcasts and are directed to solving the same problem of limited
`
`wireless connectivity within a shielding structure.
`
`Claim Charts
`
`2.
`Recited below in the claim chart are the disclosures of van der Kaay and
`
`Dennis that could be combined to meet the claim elements of the ‘279 Patent.
`
`van der Kaay (Ex. 1004) in view of Dennis (Ex. 1006)
`Claim 1
`[1A] A hot spot system for
`In order to permit communication units 102
`permitting wireless communication
`within the building 101 to communicate
`for a wide variety of various
`with the local cell site 104, an in-building
`manufacturers different wireless
`RF communication signal distribution
`personal communication devices in
`system is provided.
`an rf restricted environment, the
`
`(van der Kaay at 6:2-5.)
`different wireless personal
`communication devices each having
`a radiative antenna, wherein the hot
`spot system is arranged to permit
`wireless, controlled communication
`between a wide variety of various
`manufacturers of different personal
`communication devices located
`within the rf restricted environment
`and other communication devices
`located outside of the rf restricted
`environment, the hot spot system
`comprising:
`[1B] at least one
`first antennae
`arranged as part of
`the system within
`the rf restricted
`environment, the
`
`[T]ransmitting the downconverted first RF communication
`signals to a second signal processing subsystem over a first
`twister-pair cable . . . transmitting the recovered first RF
`communication signals over an antenna”
`
`(van der Kaay at 2:22-31.)
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`at least one first
`antenna arranged
`to communicate
`wirelessly with the
`radiative antennae
`of any of a wide
`variety of different
`manufacturers
`wide variety of
`wireless personal
`communication
`devices being
`communicatively
`utilized within the
`rf restricted
`environment;
`
`[1C] at least one
`signal
`transmission line
`comprising part of
`the system, the at
`least one signal
`transmission line
`
`
`[M]eans for transmitting the recovered first RF
`communication signals over an antenna
`
`(van der Kaay at 3:36-37.)
`
`From the RF communication signal interface 106, the RF
`communication signals 103 received from the cell site 103,
`which may be termed first RF communication signals, are
`distributed to remote antenna units 108 that are installed
`throughout the building 101 in appropriate locations, such as
`suspended from ceilings or walls, for example, to provide
`adequate signal levels such that communication units 102
`within the building 101 can communicate with the local cell
`site 104. These remote antenna units 108 may be termed
`second signal processing subsystems.
`
`(van der Kaay at 6:27-40.)
`
`These recovered signals are then transmitted over an antenna
`110 that is part of the second signal processing subsystem
`108, so that the signals can be received by a communication
`unit 102 that is within the building 101.
`
`(van der Kaay at 6:49-54.)
`
`(van der Kaay at Figs. 1-4.)
`
`An antenna running the full length of the passenger’s cabin’s
`ceiling allows very low power in both handsets and station
`base transceivers.
`
`(Dennis at 60.)
`[A]t a first signal processing subsystem, receiving the first
`RF communication signals
`
`(van der Kaay at 2:18-19.)
`
`RF communication signals 103 from the cell site 104 are
`received through an outside antenna, such as a roof-top
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`arranged to
`communicate
`outside of the rf
`restricted
`environment with
`other
`communication
`devices located
`outside of the rf
`restricted
`environment;
`
`[1D] a
`monitoring, signal
`amplification
`effecting and
`control computer
`comprising part of
`the system, the
`monitoring, signal
`amplification
`effecting and
`control computer
`being arranged in
`a communications
`link between the at
`least one first
`antennae within
`the rf restricted
`environment and
`the at least one
`signal
`transmission line
`arranged to
`communicate
`outside of the rf
`restricted
`environment, the
`
`antenna 105, and the signals are routed to an RF
`communication signal interface 105 that may comprise a
`cellular transceiver and appropriate signal distributions
`networks.
`
`(van der Kaay at 6:6-10.)
`
`(van der Kaay at Figs. 1-4.)
`
`The rest of the equipment nestles in a tray and includes four
`900-MHz air-to-ground transceivers, a common power
`supply for all transceivers, and an airborne computer.
`
`(Dennis at 58.)
`In another aspect of the invention, the method further
`includes the steps of, at the second signal processing
`subsystem, transmitting autonomous information signals
`from the second signal processing subsystem to the first
`signal processing subsystem indicating the attenuation value
`for the twisted-pair cable, and at the first signal processing
`subsystem, amplifying the downconverted first RF
`communication signals prior to transmission over the twisted-
`pair cable.
`In one form of the invention, the step of amplifying includes
`providing a programmable amplifier having a programmable
`gain-versus-frequency characteristic acting to compensate for
`frequency dependent attenuation characteristics of the
`twisted-pair cable. The method may further include the step
`of programming the gain of the programmable amplifier in
`accordance with the attenuation value for the twisted-pair
`cable.
`
`(van der Kaay at 2:67-3:11.)
`
`In another form, the RF communication signal distribution
`apparatus further comprises, at the second signal processing
`subsystem, means for transmitting autonomous information
`signals from the second signal processing subsystem to the
`first signal processing subsystem indicating the attenuation
`value for the twisted-pair cable, and at the first signal
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`monitoring, signal
`amplification
`effecting and
`control computer
`arranged to
`monitor and
`control use of a
`wide variety of
`various
`manufacturers
`different wireless
`personal
`communication
`devices utilized
`within the rf
`restricted
`environment, and
`to permit multiple
`simultaneous
`controlled,
`monitored use of
`various
`manufacturers
`wide variety of
`different wireless
`personal
`communication
`devices utilized
`within the rf
`restricted
`environment and
`other
`communication
`devices located
`outside of the rf
`restricted
`environment.
`
`processing subsystem, means for amplifying the
`downconverted first RF communication signals prior to
`transmission over the twisted-pair cable. The means for
`amplifying comprises programmable amplifier means having
`a programmable gain-versus-frequency characteristic acting
`to compensate for frequency dependent attenuation
`characteristics of the twisted-pair cable. The apparatus
`further includes means for programming the gain of the
`programmable amplifier in accordance with the attenuation
`value for the twisted-pair cable.
`
`(van der Kaay at 4:10-19.)
`
`These downconverted first RF communication signals are
`then applied to a programmable gain amplifier 304, the
`operation of which will be described in greater detail below.
`
`(van der Kaay at 8:4-8.)
`
`Thus, the output of the converter 306 and power interface
`307 comprises the first downconverted RF communication
`signals at a controlled amplitude, a sample of the reference
`oscillator signal at a predetermined amplitude (for controlling
`frequency at the second signal processing subsystem and for
`determining attenuation), and the operating power supply for
`the second signal processing substation, and all are
`transmitted over the first twisted-pair cable.
`
`(van der Kaay at 8:51-58.)
`
`As will be noted from an examination of the signal
`processing subsystems of FIGS. 3 and 4, the first signal
`processing subsystem 107 has an amplifier 304 that is used to
`amplify the downconverted first RF communication signals
`prior to transmission. This amplifier 304 is under control of
`the microcomputer 312 so that the gain of the amplifier 304
`can be selected by the microcomputer to compensate for
`attenuation introduced by the first twisted-pair cable.
`Similarly, the second signal processing subsystem 108
`includes a programmable gain amplifier 414 that is used to
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`amplify the downconverted second RF communication
`signals prior to transmission over the second twisted-pair
`cable. The gain of this second programmable gain amplifier
`414 can be selected by microcomputer 419.
`Use of these programmable gain stages is made desirable by
`the attenuation-versus-frequency characteristics of typical
`twisted-pair cable. FIG. 5 illustrates the attenuation-versus-
`frequency curve of a typical twisted-pair cable; in this case
`UTP350 Category 5 LAN (local area network) cable,
`available from Belden Corporation as Belden Part Number
`SM1700A “Datatwist 350” cable.
`As will be noted from an examination of FIG. 5, the slope of
`the attenuation curve between 10 and 100 MHz is fairly
`steep, such that the end frequencies in a band of interest, such
`as the band from about 69 to 94 MHz occupied by the
`downconverted first RF communication signals, will be
`attenuated by different amounts. This slope of the
`attenuation-versus-frequency characteristic can be
`counteracted by designing the programmable amplifiers 304
`and 414 such that the gain-versus-frequency characteristics of
`these amplifiers exactly compensate for the slope of the
`attenuation-versus-frequency characteristic of the cable.
`
`(van der Kaay at 10:29-61.)
`
`Consequently, the second signal processing subsystem
`utilizes the fact that the reference oscillator sample is applied
`to the first twisted-pair cable, at the head end, at a
`predetermined, fixed amplitude, to measure the attenuation
`introduced by the cable. FIG. 4 illustrates that the reference
`oscillator sample 420 is also applied to the microcomputer
`419 for measurement of signal amplitude. In the preferred
`embodiment, this measurement is effected by an A-to-D
`(analog-to-digital) converter built in to the microcomputer
`unit. In the alternative, the A-to-D could be external to the
`microcomputer unit. It is also possible to use the DC voltage
`drop of the twisted-pair cable, by measuring the operating
`power at the second signal processing subsystem, to
`determine attenuation of the twisted-pair cable.
`Once this measurement is complete, the microcomputer 419
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`compares the measured value of the signal with the known,
`predetermined amplitude at which the reference oscillator
`signal was transmitted. Based upon this comparison, the
`microcomputer 419 determines the amount by which the
`cable has attenuated the reference signal, and programs the
`gain of the amplifier 414 to compensate for this twisted-pair
`cable attenuation.
`The microcomputer 419 also transmits this attenuation
`information autonomously back to the first signal processing
`subsystem over the second twisted-pair cable. As described
`previously, the microcomputer 419 is coupled to a signalling
`interface over an appropriate signal pathway 423. In the
`preferred embodiment of the invention, the signalling
`interface 416 is a Bell 103 compatible low-speed