trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-01664, Paper No. 23
`January 12, 2017
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`ERICSSON INC. and TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`Technology Center 2400
`Oral Hearing Held: Thursday, October 6, 2016
`
`Before: JAMESON LEE, JUSTIN BUSCH (via video link),
`and J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`October 6, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., Hearing Room B, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2015-01664, Paper No. 23
`January 12, 2017
`
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`- - - - - -
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - -
`ERICSSON INC. and TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`- - - - - -
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`Technology Center 2400
`Oral Hearing Held: Thursday, October 6, 2016
`
`Before: JAMESON LEE, JUSTIN BUSCH (via video link),
`and J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`October 6, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., Hearing Room B, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`REPORTED BY: RAYMOND G. BRYNTESON, RMR,
`
`CRR, RDR
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`J. ANDREW LOWES, ESQ.
`CLINT WILKINS, PH.D., ESQ.
`Haynes and Boone LLP
`2505 North Plano Road, Suite 4000
`Richardson, Texas 75082
`972-680-7557
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JENNIFER WELLS, ESQ.
`Ericsson Representative
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`SHARON A. HWANG, ESQ.
`RAJENDRA A. CHIPLUNKAR, ESQ.
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 West Madison Street, 34th Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`312-775-8000
`
`JAMES HIETALA, ESQ.
`Intellectual Ventures Representative
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(1:30 p.m.)
`JUDGE BUSCH: Good afternoon, everyone.
`Welcome. This afternoon we have oral argument for
`IPR2015- 01664, captioned Ericsson, Incorporated and
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson versus Intellectual Ventures
`II LLC.
`
`I'm Judge Busch, joining remotely from Detroit.
`In the room with you, you have Judge Jameson Lee and Judge
`John Lee.
`Let's start with the parties' appearances, please,
`and start with Petitioner.
`MR. LOWES: Thank you, Your Honor. This is
`Andrew Lowes. I'm lead counsel for Petitioner, Ericsson.
`And with me today at counsel table is Dr. Clint Wilkins,
`backup counsel, and also with us today is Jennifer Wells,
`in-house counsel for Ericsson.
`JUDGE BUSCH: Thank you. And for Patent
`
`Owner?
`
`MS. HWANG: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`Sharon Hwang for Patent Owner, Intellectual Ventures. With
`me today is Raj Chiplunkar. And we also have from
`Intellectual Ventures James Hietala. Thank you so much.
`JUDGE BUSCH: Thank you. Thank you again and
`welcome again. Our trial order set forth the procedures for
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`today's hearing. I'm sure you are both familiar with it but I
`would like to briefly remind everyone of a few things.
`First, keep in mind that I may not be able to see
`the screen that you may be projecting any sort of exhibits or
`demonstratives on, so when referring to exhibits or
`demonstratives, please mention the exhibit and page number
`or the demonstrative slide number. This also helps for clarity
`in the record.
`Also, if you step away from the microphones I will
`not be able to hear you, so please make sure that when you are
`presenting anything you are near the microphone.
`Each party will have 45 minutes total time to
`present arguments. Petitioner has the burden and goes first
`and may reserve time for rebuttal at the start of its argument
`if it wishes. Patent Owner then has the opportunity to present
`its response.
`I will try to give each of you a warning as you
`near the end of your time. So with respect to that, Mr. Lowes,
`do you want perceive reserving any time for rebuttal?
`MR. LOWES: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to
`reserve 10 minutes for rebuttal, please.
`JUDGE BUSCH: Okay. Thank you. Unless there
`are any questions from either Petitioner or Patent Owner,
`please speak up if you have any, otherwise Petitioner may
`begin when ready.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`MR. LOWES: First, I think, Judge Lee and Judge
`Lee, would you like paper copies of the demonstratives?
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: I would like to have
`
`them, yes.
`
`MR. LOWES: Okay. My colleague here will
`provide those.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Thank you.
`JUDGE JOHN LEE: Thank you.
`MR. LOWES: I think I'm ready.
`JUDGE BUSCH: You may begin.
`MR. LOWES: Thank you. Again, I'm Andrew
`Lowes, lead counsel for Petitioner, Ericsson, in
`IPR2015- 1664. In terms of, as we have already discussed, I
`would like to reserve 10 minutes for rebuttal.
`With my 35 minutes of presentation on the initial
`portion I would like to divide that as follows: First just
`provide a brief overview, particularly of claim 8 to the '431
`patent, along with a brief summary of the prior art references
`that are being applied to the claim, followed by a discussion
`of the evidence and arguments from the record, both that
`occurred prior to institution as well as those arguments and
`evidence that have come in since institution.
`As the evidence will show, the Board's initial
`conclusion set forth in the Institution Decision should remain
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`unchanged. And claims 8 through 12 and 18 through 22
`should be found unpatentable over the cited references.
`For the remainder of my presentation I will be
`referring to demonstrative exhibits in Ericsson, ERIC -1023,
`otherwise known just as Exhibit 1023. And when referencing
`slide numbers it will be from that exhibit. If you would,
`please, go to slide 5 of Exhibit 1023.
`This is a reproduction of claim 8 from the '431
`patent. You can see it has been annotated to show three
`different areas of the claim. The first in the upper portion is
`the core-band. These limitations relate generally to the
`concept of a core-band and how that's formed by the plurality
`of subgroups and other features.
`The middle portion of the claim relates to the
`features of a primary preamble that is transmitted. The
`preamble has a number of properties that you can see here.
`And then finally the third element is the variable
`bandwidth multi-subcarrier systems aspect of the claim.
`For our purposes today I believe we will primarily
`be talking about element 1, the core-band, and element 3, the
`variable bandwidth aspect.
`Our next slide, slide 6, please. With respect to the
`prior art, as explained in the petition, each of the references
`disclose a complementary aspect of a communication system.
`Detailed reasons have been articulated why each reference
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`would be combined, as set forth in the petition, and as
`supported by the expert declaration provided by Dr. Haas.
`Dulin is the primary reference. It discloses an OFDMA
`communication system that allows the amount of bandwidth
`utilized in any given time period to be varied. It talks in
`terms of utilizing frequency blocks within those bandwidths to
`change how much bandwidth is actually being utilized.
`The next reference is Hwang. Hwang discloses
`that you can actually have variable operating channel
`bandwidths, so the maximum available bandwidth that is
`available to the transmitter can be varied as well.
`Move to slide 7, please, of Exhibit 1023. The
`Yamaura reference relates to aspects of control for a
`communication system, particularly an OFDM communication
`system, and provides an improvement that you would have a
`narrow band of control signals in the first portion of the
`frame, which all of the receivers can decode, and determine if
`the calls are for them and helps set up call signals without
`decoding the entire width of the band.
`And as we will discuss later in the petition,
`Yamaura's operating bandwidth can be scaled according to the
`principles of Hwang by varying the number of subcarriers.
`Slide 8, please. Yamaura teaches that good
`correlation properties are important for the detection of
`control signals, but it doesn't go on to describe what kind of
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`properties would be desirable and what are those sequences,
`whereas Hwang actually does disclose that, primarily in the
`GCL, or Generalized Chirp-Like sequences, that have good
`auto-correlation, good cross- correlation, as well as a small
`peak-to- average power ratio, as set forth in the claim.
`All of these references will be discussed in more
`detail as we get into specific arguments and move through the
`slides.
`
`Could we please move to page 9? Page 9 of
`Exhibit 1023, again, claim 8 -- and, Judge Busch, I should
`ask, can you hear me okay?
`JUDGE BUSCH: I can hear you fine. I don't
`know if there was something that just got discussed, and that I
`did not hear.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: The Court Reporter
`suspected that papers are covering the microphone for the
`Court Reporter. He is right.
`MR. LOWES: Okay. Very good. Referring to
`slide 9 of Exhibit 1023. Claim 8 is reproduced on the
`left-hand side and portions of the claim are highlighted that
`are in dispute between the parties based on the briefing,
`particularly the Patent Owner's response.
`Specifically with respect to the core-band portion
`of the claim, the claim language of "circuitry configured to
`transmit a broadcast channel in an Orthogonal Frequency
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`Division Multiple Access, OFDMA, core-band," the claim
`construction for the "transmitting a broadcast channel in an
`OFDMA core-band," that's in dispute between the parties as
`well as the application of that claim language.
`Likewise, with respect to the last portion of the
`claim, the "circuitry configured to transmit control and data
`channels using a variable band including a second plurality of
`subcarrier groups, wherein the variable band includes at least
`the core-band," specifically the construction of variable band
`has been -- a new construction for variable band has been
`asserted by the Patent Owner, and that construction is in
`dispute as well as the application to the prior art.
`And, finally, the Patent Owner has argued against
`the reasons to combine articulated in the petition and we will
`address those as well. I would like to go to slide 13 of
`Exhibit 1023. Here we are moving to the first bullet A.
`Slide 14, please. Slide 14 of Exhibit 1023, this
`relates to the construction of circuitry to transmit a broadcast
`channel in an OFDMA core-band, or in claim 18 it is
`transmitting by a base station a broadcast channel.
`Here it is Petitioner's position that no construction
`is necessary. It is simple terminology. The claim terms
`simply requires transmitting a broadcast channel in an OFDM
`core-band.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Can I ask you about
`
`this?
`
`MR. LOWES: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Is it true that a channel
`essentially can span a range of frequencies? Is it fair to say
`that?
`
`MR. LOWES: A range of frequencies, so multiple
`subcarriers?
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Well, it isn't limited to
`just one particular frequency, period, right; a channel includes
`a range of frequencies over which communication can take
`place?
`
`MR. LOWES: Yes, a frequency -- the subcarriers,
`you can have one subcarrier. You can have multiple
`subcarriers. So it can span multiple frequencies, but then a
`channel in this context is also defined in time. So it is a
`frequency amount as well as limited by time.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Yeah, as far as
`frequency goes it can span more than one frequency?
`MR. LOWES: It can?
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: It can.
`MR. LOWES: Yes.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: So what does it mean to
`say transmit a channel? Does that mean all of the frequencies
`over which they may transmit has to be within something,
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`within the claim limit clause of transmit a broadcast channel
`in something? Does that mean all of the frequencies within
`which that channel may transmit has to be located within
`something?
`MR. LOWES: No, Your Honor, it does not. The
`patent discloses, particularly figure 3, utilization of a channel
`and selecting different subcarriers, so different aspects of the
`frequency, for transmission within a channel. So you only
`have to transmit a part of any given frequency or channel.
`Okay. So it is Patent Owner's -- Patent Owner has
`argued now in the Patent Owner Response that the claim term
`should mean transmitting a broadcast channel by multiplexing
`the broadcast channel information using OFDMA onto
`subcarriers within the limits of a core-band.
`And these additional limitations concerning how it
`is transmitted do not appear in the claim. And then there is
`no argument about it in the briefing. And it appears that
`really the question is within the limits of a core-band and does
`the claim require that.
`If we could go back to slide 13 of Exhibit 1023.
`Here within the claim the drafter originally said, with respect
`to the primary preamble, which is about eight or nine lines
`down, it says that the primary preamble, being a direct
`sequence in the time domain with a frequency component
`confined within the core-band, or being an OFDM symbol
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`corresponding to a particular frequency pattern within the
`core-band.
`So the drafter of the patent knew how to express
`requiring that it be confined within a particular band. Here
`they did it for the primary preamble. That was not done with
`respect to the transmitter broadcast channel. So reading those
`limitations into transmitting a broadcast channel is
`inappropriate.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: I have a question. I'm
`used to seeing the word transmit coupled with messages,
`transmit a message, but here we have transmitting a channel.
`Can you explain what that means? A channel is
`not something you transmit or, if it is, can you explain why?
`MR. LOWES: It is in this case that it is -- it is a
`segment of frequency and also a segment in time. And within
`that is the information. And it is defined by what the
`information is in that. For Yamaura the BCH, the Broadcast
`Channel, is sending cell identification information.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Right. So I'm used to
`seeing transmitting information, transmitting data,
`transmitting messages.
`So does the prior art use similar language, like
`transmit a channel, or is that something peculiar with this
`particular 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
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`MR. LOWES: I think it uses it in terms of the
`definition for broadcast, BCH, used in Yamaura, as Dr. Haas
`explained, that's broadcast channel. That's shorthand for
`broadcast channel. So there it is defining --
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: I'm talking about the
`usage, though. Does the art typically say transmit a channel
`instead of transmit data within a frequency in the channel?
`MR. LOWES: I think the best indication is
`looking at the '431, and it talks kind of in both terms. It talks
`about what is being transmitted within channels. And it talks
`about the preamble, cell identification, band request, and so it
`is talking about -- and then it says those are essential control
`channels.
`
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: So I guess the question
`is does any of the prior art use similar language, like transmit
`a channel, instead of saying transmitting a message by use of
`the channel?
`MR. LOWES: I believe Yamaura talks about
`transmitting BCH. My colleague, Mr. Wilkins, well, we will
`find a citation for you.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: So that's typical in the
`art to say transmit a channel?
`MR. LOWES: It certainly is in the context of the
`art we have before us.
`
`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 IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: And that simply means
`transmit data with it by use of that channel?
`MR. LOWES: Yes, and in this context it identifies
`the type of data. It is control information. It is not really
`data. It is not user data. It is control information. In
`Yamaura's context it is base station identification.
`JUDGE BUSCH: Can you tell me where, in the
`'431 patent, where it describes what this broadcast channel is?
`MR. LOWES: It doesn't exactly describe the
`broadcast channel per say. It gives an example of control
`channels, if we go to, I believe it is column 5.
`So at column 5, line 8, of the '431 patent, it says:
`"In one embodiment relevant or essential radio control signals
`such as preambles, ranging signals, bandwidth request and/or
`bandwidth allocation are transmitted within the core-band. In
`addition to the essential control channels, a set of data
`channels and their related dedicated control channels are
`placed within the core-band to maintain radio operation."
`So from this statement I understand them to be
`saying that the preambles, ranging signals, bandwidth
`requests, are examples of essential control channels.
`JUDGE BUSCH: And is it your understanding that
`those are the same as what is recited as broadcast channels?
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`MR. LOWES: I think those are examples of
`broadcast channels. Each one of those would be a channel, a
`channel of information, that is broadcast.
`JUDGE BUSCH: But are you saying that it is not
`your position that -- let me start over.
`Does the broadcast channel in the '431 patent only
`broadcast in what is considered the core-band? Is it only in
`the frequency band of w hat is the core-band?
`MR. LOWES: In terms of -- I don't believe the
`term broadcast channel is used in the '431 patent.
`JUDGE BUSCH: I couldn't find it. That's why I
`was trying to understand it a little better.
`MR. LOWES: Right. I don't believe it is. I
`believe these are all examples of broadcast channels provided
`in the '431 patent. The preambles, the ranging signals, the
`bandwidth request, I think another discussion about broadcast
`is actually in column 3 of the '431 patent.
`And, again, all of this is about operation of a base
`station and it is setting up the downlink preamble. So in
`column 3, line 52, it says: "The downlink transmission in
`each frame begins with a downlink preamble, which can be the
`first or more of the OFDM symbols in the first downlink. The
`downlink preamble is used at a base station to broadcast radio
`network information such as synchronization and cell
`identification." So these are examples of broadcast.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`JUDGE JOHN LEE: So mapped to the claim
`language, that would be a downlink preamble which is
`transmitted over the broadcast channel within the core -band;
`that's how you would map it to the claim language?
`MR. LOWES: Correct, correct, and particularly
`mapping the cell identification. Mapping that to the claim
`and then the same in the prior art, the broadcast channel of
`Yamaura is cell identification, and so there is a one-to-one
`mapping between what is disclosed in the '431 and what's
`disclosed in Yamaura.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Can you turn to figure
`17 of Yamaura? I think it was on your slide 7.
`MR. LOWES: Yes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: The BCH and FCH is
`what you regard as the broadcast channel?
`MR. LOWES: Those are examples of broadcast
`
`channels.
`
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: How many subcarriers
`are within each of BCH and FCH?
`MR. LOWES: In this example as described in the
`specification it is just SC1 and SC2, so two subcarriers.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: That's it? There is
`nothing else? There is nothing else greater than or above SC2
`and nothing else beneath SC1?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`MR. LOWES: Not in this example. It is described
`later in Yamaura that you can have more. So for this narrow
`band, which is what it is disclosing, it provides the example
`of two subcarriers, but it says it could be one, two, three or
`more subcarriers could make up that narrow band, because the
`full range of 20 megahertz is accomplished by many
`subcarriers.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: That's why I'm a little
`confused. It sounds like the BCH and FCH is not a fixed
`thing. It could be as large or as small as you want it to be.
`MR. LOWES: I would disagree with that, Your
`Honor. Based on Yamaura, the whole point is that within
`those time slots, so those are the time slots where the
`transmission of BCH and FCH occur, and within those time
`slots only the subcarriers that the system has designated for
`the narrow bands will be utilized. And in this example that's
`just going to be subcarrier 1 and subcarrier 2.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: I see. For each example
`only the particular ones shown are the actual frequencies that
`are active for sending the control signals?
`MR. LOWES: That's correct, within that time
`period. So within the frame, BCH has a designated time
`period. And within that time period there is only a certain
`number of subcarriers which are active to send information.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: So tell me how do you
`find the broadcast channel to be within the core-band by
`looking at that figure?
`MR. LOWES: So the core-band is the small -- it is
`smaller than any operating channel bandwidth. And so in this
`instance we have -- Hwang describes operating channel
`bandwidths, but here Yamaura says it is a narrow set of
`control signals, and it defines what those are. And in this
`embodiment it is defining those narrow bands as just being
`SC1 and SC2, so only the two subcarriers, and that's the only
`thing that is going to be transmitted in the broadcast
`preamble, BCH and FCH.
`And, in fact, to achieve the benefits of Yamaura,
`which is that the receivers don't have to process as much
`information, their filters are going to be set so that all they
`receive is SC1 and SC2. And so that's how it is limiting what
`is in the core-band. And so since those are the only active
`carriers sending information, that's how the BCH is within
`that core-band.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Based on your
`explanation in every example the channel is going to be
`within the core-band?
`MR. LOWES: I would disagree with that as well.
`There is another channel here called ACH, which is another
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`control channel. In Yamaura ACH is a full bandwidth
`channel, so it utilizes the full 20 megahertz bandwidth.
`So it is the specialized channels at the beginning
`of the frame, broadcast preamble -- in the time slot of a
`broadcast preamble, BCH and FCH.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Alright. Thank you.
`JUDGE BUSCH: So am I summarizing this
`correctly that your view of what Yamaura discloses is that
`these channels, the BCH and FCH are each separately a
`broadcast channel and they are transmitting in a core-band
`because they are only using in that channel, that time slot,
`they are only using those two or whatever other examples
`disclosed by Yamaura are disclosed as using?
`MR. LOWES: Yes, Your Honor, that's correct. In
`fact, maybe --
`JUDGE BUSCH: Could I go back to your -- sorry.
`Go ahead.
`MR. LOWES: I was going to say maybe we could
`move on a little more to the application of the claim language
`to the prior art, but did you have a question, Judge Busch?
`JUDGE BUSCH: Before you do that let's go back
`to column 5 of the '431. That's the portion you were pointing
`out about the broadcast channels, as far as your assumption of
`the best reference to what it is referring to.
`MR. LOWES: Yes.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`JUDGE BUSCH: Is it your understanding that
`they are using the phrases control signals and control channels
`interchangeably here? The first sentence reads that you have
`relevant or essential radio control signals such as preambles,
`ranging signals, bandwidth request, and/or bandwidth
`allocation are transmitted within the core-band. That fits with
`Judge Lee's understanding of data being transmitted.
`The next sentence says "in addition to the essential
`control channels." Are we to assume that these essential
`control channels are the same as the control signals that were
`just previously referenced?
`MR. LOWES: I think that there is some use in the
`patent of terms to mean the same thing. And so I think that is
`right. It is referring to the information that is being
`transmitted but they are defining that time period in a
`channel.
`
`So it is similar to Yamaura where you have a time
`period that is for the BCH. The BCH is what is being
`transmitted, the base station information.
`So I believe that's what the patent is referring to.
`JUDGE JOHN LEE: So if I understood what you
`just said correctly, what you are saying is that the essential
`radio control signals are transmitted within the essential
`control channels and that's really all that is transmitted on
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`those essential control channels, so in effect they are the same
`thing?
`
`MR. LOWES: Right. That's my understanding of
`what the patent is disclosing.
`If we could go to slide 19 of Exhibit 1023. Here is
`the combination of references shown graphically by Dr. Haas
`where we have the control channels, the broadcast channel in
`the front portion of the frame. So you have got broadcast
`preamble followed by BCH, followed by FCH, and then
`Dulin's teaching of dividing or using or varying the
`frequency, the bandwidth utilized by different frequency
`blocks, and then the teaching of Hwang at the far right which
`shows that the overall operating bandwidth of the system can
`actually be varied as desired.
`And it is demonstrated there so that you can see
`that the core-band, which is designated on the far left, is
`smaller than the smallest operating channel bandwidth as
`shown through Hwang.
`Next slide, please. So what is Patent Owner's
`position with respect to this? Their position is that, as seen in
`figure 17, BCH and FCH span the entire width of Yamaura's
`20 megahertz channel, as does the ACH, which is not even
`shown to include a narrow band. And they cite for that
`proposition to the testimony of Dr. Haas, citing the language
`of BCH is a bandwidth of the channel.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`Well, that is just incorrect. That is not what Dr.
`Haas is referring to. We have highlighted his testimony here.
`He is actually referring to figure 2 of the '431 patent, not to
`Yamaura and its BCH.
`He is saying if you look, just to make it more --
`there is not a good picture here, but if we look, for example,
`on figure 2 you have the BCH, which is a bandwidth of the
`channel.
`
`Next slide, please, slide 21 of Exhibit 1023. Here
`is figure 2 of the '431 patent. Yes, it says BCH but it is B
`subscript CH, and it stands for the bandwidth of the channel.
`That is not the same as the BCH being discussed in Yamaura.
`Dr. Haas' testimony does not support their position and it is
`completely irrelevant as to what is the showing of Yamaura.
`Next slide, please. In addition, Patent Owner
`provides this illustration from their expert Dr. Zeger, where
`he is outlining what the broadcast burst time period is. It
`includes those first four time segments.
`And he is indicating that in his view, since it is
`described in Yamaura, that part of the control signals are sent
`in the narrow band, the SC1, SC2, going to the core-band, but
`the remaining signals are supposed to be sent outside that
`narrow band, and it is his view that it has got to be above and
`below SC1 and SC2 in those time slots.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`Well, during the deposition we asked him, is that
`shown in Yamaura? We have got the text here: Does
`Yamaura explicitly say or teach anywhere that control signals
`are transmitted outside of SC1 and SC2 during the broadcast
`preamble, BCH and FCH time periods?
`And Dr. Zeger recognized, no, Yamaura does not
`explicitly say that, but implicitly teaches it, as he explained.
`So there is no express disclosure for what he is
`describing here and it is merely his implicit attempt at
`explaining the patent. Next slide, please.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Why is the area between
`SC1 and SC2 called the core-band?
`MR. LOWES: Why is it called the core-band?
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Yes. Why do you call it
`the core-band? I know the reference doesn't call that the
`core-band.
`MR. LOWES: No, they call it the narrow band.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Right.
`MR. LOWES: Right. The patent refers to it as the
`core-band. Here it is the narrow band.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Is this simply by
`definition?
`MR. LOWES: No, it is an attempt to put it in
`terms of the patent, 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
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Are you saying that
`because the core-band is the smallest segment that you need to
`send control signals, and because SC1 and SC2 are the
`boundaries within which you send the control signals and,
`therefore, the area spanned by the two is the core-band?
`MR. LOWES: Yes, that would be correct.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: Isn't that a little
`
`circular?
`
`MR. LOWES: No, Your Honor. Yamaura is all
`about having a very small bandwidth to send control signals.
`Here it is SC1, SC2, and they call it the narrow band. And to
`put it in terms of the patent, the patent requires not just that
`there be a narrow band but that it be smaller than the
`available operating channel bandwidths. And we
`demonstrated --
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: That I understand. But
`the limitation in the claim is sending the broadcast channel
`within the core-band.
`MR. LOWES: Correct.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: You seem to define the
`broadcast channels also by SC1 and SC2.
`MR. LOWES: Correct.
`JUDGE JAMESON LEE: If you do it that way it
`sounds circular.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`
`MR. LOWES: A broadcast channel is defined by
`two elements. One is time. So where in time are you within
`the frame. And then the other is how much spectrum are you
`using, how much bandwidth. And so the core-band defines
`how much spectrum is being used, and then in this case BCH
`defines the time period.
`JUDGE JOHN LEE: Maybe to try to approach this
`a slightly different way and help us understand better, one of
`the things that I understand Patent Owner to be pointing to
`when they look at figure 17 and your interpretation of figure
`17, is that in the figure the -- I will call it a column, but the
`BCH column, right, that time slot is depicted as spanning the
`entirety of the bandwidth, the entirety of the 20 megahertz
`band
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
