throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: Feb. 11, 2016
`
`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.
`
`Cases IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JUSTIN BUSCH, and J. JOHN LEE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Petitioner”)
`filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review (Paper 2, “Pet.”) of claims
`8–12 and 18–22 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,787,431 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’431 patent”). Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim. Resp.”) on November 18,
`2015. Paper 6.
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a);
`see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition, we conclude the
`information presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of the challenged claims.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties indicate the ’431 patent is at issue in ten district court
`proceedings involving numerous parties. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2–3. The ’431
`patent also was the subject of another inter partes review: IPR2014-01195
`(the “1195 IPR”). Pet 1; Paper 5, 3. The petition in the 1195 IPR
`challenged claims 1, 2, 8–12 and 18–22. 1195 IPR, Paper 2, 1. The Board
`instituted review of claims 1 and 2, but did not institute review of claims 8–
`12 and 18–22 in the 1195 IPR. 1195 IPR, Paper 11, 18.
`
`B. The ’431 Patent
`The ’431 patent relates to multi-carrier communication systems and
`methods with variable channel bandwidth. Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`The challenged claims recite methods performed by base stations for
`generating information bearing signals, wherein the information bearing
`signals include a primary preamble having certain properties. Id. at 11:54–
`12:27, 13:4–47.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims in the ’431 patent, claims 8 and 18 are
`independent. Claim 8 is illustrative and reproduced below:
`A cellular base station comprising:
`8.
`circuitry configured to transmit a broadcast channel in an
`orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) core-
`band, wherein the core-band is substantially centered at an
`operating center frequency and the core-band includes a first
`plurality of subcarrier groups, wherein each subcarrier group
`includes a plurality of subcarriers, wherein the core-band is
`utilized to communicate a primary preamble sufficient to enable
`radio operations, the primary preamble being a direct sequence
`in the time domain with a frequency content confined within
`the core-band or being an OFDM symbol corresponding to a
`particular frequency pattern within the core-band,
`wherein properties of the primary preamble comprise:
`an autocorrelation having a large correlation peak1 with respect
`to sidelobes;
`a cross-correlation with other primary preambles having a small
`cross-correlation coefficient with respect to power of other
`primary preambles; and
`a small peak-to-average ratio; and
`wherein a large number of primary preamble sequences exhibit
`the properties; and
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 A certificate of correction was issued on August 31, 2010 to replace the
`word “creak” with the word “peak.” Ex. 1001, 20.
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`D. The Asserted Grounds and Evidence Relied Upon By Petitioner
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references as its basis for
`challenging claims 8–12 and 18–22 of the ’431 patent.2
`Reference
`Patents/Printed Publications
`Exhibit
`Dulin
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2002/0055356
`1002
`A1 (May 9, 2002)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,782,750 B2
`(August 24, 2010)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,426,175 B2
`(September 16, 2008)
`I. Hwang et al., A New Frame
`Structure for Scalable OFDMA
`Systems, (March 11, 2004)
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`Yamaura
`
`Zhuang
`
`Hwang
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 8–12 and 18–22 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of the combined teachings of
`Dulin, Yamaura, Hwang, and Zhuang.
`
`1. Dulin (Ex. 1002)
`Dulin describes systems and methods for scheduling and
`synchronizing data transmission between base stations and subscriber units
`(or terminal stations). Ex. 1002, Abstract. One aspect of Dulin describes
`generating a frame map that is sent to subscriber units to inform the
`subscriber units which subscriber units are authorized to send or receive a
`transmission in each frequency block and time slot. Id. ¶ 65.
`
`2. Yamaura (Ex. 1003)
`Yamaura describes a method, and apparatuses for implementing the
`method, of radio communication “for exchanging information between a
`
`
`2 Petitioner also proffers the Declaration of Zygmunt J. Haas, Ph.D. See Ex.
`1012.
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`base station and a terminal station.” Ex. 1003, Abstract. The described
`method communicates multi-carrier signals using OFDM modulation,
`“including plural subcarriers within a bandwidth, communicating control
`signals in addition to the information between the base station and the
`terminal station, and wherein part of the control signals . . . is transmitted by
`one or more specific subcarriers in the bandwidth for the multi-carrier
`signals.” Id.
`
`3. Zhuang (Ex. 1004)
`Zhuang describes optimizing the auto correlation properties of each
`pilot signal, and the cross correlation properties between pilot signals,
`through the use of certain chirp sequences. Ex. 1004, 2:7–29.
`
`4. Hwang (Ex. 1005)
`Hwang describes a new frame structure and carrier allocation methods
`that an OFDM-modulated system can implement to improve system
`performance under scalable bandwidth. Ex. 1005, 1. Hwang describes
`system parameters for implementing an OFDMA system that scales its
`operating channel bandwidth from 2.5 MHz to 20 MHz. Id. at 2–3. Hwang
`further describes grouping subcarriers into bins as a basic allocation unit of
`subcarriers to a channel. Id. at 3–4, 8.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`The Decision to Institute is a discretionary decision. See 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a) (stating when the Director may not institute review, rather than
`when mandating when review must be instituted). Moreover, determinations
`under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), in particular, are discretionary. 35 U.S.C. §
`325(d) (“In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account
`whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially
`the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.”)
`(emphasis added).
`Patent Owner urges us to exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to
`deny the Petition, because instituting a review effectively provides Petitioner
`with an improper “second bite at the apple” to attempt to correct the
`deficiencies in the 1195 IPR, but which presents substantially the same prior
`art and arguments rejected in the Institution Decision in the 1195 IPR.
`Prelim. Resp. 6–21. Patent Owner contends Petitioner relies on the new
`references (Dulin and Hwang) for the same reasons Petitioner relied upon
`U.S. 6,904,283 to Xiaodong Li et al. (“Li”) in the 1195 IPR. Id. at 9–10.
`Thus, Patent Owner argues Petitioner’s replacement of Li with Dulin and
`Hwang results in Petitioner offering substantially the same argument as
`raised in the 1195 IPR. Id. at 10. Patent Owner also asserts Petitioner failed
`to establish that Dulin and Hwang were unavailable at the time of filing of
`the 1195 IPR. Id. at 11. Patent Owner contends Petitioner is using these
`inter partes review proceedings “to file resource-draining serial petitions
`against the same patent based on a rolling list of alleged prior art.” Id. at 14.
`Although the arguments in the Petition are similar to those asserted in
`the 1195 IPR (as would be expected when challenging the same claims), the
`present challenges rely upon references not relied upon in the 1195 IPR. We
`are mindful of the significant concerns regarding harassment of patent
`owners. The instant case, however, involves only a single ground, and
`Patent Owner has not demonstrated persuasively that the Petition constitutes
`harassment or is part of a pattern of filing serial petitions against the ’431
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`patent. In sum, considering the totality of the circumstances, we decline to
`exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny the Petition.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`We construe only those claim terms in controversy, and we do so only
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For purposes of
`this decision, no explicit construction is necessary.
`
`C. The Asserted Grounds
`1. Petitioner’s Contentions
`Petitioner challenges claims 8–12 and 18–22 as obvious over Dulin,
`Yamaura, Hwang, and Zhuang. Pet. 25–60. Petitioner describes a proposed
`system and method that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`constructed from the teachings of the combined asserted references, and
`points to specific teachings within the references where each aspect of the
`challenged claims is allegedly taught. Id. Petitioner further provides
`reasons an ordinarily-skilled artisan would have combined the various
`teachings from the respective references. Id. at 32–36, 39, 42, 45–47, 52–
`53. Petitioner also presents a figure demonstrating how the various
`teachings from three of the asserted references would have been combined.
`Id. at 31 (depicting features from Figure Fig. 13A of Dulin and Figure 17 of
`Yamaura, and incorporating teachings from Table 1 of Hwang regarding
`scalable bandwidth).
`Petitioner relies on aspects of Dulin, Yamaura, and Hwang for
`teaching all of the limitations of independent claims 8 and 18, except for the
`limitations relating to the properties of the primary preamble, for which
`Petitioner relies on Zhuang’s teachings. Id. at 25–53, 57–59. Petitioner
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`states that Dulin and Yamaura are directed to radio communication based on
`OFDM modulation, and that Hwang provides additional flexibility to such
`systems by providing a scalable operating channel bandwidth. Pet. 27–28.
`With respect to dependent claims 9–11, Petitioner contends Yamaura
`teaches circuitry configured to transmit: radio network information in the
`broadcast channel (pointing to the base station information transmitted in
`Yamaura’s BCH), as recited in claim 9; synchronization information in the
`core-band (pointing to Yamaura’s disclosure of capturing framing timing),
`as recited in claim 10; and in a time slot format (pointing to Yamaura’s
`disclosure of transmitting in MAC frames and transmission of BCH, FCH,
`ACH, etc., in time slots), as recited in claim 11. Pet. 54–56. Petitioner
`argues Dulin explicitly discloses transmitting a frame map consistent with
`either FDD transmission (Fig. 13B) or TDD transmission (Fig. 13C). Pet.
`56 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 130, 131).
`Claims 18–22 recite method steps similar in scope to the functions
`performed by the circuity recited in claims 8–12, respectively. Accordingly,
`Petitioner asserts the same arguments regarding the obviousness of claims
`18–22 as it asserts with respect to the functions performed by the circuitry in
`claims 8–12, respectively. Pet. 57–60.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence,
`including the testimony of Dr. Haas, and, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s
`arguments to the contrary, we determine Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail in demonstrating that the challenge claims
`would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of Dulin,
`Yamaura, Hwang, and Zhuang. We also determine Petitioner demonstrates
`sufficiently that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`combined the teachings of Dulin, Yamaura, Hwang, and Zhuang in the
`manner proposed by Petitioner.
`With respect to limitations of the challenged claims not contested in
`the Patent Owner Preliminary Response, and based on the current record, we
`are persuaded the aspects of the asserted references teach the limitations of
`the challenged claims for which each aspect is respectively relied upon. For
`example, Petitioner points to Dulin and Yamaura for teaching circuitry
`configured to transmit signals using OFDM modulation, and explains that
`Dulin specifically transmits OFDMA signals. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶
`159; Ex. 1012 ¶ 48), 27–29 (citing Ex. 1003, 21:27–32, Fig. 2; Ex. 1012,
`66–68). Petitioner argues Yamaura teaches transmitting control signals in a
`subset of the carriers that make up the entire bandwidth of the system. Id. at
`27–28 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:64–2:9, Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 65–68). Petitioner points to
`disclosures in both Dulin and Hwang to demonstrate that it was known to
`vary the operating channel bandwidth of a system by varying the number of
`subcarriers used to transmit data to or from terminal stations. Id. at 29–30
`(citing Ex. 1005, Table 1; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 85-86), 32 (citing Ex. 1012, 76).
`Petitioner contends Zhuang teaches preamble sequences with properties
`recited in the challenged claims. Id. at 44–49 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:12–14,
`1:44–45, 1:51–62, 2:7–10, 2:22–29, 3:66–4:8, 5:9–15, 5:57–6:9, 6:11–14,
`9:8–9; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 75, 79–80, pp. 98–99). We have reviewed Petitioner’s
`assertions, and we find them persuasive.
`We discuss the specific limitations of claims 8 and 18 that Patent
`Owner contends are not taught by the asserted references in more detail
`below. We also are persuaded Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning
`with rational underpinnings, supported by Dr. Haas’s testimony, why one of
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have combined Dulin, Yamaura, Hwang, and
`Zhuang, at the time of invention of the ’431 patent, and provide further
`discussion below.
`
`2. “transmitting a broadcast channel in [a] core-band”
`As mentioned above, and discussed in more detail below, we are
`persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently at this stage of the case
`that the asserted prior art combination teaches “transmitting a broadcast
`channel in [a] core-band,” as recited in the challenged claims. In its
`Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argues Petitioner has not established
`that the asserted combination of references teaches “transmit[ting] a
`broadcast channel in [a] core-band” or “a second plurality of subcarrier
`groups,” as recited in claims 8 and 18. Prelim. Resp. 27–37. Patent Owner
`argues that Petitioner’s proposed combination of references teaches, at most,
`transmitting a core-band in a broadcast channel, rather than a broadcast
`channel in a core-band. Id. at 28–30. Specifically, Patent Owner alleges
`that Yamaura’s BCH, which Petitioner maps to the broadcast channel, uses
`more subcarriers than the subcarriers alleged by Petitioner to make up
`Yamaura’s core-band. Id. at 29.
`We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. First, we disagree with
`Patent Owner’s assertion that “[i]t is incontrovertible from Ericsson’s own
`illustration above that the number of subcarriers used by the BCH, the
`alleged broadcast channel, is greater than the two subcarriers (SC1 and SC2)
`of the alleged core-band.” Prelim. Resp. 29. As Petitioner argues, Yamaura
`transmits control signals, including base station information and traffic
`channel allocation information, in a “broadcast burst” (including Yamaura’s
`BCH and FCH) using only a subset of the subcarriers near the center of the
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`bandwidth that makes up the channel. Pet. 27–29, 36–37; Ex. 1003, 1:65–
`67, 2:5–9, 6:5–8, 20:65–67, 21:30–32, 24:6–14; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 65–68.
`Accordingly, contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, the evidence presented
`indicates that Yamaura’s broadcast burst occupies only a portion of the
`entire bandwidth of the channel—specifically the one or more centered
`subcarriers used to transmit Yamaura’s control signals. See id. Second, on
`this record, we determine the plain meaning of transmitting a broadcast
`channel in a core-band merely requires transmitting some part of the
`broadcast channel in a core-band and does not exclude transmitting another
`part of the broadcast channel outside the core-band.
`
`3. “a second plurality of subcarrier groups”
`As mentioned above, and discussed in more detail below, we are
`persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that the asserted prior art
`combination teaches “a second plurality of subcarrier groups,” as recited in
`the challenged claims. Patent Owner argues that Yamaura and Dulin each
`show only a first plurality of subcarrier groups, and that Petitioner does not
`provide an explanation of why an ordinarily-skilled artisan would modify
`the proposed combination to include a second plurality of subcarrier groups.
`Prelim. Resp. 30–37.
`Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s assertions, we find the evidence
`supports Petitioner’s argument that the proposed combination teaches both a
`first and a second plurality of subcarrier groups. Neither party argues
`“subcarrier groups” should be given a special meaning.” Accordingly, for
`the reasons discussed below, we are persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated
`that the combination of Dulin, Yamaura, and Hwang teaches transmitting
`both a first plurality and a second plurality of subcarrier groups.
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`With respect to the first plurality, Petitioner argues Yamaura in view
`of Hwang teaches transmitting control signals in two bins of subcarriers,
`where each bin may include two or nine subcarriers. Pet. 38–39. Petitioner
`argues an ordinarily-skilled artisan would have understood that
`incorporating Hwang’s teaching allowing flexibility in scaling the
`bandwidth would have led a skilled artisan to consider using Hwang’s bins
`for allocating Yamaura’s control subcarriers. Id.
`Notably, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s argument that the
`combination of Yamaura and Hwang teaches the first plurality of subcarrier
`groups. In reviewing the evidence currently in the record, we agree for
`purposes of this Decision that Yamaura discloses using “one or more
`specific subcarriers near the central frequency in one transmission band is
`used for transmission of specific control signals,” and, thus, one of ordinary
`skill would have known to use any number of subcarriers fewer than the
`number of subcarriers making up the entire channel bandwidth to transmit
`control signals. Ex. 1003, 24:11–14. On this record, we also find Hwang
`discloses grouping subcarriers into bins and varying the number of bins to
`scale the bandwidth of the system. Ex. 1005, 4, 8. The evidence supports
`Petitioner’s arguments that the combination of Yamaura and Hwang teaches
`using any number of subcarriers fewer than the number making up the
`available bandwidth, including, for example, four or eighteen subcarriers, to
`transmit control signals. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated
`sufficiently that the asserted teachings would have rendered the recited “first
`plurality of subcarrier groups” obvious.
`Moving to the second plurality of subcarrier groups, it is important to
`view Petitioner’s challenges in light of Petitioner’s proposed combination.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`In that combination, Petitioner relies on Yamaura for teaching control
`signals in a narrow band and Dulin for transmitting data in frequency blocks.
`Reproduced below is a figure from the Petition combining teachings from
`Dulin, Yamaura, and Hwang:
`
`
`
`Pet. 31. The figure depicts Petitioner’s proposed combination of the
`teachings of Dulin, Yamaura, and Hwang. Specifically, Petitioner proposes
`a system that transmits control signals, including Dulin’s frame map, using a
`narrow band as taught by Yamaura (and modified by Hwang’s teaching of
`using bins to allocate subcarriers); transmits data in frequency blocks and
`time slots as taught by Dulin; and varies the operating channel bandwidth as
`taught by Hwang. Based on the proposed combination, Petitioner argues the
`two “outside” frequency blocks (e.g., frequency blocks B4 and B6, or B7
`and B9, in Dulin’s Figure 13A) meet the recited second plurality of
`subcarrier groups. Id. at 50–52.
`
`Based on the current record, we agree with Petitioner because Dulin
`describes dividing the operating channel bandwidth into some number of
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`frequency blocks, each of which includes a fraction of the total number of
`useable subcarriers in the operating channel bandwidth. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 125–
`31, 158. Dulin describes the system using three frequency blocks per time
`slot, but explains that the number of frequency blocks per time slot can be
`varied. Id. Importantly, the teachings pointed to by Petitioner demonstrate
`on this record that when using the exemplary three frequency blocks per
`time slot, each of the two “outside” blocks disclosed by Dulin would not
`include the subcarriers near the center of the operating channel bandwidth.
`Those blocks include two or more groups of subcarriers (i.e., the second
`plurality of subcarrier groups) distinct from those subcarriers comprising the
`core-band taught by the Yamaura-Hwang combination (i.e., the first
`plurality of subcarrier groups), which are carrying control signals in the
`proposed system, and, accordingly, we determine they meet the recite
`“second plurality of subcarrier groups” for purposes of this Decision.
`
`4. Combination of Asserted Teachings from Identified References
`As mentioned above, and discussed in more detail below, we are
`persuaded at this stage of the case that Petitioner has articulated sufficient
`reasoning with rational underpinnings, supported by Dr. Haas’s testimony,
`why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Dulin, Yamaura,
`Hwang, and Zhuang, in the manner proposed by Petitioner, at the time of
`invention of the ’431 patent.
`Patent Owner argues that the asserted teachings do not disclose “a
`variable band including a second plurality of subcarrier groups,” as recited
`in the challenged claims, and that Petitioner does not articulate “a reason
`how a person of ordinary skill would combine references that disclose a
`single subcarrier group or why a person of ordinary skill would be motivated
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`to combine references that disclose references that disclose a single
`subcarrier group.” Id. at 38–39.
`We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner failed to
`articulate how and why one of ordinary skill would have combined the
`teachings of the asserted references in a way that would have rendered
`obvious the recited aspects of the challenged claims relating to the first and
`second plurality of subcarrier groups. As discussed above, Petitioner does
`not argue that a single reference discloses both the first plurality and the
`second plurality of subcarrier groups. Rather, Petitioner asserts that the
`proposed combination resulting from the teachings of the various references
`teaches first and second pluralities of subcarrier groups. Specifically,
`Petitioner points to Yamaura’s core-band for transmitting its control signals
`and Dulin’s two “outside” frequency blocks (each comprised, for example,
`of 408 subcarriers) carrying data as the first and second plurality of
`subcarrier groups, respectively. See Pet. 27–29, 36–38, 49–53. Thus, we are
`persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated on this record that the proposed
`combined system teaches the limitations and, furthermore, how and why the
`specific teachings of the asserted references would be combined. See, e.g.,
`Pet. 31 (Petitioner’s figure depicting the proposed system resulting from the
`various teachings of Dulin, Yamaura, and Hwang); Ex. 1012, 76–80).
`Patent Owner also asserts the Petition merely cobbles together
`teachings from various references and provides no showing of why a person
`of ordinary skill would have combined the identified teachings. Prelim.
`Resp. 37–38. Patent Owner does not explain whether there is a particular
`aspect of Petitioner’s assertions that it finds lacking, or if the assertion
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`applies to every aspect of Petitioner’s reasoning for combining the asserted
`teachings. Id.
`We disagree with Patent Owner. As discussed above, Petitioner
`explains which specific teachings are relied upon from the individual
`references, as well as how and why a person having ordinary skill in the art
`would have combined the identified teachings. Petitioner explains the
`similarities in the OFDM systems taught by Dulin, Yamaura, and Hwang,
`but points out that each of the references focuses on different aspects of
`wireless communications systems. Pet. 32–36, 39, 52–53. Specifically,
`Petitioner states that Dulin focuses on data transmission between a base
`station and terminal station, and describes details regarding the timing of
`such transmissions, but “is not concerned with details of how the map
`schedule is communicated and is therefore silent regarding those aspects,”
`leaving such details to be determined by an ordinarily-skilled artisan
`implementing the system. Id. at 32–33. Petitioner points out that a person
`having ordinary skill would have understood that wireless communications
`systems require transmission of control information in addition to the data
`transmission described by Dulin. Id. at 33–34 (citing Ex. 1012, 77; Ex.
`1014, 5:11–17; Ex. 1015, 340). Petitioner states that Yamaura focuses on
`transmitting control signals in broadcast channels (e.g., “BCH” and “FCH”)
`using a narrow band frequency segment, which allows terminal stations to
`save power and simplify processing. Id. at 34. Finally, Petitioner contends
`Hwang discloses well-known concepts to change an operating channel
`bandwidth by varying the number of available subcarriers. Id. at 35.
`Petitioner contends the control information Yamaura transmits in its
`broadcast channels using a narrow band frequency would be needed by
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`Dulin at least, for example, to transmit Dulin’s frame map. Accordingly,
`Petitioner asserts an ordinarily-skilled artisan would have combined
`Yamaura’s system and method of transmitting control signals with Dulin’s
`method and system of transmitting data blocks to take advantage of the
`simplified processing and power saving disclosed by Yamaura. Id. at 34–35
`(citing Ex. 1012, 79), 42, 52–53. Petitioner contends one having ordinary
`skill merely would have needed to apply Yamaura’s known method of
`transmitting control signals in a narrow band to Dulin’s known system of
`transmitting data according to a schedule conveyed via its frame maps, to
`yield the benefit of power saving to Dulin’s terminal stations. Id. Petitioner
`argues Hwang’s teaching of changing the operating channel bandwidth in an
`OFDM-modulated system would be compatible with, and add predictable
`flexibility to, Yamaura’s single channel operating bandwidth system. Id. at
`35–36. Petitioner also argues arranging Yamaura’s subcarriers in its core-
`band according to Hwang’s known method of binning would have merely
`required combining known prior art elements according to known methods,
`yielding predictable results. Id. at 39.
`Petitioner argues both Zhuang and Yamaura are directed to OFDM
`systems using preambles to communicate control information to receivers.
`Pet. 45. Petitioner further argues Yamaura teaches creating preambles with
`good cross correlation properties in order to detect the narrow band control
`signals. Id. at 45–46. According to Petitioner, Yamaura leaves
`determination of appropriate preamble sequences with good cross
`correlation properties to the ordinarily-skilled artisan to implement,
`motivating that artisan to look to other sources, including Zhuang, for
`implementation details. Id. at 46.
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`We have reviewed the parties’ arguments, as well as the testimony of
`Dr. Haas (Ex. 1012 ¶¶). Based on the current record, Petitioner has
`demonstrated sufficiently that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`have combined the teachings of Dulin, Yamaura, Hwang, and Zhuang in the
`manner proposed by Petitioner. We agree with Petitioner for purposes of
`this Decision that the various references focus on complementary aspects of
`wireless communication systems. Yamaura teaches one way to provide
`control and synchronization signaling using OFDM. Dulin teaches a method
`of coordinating data transmission between a base station and terminal
`stations. Hwang teaches the benefits of having a variable bandwidth system
`and using subcarrier bins, and Zhuang teaches the benefits of using
`generalized chirp-like sequences in preamble sequences.
`Each of the references provides a disclosure about different aspects of
`wireless communication systems that the other references do not focus on.
`We are persuaded on this record that a person of ordinary skill would have
`combined Dulin and Yamaura because Dulin does not disclose how it
`transmits control information, and the submitted evidence and testimony
`support the assertion that an ordinarily-skilled artisan would have looked to
`other systems or references when deciding how to implement transmitting
`control signals, including base station information and the frame map. We
`are persuaded the evidence currently presented shows that one of ordinary
`skill would have known to combine the well-known ability to change the
`operating channel bandwidth of an OFDM system, and that Hwang discloses
`one possible way to do so. Finally, we determine on this record that
`Yamaura teaches that good cross correlation properties are important for
`detection of its control signals, but does not provided details on how to
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01664
`Patent 7,787,431 B2
`
`generate appropriate sequences. Zhuang provides that missing information,
`teaching an ordinarily-skilled artisan one way to generate such sequences.
`Each of the relied-upon teachings disclosed in the references are
`complementary aspects of OFDM wireless communication systems.
`Petitioner has argued persuasively, supported by testimony, that
`incorporating the identified teachings would merely require applying known
`techniques to improve known systems and methods in a predictable manner.
`See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) (“if a technique
`has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
`using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that
`person's skill.”).
`In sum, the Petition appropriately provides explanations, supported by
`Dr. Haas’s testimony, why specific teachings of the asserted references
`would be combined as proposed, as opposed to merely stating that the
`references as a whole are generally combinable. Accordingly, because the
`Petition provides sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning as to why
`one of ordinary skill would have combined specific teachings of the
`references, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated on this record
`that an ordinarily-skilled artisan would have combined the identified
`teachings, resulting in the combination proposed in the Petition.
`
`5. Conclusion of Analysis of Petitioner’s Challenges
`Petitioner asserts each limitation is taught by specific portions of the
`asserted references, or combinations thereof, includin

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket