UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Commscope Technologies, Inc.
`Petitioner,
`
`V-
`
`Communications Components Antenna, Inc.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016—00999
`
`Patent No. 8,311,582
`Title: ASYMMETRICAL BEAMS FoR SPECTRUM EFFICIENCY
`
`PATENT owNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE To PETITION FOR
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF US. PATENT No. 3,311,532 UNDER 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 at seq.
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Commscope Technologies, Inc.
`Petitioner,
`
`V-
`
`Communications Components Antenna, Inc.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016—00999
`
`Patent No. 8,311,582
`Title: ASYMMETRICAL BEAMS FoR SPECTRUM EFFICIENCY
`
`PATENT owNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE To PETITION FOR
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF US. PATENT No. 3,311,532 UNDER 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 at seq.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................... ..l
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘S82 PATENT ................................. ..7
`
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE
`
`IT FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`
`LIKELIHOOD OF PREVAILING AS TO ANY
`
`CHALLENGED CLAIM .............................................. .. 20
`
`A.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................ ..20
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction .............................................. ..21
`
`C.
`
`Yea Does Not Anticipate Claim 1 of the ’582
`Patent ............................................................... ..23
`
`The Yea Reference ....................................................... ..23
`
`a.
`
`The Yea Reference Does Not Teach or
`
`Suggest The Step of “Replacing The
`associated one or more sector antenna
`
`for a given sector,” ................................................ ..25
`
`b.
`
`The Yea Reference Does Not Teach or
`
`Suggest replacing “with a split-sector antenna
`having a plurality of sub-sector coverage
`areas extending therefrom, at least one of which
`is asymmetrical” ................................................... ..27
`
`D.
`
`Perquisite Standard for Prior Art Drawing ................ ..27
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Figures 4 and 8 of Yea Do Not Show or Suggest
`A Split-Sector Antenna Having an Asymmetrical
`
`Coverage Area Extending Thereof ........................... ..29
`
`Detailed Description of Figures 4 and 8 Deficiencies .... ..31
`
`The Yea Reference Does Not Teach or
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Suggest an arrangement where “a total critical
`coverage area... is substantially equivalent to a
`critical coverage of the replaced one or more
`associated sector antenna” ................................... ..44
`
`The Yea Reference Does Not Teach or Suggest an
`arrangement wherein “said at least one asymmetrical
`sub-sector coverage area reduces overlap with
`said neighbouring sub—sector coverage area comparing
`to the overlap of the replace antenna.” ......................45
`
`Proposed rejection of Claims 1, 13, and 20 as
`obvious in view of Yea (Ex 1016) and
`Metawave Website (Ex 1015) and/or Asymmetric
`Beam Prior Art, identified as Litva Book
`
`(Ex 1009 at Fig. 2.14) and Wiistberg
`(Ex 1018 at l:5—7, 5:43-44, Figs 2 and 18) ................. ..47
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 6, 7, 9,1l,l2, 14, 15, 18,
`19, 21, 22, 24 And 27 Are Not Anticipated By
`Yea And Are not Obvious In View of Yea
`
`And The Metawave Website ................................. ..48
`
`Proposed Rejection of Dependent Claims
`3-5 as obvious in view of Yea and Mouly
`
`Claim 3 ................................................... ..54
`
`Claim 4 ................................................... ..56
`
`Claim 5 ................................................... ..57
`
`Proposed rejection of claims 8, 16, and 23
`as obvious in view of Yea in combination
`
`with the Smith ’935 Patent ................................... ..57
`
`Cl
`
`aim .................................................... ..
`°
`8
`
`57
`
`Proposed rejection of Claims 10 as obvious
`in view of Yea and CSA Antennas and dependent
`
`iii
`
`
`
`claim 28 is obvious in view of Yea in
`
`combination with Metawave Website,
`Johansson and Ebine ......................................... ..60
`
`J.
`
`Proposed rejection of dependent claims
`17 and 25 as obvious in view of Yea in
`
`combination with Wiistberg; and dependent
`claim 26 as obvious in view of Yea in
`
`combination with Derneryd ................................ ..60
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................ ..61
`
`iv
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`1) Exhibit 2001 — Declaration of Mr. Mark Cosgrove in Support of
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`2) Exhibit 2002 - Mr. Mark Cosgrove C.'urrI'(:uh1m Vitae
`
`3) Exhibit 2003 — “MIMO and Smart Antennas for 3G and 4G Wireless
`
`Systems” 3G Americas — White Paper — May 2010
`
`4) Exhibit 2004- “Twin Beam technology adds immediate capacity
`
`without additional antennas” - Commscope -White Paper - May 2013
`
`5) Exhibit 2005 — “Antenna Theory — Analysis and Design” — Balanis —
`
`Third Edition 2005 - (portions of chapter 2)
`
`6) Exhibit 2006 - Metawave.com - seminars page - “Seminar 4:
`
`Practical Six—Sector Solution” (web_archive.org) — 2001
`
`7) Exhibit 2007 — “Understanding UMTS Radio Network” — Nawrocki
`
`et al. - 2006
`
`8) Exhibit 2008 — “Any—G to 4G” — Di gi International — White Paper —
`
`2014
`
`8) Exhibit 2009 - “CDMA RF System Engineering” - Yang - 1998
`
`9) Exhibit 2010 — Martek — U_S. Patent No. 5,929,823
`
`10) Exhibit 2011 — Martek — U.S. Patent No. 6,198,434
`
`
`
`11) Exhibit 2012 — Elson — U.S. Patent No. 6,317,100
`
`12) Exhibit 2013 — Martek - US. Patent No. 6,583,760
`
`vi
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Communications Components Antenna lnc., (CCAI)
`
`submits this Preliminary Response to the Petition filed by Commscope
`
`Technologies, seeking inter partes review of claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,31 1,582 (“the ’582 Patent). The Petition should be denied because it fails to
`
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the
`
`challenged claims. The basis of all the Grounds proposed by the Petitioner is
`
`the Yea reference — either alone or in combination with other references --
`
`which does not teach or suggest split-sector antennas having asymmetrical
`
`coverage areas extending therefrom-
`
`The independent claims of the “582 Patent are directed to an
`
`arrangement for replacing existing one or more cellular base station antennas
`
`with split-sector antennas that radiate asymmetrical beam shapes in such a
`
`way that the new coverage areas of the beams extending from a split-sector
`
`antenna are asymmetrical while their corresponding total coverage area are
`
`substantially equal to the coverage area of the replaced antenna. Furthermore,
`
`the asymmetrical beams are shaped in such a way that the overlap areas of the
`
`coverage areas extending from the new antenna are smaller than the overlap
`
`areas extending from the replaced antenna- (Ex 1001 — claims 1, 13, and 20).
`
`
`
`Prior to the invention of the ’582 patent as claimed, the cellular antenna
`
`industry tried many approaches to increase the capacity of a base station to
`
`serve ever more increasing cellular phone users. The primary approach was to
`
`divide existing sectors within a cell, into smaller sub—sectors so that resources
`
`of the base station could be reused over additional sectors. The disadvantage
`
`with that approach was that it increased the size of overlap areas between
`
`coverage areas of the new sub—sectors. As mentioned by Patent Owner’s
`
`expert Mr. Cosgrove, the larger overlap areas required additional resources so
`
`as to allow the users travelling from one sector to the next to be seamlessly
`
`handed over to an adjacent sub—sector. (Ex 2001 at 46-50). Figure 1 of the
`
`‘582 patent is an exemplary prior art cell site showing the details of such
`
`sectors. See Ex 1001 Figure 1 shown below:
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`9 b
`
`
`“-TU" 3'-Id
`n\\1_.!
`w. -
`
`
`
`
`The inventors of the ’582 patent came up with an idea that managed to
`
`increase the number of sectors in a given cell of a cellular network without
`
`taking away valuable resources for handling handover operations. Contrary to
`
`conventional wisdom in the industry that aimed to employ symmetrical
`
`beams, the inventors’ solution was to provide a split-sector antenna that
`
`radiated two or more asymmetrical beam patterns such that at least one of the
`
`corresponding coverage areas extending from the antenna define an
`
`asymmetrical shape in such a way that the coverage area of the new replacing
`
`antenna were substantially the same size of the coverage area of the replaced
`
`sector antenna. See Ex 1001 — Figure 3, shown below:
`
`
`
`At the same time the beam patterns were shaped in such a way that the
`
`corresponding coverage areas had to have a reduced overlap area such that the
`
`overlap region of coverage area of the new antennas was reduced compared to
`
`
`
`the overlap regions of the replaced coverage area. This aspect of the invention
`
`allowed for a reduced allocation of resources for handover operations. (1d.)
`
`This simple and elegant solution solved a long standing problem faced
`
`by the industry and was widely recognized as an effective approach, so much
`
`so that few industry wide white papers including one by the Petitioner
`
`applauded its effectiveness. (Ex 2001 at 1] 77-78).
`
`Petitioner’s brief and supporting expert declaration fails to establish the
`
`necessary criteria required by the Board to institute Review. More
`
`specifically, every one of the 8 Grounds in the Petition relies solely on two
`
`figures of a single “Yea reference,” (Ex 1016) either alone or in combination
`
`with other references. While, the text of the Yea reference makes no mention
`
`of asymmetrical coverage areas extending from sub-sector antennas, the
`
`Petitioner and its expert have spent the major part of their presentation,
`
`manually retracing and analyzing those two figures hoping to establish that
`
`the coverage area extending from the antenna referred in that reference has an
`
`asymmetrical shape, along with other characteristics that read on the “S82
`
`patent claims.
`
`The drawings in Yea, however, lack all the perquisites that this Board
`
`imposes on prior art figures. These perquisites include the requirement that the
`
`prior art drawings are drawn with dimensions that are measurable and
`
`
`
`scalable, and that the scales are properly identified, and that the range of
`
`values and units of measurement are consistent. (Ex 2001 at ‘H 20). None of
`
`these are present in the two figures that form the basis for the entirety of the
`
`Petitioner’s proposed Grounds.
`
`Although the figures of Yea refer to or imply certain scales, it is not
`
`clear whether the plots can be accurately measured or whether the dimensions
`
`represent a constant ratio relative to the actual dimensions of the antenna
`
`pattern. (Id.) The Yea reference is a marketing article published in a trade
`
`magazine and not a scientific paper, with no teaching on how to recreate those
`
`plots. (Id)
`
`Moreover, the plots in Figure 4 of Yea illustrate antenna beam patterns
`
`and are drawn in a linear scale. [Ex 2001 at 1] 21). The plots do not show
`
`coverage areas extending from the new antennas as specifically called for in
`
`the ’582 patent claims. By observing the antenna beam patterns in the Yea
`
`plots, a POSITA cannot determine the shape of the coverage areas extending
`
`from the Yea antennas when the beam patterns are plotted in a linear scale.
`
`Although there is a one to one relationship between a logarithmic scale beam
`
`pattern and its corresponding coverage area, there is no such relationship
`
`between a linear scale beam pattern and its corresponding coverage area- (Id)
`
`
`
`More significantly, when the linear scale of the plots in Figure 4 of Yea
`
`is converted to a logarithmic scale, it becomes obvious that the plots do not
`
`have enough data points to show the coverage areas extending from the
`
`antenna called for in the ’582 patent- (Id. at 1] 22-23).
`
`The plots depicted in Figure 8 of Yea reference have their own
`
`deficiencies as well. Figure 8 plots illustrate the carrier to interference (Ec/Io)
`
`ratio pattern of the antennas. Because the ratio includes noise values from
`
`neighboring cells, the plots do not show the antenna radiation pattern, and
`
`cannot be used to show whether the coverage area extending from the new
`
`antennas is symmetric or not- (Id. at 1[ 24-25)-
`
`Aside from the shortcomings of the figures of Yea, it is telling that the
`
`company that manufactured the antenna described in that reference obtained at
`
`least four United States patents directed to antenna systems that viewed the
`
`asymmetrical beam patterns as a distortion to be avoided. During that time,
`
`another major cellular company, Ericsson, obtained the Wastberg patent (Ex
`
`1018 — col. 5, lines 63-65) cited by the Petitioner, that viewed any asymmetry
`
`that is caused by sub-sector antennas as a negative characteristic that should
`
`be avoided. (Ex 2001 at 1] 26-28).
`
`It was only after the ’582 patent was filed that for the first time the
`
`industry acknowledged the concept of introducing and sculpting asymmetrical
`
`
`
`beam patterns so that coverage areas extending from the sub—sector antennas
`
`would have an asymmetrical shape. At least two White Papers, one published
`
`by the 3G Americas (Id. at 1] 30-31), and the other by the Petitioner itself (Id.
`
`at fil 32), acknowledged the concepts called for by the ’582 patent claims as
`
`ground breaking allowing the operators to achieve “the theoretical doubling of
`
`sector capacity.”
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing, and Patent Owner requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“Board”) deny institution of inter partes review.
`
`I].
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’582 PATENT
`
`Cellular communications technology is based on splitting a particular
`
`area into several “cells”, each of which is allocated a specific amount of
`
`resources to cater to a specific number of users or subscribers. To service a
`
`larger number of users, the operator needs to increase the number of such
`
`cells. (Ex 2001 at ‘H 42- 50). Initially, each cell employed an omni-directional
`
`antenna, located in the center of its coverage area. The omni-directional
`
`antenna emitted signals uniformly in a single plane in a 360-degree coverage
`
`area. (Id at 1] 44-45).
`
`The signal intensity of the omni-directional antenna, however, was not
`
`satisfactory in the outer fringes of the coverage area, causing calls to be
`
`
`
`dropped. The capacity of the system was also limited due to the unrestricted
`
`spillover of signal in all directions. Ud.)
`
`To overcome the problems of omni—directional antennas, the concept of
`
`“sectorization” was introduced. Instead of a single omni—directional antenna,
`
`a number of directional or sector antennas were deployed. Such antennas
`
`divided the cell into a number of “sectors”, thereby restricting the coverage of
`
`each sector antenna to a limited coverage area as compared to the circular
`
`“omni-area” covered by the omni—directional antenna. Each directional
`
`antenna, catered to subscribers in a corresponding sector by emitting a single
`
`symmetric beam. Typically, a 360—degree “cell” was split into three sectors
`
`using three directional-antennas, with the symmetric beams extending from
`
`each antenna covering a sub-coverage sector of 120 degrees. (Id. at 1[ 46).
`
`As demand grew, adding more sectors was seen as a simple way of
`
`increasing capacity without the need for building new sites. However, adding
`
`new sectors increased the overlap between the sectors causing problems. Put
`
`simply, overlap areas cause interference, resulting in a situation where mobile
`
`phones have to process indeterminate dominant signals, leading to an
`
`excessive use of resources to handle the calls travelling through the overlap
`
`areas. These resources are referred to as overhead signaling, while the overlap
`
`areas are referred to as handover regions. Further, between the added sectors,
`
`
`
`an area of weak signal strength was also created. This weak signal strength
`
`area, in turn, caused spectrum inefficiency. (Id. at 1] 47).
`
`Apart from the technical disadvantages associated with increasing the
`
`number of sectors using directional antennas, creation of a new sector meant
`
`installing new conventional antenna on telecom towers at great cost without
`
`justifiable spectrum efficiency, in terms of user experience and subscriber
`
`capacity. (Id. at1] 48).
`
`In addition to higher sectorization solutions, another approach called
`
`cell-splitting was introduced. Cell-splitting refers to the process of reducing
`
`the coverage of an existing cell site and introducing a new cell site in the
`
`newly created coverage hole. (Ex 1001 - col. 2, lines 64-67). However, cell-
`
`splitting is very expensive, since it requires new locations for the tower and
`
`equipment for the new site- (Id. at col- 3, lines 1-5) (See also Ex 2001 at 1] 49).
`
`The problems associated with higher order sectorization and cell splitting,
`
`made the market of telecom antennas reach a saturation point. Cellular
`
`operators were unable to cope with increasing subscriber base, without
`
`compromising its spectrum efficiency. (Id. at 1] 50).
`
`The invention claimed in the ’582 patent managed to solve many of the
`
`deficiencies described above. The claims of the ’582 are directed to an
`
`improved arrangement where one or more sub—sector antennas replace an
`
`
`
`existing sector antenna. The sub—sector antenna is configured to generate a
`
`pair of asymmetrical beam patterns to form an asymmetrical coverage area
`
`extending from the antenna, in such a way that the total critical coverage area
`
`of the newly installed beam patterns are substantially equal to the critical
`
`coverage area of the replaced sector antenna, while at the same time the
`
`overlap area between the pair of the sub—sector coverage areas is reduced
`
`compared to the overlap of the replaced antenna. (Ex 1001 — col. 10, lines 3-
`
`23).
`
`In order to observe and study the coverage areas extending from an
`
`antenna, the beam patterns or antenna patterns or radiation patterns are
`
`generated. An antenna pattern is often defined as a mathematical function or
`
`graphical representation of the radiation properties as a function of space
`
`coordinates.
`
`In most cases, the radiation pattern is defined in the far—field
`
`region and is represented as a function of directional coordinates. (Ex 2001 at
`
`'|] 54).
`
`Figure 1 of the ’582 patent illustrates a polar plot horizontal pattern in a
`
`cell that is designed for a six-sector division, as reprinted below:
`
`10
`
`
`
`
` "11$‘;-“QT
`...
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`
`The plot shows the power emission in each direction around the 360
`
`degrees horizontal plane as discussed by Patent 0wner’s expert Mr. Cosgrove.
`
`(Ex 2001 at fll 56). As mentioned in the ‘S82 specification, antenna beam
`
`patterns had been consistently symmetrical, such as the illustrated 3 mirror-
`
`imaged pairs of symmetrical sub-sector beams. As shown previously, a
`
`coverage area corresponding to these beam patterns has large overlap regions
`
`between pairs of adjacent beams. (Id).
`
`Larger overlap regions mean increased handoff or handover operations.
`
`As a subscriber moves between sectors and cells, a call is automatically
`
`transferred, through a handover process from one coverage region of an
`
`antenna to an adjoining coverage region, Excessive overlaps between antenna
`
`coverage areas lead to reduction of system capacity. This reduction in system
`
`11
`
`
`
`capacity occurs because a substantial portion of system resources needs to be
`
`allocated to signals that coordinate the call for the users who are travelling in
`
`the handover regions. (Id. at 1] 57).
`
`As illustrated in the figures of the ’582 patent, the polar plots of the
`
`antenna patterns are scaled logarithmically in decibels. This is due to the
`
`large range in power levels that need to be considered in order to observe the
`
`entire coverage area extending from the antenna. Furthennore, when the
`
`antenna beam patterns are plotted in a logarithmic decibel scale the
`
`corresponding coverage area of the antenna has a one to one relationship with
`
`the beam pattern and, as such, the antenna beam pattern and its corresponding
`
`coverage area extending from it can be observed interchangeably. (Id. at ‘H 58).
`
`To this end in order to determine whether a reference discloses the
`
`asymmetrical coverage areas that extend from the antenna, it is necessary to
`
`observe the entire coverage area described or illustrated in the reference. In
`
`other words, the coverage areas, are those that extend all the way from the
`
`antenna towards the outer edge of the cell. For example, as illustrated in
`
`Figures 1-4 of the "582 patent, the logarithmic scale used to illustrate the
`
`claimed invention spans 10 decibels per division with a full range of 40
`
`decibels or 40 dBs-
`
`As such, the Figures 1-3 of the “S82 patent are drawn in a logarithmic
`
`12
`
`
`
`polar plot, the outside value being a normalized 40 dB and the inside value
`
`being zero dB. (Id. at 1] 59).
`
`The ’582 patent specification describes the antenna polar plot and its
`
`logarithmic scale in more detail as follows:
`
`“For ease in use, clarity and maximum versatility,
`radiation plots are usually normalized to the outer edge of
`the coordinate system. Furthermore, signal strength is not
`normally thought of in terms of strength in volts,
`microvolts, etc., so radiation plots are usually shown in
`relative decibels (dB)-
`Decibels are used to express differences in power in
`a logarithmic fashion. A drop of 1 dB means that the
`power is decreased to about 80% of the original value,
`while a 3dB drop is a power decrease of 50% or one—half
`the power. The beam width specified on most data sheets
`is usually 3 dB or half-power bandwidth. A 10 dB drop is
`considered a large drop, a decrease to 10% of the original
`power level.” (Ex 1001 - col. 5, lines 30-42).
`
`The 40 dB range is consistent with the range of values of the antenna
`
`pattern illustrated in every reference cited by the Petitioner, to show the
`
`coverage areas extending from the antenna, except for the Yea reference. L1.)
`
`The ’582 patent does away with a significant number of limitations and
`
`disadvantages associated with all the technologies in the prior art. The
`
`distinguishing feature of the split-sector antenna is that it has a design that
`
`generates asymmetric beam pattern or shape, in such a way that radically
`
`alters the efficiencies and practicalities of higher order sectorization- (Ex 1001
`
`— Figure l — showing prior art symmetrical sub—sector beams). This is
`
`13
`
`
`
`achieved by shaping or “tailoring” (Ex 1001 — col. 3, lines 11-13) the
`
`corresponding asymmetrical coverage areas of the beam patterns extending
`
`from the antenna, so that they are substantially equal to the critical coverage
`
`area of the replaced antenna and further that the overlap between the
`
`subsectors are reduced compared to the overlap of the replaced antenna beam
`
`patterns. (Ex 1001 — claims 1-28) (See also Ex 2001 at 1] 63-64).
`
`Another important aspect of the ’582 patent is the flexibility afforded
`
`by this asymmetrical beam pattern configurations, which allows the operator
`
`of an existing 3 sector site to decide which one of the sector coverage areas of
`
`the three sectors need to be replaced with a split sector array as illustrated in
`
`Figure 3 of the ’582 patent as shown below:
`
`300°
`
`Figure 3 of the ’582 patent
`
`As shown above, the asymmetrical sub-sector beam patterns also
`
`exhibit a sharp roll off in area 232 where they overlap. This sharp roll off on
`
`14
`
`
`
`one side reduces the overlap region compared to the traditional overlap
`
`regions generated by symmetrical beam patterns employed in higher
`
`sectorized cell structures as shown in Figure l of the ‘S82 patent. (Ex 1001 —
`
`col. 5, lines 19-24) (See also Ex 2001 at 1[66)- Because of the asymmetrical
`
`pattern of the beams extending from the antenna, the asymmetrical coverage
`
`area generated from the split sector antenna also extend to the edge of the
`
`replaced coverage area leaving at the edges of the new coverage area a smaller
`
`region of coverage hole than before. This is the region that users experience
`
`dropped calls.
`
`As further stated in the ’582 specification, “[b]ecause the beam patterns
`
`of the new antenna corresponding to a sector to sub-sector upgrade have
`
`largely the same overall beam pattern as the antenna being replaced, as shown
`
`in Fig. 3, upgrades would be made relatively transparently with regard to
`
`network planning, resulting in more efficient use of resources.” (Ex 1001 —
`
`col. 5, line 64 to col. 6, line 3).
`
`The “S82 patent describes and summarizes its advantages in Table I of
`
`the specification, The data illustrated in Table 1 relates to an embodiment
`
`where only one of the three sectors has been upgraded to a split sector
`
`antenna. In all important categories the upgrade exhibits significant
`
`improvements. For example, the improvement in handover overhead in one
`
`15
`
`
`
`sector is about 9.2% compared to the configuration before the upgrade. As
`
`will be discussed later in connection with the prior art references cited by the
`
`Petitioner, there is no teaching or suggestion of an improved handover
`
`overhead in a higher sectorized cell configuration. (Ex 2001 at 11 70).
`
`With the above teachings from the specification of the ‘582 patent in
`
`mind, claim 1 of the patent states:
`
`“A method for increasing subscriber capacity in a
`sectorized cellular communications network having a
`plurality of subscribers and a base station supporting at
`least one sector, each of the at least one sector having one
`or more associated sector antennae at the base station
`
`having a critical coverage area extending therefrom and
`overlapping neighbouring sectors thereof in a sector
`handover zone, the method comprising a step of:
`replacing the associated one or more sector
`antennae for a given sector with a split-sector antenna
`having a plurality of sub-sector coverage areas extending
`therefrom, at least one of which is asymmetrical, each
`corresponding to a sub—sector and overlapping a
`neighbouring sub—sector coverage area in a sub—sector
`handover zone,
`whereby a total critical coverage area provided by
`the plurality of sub-sector coverage areas is substantially
`eguivalent to a critical coverage area of the replaced
`one or more associated sector antennae,
`wherein said at
`least one asymmetrical sub-
`sector coverage area reduces overlap with said
`neighbouring sub-sector coverage area comparing to
`overlap of the replaced antennae while maintaining the
`critical coverage area of the replaced antenna.” (Ex 1001 —
`col. 10)- (emphasis added).
`
`Although the beams in the prior art systems typically used in six sector
`
`16
`
`
`
`applications were referred to as “symmetrical beams”, in some applications
`
`that employed multi-beam antennas, there was a degree of uncontrolled
`
`asymmetry associated with such beams owing to factors, including the
`
`phenomena of beam steering away from the main axis, manufacturing
`
`tolerances, imprecise control of electrical signals, coupling effects between
`
`closely spaced elements and other aspects of the design process such as scan
`
`loss for offset beams. As mentioned by Patent Owner’s expert, and as
`
`evidenced by the industry’s research and development, this asymmetry was
`
`viewed as a defect in the prior art, and was in fact sought to be removed. (Ex
`
`2001 at 1] 71).
`
`In fact Metawave Communications the company that manufactured the
`
`Spot Light 2000 featured in the Yea reference, filed numerous patent
`
`applications at around the same time, directed to eliminating the asymmetry of
`
`the beam patterns generated by their antennas- (Ex 2001 at 11 72).
`
`Such undesired asymmetry in the radiation patterns of multi-beam
`
`antennas was, therefore, never seen or described as an advantage in the prior
`
`art, and had been either accidental or an unfortunate consequence of design
`
`process. In other words, there was no teaching, suggestion or motivation for
`
`any person to deliberately create a desired asymmetry in the antenna beam
`
`patterns in prior art, nor there was any attempt ever made to enhance or
`
`17
`
`
`
`functionalize such asymmetry to exploit any new advantages, especially to
`
`achieve the advantages discussed and claimed in the ’582 patent, such as
`
`creating asymmetrical coverage areas extending from sub-sector antennas. (Ex
`
`2001 at 1] 73).
`
`The technology employed and claimed by the ’5 82 patent deliberately
`
`introduces a desired asymmetry to the beam shape, so that the asymmetrical
`
`coverage area extending therefrom can be used to overcome several
`
`shortcomings associated with prior art, without having any impact on the
`
`network planning of a cellular operator. (Id. at 1] 74).
`
`It was only after the ’582 patent was filed that for the first time the
`
`industry acknowledged the concept of introducing asymmetrical beam
`
`patterns so that coverage areas extending from the sub-sector antennas would
`
`have an asymmetrical shape- At least two White Papers, one published by the
`
`3G Americas and the other by the Petitioner itself, acknowledged and
`
`applauded the concepts called for the ’582 patent claims.
`
`The industry wide 3G Americas White Paper dedicated an entire
`
`section to discuss the fixed multi-beam array antennas providing a pair of
`
`asymmetrical beam patterns “to address the need of increasing capacity in
`
`high—density macro—cell sites,” where “fixed multi-beam antennas can provide
`
`an effective solution using multiple fixed beams.” The asymmetrical beams
`
`18
`
`
`
`are reprinted below:
`
`
`
`Azimuth Puilem (us) vs. Anole Idea)
`Single 65 deem beam
`
`Allrnuth Pallerns (an) vs. Angle (deg)
`Twln bi-secied fixed 33 degree beams
`
`Figure 24. Single 65-degree antenna and twin fixed 33-degree beams.
`
`wherein, “the patterns on the right show the paired asymmetrical
`
`azimuth beams created by a twin beam antenna.” (Ex 2003 - pg. 41 at § 4.3)
`
`(See also Ex- 2001 at 1] 77).
`
`Petitioner Commscope also published a White Paper that recreated the
`
`asymmetrical beam patterns as a way to achieve the “theoretical doubling of
`
`sector capacity.” (Ex 2004 — Pg 6-7 ). The paper shows the asymmetrical
`
`beam patterns that look exactly the same as the 3G America’s beam patterns,
`
`introducing the same asymmetrical coverage areas called for in the ’582
`
`patent claims. See Ex 2004, Figure 4 reproduced below:
`
`19
`
`
`
`Twin Beam 38°
`
`2
`
`_
`so 2“? i..”"'. .9.“
`'
`'
`
`9L}
`
`_3'JfJ
`
`2.10
`
`? ?(J
`
`21o_
`
`200 _.
`
`‘|6\']'- 140'
`
`151.:
`
`3
`
`no
`
`13?
`
`.
`___-''5u
`:20"--.,_
`11" 100- ciiifififi
`70
`
`5;)
`
`Three-Secior 65°
`
`250
`2»=o_..
`
`?‘_“,‘*.'
`
`.7?” 29::
`
`_
`300
`
`‘
`
`Figure 4
`
`235
`
`22::
`
`210 _
`
`The advantages of the optimized asymmetrical beam shape/pattem of
`
`the ’582 patent as acknowledged and applauded by the industry, including the
`
`Petitioner, are that it significantly reduces gaps/voids in the existing coverage
`
`areas, and that it minimizes the interfering overlap between the two
`
`neighboring beams, while covering substantially the same critical coverage
`
`area as covered by the replaced beam(s).
`
`III. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT
`
`FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF
`
`PREVAILING AS TO ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM
`
`A.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner alleges that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be “a
`
`person having at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering (or
`
`equivalent) and at least 3 years of experience working on cellular antenna
`
`20
`
`
`
`technology (or equivalent). Alternatively, a POSITA could have a Master’s
`
`Degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent) and at least 2 years of
`
`experience working on cellular antenna technology or a Ph.D. Degree with
`
`research related to antenna technology and at least lyear of experience
`
`working on cellular antenna technology.” Ex. 1024 at 1] 53.
`
`Petitioner offers no testimony at all from such a person as of the
`
`effective filing date of the ’5 82 patent or from one who would have known
`
`what such a person would have understood as of that date.
`
`For purposes of its Preliminary Response, however, Patent Owner
`
`accepts Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art but reserves the
`
`right to offer an alternative if this inter partes review is instituted.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`In this proceeding, claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation absent a clear definition to the contrary in the patent. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.lO0(b); Cuazzo Speed Tech.s'., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2146 (2016).
`
`Because the claim terms are not afforded such a definition, they should be given their
`
`broadest reasonable construction as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and
`
`consistent with the disclosure.
`
`The Petitioner has proposed a construction for “A plurality of sub—sector
`
`coverage areas extending therefrom, at least one of which is asymmetrical,” to
`
`21
`
`
`
`mean a “plurality of replacement sub—sector beams, at least one of which has an
`
`asymmetrical shape.” (Petitioner’s Request, p. 29). There is no reason to construe this
`
`term any differently than its ordinary meaning. To this end, the ‘582 patent
`
`specification supports each of the terms in this element of the claim. The specification
`
`distinguishes the concept of beam patterns from their corresponding coverage area as
`
`such:
`
`Accordingly it is desirable to provide
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
