throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 28
`
`
`
` Entered: February 23, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHANBOND LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Determining Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 19, 20, 23, and 29
`Have Been Shown To Be Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”), filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 19, 20, 23, and 29 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,941,822 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’822 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”).
`
`ChanBond LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We determined that the information presented in the
`
`Petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail
`
`in challenging claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 19, 20, 23, and 29 as unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Board instituted trial on
`
`March 3, 2017, as to those claims of the ’822 patent. Paper 10 (“Institution
`
`Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”).
`
`Following our institution, Patent Owner filed a Response to the
`
`Petition (Paper 13, “PO Resp.”) and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent
`
`Owner Response (Paper 17, “Reply”).1 An oral hearing was held on
`
`November 1, 2017. The transcript of the hearing has been entered into the
`
`record. Paper 27 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`Based on the record before us, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Response to Petition on July 31,
`2017. Paper 15. That same day, Petitioner filed a Corrected Reply to Patent
`Owner’s Response to Petition. Paper 17. All references in this Decision to
`Petitioner’s Reply are to Paper 17.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 19, 20, 23, and 29
`
`of the ’822 patent are unpatentable.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The ’822 patent is asserted in several cases in the District of
`
`Delaware. Pet. 3; Paper 5, 1–3. In addition, Petitioner challenged, and we
`
`declined to institute inter partes review of, claims 13 and 14 of the
`
`’822 patent in IPR2016-01746. IPR2016-01746, Paper 10.
`
`Petitioner also challenged, and we declined to institute inter partes
`
`review of, various claims of two patents related to the ’822 patent: U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,341,679 B2 (“the ’679 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,984,565
`
`B2 (“the ’565 patent”). Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChanBond LLC, Case IPR2016-
`
`01889, Paper 10 (PTAB Mar. 29, 2017); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChanBond LLC,
`
`Case IPR2016-01890, Paper 10 (PTAB Mar. 29, 2017); Cisco Sys., Inc. v.
`
`ChanBond LLC, Case IPR2016-01891, Paper 10 (PTAB Mar. 29, 2017);
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChanBond LLC, Case IPR2016-01898, Paper 10 (PTAB
`
`Mar. 29, 2017); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChanBond LLC, Case IPR2016-01899,
`
`Paper 10 (PTAB Mar. 29, 2017); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. ChanBond LLC, Case
`
`IPR2016-01900, Paper 10 (PTAB Mar. 29, 2017).
`
`Separately, RPX Corporation challenged the patentability of claims 1–
`
`31 of the ’822 patent in IPR2016-00234. On May 25, 2017, we issued a
`
`Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00234 determining that claims 1–31 of
`
`the ’822 patent had not been shown to be unpatentable over references
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`distinct from those at issue here. RPX Corp. v. ChanBond LLC, Case
`
`IPR2016-00234, Paper 28 (PTAB May 25, 2017).
`
`B. The ’822 Patent
`
`The ’822 patent is titled “Intelligent Device System and Method for
`
`Distribution of Digital Signals on a Wideband Signal Distribution System.”
`
`Ex. 1001, at [54]. The ’822 patent is a division of U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 09/749,258, filed on December 27, 2000, and now issued as U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,346,918. Id. at [62].
`
`The ’822 patent is directed to systems and methods for the
`
`“distribution of digital signals onto, and off of, a wideband signal
`
`distribution system.” Ex. 1001, 1:24–29. The ’822 patent aims to address
`
`the difficulties created by adapting existing telephone and data networks to
`
`accommodate the greater demands of transmitting television and video data.
`
`Id. at 1:31–36. In particular, the ’822 patent explains that “digital TV/video
`
`applications clog data networks, even with the use of available compression
`
`techniques,” and “[a]nalog RF distribution may require special cables and
`
`infrastructure.” Id. at 1:36–40. According to the ’822 patent, one solution to
`
`this problem would be to transport digitized data on an analog carrier “in a
`
`format that would allow for greater amounts of data to be carried at one
`
`time, such as by modulated RF.” Id. at 2:15–16. The ’822 patent, therefore,
`
`discloses a “network of intelligent devices” that “enables digital video, IP
`
`voice/data/video, to be modulated and demodulated onto and off of” “a
`
`wideband signal distribution system.” Id. at 2:30–34.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`
`The ’822 patent describes, as a preferred embodiment, an “intelligent
`
`device” that receives an RF signal that has been modulated onto two or more
`
`RF channels, and combines that information back into a single stream.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:55–11:31. Figure 5 of the ’822 patent, depicting this intelligent
`
`device, is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 5 of the ’822 patent illustrates the signal path from intelligent
`
`device 502 to addressable devices 202. Id. at 10:55–11:31. As shown in
`
`Figure 5, RF splitter 214 splits the signal entering intelligent device 502, and
`
`sends information regarding the RF channels in use to RF system channel
`
`detector 239. Id. at 10:55–60. In addition, the modulated RF signal is
`
`differentiated into an IP portion and a non-IP portion, according to the
`
`information frequency on the incoming carrier. Id. at 10:60–64. The non-IP
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`portion of the signal passes through bandpass filter 216 and is fed to a
`
`standard RF television or computer outlet. Id. at 10:66–11:2. The IP portion
`
`of the signal passes through bandpass filter 218, and is demodulated by
`
`demodulator 220, which strips the RF carrier signal from the digital
`
`baseband signal. Id. at 11:15–20. Subsequently, the digital signals are
`
`combined by digital combiner 212, to achieve a parallel to serial conversion.
`
`Id. at 11:20–25. This signal is routed to addressable device 202. Id. at
`
`11:25–31.
`
`C. Inter Partes Review Proceedings
`Involving Related Patents
`
`As set forth above, the ’679 patent, which is a division of the
`
`’822 patent (Ex. 2004, at [62]), and the ’565 patent, which is a continuation
`
`of the ’679 patent (Ex. 2001, at [60]), were the subject of several
`
`proceedings in which we declined to institute inter partes review. See, e.g.,
`
`Cisco, IPR2016-01889, Paper 10 (declining to institute review of the
`
`’565 patent).2
`
`Central to our decision not to institute inter partes review in the
`
`proceedings concerning the ’679 and ’565 patents was our interpretation of
`
`the claim term “RF channel”––a term that does not appear in the challenged
`
`claims of the ’822 patent. In those proceedings, we concluded that the
`
`
`
`2 Because the Board reached substantially similar conclusions in each
`proceeding, for the sake of brevity citations will be provided to
`representative portions of IPR2016-01889 only.
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “RF channel” “does not include code
`
`channels––for example, data streams created by [code division multiple
`
`access (“CDMA”)]––but instead refers only to frequency bands, such as
`
`those created by FDMA.” Cisco, IPR2016-01889, Paper 10, slip op. at 13–
`
`14. In reaching this conclusion, we noted that the patents-at-issue “discuss[]
`
`RF channels in terms of frequency bands.” Id. at 10. Furthermore, in
`
`response to argument that CDMA channels are encompassed by the claims
`
`because the specification “teaches that both analog and digital signals can be
`
`sent using modulation carrier, such as in digital PCS and cellular telephone
`
`and that the cellular CDMA defines two types of channels—CDMA and
`
`code channels” (id. at 11 (internal quotation omitted)), we observed that
`
`“Petitioner does not explain why this would be the case and does not cite to
`
`any evidence” to support the conclusion that an ordinarily skilled artisan
`
`would understand “RF channel” to include CDMA and code channels (id.).
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 19 are independent. Claim 1,
`
`reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
`
`An intelligent device for receiving and processing RF
`1.
`signals, comprising:
`
`an input configured to receive a modulated RF signal
`containing multiple channels, and to receive channel in use
`information which identifies each channel in the modulated RF
`signal that includes information addressed to at least one
`addressable device;
`
`a demodulator unit configured to demodulate at least two
`channels contained in the modulated RF signal when the channel
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`
`in use information identifies the at least two channels as
`containing information addressed to the at least one addressable
`device; and
`
`a combiner configured to combine the at least two
`channels demodulated by the demodulator unit into a digital
`stream when the channel in use information identifies the at least
`two channels as containing information addressed to the at least
`one addressable device, and to output the digital stream to the at
`least one addressable device.
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:22–40.
`
`Claim 19 recites a similar device, but requires “a detector configured
`
`to detect each channel contained in the received modulated RF signal that
`
`includes information addressed to at least one addressable device, and to
`
`generate channel in use information identifying each channel that includes
`
`information addressed to the at least one addressable device” (id. at 15:5–
`
`10), in lieu of “an input configured to . . . receive channel in use information
`
`which identifies each channel in the modulated RF signal that includes
`
`information addressed to at least one addressable device” (id. at 12:24–28),
`
`as recited by claim 1.
`
`E. Instituted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted inter partes review in this proceeding based on the
`
`following patentability challenge:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`1, 2, 5, 6, 19, 20, 23, and 29
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Tiedemann, Gilhousen, and
`Gorsuch
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Anthony Wechselberger
`
`(“Wechselberger Declaration,” Ex. 1002) to support its Petition and Reply.
`
`Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Scott M. Nettles, Ph.D.
`
`(“Nettles Declaration,” Ex. 2002) to support its Response to the Petition.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Level of Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art for the
`
`’822 patent would have “been an engineer or physicist with at least a
`
`bachelor’s degree, or equivalent experience, in electrical engineering, or a
`
`related field.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–33). Petitioner further asserts
`
`that such an artisan would have had “at least three years of industry
`
`experience in the fields of analog and digital communications, inclusive of
`
`exposure to telecommunications standards as applied in wired and wireless
`
`broadband networks, or equivalent work experience.” Id. at 19–20 (citing
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–33).
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal, or otherwise
`
`address the level of skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’822 patent
`
`in its Response. See generally, PO Resp. Patent Owner’s expert,
`
`Dr. Nettles, however, provides an opinion regarding the level of skill in the
`
`field. Specifically, Dr. Nettles opines that an ordinarily skilled artisan at the
`
`time of invention of the ’822 patent would have possessed an
`
`“undergraduate or graduate degree in a field such as computer science,
`
`electrical engineering, or equivalent (e.g., computer engineering).” Ex. 2002
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`¶ 17. Dr. Nettles further opines that such an artisan would also have had
`
`“work experience (which, in some instances may have been achieved
`
`through post-graduate degree-related activities) with the design of
`
`networking or communication devices, including but not limited to cable
`
`modems, routers, wireless network interfaces, satellite telephone handsets,
`
`and the like.” Id. Dr. Nettles additionally states that “[s]uch an individual
`
`would have studied and had some design experience with RF and digital
`
`signal distribution systems (including receiver architectures, modems, and
`
`signal processors).” Id. In evaluating the differences between his own and
`
`Mr. Wechselberger’s assessments of the level of skill in the field, Dr. Nettles
`
`testifies that his assessment “differs slightly from the standard offered by
`
`Mr. Wechselberger, but in expressing my opinions in this declaration I have
`
`considered these distinctions and determined that they do not alter my
`
`conclusions.” Id.
`
`The formulations offered by Mr. Wechselberger and Dr. Nettles do
`
`not differ in any way that is material to this Decision. Based on our review
`
`of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the field at the time of invention of the ’822 patent, with the understanding
`
`that the level of skill is also reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima
`
`v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In addition, we have
`
`reviewed the credentials of Mr. Wechselberger (Ex. 1003) and Dr. Nettles
`
`(Ex. 2002), and we consider each of them to be qualified to opine on the
`
`level of skill and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “The correct inquiry in giving a
`
`claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification
`
`is . . . an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor
`
`describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is
`
`consistent with the specification.” In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375,
`
`1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted).
`
`“While we read claims in view of the specification, of which they are
`
`a part, we do not read limitations from the embodiments in the specification
`
`into the claims.” Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367,
`
`1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A claim term is only given a special definition
`
`different from the term’s plain and ordinary meaning if the “patentee . . .
`
`clearly set[s] forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain
`
`and ordinary meaning.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t. Am., LLC, 669
`
`F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Under this standard,
`
`we may take into account definitions or other explanations provided in the
`
`written description of the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1997). In this regard, we observe that [t]he specification acts as a
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`dictionary when it . . . defines terms by implication.” Bell Atl. Network
`
`Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc'ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001) (internal quotation omitted). However, any special definition for a
`
`claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994).
`
`“A patentee can also disavow claim scope, but the standard is
`
`similarly exacting.” Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 805
`
`F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[C]laims are not necessarily and not
`
`usually limited in scope simply to the preferred embodiment.” RF Del. v.
`
`Pac. Keystone Techs., Inc., 326 F.3d 1255, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only
`
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999).
`
`1. “channel”
`
`The term “channel” appears repeatedly throughout the challenged
`
`claims of the ’822 patent. Independent claim 1, for example, recites: 1) “an
`
`input configured to receive a modulated RF signal containing multiple
`
`channels, and to receive channel in use information which identifies each
`
`channel in the modulated RF signal . . . ;” 2) “a demodulator unit configured
`
`to demodulate at least two channels contained in the modulated RF signal
`
`when the channel in use information identifies the at least two channels as
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`containing information. . . ;” and 3) “a combiner configured to combine the
`
`at least two channels demodulated by the demodulator unit into a digital
`
`stream when the channel in use information identifies the at least two
`
`channels as containing information . . . .” Ex. 1001, 12:22–40 (emphasis
`
`added). In our Institution Decision, we construed “channel” to mean “a path
`
`for transmitting electric signals.” Inst. Dec. 11.
`
`Petitioner agrees with that construction (Pet. 16), and asserts that the
`
`claims of the ’822 patent “refer to channels in the context of a modulated
`
`RF signal containing multiple channels but do not mandate the specific size
`
`or types of channels contained in the RF signal” (id.). Thus, according to
`
`Petitioner, the term “channel,” as it is used in the ’822 patent, encompasses,
`
`for example, the frequency band channels used in Frequency Division
`
`Multiple Access (“FDMA”) systems, the code channels used in Code
`
`Division Multiple Access (“CDMA”) systems, and the time slots used in
`
`Time Division Multiple Access (“TDMA”) systems. Id. at 17.
`
`Patent Owner responds that “channel” should instead be interpreted to
`
`mean “frequency band.” PO Resp. 7. Patent Owner contends that both the
`
`claims and the specification of the ’822 patent indicate that the recited
`
`“‘channel’ is not any channel, but an ‘RF channel.’” Id. at 8 (citing
`
`Ex. 2002 ¶ 33) (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Patent Owner points to the
`
`recitation of “an input configured to receive a modulated RF signal
`
`containing multiple channels” (Ex. 1001, 12:24–25, 15:3–4) in claims 1 and
`
`19 of the ’822 patent as supporting its proffered construction, reasoning that
`
`“[t]he channels contained within a ‘modulated RF signal’ are necessarily
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`‘RF channels.’” Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 33) (emphasis omitted).
`
`Patent Owner further contends that Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Wechselberger
`
`agrees that the channels of the ’822 patent are RF channels. Id. (citing
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 122).
`
`Patent Owner additionally asserts that “channel” is used
`
`interchangeably with “RF channel” and “frequency channel” throughout the
`
`specification of the ’822 patent. PO Resp. 8–12. According to Patent
`
`Owner, “[e]ach of the embodiments of the ’822 Patent’s invention discloses
`
`‘channels’ that are ‘RF channels’ or ‘frequency channels,’ i.e., frequency
`
`bands in a frequency division multiplexing scheme.” Id. at 11. Therefore,
`
`reasons Patent Owner, “the specification consistently uses the term
`
`‘RF channel”’ to denote a frequency band, but also uses the abbreviated
`
`forms ‘frequency channel’ and ‘channel’ as a shorthand, as a person of
`
`ordinary skill would readily understand.” Id. at 11–12.
`
`Patent Owner also contends that our construction of the term
`
`“RF channel” as “frequency band” in proceedings concerning the related
`
`’679 and ’565 patents supports interpreting the purportedly “closely related”
`
`term “channel” to have the same meaning in the instant proceedings. PO
`
`Resp. 12. Patent Owner similarly argues that our findings in the “present
`
`proceedings are consistent with a construction of both ‘channel’ and ‘RF
`
`channel’ as frequency bands.” Id. at 13. Moreover, asserts Patent Owner,
`
`we should identically construe “channel” and “RF channel” to “harmonize”
`
`the intrinsic record for the patent family that includes the ’822, ’679, and
`
`’565 patents. Id. at 18.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`
`In reply, Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s proposal to restrict
`
`“channel” to frequency channels contradicts the ordinary meaning of that
`
`term. Reply 4. According to Petitioner, “‘channel’ is a basic, well-known
`
`term in the art,” the ordinary meaning of which “encompasses various types
`
`of channels––including CDMA channels.” Id. Petitioner further contends
`
`that the applicants for the ’822 patent did not act as their own lexicographer
`
`with regard to the term “channel,” and, thus, there is no basis for restricting
`
`the meaning of “channel” to encompass only a particular type of channel.
`
`Id. at 7. In this vein, Petitioner argues that “[t]he ’822 Patent contains no
`
`express definitions for ‘channel,’ nor does it use ‘channel’ as shorthand for
`
`‘RF channel.’” Id. To the contrary, asserts Petitioner, the applicants for the
`
`’822 patent used different claim terms within the same patent family,
`
`specifying that the recited channel is an “RF channel” in the ’679 and
`
`’565 patents, and referring simply to a “channel” in the ’822 patent. Id. at
`
`7–8. Petitioner additionally contends that the ’822 patent “uses ‘channel’ in
`
`contexts with modifiers that are not frequency specific,” and encompass
`
`other channel types. Id. at 8.
`
`Petitioner likewise contends that the applicants for the ’822 patent did
`
`not disavow CDMA channels from the scope of the term “channel.”
`
`Reply 9. In this regard, Petitioner asserts that the ’822 patent is not limited
`
`to a single embodiment, but suggests channel types in addition to frequency
`
`bands. Id. at 11. Petitioner further asserts that the examples and
`
`embodiments disclosed by the ’822 patent are non-limiting, and, therefore,
`
`even if Patent Owner is correct that the embodiments described relate solely
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`to RF channels, the’822 patent does not disavow CDMA channels from
`
`claim scope. Id. at 11–12.
`
`On the record before us, we conclude that the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the term “channel” as used in the ’822 patent is “a path for
`
`transmitting electric signals,” consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`As an initial matter, we determine that the ordinary meaning of
`
`“channel” encompasses a variety of channel types, including CDMA. Patent
`
`Owner does not expressly address the plain meaning of “channel” in its
`
`Response (see PO Resp. 7–19); however, the testimony of Patent Owner’s
`
`expert, Dr. Nettles, comports with our understanding of the ordinary
`
`meaning of this term. For example, Dr. Nettles testifies that, in general,
`
`“channel” is “a very broad term” that describes “something that you can use
`
`for communication.” Ex. 1043, 32:17–24. Dr. Nettles further testifies that,
`
`although “you could certainly add modifiers to the word ‘channel’ which
`
`would cause you to start thinking about either modulation schemes or
`
`multiple access techniques,” “‘channel’ itself doesn’t say anything about the
`
`specific modulation scheme.” Ex. 1043, 33:10–22; see also id. at 31:22–
`
`32:13, 34:10–18. As discussed in greater detail below, the specification of
`
`the ’822 patent likewise reflects that the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“channel” encompasses a variety of channel types, including CDMA. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:24–39 (describing analog and digital “transmission
`
`channels” and observing that “both analog and digital signals can be sent
`
`using modulation carriers, such as in digital PCS and cellular telephone”);
`
`Ex. 1043, 33:6–9 (“Well, I mean, just to be clear, even -- even in the context
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`of the ’822 patent, the word ‘channel’ doesn’t have – doesn’t imply a
`
`particular modulation scheme.”). Accordingly, based on the record before
`
`us, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “channel”
`
`encompasses “a path for transmitting electric signals.”
`
`The claims of the ’822 patent use “channel” in a manner consistent
`
`with its plain and ordinary meaning, and are devoid of any basis for
`
`restricting that term to exclude CDMA channel types. Indeed, by their plain
`
`language, the challenged claims are indifferent to whether frequency
`
`channels or CDMA channels are used. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 12:22–40; see
`
`also Pet. 10. For example, language directed to “frequency channel-specific
`
`structure or functionality, such as ‘channel widths,’ ‘6 MHz channels,’ or
`
`‘frequency bands’” does not appear in those claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`
`12:22–40; see also Pet. 10.
`
`We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the recitation
`
`of “an input configured to receive a modulated RF signal containing multiple
`
`channels” (Ex. 1001, 12:24–25, 15:3–4) in claims 1 and 19 of the
`
`’822 patent supports a narrow interpretation of “channel” limited to
`
`frequency bands (PO Resp. 8). Patent Owner reads this claim phrase as
`
`necessarily requiring that the recited “channels” must be frequency bands
`
`because they are channels within a “modulated RF signal.” PO Resp. 8.
`
`Such reading is, at best, superficial. According to Patent Owner’s expert,
`
`Dr. Nettles, the term “RF signal” refers generally to signals within the radio
`
`frequency portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Ex. 1043, 23:5–24:8.
`
`As Dr. Nettles explains, “RF signal” encompasses signals used by many
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`systems, from AM and FM radio to 3G and 4G cell phones, and RF signals
`
`can be used to transmit CDMA data. Ex. 1043, 22:15–25:21. Consistent
`
`with Dr. Nettles’ understanding, the ’822 patent expressly identifies a
`
`variety of technologies that utilize RF signals for data transmission, but
`
`employ modulation schemes other than FDMA, and use channels other than
`
`frequency bands––for example, cellular telephone systems. Ex. 1001, 5:35–
`
`39.
`
`Furthermore, Patent Owner’s characterization of Mr. Wechselberger’s
`
`testimony as endorsing Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of “channel”
`
`(PO Resp. 8) relies on selectively truncated portions of that testimony. A
`
`complete review of Mr. Wechselberger’s testimony reveals that he
`
`unambiguously testifies that the claim phrase “a modulated RF signal
`
`containing multiple channels” (Ex. 1001, 12:24–25, 15:3–4) does not require
`
`a particular type of multiplexing to provide the channel in the RF signal:
`
`The claims do not discuss any type multiplexing technique for
`providing a channel in the RF signal—instead only referring to
`“a modulated RF signal containing multiple channels.” In my
`opinion a POSITA would understand this usage in the claims to
`identify RF channels—that is channels in an RF signal—but not
`specify or require a particular type of multiplexing or modulation
`to provide the channel in the RF signal.
`
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 122.
`
`Accordingly, an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention of
`
`the ’822 patent would have understood that the “modulated RF signal”
`
`recited in claims 1 and 19 refers not to one specific modulation scheme, such
`
`as FDMA, but encompasses the set of modulation schemes known in the
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`communications art at that time. Such an ordinarily skilled artisan would
`
`have additionally recognized that the “multiple channels” contained in that
`
`“modulated RF signal” would have encompassed the set of channels used in
`
`the various known RF modulation schemes, including, for example, CDMA
`
`channels and code channels. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 122.
`
`The specification and prosecution history of the ’822 patent likewise
`
`support construing “channel” as “a path for transmitting electric signals.”
`
`As an initial matter, Patent Owner does not identify (see PO Resp. 7–19),
`
`and we do not discern any express definition of the term “channel” in the
`
`specification of the ’822 patent. Cf. Ex. 1001, 7:6–9 (defining “wideband”).
`
`In addition, we note that Patent Owner does not contend, and we do not
`
`ascertain record support for the proposition that the applicants for the
`
`’822 patent equated the terms “channel” and “RF channel” or “frequency
`
`channel,” or otherwise narrowed the meaning of “channel” during
`
`prosecution. Rather, Patent Owner argues that we should interpret
`
`“channel” as being limited to a “frequency band” because the’822 patent
`
`purportedly uses “channel” interchangeably with, or as shorthand for,
`
`“RF channel” and “frequency channel” (PO Resp. 8). We do not find Patent
`
`Owner’s position persuasive.
`
`The ’822 patent consistently and explicitly identifies the particular
`
`type of channel being discussed; it does not use “channel” interchangeably
`
`with “RF channel” or “frequency channel.” In fact, the term “RF channel”
`
`itself appears in the description of the preferred embodiments of the ’822
`
`patent more than twenty times. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 122. Moreover, the portions
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`of the ’822 patent to which Patent Owner points as supporting its position
`
`that “channel” and “RF channel” or “frequency channel” are used
`
`interchangeably, instead reflect the ’822 patent’s consistent use of modifiers
`
`to expressly identify the particular type of channel described.
`
`For example, Patent Owner relies on select portions of the following
`
`paragraph to support its contention that the ’822 patent uses the unadorned
`
`word “channel” as shorthand for “RF channel” (PO Resp. 8–9):
`
`The wideband signal distribution system 10 may allow for
`distribution of, for example, 29 channels, wherein each channel
`is 6 MHz in width, and it is known that such channels can handle
`analog video signals. However, where digital information can be
`transmitted over the RF channel, each 6 MHz channel can
`handle, depending on the modulation technique used, in excess
`of 40 megabits per second of digital information, and new
`modulation techniques may increase this information to, and in
`excess of, 100 megabits per second. This 40 megabits per second
`transmission allows for the transmission rate in excess of one
`gigabit/sec of digital information to be carried on the sum of the
`29 RF channels in the wideband signal distribution system 10.
`Using advanced modulation techniques will allow the wideband
`signal distribution system 10 to be expanded up to 60, or more,
`channels, thereby further increasing throughput data rate.
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:50–65 (emphasis added). When considered in its entirety, as set
`
`forth above, however, it is clear that this paragraph does not haphazardly
`
`interchange the generic term “channel” and more particularized term
`
`“RF channel.” Rather, the very first sentence of the above paragraph
`
`expressly characterizes the channels described as being 6 MHz in width,
`
`thus, making plain that the channels referred to are of a particular type,
`
`namely, frequency bands. Because the statement “29 channels, wherein
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01744
`Patent 7,941,822 B2
`
`
`each channel is 6 MHz in width” (id. at 6:51–52) expressly identifies the
`
`channels in question as frequency band

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