UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2017-____
`Patent 7,616,955 B2
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-in-Interest ...................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ............................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3): Counsel Information ........................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4): Service Information ......................................... 2
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 .................................... 3
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ................ 3
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(B) ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested ........... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): Grounds for Challenge ................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ..................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims Are Unpatentable ............. 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge .................. 5
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 5
`
`A. Overview of the ’955 Patent .................................................................. 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Subject Matter of the ’955 Patent ............................................... 5
`
`Prosecution of the ’955 Patent .................................................... 6
`
`B.
`
`Overview of the Prior Art ...................................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`Ling ............................................................................................. 7
`
`2. Walton ......................................................................................... 8
`
`3.
`
`Kim ............................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`C.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 11
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 11
`
`VII. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ......... 13
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1–27, 29, and 30 Are Anticipated By Ling ........... 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 13
`
`Dependent Claim 2 ................................................................... 20
`
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 21
`
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 22
`
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 23
`
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 24
`
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 26
`
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 27
`
`Dependent Claim 9 ................................................................... 28
`
`10. Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................. 29
`
`11.
`
`Independent Claim 11 ............................................................... 31
`
`12. Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................. 35
`
`13. Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................. 35
`
`14. Dependent Claim 14 ................................................................. 36
`
`15. Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................. 37
`
`16. Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................. 38
`
`17. Dependent Claim 17 ................................................................. 39
`
`18. Dependent Claim 18 ................................................................. 40
`
`19. Dependent Claim 19 ................................................................. 41
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`20. Dependent Claim 20 ................................................................. 42
`
`21.
`
`Independent Claim 21 ............................................................... 43
`
`22. Dependent Claim 22 ................................................................. 46
`
`23. Dependent Claim 23 ................................................................. 48
`
`24. Dependent Claim 24 ................................................................. 49
`
`25. Dependent Claim 25 ................................................................. 49
`
`26. Dependent Claim 26 ................................................................. 50
`
`27. Dependent Claim 27 ................................................................. 51
`
`28. Dependent Claim 29 ................................................................. 52
`
`29. Dependent Claim 30 ................................................................. 53
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 23, 27-29 Are Obvious Over Ling In Light
`Of Walton ............................................................................................ 54
`
`1. Motivation to Combine Ling and Walton ................................. 54
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“comprising a processor is operable to compute said first
`coding rate in said transmitter based on said received
`feedback information for transmitting said at least a
`portion of said subsequent data” (claim 23) ............................. 56
`
`“comprising a processor is operable to compute at least a
`second coding rate in said transmitter based on said
`received feedback information for transmitting at least a
`remaining portion of said subsequent data” (claim 27 and
`dependent claim 29) .................................................................. 57
`
`“wherein said processor is operable to code at least a
`portion of said assigned bits utilizing said second coding
`rate in said transmitter” (claim 28) ........................................... 58
`
`5.
`
`Secondary Conditions ............................................................... 58
`
`C.
`
`
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1–30 Are Obvious Over Ling In Light Of
`Kim And Walton ................................................................................. 59
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`1. Motivation to Combine Kim with Ling and Walton ................ 59
`
`2.
`
`“assigning bits for transmission via said plurality of
`transmitting
`antennas
`based
`on
`said
`feedback
`information” (claim 1) / “said transmitted feedback
`information is utilized to assign bits for transmission via
`at least one of said plurality of RF channels” (claim 11) /
`“said
`transmitter
`is operable
`to assign bits
`for
`transmission via said plurality of transmitting antennas
`based on said feedback information” (claim 21) ...................... 60
`
`3.
`
`Dependent Claims 2–10, 12–20, and 22–30 ............................. 63
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 63
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,616,955 B2
`1002
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,616,955 B2
`1003 Declaration of Dr. Tony Acampora
`1004 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0043928 (“Ling”)
`1005 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0141566 (“Kim”)
`1006
`Stüber et al., “Broadband MIMO-OFDM Wireless Communications,”
`92 Proceedings of the IEEE 271 (2004)
`1007 U.S. Patent App. No. 2003/0035491 (“Walton”)
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,785,341
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`
`Sony Corporation (“Sony” or “Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of claims 1–30 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,616,955 (the “’955 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-in-Interest
`Sony identifies the following real parties-in-interest, in addition to Sony
`
`Corporation: Sony Corporation of America, Sony Interactive Entertainment
`
`America LLC, Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc., Sony Interactive Entertainment
`
`LLC, Sony Electronics Inc., Sony Pictures Home Entertainment Inc., Sony
`
`Creative Software Inc., Sony Video & Sound Products Inc., and Sony Visual
`
`Products Inc.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters
`
`B.
`Patent Owner has asserted the ’955 patent in Broadcom Corp. et al. v. Sony
`
`Corp. et al., Case No. 16-cv-1052 (C.D. Cal. 2016). That case may affect, or be
`
`affected by, decisions in this proceeding.
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3): Counsel Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Gregory S. Arovas, P.C.
`Reg. No. 38,818
`greg.arovas@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`F. Christopher Mizzo
`Craig Murray
`Reg. No. 73,156
`Reg. No. 72,978
`chris.mizzo@kirkland.com
`craig.murray@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`
`655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone: (202) 879-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
`
`Robert A. Appleby, P.C.
`Reg. No. 40,897
`robert.appleby@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`
`Eugene Goryunov
`Reg. No. 61,579
`eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone: (312) 862-2000
`Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4): Service Information
`
`D.
`Sony concurrently submits a Power of Attorney, 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), and
`
`consents to electronic service directed to the following email addresses:
`
`• greg.arovas@kirkland.com,
`• chris.mizzo@kirkland.com,
`• robert.appleby@kirkland.com,
`• david.rokach@kirkland.com,
`• eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com,
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`• craig.murray@kirkland.com.
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`II.
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee set forth in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(1) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 506092. Review of
`
`30 claims is requested, and therefore an excess claim fee is submitted. The
`
`undersigned further authorizes payment for any additional fees that may be due in
`
`connection with this Petition to be charged to this deposit account.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A)
`Sony certifies that the ’955 patent is available for IPR and that Sony is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds
`
`identified in this Petition. Sony certifies: (1) Sony is not the owner of the ’955
`
`patent; (2) Sony (or any real party-in-interest) has not filed a civil action
`
`challenging the validity of any claim of the ’955 patent; (3) Sony files this Petition
`
`within one year of the date it was served with a complaint asserting infringement
`
`of the ’955 patent; (4) the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) do not
`
`prohibit this IPR; and (5) this Petition is filed after the ’955 patent was granted.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)
`A.
`Sony requests IPR of claims 1–30 of the ’955 patent.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): Grounds for Challenge
`
`B.
`This Petition asserts the following prior art:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`• Ex. 1004, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0043928 (“Ling”),
`published March 6, 2003, and prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). 1
`• Ex. 1005, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0141566 (“Kim”)
`published July 22, 2004, and prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and
`102(e).
`• Ex. 1007, U.S. Patent App. No. 2003/0035491 (“Walton”) published
`February 20, 2003, and prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`IPR is requested on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`
`Claims
`1-27, 29, 30
`23, 27-29
`
`3
`
`1-30
`
`
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejection
`Anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Ling.
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Ling in view of
`Walton.
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Ling in view of
`Walton and Kim
`
`These three grounds are not redundant. For example Ground 2 differs from
`
`Ground 1 in that a “processor” limitation is inherent in Ling, but express in
`
`Walton. Further, claim 28 is asserted to be unpatentable under Ground 2, but not
`
`Ground 1. Moreover, Ground 3 differs from Grounds 1 and 2 because it is only
`
`required should the claims be construed in a particular manner.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`
`C.
`A discussion of the claim terms to be construed is discussed below in
`
`Section VI.
`
`
`1
`Cites to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are to the pre-AIA versions.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Claims Are Unpatentable
`
`D.
`A detailed explanation of how the Challenged Claims are unpatentable is
`
`provided below in Section VII.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Evidence Supporting Challenge
`
`E.
`Attached is an Appendix of Exhibits. The relevance of the evidence and the
`
`specific portions supporting the challenge is provided below in Section VII. Sony
`
`submits the declaration of Dr. Tony Acampora in support of this Petition under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.68 (Ex. 1003).
`
`V. BACKGROUND
`A. Overview of the ’955 Patent
`1.
`Subject Matter of the ’955 Patent
`The ’955 patent relates generally to wireless networking. Ex. 1001 at 1:20-
`
`21. The ’955 patent purports to address a need to adapt transmission of
`
`information over multiple channels to account for feedback information regarding
`
`these channels. For example, the ’955 patent asserts that “there exists a demand
`
`for the introduction of new capabilities, which may enable a receiving mobile
`
`terminal to feedback pertinent information to a transmitting mobile terminal,”
`
`which “may enable the transmitting mobile terminal to adapt its mode of
`
`transmission . . . to achieve a higher information transfer rate . . . while
`
`simultaneously achieving a lower packet error rate (PER).” Id. at 1:48-59. The
`
`’955 patent purports to address these shortcomings by assigning bits “for
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`transmission via at least one of the plurality of RF channels based on . . . feedback
`
`information,” where the transmitted data has “at least a first coding rate based on
`
`the assignment of bits.” Id. at Abstract.
`
`Prosecution of the ’955 Patent
`
`2.
`The ’955 patent was filed on February 7, 2005 and claimed priority to a
`
`provisional application filed on November 12, 2004. Id. at Cover. The examiner
`
`initially rejected all claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,070,536 to Mahany. Ex. 1002 at 94. The applicant then amended
`
`claims and argued that while the claims require transmitting via “a plurality of
`
`transmitting antennas,” the transmitter of Mahany “comprises a single antenna.”
`
`Id. at 86. The examiner next rejected all claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious
`
`over Mahany in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0113041 (“Polley”), noting that that
`
`“Mahany fails to disclose concurrently transmitting the RF channels to a single
`
`receiving device utilizing a plurality of transmitting antennas” but that “Polley
`
`discloses this feature.” Id. at 69. To distinguish Polly, the applicant amended the
`
`claims such that where claim 1 required “assigning bits for transmission via at least
`
`one of said plurality of RF channels,” the amended claim required “assigning bits
`
`for transmission via said plurality of transmitting antennas.” Id. at 49, 56-58. The
`
`examiner next rejected the claims for “failing to comply with the written
`
`description requirement.” Id. at 44. The applicant traversed the rejection (id. at
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`36), and the examiner allowed all of the claims (id. at 20-22). Thus, the only
`
`alleged point of novelty in the claims of the ’955 patent was assigning bits for
`
`transmission via said plurality of transmitting antennas. And, as shown below
`
`prior art discloses that element.
`
`B. Overview of the Prior Art
`1.
`Ling
`Ling is titled “Coding Scheme For A Wireless Communication System” and
`
`was initially assigned to Qualcomm. Ex. 1004 at Cover. Ling is generally directed
`
`toward a multiple-input multiple output (“MIMO”) system and method for use in
`
`wireless communications. Id. at ¶ 0002-4, 0024; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 42. Specifically,
`
`Ling relates to “flexible, and efficient coding scheme for encoding data for
`
`transmission on multiple transmission channels with different transmission
`
`capabilities.” Ex. 1004 at ¶ 0002.
`
`Ling explains that there is a need to adapt data transmission over multiple
`
`channels to account for inter-channel differences in performance. For example,
`
`Ling states that “[t]he frequency subchannels of an OFDM system may experience
`
`different link conditions,” and therefore “the number of information bits per
`
`modulation symbol (i.e., the information bit rate) that may be transmitted on each
`
`subchannel for a particular level of performance may be different from subchannel
`
`to subchannel.” Id. at ¶ 0006. Ling further notes that the “different transmission
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`capabilities” of the various transmission channels “make it challenging to provide
`
`an effective coding scheme capable of encoding the supported number of
`
`information bits/modulation symbol.” Id. at ¶ 0007.
`
`Ling therefore adapts transmission of information over multiple channels
`
`based on feedback information regarding channel quality. For example, “the
`
`number of information bits per modulation symbol supported by each transmission
`
`channel is [to be] determined (e.g., based on the channel’s SNR).” Id. at ¶ 0010.
`
`The channel’s SNR—which means signal-to-noise ratio or signal-to-noise-plus-
`
`interference ratio—is determined at the receiver and fed back to the transmitter.
`
`Id. at ¶¶ 0024, 0060, Claim 8; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 44. Further, “[b]ased on the supported
`
`number of information bits per modulation symbol . . . , the coding rate for each
`
`transmission channel is [to be] determined.” Ex. 1004 at ¶ 0010. The properly
`
`coded data is then transmitted over multiple transmit antennas and received by
`
`multiple receive antennas. Id. at ¶ 0024, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 44.
`
`Accordingly, Ling solves the same problem identified in the ’955 patent in
`
`the same way.
`
`2. Walton
`Walton is titled “Method And Apparatus For Processing Data In A Multiple-
`
`
`
`Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) Communication System Utilizing Channel State
`
`Information,” and was initially assigned to Qualcomm. Ex. 1007 at Cover.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`Walton is generally directed toward a system and method for use in wireless
`
`communications, (id. at ¶ 0004), and specifically a “method and apparatus for
`
`processing data in a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) communication
`
`system utilizing channel state
`
`information
`
`to provide
`
`improved system
`
`performance.” Id. at ¶ 0002; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 46.
`
`
`
`The system described in Walton is nearly identical to that described in both
`
`Ling and the ’955 patent. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 47. In fact, they share two of the same
`
`named inventors―Walton and Wallace―and the same initial assignee. Further,
`
`Walton addresses the alleged need in the prior art to receive feedback information
`
`from the receiving device that enables the transmitting device to adapt its mode of
`
`transmission to achieve a higher information transfer rate while achieving a lower
`
`packet error rate. For example, Walton explains that “the transmission channels in
`
`a MIMO system . . . typically experience different link conditions” and that
`
`“[c]onsequently, the capacity,” which is the “bit rate” or “the number of
`
`information bits per modulation symbol,” “may be different from channel to
`
`channel.” Ex. 1007 at ¶ 0036.
`
`
`
`Walton discloses that “the data stream for each transmission channel is
`
`independently coded and modulated based on the channel’s SNR.” Id. at ¶ 0121.
`
`Further, the channel state information (“CSI”), which can include signal-to-noise
`
`ratio, is determined at the receiver and fed back to the transmitter, and that “the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`coding and modulation scheme for each transmission channel may be selected
`
`based on the available CSI.” Id. at ¶ 0043; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 48.
`
`3. Kim
`Kim is titled “Apparatus And Method For Adaptively Modulating Signal By
`
`Using Layered Time-Space Detector Used In MIMO System.” Ex. 1005 at Cover.
`
`Like Ling, Kim is directed toward a system and method for use in wireless
`
`communications. Id. at ¶¶ 0001-2; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 49. Kim discloses an
`
`improvement to the known MIMO systems and methods to receive feedback
`
`information from the receiving device and use this information to enable the
`
`transmitting device to adapt its mode of transmission. Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 0002-10; Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶¶ 50-52. In particular, Kim teaches a system and method of “adaptively
`
`modulating/demodulating signal by using a layered time-space architecture
`
`detector in a [MIMO] system for improving a system performance by deciding an
`
`equivalent channel gain, deciding the number of bits for transmitting through each
`
`antenna and a transmission power by using a greedy algorithm based on the
`
`decided equivalent channel gain.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ 0010.
`
`Thus, Kim addresses the same problem as Ling, Walton, and the ’955 patent,
`
`but discloses a refined method for further improving the system performance using
`
`a greedy algorithm. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 53.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering or equivalent degree,
`
`and at least four years of experience designing and researching wireless
`
`communication systems, or a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or
`
`equivalent field, and at least two years of relevant experience. See Ex. 1003 at ¶
`
`54.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), “a claim in an unexpired patent . . . shall be
`
`given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent
`
`in which it appears.” See also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268,
`
`1275-79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Under this standard, “claim language should be read in
`
`light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The
`
`Board may also rely on extrinsic evidence so long as it “does not contradict any
`
`definition found in or ascertained by reading the patent document.” Smart
`
`Modular Techs. Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2014-01374, 2016 WL 1023837, at *6
`
`(Mar. 9, 2016) (citations omitted). Moreover, “[e]xpert testimony is useful to
`
`explain terms of art, and the state of the art at any given time, but cannot be used to
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`prove the proper or legal construction of any instrument of writing.” Id. (citations
`
`omitted).
`
`Sony submits that the construction of “tone,” which appears in claims 6, 16,
`
`and 26, is “frequency subchannel.” As Dr. Acampora explains, in OFDM, the term
`
`“tone” means a frequency subchannel. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 56, 34. This is precisely
`
`how this term is used in the ’955 patent. Id. at ¶¶ 56, 58. For example, the ’955
`
`patent explains that “[i]n operation, a plurality of tones may be transmitted via an
`
`RF channel, where each tone may be transmitted at a frequency selected from a
`
`range of frequencies.” Ex. 1001 at 11:27-29. Further, the ’955 patent discloses
`
`that the bits are mapped into symbols by mapper blocks 108a to 108n (Ex. 1001 at
`
`5:36-48), and the IFFT blocks 110a to 110n divide those symbols across a number
`
`of sub-channels, or sub-bands, in an OFDM implementation (id. at 5:49-62).
`
`These sub-bands are later referred to in the ’955 patent as “tones,” in accordance
`
`with the common use of that term. Id. at 13:35-58, 14:15-35, 14:58-15:15.
`
`As Dr. Acampora further explains, the plain meaning of “tone” in OFDM is
`
`also confirmed by contemporaneous literature. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 57. For example, a
`
`2004 overview of OFDM systems discloses that a “MIMO-OFDM system can use
`
`eigenbeamforming on a tone-by-tone basis to transform a frequency-selecting
`
`MIMO channel into a collection of M N parallel subchannels, where M is the
`
`minimum number of antennas at each end and N is the number of OFDM tones,”
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`meaning that the term “tone” is used interchangeably with “frequency subchannel.”
`
`Id. at 283.
`
`VII. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1–27, 29, and 30 Are Anticipated By Ling
`1.
`Independent Claim 1
`a.
`
`Claim 1, preamble: “A method for communicating
`information in a communication system”
`
`While not limiting, this preamble is satisfied. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 59.
`
`Specifically, Ling describes “[i]n a wireless communication system, a method for
`
`preparing data for transmission on a plurality of transmission channels.” Ex. 1004
`
`at Claim 1; see also id. at ¶ 0002.
`
`b.
`
`Claim 1, element [a]: “concurrently transmitting, to a
`single receiving device, data via a plurality of RF
`channels utilizing a plurality of transmitting
`antennas”
`
`Ling discloses this claim element. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 60-65. For example, in
`
`the “MIMO System” described in Ling, “an RF modulated signal from a
`
`transmitter unit may reach the receiver unit via a number of transmission paths.”
`
`Ex. 1004 at ¶ 0037-38. Each of these transmission paths for RF signals is an RF
`
`channel. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 61. Specifically, Ling explains that in MIMO mode, the
`
`“MIMO channel” is comprised of multiple “independent channels,” each of which
`
`can be referred to as a “spatial subchannel.” Ex. 1004 at ¶ 0037-38. Further,
`
`within each spatial subchannel, “the operating frequency band is effectively
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`partitioned into a number of ‘frequency sub-channels’ (i.e. frequency bins).” Id. at
`
`¶ 26. The “transmission channels” in Ling, which are claimed RF channels, are
`
`defined such
`
`that “[e]ach frequency subchannel/spatial subchannel [is a]
`
`‘transmission channel.’”2 Id.; see also id. at ¶¶ 0005, 0009. Thus, Ling teaches
`
`transmitting data “via a plurality of RF channels.” Ex. 1003 at ¶ 61.
`
`Ling further discloses that “in a MIMO mode . . . multiple (NT) transmit
`
`antennas and multiple (NR) receive antennas are used for a data transmission.” Ex.
`
`1004 at ¶ 0026; see also id. at ¶¶ 0039, 0118, Claim 2. The multiple transmit
`
`antennas (colored in blue) and receive antennas (colored in yellow) described by
`
`Ling are depicted in the figure below:
`
`
`2 In addition to the disclosure of multiple spatial and frequency subchannels, Ling
`
`discloses that there could be “a single frequency subchannel, i.e., a single RF
`
`carrier, but multiple spatial subchannels.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 0065. In this embodiment,
`
`each transmission channel would comprise a single spatial subchannel containing a
`
`single frequency subchannel. Ex. 1003 ¶ 61.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 1 (colorized). This plurality of antennas is used to provide the plurality
`
`of RF channels. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 62; see also Ex. 1004 at ¶ 0026 (explaining that in
`
`MIMO mode, the multiple transmit antennas and receive antennas provide multiple
`
`communication channels); id. at ¶ 0041 (explaining that the transmission channels
`
`can be distributed over the multiple antennas to achieve spatial diversity). Thus,
`
`Ling discloses transmitting data via a plurality of RF channels “utilizing a plurality
`
`of transmitting antennas.” Ex. 1003 at ¶ 62.
`
`Ling also discloses that the data transmission over the plurality of channels
`
`is concurrent. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 63. Specifically, Ling explains that in “MIMO mode,
`
`increased dimensionality is achieved and NC modulation symbols may be
`
`transmitted on NC spatial subchannels of each frequency subchannel at each time
`
`slot.” Exhibit 1004 at ¶ 0026. This transmission is over a plurality of antennas,
`
`(id. at ¶ 0041), and in fact, one of the purposes of MIMO systems such as those
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`disclosed in Ling is to transmit data concurrently over multiple RF channels and
`
`multiple antennas. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 63. In addition, Ling discloses that “the
`
`transmission on the plurality of transmission channels [is] intended for a single
`
`recipient receiving device.” Id. at Claim 34; see also id. at Fig. 1 (because there is
`
`a single data sink 164, there is a single receiving device). Thus, Ling discloses
`
`“concurrently transmitting, to a single receiving device” via a plurality of RF
`
`channels. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 63-64.
`
`For the reasons above, Ling satisfies each portion of this claim element.
`
`c.
`
`Claim 1, element [b]: “receiving feedback information
`related to said plurality of RF channels”
`
`Ling discloses this claim element. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 66-69. Ling teaches that,
`
`for each of the plurality of transmission channels, “information descriptive of the
`
`channel’s transmission capability . . . is typically determined at the receiver unit
`
`and reported back to the transmitter unit . . . .” Ex. 1004 at ¶ 0133. Ling further
`
`discloses that receiving such information “may involve providing to the transmitter
`
`unit (e.g., via feeding back on the reverse link) the SNR for each transmission
`
`channel.” Id. at ¶ 0060; see also id. at Claim 8 and ¶ 0024 (explaining that SNR
`
`stands for “signal-to-noise ratio” or “signal-to-noise-plus-interference ratio”); id. at
`
`¶ 0062. The SNR is estimated at the receiver by periodically sending and
`
`receiving “pilot” symbols from the transmitter to the receiver between data
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`transmissions, and feeding back the SNR from the receiver. Id. at ¶¶ 0031-32. Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶ 67.
`
`The feedback information is related to each of the transmission channels in
`
`Ling, which as described in Section VII.A.1.b are RF channels. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 68.
`
`Specifically, the SNR feedback information describes the state of each of the
`
`transmission channels, and is therefore related to each of the plurality of RF
`
`channels. Ex. 1004 at ¶ 0065, Claim 8 (“wherein the [channel state information]
`
`includes signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) information for the plurality of transmissions
`
`channels”); Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 68, 28. Thus, Ling discloses “receiving feedback
`
`information related to said plurality of RF channels.” Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 66-69.
`
`d.
`
`Claim 1, element [c]: “assigning bits for transmission
`via said plurality of transmitting antennas based on
`said feedback information”
`
`Ling discloses this claim element. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 70-73. For example, Ling
`
`teaches “determining a number of information bits per modulation symbol
`
`supported by each transmission channel.” Ex. 1004 at Claim 1; see also id. at ¶¶
`
`0010, 0062-64, 0089, 0092, 0096. Further, Ling explains that the “number of
`
`information bits per modulation symbol supported by each transmission channel is
`
`determined (e.g. based on the channel’s SNR).” Ex. 1004 at ¶ 0010 see also id. at
`
`¶ 0089 (“the number of information bits that may be transmitted for each
`
`modulation symbol is dependent on the SNR of the frequency subchannel and
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`spatial subchannel used to transmit the modulation symbol”); id. at ¶ 0062 (“[e]ach
`
`transmission channel is associated with a[n] SNR that may be known to both the
`
`transmitter and receiver . . . [and] coding parameters of each modulation symbol
`
`can be determined based on the SNR . . .”); see also id. at Fig. 4B (“[d]etermine
`
`[the] number of information bits per modulation symbol supported by each
`
`transmission channel based on its SNR”), Table 1, ¶ 0063. Determining the
`
`number of bits that will be supported by each transmission channel comprises
`
`“assigning bits.” Ex. 1003 at ¶ 71; see also Ex. 1001 at 11:57-12:17 (explaining
`
`that assigning bits is determining the number of information bits supported by the
`
`transmission