Paper 8
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: July 27, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BROADCOM LIMITED,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TESSERA ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Broadcom Limited (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes
`review of claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,809,393 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’393
`patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Tessera Advanced Technologies, Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: July 27, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BROADCOM LIMITED,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TESSERA ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Broadcom Limited (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes
`review of claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,809,393 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’393
`patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Tessera Advanced Technologies, Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a);
`see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and the
`Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented shows
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 10–15, and 17–19 of
`the ’393 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties do not identify any pending matters that would affect, or
`be affected by, a decision in this proceeding. Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1; see 37
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2).
`
`B. The ’393 Patent
`The ’393 patent is titled “Method and Arrangement for Setting the
`Transmission of a Mobile Communication Device.” Ex. 1001, [54]. The
`patent explains as background that mobile communication devices must set
`the transmitted power with “great accuracy,” and that “[w]ith conventional
`analog amplifiers, accuracy of this kind can, at best, be ensured only by
`complicated and expensive circuitry and complicated and expensive
`calibration procedures.” Id. at 1:9–20. The ’393 patent describes a solution
`that combines digital and analog amplification and that takes advantage of
`“the high relative accuracy obtained on the basis of digital amplification and
`of the insensitivity that digital amplification has to fluctuations in the
`operating voltage and in temperature.” Id. at 1:29–37.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`Figure 1 of the ’393 patent is shown below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 above illustrates a block diagram relating to setting the
`transmitted power in a mobile communication device. Id. at 1:51–52.
`According to the ’393 patent, digital data source 1 makes available the
`information to be transmitted, which is in the form of two digital signals I1
`and Q1. Id. at 1:57–59. Digital amplifier 8 amplifies the signals to give
`signals I2 and Q2, which are converted by digital-to-analog converter 2 into
`analog signals I3 and Q3. Id. at 1:60–62. I3 and Q3 are modulated in
`modulator 3 onto carrier frequency fT, giving modulated analog signal X3.
`Id. at 1:63–64. Analog amplifier 4 (shown in Figure 1) or a plurality of
`analog amplifiers (shown in Figure 3) amplify analog signal X3 to give
`signal X4. Id. at 1:66–2:3. Analog signal X4 is fed to power output stage 6
`and is applied as signal z(t) to antenna 7 of the mobile communication
`device. Id. at 2:3–5.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`The ’393 patent discloses that control circuit (microcontroller) 5 sets
`the gain factors of digital amplifier 8 via control lines g1 and g2, and sets the
`gain factors of analog amplifier 4 via control line g3 or, as shown in Figure
`3, via control lines g3, g4, and g5. Id. at 2:6–11. Power sensor 9 measures
`the actual transmitted power of signal z(t) and transmits the corresponding
`signal p(t) to control circuit 5. Id. at 2:11–14. Base station 12 specifies the
`necessary or desired change to the transmitted power. Id. at 2:19–20.
`According to the patent, “control circuit 5 determines, from the desired value
`for the transmitted signals and from the actual value of the transmitted
`signal, the gain factors that are to be set at the digital amplifier 8 and the
`analog amplifier 4 . . . under the operating circumstances at the time.” Id. at
`2:24–28. The ’393 patent discloses that “[b]y means of the control circuit 5,
`the overall gain needed for the transmitted power asked for at the time is
`apportioned between the digital amplifier 8 and the analog
`amplifier/amplifiers 4.” Id. at 2:29–32. The ’393 patent describes
`optimizing the signal-to-noise ratio as follows:
`To optimize the signal-to-noise ratio of the transmitted signal
`applied to the antenna 7, a high proportion of the overall gain is
`apportioned to the digital amplifier 8, with the dynamic range of
`the digital-to-analog converter 2 being exploited to the maximum
`possible degree. As low as possible a gain factor is set at the
`analog amplifier 4 or at the analog amplifiers 4, with the sum of
`the levels of the digital and analog gains producing exactly the
`desired level of transmitted power that is being asked for at the
`time by the base station 12.
`
`Id. at 2:33–42.
`The ’393 patent also discloses an arrangement for self-calibration,
`illustrated in Figure 3 below:
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3 above illustrates an arrangement for self-calibration in which
`the parameters that determine the gain factors for the digital gain and the
`analog gain are stored in microcontroller 5. Id. at 3:30–34. Specifically, the
`’393 patent discloses that “a table of corrections . . . can then be stored in the
`mobile communication device 10 . . . for a given set of parameters . . . after
`only one absolute measurement by a calibrated measuring device 11.” Id. at
`5:33–39. The ’393 patent states that by reference to the table of corrections,
`“it is possible to make a correction that corrects, as appropriate and with the
`help of the digital amplifier 8, the analog gains that show a difference.” Id.
`at 5:39–42. The patent explains that “the amplifiers are thus set each time in
`such a way that the desired transmitted power is obtained even when the
`analog amplifiers are affected by changes in temperature or changes in the
`operating voltage.” Id. at 5:42–46.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Among the challenged claims (claims 1–20), claims 1 and 15 are
`independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the challenged
`claims and reads as follows:
`1. A method of setting a transmitted power of a mobile
`communication device, the method comprising:
`amplifying digital signals (I1, Q1) from a data source
`belonging to the mobile communication device by a digital gain
`by means of a controllable digital amplifier to generate amplified
`digital signals (I2, Q2);
`converting the amplified digital signals (I2, Q2) into analog
`signals (I3, Q3);
`modulating the analog signals onto a carrier frequency
`
`(fT);
`
`amplifying the modulated analog signals (X3) by an analog
`gain in at least one controllable analog amplifier to produce
`amplified analog signal (X4); and
`matching the digital gain (D) and the analog gain (A), as a
`function of a difference between a measured power signal (p(t))
`derived from the amplified analog signal (X4) that represents a
`measurement of the transmitted power and a desired power
`signal that represents a desired value for the transmitted power
`from a base station, wherein the matching combines the digital
`gain and the analog gain to produce an overall gain and the
`desired value for the transmitted power by controlling the digital
`gain to minimize a contribution of the analog gain to the overall
`gain.
`
`Id. at 6:17–39 (emphasis added to disputed limitation).
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–20 of the ’393 patent are
`unpatentable based on the following specific grounds (Pet. 3, 10–71):
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Ichihara1
`Ichihara and Xiong3
`Ichihara and Barak4
`Ichihara, Barak, and
`Xiong
`
`Challenged Claims
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)2 1–7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 19, and
`20
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`5, 6, 8, 10–14, 17, and 18
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`1–10, 15, 16, 19, and 20
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`5, 6, 8, 10–14, 17, and 18
`
`In its analysis, Petitioner relies on the declaration testimony of Dr. Vijay
`Madisetti (Ex. 1002).
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016)
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. RE40,553, issued Oct. 28, 2008 (Ex. 1005, “Ichihara”),
`reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,553,018, filed Mar. 18, 1999, issued Apr. 22,
`2003.
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, effective March
`16, 2013. Because the challenged patent was filed before March 16, 2013,
`we refer to the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 in this Decision.
`3 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0198261 A1, published Oct.
`7, 2004 (Ex. 1006, “Xiong”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 7,471,935 B2, filed June 1, 2004, issued Dec. 30, 2008
`(Ex. 1007, “Barak”).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). In addition, the Board may not “construe claims during [an inter
`partes review] so broadly that its constructions are unreasonable under
`general claim construction principles.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted). An inventor may
`provide a meaning for a term that is different from its ordinary meaning by
`defining the term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
`and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim term.
`See Pet. 10; Prelim. Resp. 11. We determine that we do not need to construe
`any claim term to determine whether or not to institute inter partes review.
`
`B. Asserted Anticipation by Ichihara
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ichihara. Pet. 3,
`10–44. Relying in part on the testimony of Dr. Madisetti, Petitioner explains
`how Ichihara purportedly discloses each claim limitation. Id. at 10–44
`(citing Ex. 1002).
`
`1. Summary of Ichihara
`Ichihara is a reissued U.S. patent titled “Method and Apparatus for
`Adjusting Transmission Power of CDMA Terminal.” Ex. 1005, [54].
`Ichihara is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,553,018, which was filed March
`18, 1999. Id. [64]. Ichihara describes controlling a mobile terminal’s
`transmission signal power for multi-code transmissions, such as when a
`voice signal and a data signal are concurrently transmitted. Id. at 1:15–23,
`4:19–27. According to Ichihara, “one of the code channels is allocated to
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`transmission of a voice signal such as a conversation and the other is
`allocated to transmission of a data signal for a file exchange between
`computers.” Id. at 4:27–31. Ichihara explains that “allowable error rates are
`different” for voice and data signals, and that the type of voice signal or data
`signal may also dictate the quality or error rate required. Id. at 4:31–36,
`4:59–5:11 (contrasting examples of a conversation vs. music and a static
`image vs. a dynamic image). Ichihara discloses that “it is important to
`reduce transmission power as a whole.” Id. at 4:31–39. According to
`Ichihara, the capacity of a mobile terminal can be increased while also
`meeting the bit error rate required for the respective voice and data signals.
`Id. at 4:39–58.
`Figure 1 of Ichihara, shown below, illustrates a mobile terminal that
`includes “a transmission power control apparatus” which receives data
`streams of two code channels—channels A and B (id. at 8:9–18):
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 above, mobile terminal 1 includes receiver 12,
`spreading circuits 15A and 15B for receiving data streams from signal
`sources 4A and 4B, respectively, and variable gain circuits 16A and 16B
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`disposed on the output sides of the spreading circuits 15A and 15B,
`respectively. Id. at 8:18–23. According to Ichihara, variable gain circuits
`16A and 16B adjust levels of the in-phase and orthogonal components of the
`base band signals output by spreading circuits 15A and 15B, respectively.
`Id. at 8:42–47. Adder 17 conducts vector addition of the in-phase
`components IA and IB of the base band signal of each code channel and
`adder 18 conducts vector addition of the orthogonal components QA and
`QB. Id. at 8:48–55. Ichihara states that “the spreading circuits 15A and
`15B, the variable gain circuits 16A and 16B, and the adders 17 and 18
`constitute a digital signal processing circuit section 5 for conducting digital
`signal processing.” Id. at 8:64–9:1.
`Ichihara discloses that mobile terminal 1 also includes D/A
`(Digital/Analog) converter 19, modulator 20, variable gain circuit 22, and
`level control computing circuit 23. Id. at 9:15–40. According to Ichihara,
`level control calculating circuit 23 “is provided for controlling a level
`adjustment value at the variable gain circuits 16A, 16B and 22.” Id. at 9:37–
`40.
`
`Specifically, Ichihara discloses:
`The base station 2 receives a signal of each code channel from
`the mobile terminal 1, determines whether a reception level is a
`proper level for every code channel, and transmits to the mobile
`terminal 1 a TPCA signal and a TPCB signal that are power
`control signals for each code channel, in accordance with a
`determination result. In the mobile terminal 1, the receiver 12
`receives these TCPA signal and TPCB signal, and the received
`TPCA signal and TPCB signal are sent to the level control
`calculating circuit 23. The level control calculating circuit 23
`controls the variable gain circuits 16A, 16B and 22[] based on
`the TPCA signal and the TPCB signal.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`Id. at 10:13–24.
`One example of a transmission power control procedure is illustrated
`in Figure 3 of Ichihara, below:
`
`
`
`Id. at 7:50–51. Figure 3 above is a flowchart showing a control process in
`which the power control signals—the TPCA signal and the TPCB signal—
`provide instructions such as increase the transmission power by 1 dB (UP),
`decrease the transmission power by 1 dB (DOWN), or no change of
`transmission power (NOP). Id. at 10:49–58; 11:49–52. In the above figure,
`variables A, B, and C are gains from the variable gain circuits 16A, 16B, and
`22, respectively. Id. at 10:46–48.
`Per step 70 of the flowchart, if at least one of the TPCA signal and the
`TPCB signal is NOP, then per step 71 a branch is selected based on the
`value of TPCA and TPCB. Id. at 11:54–61. For example, if TPCA=NOP
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`and TPCB=UP, at step 81, “it is determined whether the gain B is a
`maximum value, and if it is not the maximum value, after the gain B is
`increased by 1 dB at STEP 82, the process ends, and if [gain B] is the
`maximum value, at STEP 83, the gain A is decreased by 1 dB and the gain C
`is increased by 1 dB.” Id. at 12:17–23.
`
`2. Analysis
`a. Whether Ichihara is Prior Art under § 102(b)
`Petitioner contends that Ichihara is prior art to the ’393 patent under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 4. Specifically, Petitioner asserts:
`Ichihara was filed on April 22, 2005, and is a reissue patent of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,553,018 (“’018 patent”) which was filed as
`Application No. 09/271,103 on March 18, 1999. Ichihara was
`published by September 22, 1999 (in EP 0944182), and thus is
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Id. Petitioner fails to provide a copy of EP 0944182 or otherwise support its
`statement that “Ichihara was published by September 22, 1999 (in EP
`0944182).” Ichihara—the reissue patent—issued October 28, 2008 and the
`’018 patent issued April 22, 2003.
`Patent Owner, in its Preliminary Response, does not challenge
`Petitioner’s assertion that Ichihara is prior art under Section 102(b). See
`generally Prelim. Resp.
`On the current record, there is sufficient evidence showing that
`Ichihara is prior art to the ’393 patent at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). In
`support of its assertion that Ichihara is prior art under Section 102(b),
`Petitioner relies on the publication of EP 0944182, not the issuance of
`Ichihara. Yet Petitioner does not identify disclosures in EP 0944182 in
`support of its proposed grounds of unpatentability. Rather, Petitioner relies
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`on citations to Ichihara (Exhibit 1005). Nevertheless, as a reissue of a patent
`that was filed on March 18, 1999, on the current record, Ichihara is prior art
`to the ’393 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 251 (pre-
`AIA) (“[T]he Director shall, on the surrender of such patent . . . , reissue the
`patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent . . . . No new matter
`shall be introduced into the application for reissue.”).
`b. Claim 1
`Petitioner contends that Ichihara discloses each limitation recited in
`claim 1. Pet. 10–22. Petitioner cites passages of Ichihara and identifies
`components of the circuit illustrated in Figure 1 and steps of the flowchart
`illustrated in Figure 3 of Ichihara that purportedly correspond to each
`limitation of claim 1. Id.
`Having reviewed the record, we determine that the information
`presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
`by Ichihara. For example, Petitioner sufficiently shows on the current
`record, and for purposes of institution, that Ichihara discloses a method of
`setting a transmitted power of a mobile communication device that includes
`amplifying digital signals by means of a controllable digital amplifier,
`converting the amplified digital signals into analog signals, modulating the
`analog signals onto a carrier frequency, and amplifying the modulated
`analog signals by an analog gain in at least one controllable analog
`amplifier. Id. at 10–17 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, [54], Figs. 1, 6, 8, 1:16–22,
`1:43–46, 1:61–65, 2:15–20, 3:9–11, 4:22–24, 8:16–23, 8:43–48, 9:1–11,
`9:15–36, 9:53–55, 10:5–12; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65–80). Petitioner also sufficiently
`shows that Ichihara discloses matching the digital gain and analog gain as a
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`function of a difference between a measured power signal and a desired
`value for the transmitted power from the base station. Id. at 18–20 (citing,
`e.g., Ex. 1005, Fig. 1, 10:13–24; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 81–84). Petitioner also
`sufficiently shows that Ichihara discloses “wherein the matching combines
`the digital gain and the analog gain to produce an overall gain and the
`desired value for the transmitted power by controlling the digital gain to
`minimize a contribution of the analog gain to the overall gain.” Id. at 18–20
`(citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, Figs. 1, 3, 11:49–53, 12:17–20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 85–88).
`Specifically, Petitioner relies on a disclosure in Ichihara of employing
`analog variable amplifier 22 only when the digital gain amplifier has reached
`its maximum gain capacity. Id. at 21–22. Under this scenario, Petitioner
`asserts, the contribution of analog gain to the overall gain is minimized. Id.
`Patent Owner asserts that Ichihara does not disclose the wherein
`limitation of claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 12–19. Specifically, Patent Owner
`argues that “Ichihara, unlike the ’393 Patent, assigns a limited role to the
`digital amplifiers and places primary gain control in the analog amplifier.”
`Id. at 15; see also id. at 13 (“Ichihara discloses a technique for controlling
`the transmitted power that uses the analog amplifier as the primary means to
`control the transmission power and the digital amplifiers to control the level
`difference between code channels.”). Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner
`selects a condition in which channel B requires an upwards adjustment, but
`channel A does not require an adjustment.” Id. at 16. Patent Owner asserts
`that under this condition in Ichihara, only if channel B is at a maximum level
`and the gain of channel B cannot be increased without affecting channel A
`will the analog gain be increased (with a corresponding decrease to the
`digital gain of channel A so that it remains unchanged). Id. at 16–17. Patent
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`Owner asserts “Ichihara is simply illustrating how it increases the gain of
`channel B without affecting the gain of channel A.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner
`argues that Petitioner “ignores the converse condition where channel B
`requires a downward adjustment.” Id. Patent Owner also points to another
`disclosure in Ichihara—illustrated in Ichihara’s Figure 2—in which “[i]f
`both channels need adjustment in the same direction (both UP or both
`DOWN), Ichihara relies solely on the analog amplifier to make the change.”
`Id. at 18. Finally, Patent Owner argues that even taking into account the
`“single circumstance” on which Petitioner relies, “Ichihara does not teach
`increasing the digital gain in order to minimize the contribution of the
`analog gain.” Id. at 19. Rather, according to Patent Owner, “Ichihara
`discloses an unremarkable decision making process in a two channel system,
`when one channel does not need a change in power but a second channel
`requires an increase in power, of first trying to increase the transmission
`power of [the] channel requiring an increase without affecting the other
`channel.” Id.
`Patent Owner’s arguments lack merit at this preliminary stage and on
`the current record. Patent Owner fails to address head-on the disclosure in
`Ichihara on which Petitioner relies of determining that the gain for the digital
`amplifier will reach its maximum and then relying on gain from the analog
`amplifier for the remaining gain. On the current record, Petitioner
`sufficiently shows that this disclosure in Ichihara is within the scope of the
`wherein clause of claim 1. The ’393 patent generally describes apportioning
`the transmitted power between the digital amplifier and the analog amplifier
`(Ex. 1001, 2:29–32), and the wherein clause does not require a particular
`amount by which the contribution of the analog gain is minimized. Nor does
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`the claim require that the analog gain be minimized in every instance in
`which the power level is adjusted.
`c. Claim 15
`Independent claim 15 is an apparatus claim that is very similar to
`method claim 1. Claim 15 generally recites a controllable digital amplifier,
`a digital to analog converter, a frequency modulator, one or analog
`amplifiers, and a control circuit. The control circuit of claim 15 “controls an
`overall gain of the digital amplifier and the one or more analog amplifiers to
`produce a desired value of the transmitted power . . . wherein the control
`circuit controls the digital gain to minimize a contribution of the analog gain
`to the overall gain.” Petitioner contends that Ichihara discloses each
`limitation recited in claim 15, in part referring to its earlier analysis of claim
`1. Pet. 32–41.
`Patent Owner argues that Ichira fails to disclose the wherein clause of
`claim 15, raising the same arguments that it raises for claim 1. Prelim. Resp.
`12–19.
`Having reviewed the record, and for the reasons explained above in
`connection with claim 1, we determine that the information presented
`establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing
`that claim 15 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
`Ichihara. See Pet. 32–41 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, Figs. 1, 6, 8:16–23, 9:1–5,
`9:15–36, 9:53–55, 10:5–24, 11:49–53, 12:17–20, Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121–140).
`d. Dependent claims 2–7, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 20
`Claims 2–7, 9, and 10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and
`claims 16, 19, and 20 depend directly from claim 15. Petitioner cites
`passages of Ichihara and identifies components of the circuit illustrated in
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`Figure 1 and steps of the flowchart illustrated in Figure 3 of Ichihara that
`purportedly correspond to each limitation added by these dependent claims.
`Pet. 22–32, 41–44.
`Patent Owner does not challenge, in its Preliminary Response,
`Petitioner’s contentions that Ichihara discloses the limitations added by
`claims 2–7, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 20. Prelim. Resp. 19–20.
`Having reviewed the record, we determine that the information
`presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`showing that claims 2 and 19 are anticipated by Ichihara, but does not
`establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing
`that claims 3–7, 9, 10, 16, and 20 are anticipated by Ichihara.
`With respect to claim 2, Petitioner sufficiently shows for institution
`purposes and on the current record that Ichihara discloses only adjusting the
`analog gain in steps. Specifically, Petitioner shows that Ichihara discloses
`adjusting the analog gain in steps. Pet. 22–24 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, Fig. 3,
`11:49–53, 12:17–20). We note, however, that the disclosure on which
`Petitioner relies—including step 83 of Figure 3 of Ichihara—discloses
`adjusting the analog gain (C=C+1) and adjusting digital gain (A=A-1). Ex.
`1005, Fig. 3, 12:17–23. We encourage the parties to address in their post-
`institution papers the impact of “only” in the claim limitation, including
`what term or terms the word “only” modifies.
`With respect to claim 19, Petitioner sufficiently shows that Ichihara
`discloses that each of the “one or more analog amplifiers” receives a
`separate control line to adjust the analog gain. Pet. 43–44 (citing, e.g., Ex.
`1005, Fig. 3, 9:40–46, 10:21–24, 10:63–65.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`With respect to claim 3 (and claim 4, which depends from claim 3),
`Petitioner fails to show sufficiently that Ichihara discloses applying a digital
`gain in two steps, first by finely graduated factors and second with more
`coarsely graduated factors. Petitioner does not cite any express disclosure in
`Ichihara of these features or explain how Ichihara inherently discloses these
`features. See Pet. 24–25. Rather, for both the finely and coarsely graduated
`factors, Petitioner relies on the same disclosure in Ichihara of multiplying
`multilevel digital signals “by a value corresponding to a level adjustment
`value” and conclusory testimony of its declarant that the multiplying “can
`consist of coarsely graduated factors.” Id. (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 95).
`With respect to claim 5 (and claim 6, which depends from claim 5),
`Petitioner fails to show sufficiently that Ichihara expressly or inherently
`discloses performing a self-calibration process. See Pet. 27–28. Petitioner’s
`assertion and identical testimony of its declarant that “Ichihara is self-
`calibrating because it places no restrictions on the process repeating itself
`until the transmitted signal power level is equivalent to the desired power
`signal level” does not show sufficiently that Ichihara affirmatively discloses
`repeating the process, or that the process is necessarily repeated, in a self-
`contained manner to correct the analog gain. Pet. 28 (emphasis added); Ex.
`1002 ¶ 102 (emphasis added). None of the citations on which Petitioner
`relies describes a self-calibration process for the analog gain, and Petitioner
`fails to explain sufficiently how self-calibration is inherent in light of the
`disclosures. See Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:43–53, 5:55–62, 10:12–23,
`12:25–31).
`With respect to claims 7 and 20, on the record before us, Petitioner
`fails to show sufficiently that Ichihara discloses that the mobile
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`communication device is a Universal Mobile Telecommunication System
`(UMTS) device. Petitioner argues that Ichihara discloses a CDMA device
`and that “UMTS uses wideband CDMA radio technology.” Pet. 30 (citing,
`e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 110), 44. Petitioner does not rely on express disclosure in
`Ichihara, and Petitioner fails to show sufficiently on the current record that
`Ichihara’s disclosure of a CDMA device necessarily discloses a UMTS
`device (e.g., that the only types of mobile communication devices that use
`CDMA technology are UMTS devices). Id.
`Petitioner also fails to show sufficiently that Ichihara discloses the
`limitations of claim 9, including “applying the multiplied signals and a
`second parameter . . . to a shift unit to produce the amplified digital signals.”
`Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how Ichihara itself discloses the
`claimed shift unit. Petitioner asserts that “[t]he coefficient multipliers of the
`variable gain circuit 16A and 16B include a shift unit that shifts bytes of data
`by an applied shift value.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 114; Ex. 1010 at
`Abstract, 1). Petitioner fails to cite any disclosure in Ichihara for this point.
`Id. In addition, the cited testimony from Petitioner’s declarant is conclusory
`without any further explanation. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 114. Petitioner also fails to
`explain how a citation to another reference—an article apparently from the
`October 1975 issue of IEEE Transactions on Computers (Exhibit 1010)—
`illustrates inherent disclosure in Ichihara. Pet. 31.
`Petitioner also fails to show that Ichihara discloses “determining the
`digital gain and the analog gain in the micro-controller based upon the stored
`matching parameters,” as required by claim 10. The passage from Ichihara
`on which Petitioner relies regarding storing a difference level in ROM
`pertains to determining the digital gain. See Pet. 28–29, 32; Ex. 1005,
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00736
`Patent 7,809,393 B2
`
`13:47–54. Petitioner fails to show or sufficiently explain how Ichihara
`discloses determining both the digital gain and the analog gain based upon
`stored matching parameters.
`Petitioner also fails to show that Ichihara discloses “a second
`amplifier stage comprising a shift unit,” as required by claim 16. For the
`reasons explained above in connection with claim 9, Petitioner fails to show
`express or inherent disclosure of a shift unit in Ichihara. See Pet. 42 (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 144; Ex. 1010 at Abstract, 1).
`e. Summary
`The information presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1, 2, 15, and 19 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Ichihara. The
`information presented, however, does not establish a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 3–7, 9, 10, 16, and 20
`are anticipated by Ichihara.
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness over Ichihara and Xiong
`Petitioner contends that claims 5, 6, 8, 10–14, 17, and 18 of the ’393
`patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ichihara
`and Xiong.5 Pet. 3, 44–61. Relying in part on the testimony of Dr.
`
`
`5 Petitioner summarizes this ground as obviousness by Ichihara in view of
`Xiong. Pet. 3. Petitioner, however, asserts on pages 44 to 45 of the Petition
`that the listed claims for this ground are unpatentable as obvious over
`“Ichihara in view of Xiong and/or the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
`the art.” Because Petitioner’s analysis relies on both Ichihara and Xiong,
`and any additional evidence of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`art is solely the declaration testimon
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
