`By: Lionel M. Lavenue
`C. Brandon Rash
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190-5675
`Telephone: 571-203-2750
`Email: UnifiedPatents-IPR2017-
`01490@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`Ashraf A. Fawzy
`Jonathan R. Stroud
`Unified Patents Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
`Washington, D.C. 20009
`Telephone: 202-871-0110
`Email: afawzy@unifiedpatents.com
`Email: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`Unified Patents Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Red Rock Analytics, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2017-01490
`U.S. Patent 7,346,313
`
`
`CALIBRATION OF I-Q BALANCE IN TRANSCEIVERS
`____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01490
`U.S. Patent 7,346,313
`Petitioner respectfully requests rehearing of the Board’s decision not to
`
`institute Grounds 1 and 2.1 The Board misapprehended the claimed “calibration
`
`cycle” by finding that it is a feature of the “calibration signal” and not found in
`
`Warner. The Board is mistaken because—as the Petition, POPR, both parties’
`
`experts, and cited intrinsic record all agree—the “calibration cycle” is a three-step
`
`process, independent of the type of calibration signal. The three-step process being
`
`a feature of the calibration signal itself would not only be inconsistent with what a
`
`person of ordinary skill would understand but also technologically illogical. The
`
`Board overlooked that the parties agreed on the meaning of “calibration cycle” and
`
`that Warner discloses it. This limitation was the only reason the Board denied
`
`institution on Grounds 1 and 2. Inst. Dec. 15-19.
`
`In denying institution, the Board found that Warner does not disclose or
`
`render obvious that “the calibration RF signal includes a calibration cycle.” Id.
`
`The Board stated that “the calibration cycle relates to a feature of the calibration
`
`RF signal, rather than simply requiring that calibration occurs (i.e., having a
`
`calibration process).” Id. at 15. The Board further stated that the specification
`
`provides an example of a calibration cycle based on the following quote: “This
`
`
`1 The Board’s rules limit rehearing to matters the Board has misapprehended or
`
`overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01490
`U.S. Patent 7,346,313
`signal may be produced by the sequence {1, j, -1, -j} repeated for the duration of
`
`the calibration signal.” Id. at 17 (quoting Ex. 1001, 10:67-11:1).
`
`The Board is mistaken because the ’313 Patent describes a “calibration
`
`cycle” as a three-step process, which cannot be accomplished as a feature of the
`
`calibration signal. As the Petition and Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Williams, explained
`
`when addressing the first instance of this claim term:
`
`The ’313 Patent describes [1] originating a calibration
`signal at the baseband transmit input, [2] observing the
`calibration signal at the receive baseband output, and [3]
`processing the calibration signal to form and minimize an
`observable indicator of I-Q imbalance.
`
`Pet. 39; EX1004, ¶ 73. The Patent Owner and its expert describe the “calibration
`
`cycle” the same way. Specifically, the POPR describes sending the calibration
`
`signal through the transmit chain and back into the receive chain through a
`
`loopback path, followed by the statement that “[t]he calibration cycle then
`
`determines the [] I-Q gain settings which minimize an observable indicator.”
`
`POPR at 10-11 (emphasis added); see EX2001, ¶ 53.
`
`The claims support the parties’ understanding of “calibration cycle” being a
`
`multi-step process. For example, claim 1 recites that “the calibration cycle
`
`determines transmitter I-Q gain settings which minimize an observable indicator.”
`
`Pet. 3-13, 26-41. Such a determination is not and cannot be made by the
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01490
`U.S. Patent 7,346,313
`calibration signal by itself or any individual feature thereof. Rather, determining
`
`gain settings is only made by completing the three steps of the cycle. Id. Indeed, it
`
`would be contrary to the ’313 Patent for a feature of the calibration signal to
`
`determine gain settings, because minimizing an observable indicator should be
`
`based on imbalances measured in the transmitter, and not which calibration signal
`
`is used. Id. The Board refers to claims that “require using the included calibration
`
`cycle to determine the minimizing gain settings” (Inst. Dec. 15), but this
`
`requirement supports the parties’ understanding for the same reasons—i.e.,
`
`determining gain settings requires the three-step process, not merely a signal alone.
`
`In addition, the Board’s misunderstanding is also confirmed by dependent
`
`claim 15 because it requires that “successive calibration cycles are used to refine or
`
`maintain I-Q balance.” Pet. 58. To “refine or maintain I-Q balance,” the
`
`calibration cycle (i.e., the three-step process) must be repeated over time at some
`
`interval or frequency, as the ’313 Patent describes. See Pet. 58; EX1001, 6:10-21
`
`(“[A]fter stable operation is achieved some form of . . . algorithm could be used to
`
`minimize the frequency of calibration cycles required. In some applications the
`
`need for recurrent calibration cycles might be objectionable. . . . [T]here is usually
`
`a guard time interval . . . during which a transceiver just having finished a
`
`transmission could perform a calibration cycle with no impact on system
`
`operation.”), 11:19-28 (“several basic cycles of calibration, each comprising a
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01490
`U.S. Patent 7,346,313
`transmit and a receive variation of gain”; “changes are likely to be small on each
`
`calibration cycle”) (emphases added).
`
`The Board refers to a variety of calibration signals (e.g., a sampled or
`
`discrete phasor) disclosed and claimed in the ’313 Patent (Inst. Dec. 16-17), but
`
`nowhere does the specification suggest that any of these features or types of
`
`calibration signals is a calibration cycle. The Board also identifies “the sequence
`
`{1, j, -1, -j} repeated for the duration of the calibration signal” as an example of a
`
`calibration cycle (Inst. Dec. 17 (citing EX1001, 10:67-11:1)), but neither the cited
`
`passage nor any other disclosure in the specification teaches or suggests that this
`
`embodiment of a calibration signal is a calibration cycle. The claims refer
`
`exclusively to the “calibration RF signal”—not the “calibration cycle”—as
`
`including these features. See, e.g., Pet. 11 (citing EX1001, 11:56-15:32).
`
`Instead, consistent with the parties’ articulated understanding and the
`
`intrinsic record (including the claims), the specification describes the calibration
`
`cycle as the three-step process that can be repeated over time to refine or maintain
`
`calibration. For example, the Board overlooked that, in describing the disclosure
`
`of the ’313 Patent, the Petition cites column 8, lines 21-30 (Pet. 20), which state:
`
`The RF signal from the transmit chain is provided a path
`to the RF receive chain, shown for example through an
`attenuator 120. This injection can be effected in many
`ways. It could be a dedicated signal path which is
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01490
`U.S. Patent 7,346,313
`disabled in normal transceiver operation but activated
`for a calibration cycle.
`
`EX1001, 8:21-26 (emphasis added). In other words, this excerpt describes the
`
`calibration cycle as a process the occurs during a particular period of time, i.e.,
`
`when the dedicated signal path is activated outside of normal transceiver operation.
`
`Petitioner acknowledges
`
`the awkward wording of
`
`the claims—“the
`
`calibration RF signal includes a calibration cycle.” But as explained, the Board’s
`
`interpretation is illogical from a technical perspective and contrary to the
`
`articulated understanding of the Petition, POPR, both parties’ experts, and intrinsic
`
`record. Moreover, such an interpretation would render the claims invalid for
`
`indefiniteness and lack of written description because a person of ordinary skill
`
`would not understand how or when a calibration signal would feature a calibration
`
`cycle—the specification provides no guidance.
`
`With the correct and consistent understanding of the term, the Petition,
`
`POPR, and parties’ experts are in agreement that Warner discloses the recited
`
`“calibration cycle.” As the Petition and Petitioner’s expert explain in detail, like
`
`the ’313 Patent, Warner describes originating a calibration signal at the baseband
`
`transmit input, observing the calibration signal at the receive baseband output, and
`
`processing the calibration signal to form and minimize an observable indicator of
`
`I-Q imbalance. Pet. 20-41; EX1004, ¶¶ 46-75. Patent Owner never argued that
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01490
`U.S. Patent 7,346,313
`Warner does not disclose a calibration cycle. Indeed, although Patent Owner
`
`attempted to distinguish Warner in other ways, Patent Owner confirmed that
`
`Warner discloses this term by referring to “the calibration cycle” in Warner. See,
`
`e.g., POPR at 3 (“Warner does not hold gain settings constant during the
`
`calibration cycle”), 24 (“there is no teaching in Warner of holding those filter
`
`coefficients constant during the calibration cycle”).
`
`For the reasons above, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`reconsider its decision not to institute Grounds 1 and 2.2
`
`Date: January 19, 2018
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Lionel M. Lavenue/
`Lionel M. Lavenue, Reg. No. 46,859
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Institution on all challenged claims is appropriate as long as the Board decides
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a); Intex Recreation Corp. v. Bestway
`
`Inflatables & Material Corp., IPR2016-00018, Paper 13 at 8 (June 6, 2016).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01490
`U.S. Patent 7,346,313
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING was served on January 19,
`
`2018 via email directed to counsel of record for the Patent Owner at the following:
`
`Jason Shapiro
`js@usiplaw.com
`Patrick Finnan
`pjf@usiplaw.com
`Edell, Shapiro and Finnan, LLC
`9801 Washingtonian Boulevard
`Suite 750
`Gaithersburg, MD 20878
`
`J. Boone Baxter
`bbaxter@hpcllp.com
`Heim, Payne and Chorush, LLP
`1111 Bagby St., Suite 2100
`Houston, TX 77002
`
`
`/Ashley F. Cheung/
`Ashley F. Cheung
`Case Manager
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`Dated: January 19, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`