throbber
Filed on behalf of Unified Patents Inc.
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

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