`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`HYTERA COMMUNICATIONS CORP. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: February 8, 2019
`__________
`
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and PATRICK
`M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`TODD R. TUCKER, ESQ.
`Calfee, Halter, & Griswold, LLP
`The Calfee Building
`1405 East Sixth Street
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114
`216-622-8231
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`AKSHAY DEORAS, ESQ.
`Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, California 94104
`415-439-1416
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday, February
`
`8, 2019, commencing at 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`
`
`
`10:11 a.m.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Good morning. This is the trial -- the
`hearing of IPR2017-02183 and concerns Patent 8,279,991 which is owned
`by Motorola Solutions, Inc. The Petitioner in this case is Hytera
`Communications Corporation.
`I'm Judge Jefferson. With me remotely are Judges Fishman and
`Boucher.
`
`At this time, counsel, please introduce yourselves at the lectern, so
`we can make sure we get it recorded. We'll start with Petitioner making
`appearances.
`MR. TUCKER: Good morning, Your Honor. Todd Tucker from
`Calfee, Halter & Griswold. I represent Petitioner, Hytera Communications.
`And with me is my colleague, Mr. Josh Friedman.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you. And for the Patent Owner?
`MR. DEORAS: Good morning, Your Honor. For Patent Owner,
`my name is Akshay Deoras with Kirkland and Ellis. With me and speaking
`today will be Adam Alper and Mike DeVries. Also lead counsel, Jon
`Carter, is also here in the room. And with me from Motorola Solutions is
`Paul Bartusiak.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Thank you. Welcome. Obviously,
`counsel is experienced before us, but I'll quickly remind you that the hearing
`is open to the public. If there is something that needs to go off the record,
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`please let us know. The parties have been given 60 minutes per side. You
`can reserve time for rebuttal for those issues.
`I'll try to keep this accurate, but if not, I'll certainly let you know, if
`you let me know how much time for rebuttal, you can certainly keep track of
`it yourself and we will hopefully get the clock behind me working.
`For clarity of the transcript, please state what slide number, exhibit
`number, where you are in the transcript. Trust me, it helps us in the back
`end when we're working on your matters. Demonstratives are not evidence.
`I don't need to explain that to you. While we appreciate them and I've
`received the demonstratives electronically, or we've received them
`electronically, so we should be able to follow along.
`I'll skip the rest of this because I think you guys understand where
`we're going. You can begin when you're ready.
`We'll start with Petitioner
`MR. TUCKER: We're going to reserve 15 minutes, Your Honor.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Okay.
`MR. TUCKER: So we're here this morning to start with on the '991
`patent. We've got two more later in the day. But I think that to set the
`table, there's a reoccurring theme through these patents that will start a little
`bit with a dull roar in the '991 and reach its crescendo when we get to this
`afternoon with the '001, and that is that all of these patents are at best
`incremental upgrades. What they really are is instead of patent and
`invention, the Patent Owner has consistently invented patents. They've
`taken known concepts, things found in the prior art, cloaked them in
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`sometimes interesting terms that tend to fall apart when they get looked at
`with any amount of scrutiny.
`The bottom line, starting with the '991 is this patent is just a simple
`little add on to what's known as the ETSI standard. All we're doing is
`setting time slot information in a second place. In the original ETSI
`standard, information about the slots are sent in a Common Announcement
`Channel. The '991 patent, all it does is take that exact information and
`throw it into a burst of the time slot.
`The ETSI standard already sends this time slot information in the
`Common Announcement Channels in sync information. ETSI also includes
`patterns that are embedded in the bursts that provide payload and source
`information. All the '991 patent says, and why don't we go to Slide 2, Mr.
`Friedman? All the '991 patent really says is also include the time slot
`information again in the burst. This is found in Zak. Zak even gives the
`exact same reason why Zak wants you to do this as stated in the '991 and
`that is we're trying to reduce the time and increase the accuracy of
`synchronization.
`This is a classic case of obviousness. This is nothing more than -- I
`think even their expert Akl's design choice change of elements in the prior
`art. Also the references are clearly motivated to be combined. As such,
`the '991 patent is obvious over ETSI and Zak.
`We would also submit that it's obvious over Zak and Yamaguchi . I
`think for most of the presentation the argument will focus on ETSI and Zak
`since that tended to be the focus of the institution decision.
`5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`
`So let's tie it into background of the '991. The '991, and I'm going to
`go to Slide 3, the '991 is essentially a TDMA kind of add on patent. And
`we'll get a fairly -- I should say, I know we're going to get deeper into
`TDMA when we do the next argument on the '284 patent, so I'll touch on
`some things. Please keep them in mind because, as I said, this is going to
`be reoccurring themes throughout the day.
`But for purposes of the '991, it's enough to say that the TDMA is a
`mechanism for getting more channels out of a frequency band by slicing the
`band in the time slots. So we have this frequency on which information is
`transmitted in a wireless radio system. And before TDMA, there was
`FDMA, frame division multiple access -- I'm sorry, frequency division
`multiple access, where we would take the frequency band and split it into
`two channels, two frequency channels.
`TDMA then takes an individual frequency channel and puts it into a
`time frame which has several time slots in them. So what this does is it
`allows us to more efficiently use the frequency by cutting it into little slots
`of time. Rather straight forward. I believe TDMA has been around since
`some time in the '90s. And the ETSI standard for wireless radio
`communication was adopted in 2004-2005.
`The ETSI standard is a two time slot only standard. It only
`contemplates two time slots and that's what the '991 contemplates, two time
`slots. So what happens when the radio wants to tune to a TDMA channel, it
`has to do two things. It is first going to demodulate to select the appropriate
`frequency band and then it has to sync to the appropriate time slot within
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`that frequency band. So we're going to be focused on syncing to that time
`slot or at least getting a radio ready to sync to the right time slot.
`Again, what's very important to remember is the ETSI standard is
`only a two-channel system, so as we start to think about claim language like
`preparing and determining, I think it often gets really amplified out of
`proportion because preparing and determining, searching, selecting, you've
`only got two things to select from. You've only got two things to search.
`You've only got two things to prepare from. It's not as complicated as made
`out to be perhaps.
`So on the next slide, Slide 5, this is what we call the ETSI Burst
`Structure. Information is communicated in bursts. It has this adopted
`general structure where the time slot is 30 milliseconds long and you can see
`that on the bottom of the drawing. And the burst is the line that is marked
`27.5 milliseconds. The burst has two payloads and then it has a field that
`can carry either a sync signal or some embedded signaling. And then to
`round out this time slot, the last two and a half milliseconds that the burst
`doesn't cover, that's part of the Common Announcement Channel and that
`goes on the left end and the right end of this time slot. And this just keeps
`repeating over time. So in the TDMA standard, we have two of these
`separated by a Common Announcement Channel.
`On Slide 6, the bursts have either the sync pattern or an embedded
`signaling field located in their center. Different sync patterns are used in
`different voice or data bursts because the payload could be voice, it could be
`data. It allows the receiver to differentiate between what it's receiving.
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`And the other thing is that we're going to use these patterns because you
`have to remember, you're in a talk group. And radios may be coming in and
`out of the talk group. They may have problems with communications and
`get dropped and try to come back in. So as radios come into this talk group,
`you want to make sure that they know what time slot they're supposed to be
`at. That information is in the Common Announcement Channel, but what's
`added in ETSI and Zak which is found in '991 is we take that sync
`information and put it in that burst. All we're doing is giving a second
`opportunity while you're processing a signal, to make sure that you're on the
`right time slot.
`So Claim 7 of the '991 patent and this is the only independent claim
`at issue, while it is a little bit long and rather wordy, it's pretty straight
`forward when you pare everything down and you can look through Figure 5
`of the '991 patent. This gives you a pretty good understanding. But we
`have three basic steps. We're going to prepare a transmit in a time slot.
`We're going to select a sync pattern associated with the time slot and then
`transmit the burst having the selected pattern.
`If you go through this figure, you'll see that at the start, you're going
`to determine whether are you on the assigned time slot or not the assigned
`time slot. If you're on the assigned time slot, you go from 510 to 520, select
`the sync pattern associated with that time slot, transmit in the burst to make
`sure you're on the right time slot, then repeat this for the other time slot.
`Let's say that when you come in you're not on the assigned or default
`time slot which is here called the rest time slot. So if no, all you do is just
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`send sync that says hey, sync to the other time slot. That's it. There's only
`two time slots. You've only got two places to go. It's one or the other.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Counsel, before you go on, I'm missing
`from your Figure 5, annotated version on Slide 7 is the determining step in
`Slide 7, determining whether the time slot is a current, desired time slot -- is
`that -- it's not color coded. I'm asking where does it fall --
`MR. TUCKER: Oh, I'm sorry, so that's going to be your 510, that's
`your decision. I'm going to grab my patent.
`So again, in case I wasn't clear, when you start to transmit, you know
`what the rest time slot is. The repeater has sent that information out. All
`you're doing is determining what sync I need for the time slot that's current.
`That's all this is showing.
`Why don't we go to Slide 8. The specification in '991 provides a
`very generalized view of the sync patterns. It says just a couple of things.
`There should be one for each time slot, but there can be sets, one or greater.
`They can also differentiate pay load or source, so pay load could be voice or
`data. Source could be mobile station or repeater or base versus subscriber.
`I think the term radio is typically called the subscriber. Sometimes
`it's also called the mobile. And then the repeater is often called the base.
`They're the same. And all we do is just get these patterns embedded within
`the communication burst that's sent in the time slot.
`So let's start into some of the actual steps of Claim 7 where the first
`step is we're going to prepare. And again, you only have two time slots, so
`I think a lot of this language is rather over stated. But in Claim 7, we're first
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`going to know a first set of sync patterns associated with a desired time slot
`and a second set. So why don't we go back to Figure 5, real quick, Mr.
`Friedman. A second set -- I'm sorry, Slide 8. I said Figure 5. I meant
`Slide 8.
`Slide 7. So I'm back to Slide 7. When we start, we already had
`done the knowing stuff. The repeater has told us knowing a first set of
`synchronization patterns associated with desired time slot. We've already
`been told what the desired time slot is and what the sync patterns are. So
`when we look at 510 where it says current rest time slot, the rest time slot is
`actually the desired time slot of the claim, okay? So that step has been
`performed. So we know that which is time slot 1 or 2 is our desired time
`slot and we know for each time slot what their sync information is. So
`that's why I was saying --
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: So the full diagram, counsel, you've already
`done Step C? What I call 7C, the determining step?
`MR. TUCKER: So the determining step in this embodiment is
`going to be occurring at 510, determining whether the time slot is the current
`desired time slot, in this embodiment that's at 510. The knowing step is
`above -- is essentially when you start. You walk into the system with that
`information on hand. The repeater has sent that to the subscriber already.
`So when we get to the preparing steps, so let's go back to Slide 9,
`this is -- I think it's been really, really inflated a lot, but preparing to transmit
`a particular pay load type in a time slot, the transmitting device prepares and
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`I am reading from Slide 9, and this is column 5, lines 32 to 41 in the '991
`patent.
`
`The transmitting device prepares to transmit in time slot one, e.g., for
`example, if the transmitting device is a repeater, the repeater may, for
`example, set the TC bit in the Common Announcement Channel to zero
`which indicates that the next time slot is one in accordance with the ETSI
`DMR standard.
`So if the TC bit which is a control bit, the TDMA control bit, in the
`Common Announcement Channel is zero, the system knows you're on time
`slot one. If it's set at one, you know you're at time slot two.
`So this is the main example and it's essentially the same of how you
`prepare it. You have this TC bit at zero or one. The patent never goes into
`any detail of anything else the radio is doing. This is it.
`So now if we move forward to Slide 10, this is what the ETSI
`standard time slot information in the Common Announcement Channel maps
`out as. So we start with AA, BB, CC, EE onward. So AA is a time slot
`and the red, I'm sorry -- AA is a frame. One is the time slot one in the
`frame. Two is the second time slot in the frame. The red are the Common
`Announcement Channels, so you see how we have Common Announcement
`Channel time slot, Common Announcement Channel -- this keeps repeating
`over time.
`The yellow that's in the middle of the voice, that's the sync. That's
`where -- if we would go back to Slide 5, okay. There you go.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`
`So Slide 5, what I'm trying to show is we've got pay load on either
`side. We've got the sync right in the middle. That's where we're going to
`drop the second time, but we're telling the system what the sync pattern is.
`So let's go back to Slide 10. Actually, move forward to Slide 11.
`The desired time slot, there is a Stipulated Construction. It's the
`current desired time slot means the current assigned time slot. As I said
`earlier, this is done -- the repeater has sent this information to the subscriber
`before we started Figure 5 of the patent. Hey, the desired time slot is time
`slot one or it's time slot two. The subscriber knows that before it starts the
`process. And again, the specifications in ETSI only have two channel --
`two time slot system.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Counsel, before you move on, and maybe
`this is a segue to the heart of the matter. You pointed to column 5, line 32
`to 41, discussed the preparing steps. And there's a significant issue between
`the parties about whether these steps have to be performed in a certain order.
`The Patent Owner points to what you call a line where they -- which
`I think you just decide an embodiment of the invention, not the only
`embodiment. But there's another embodiment that does follow the order,
`describes the parent step as something that happens before the determining
`step. And I'm referring specifically to column 9, lines like 39 through 44, I
`believe.
`Help me resolve this. I mean which one of these governs the -- it's
`not solely -- Figure 5 is not the only embodiment of the invention.
`MR. TUCKER: Right.
`
`12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: So why isn't Claim 7 directed to an
`invention that does require certain order?
`MR. TUCKER: Why don't we go to Slide 13, please?
`So it's very well established under federal circuit case law that we're
`not required, we don't assume there's an order and not the claim unless we
`have something that shows that. We have to have something in the spec.
`We have to have something in the claims.
`The Ex Parte Li case indicates that an antecedent basis argument is
`by itself not enough.
`Let's go to 14, please.
`Originally, Petitioner agreed with the constructions and only
`changed this after the initial determination, so that's been somewhat an
`abrupt about face. The expert admitted, and this was Wicker -- their expert,
`Dr. Wicker, he admitted that there's no technical limitation requiring order
`of these claims. This is found in his deposition on page 201, line 17
`through 25. He said he based his opinion just on grammar.
`The patent also says that -- it has a catch-all phrase which is Slide
`15, relational terms, we're not applied in the order in this.
`Also, if we turn to Figure 2, why don't we go to Slide 22.
`In Figure 2, it seems as if select and determining are just kind of
`mushed together. Determining doesn't show up. So we've got the start,
`know, then we prepare and then we select determining or transmit. It
`doesn't appear that there's any solid indication that it has to be in order. As
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`a matter of fact, with the way the language is used, it seems that it actually
`goes the other way.
`Motorola argues how can you select before you determine, but again,
`you could select before you actually determine or do it at the same time
`because you already know what you're looking for. This isn't magic.
`There's two time slots. I've been told ahead of time that my assigned time
`slot is let's say I've been told it's one. There's nothing special about it.
`And then the other parts of that argument would be when you look at
`the claim, the determining step also really mushes or bleeds over into the
`transmitting step where you're transmitting the current desired time slot. So
`there's more than one embodiment. There's language that indicates that the
`claims are not to be limited. The fact that we have some antecedent basis
`that's used later, the federal circuit has said that's not determinative. All we
`know is that there's no clear one point that says we have to be in order. So
`since there's no specific instruction that everything has to be in order, we
`can't narrow or import that limitation into the claim. That's not permitted
`under federal circuit law.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: And the language in the specification, I'm
`referring to column 9, the paragraph that starts "in operation," how does that
`work in a person of ordinary skill in the art’s understanding of what these
`claims require?
`MR. TUCKER: Well, I think, Your Honor, a person of ordinary
`skill in the art, this leads from the transmitting device knows a first set of
`sync patterns and a second set, wherein the transmit -- prepares to transmit.
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`Once prepared, device determines whether time slot one is the current rest
`time slot. For this embodiment, maybe this implies order. Other parts of
`the patent go against that.
`Even if there is order to this, we would submit that the combination
`of Yamaguchi and Zak would meet this order. So I think we come out the
`same spot either way.
`Let's go back to Slide 17, please.
`So let's dive into ETSI and Zak. ETSI teaches almost everything
`that's in claim '991 patent. It has sets of synchronization patents for source
`and payload. It prepares transmission both by setting the Common
`Announcement Channel and by preparing embedded synchronization codes.
`It selects the pattern that corresponds to the next time slot. It embeds the
`pattern in the first. The only thing arguably missing is that the sync patterns
`embedded in those bursts lack the time slot identification.
`Zak, however, fills in this gap. Zak expressly teaches embedding a
`synchronization code for time slot identification and Zak says you want to
`embed the synchronization code for the exact same reason that the '991
`patent says that you have to do that. And that is, you're trying to decrease
`time spent figuring out the time slot and increase accuracy of
`synchronization.
`Eighteen, please. So now I'm on Slide 18. The sync patterns of
`ETSI are -- it discloses sync patterns that are going to differentiate between
`payload and source, where -- are we on mobile station or on a base station
`repeater, and then are we voice or data. So that's what we have.
`15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`
`So what you see here is BS source are the outbound signals and
`outbound means from base station into the talk group and what ETSI is
`showing is they have a hexadecimal set up for what the sync patterns are for
`voice or data and then another set what they are when it's coming from the
`mobile station.
`ETSI uses these patterns for the expressed purpose of getting your
`mobile station synced into the system timing. Again, this is all done over
`time. These are all time slots. They exist in time. They keep going on
`and on, so you have to sync in at the right moment to know where you are.
`Also, ETSI anticipates embedding additional information using the
`synchronization patterns by -- they have reserve patterns here. They
`contemplated adding on to the system.
`If we go to Slide 19, what Zak does it Zak discloses sync words that
`differentiate a time slot and you have a unique and I'm at Slide 19 and this is
`Zak, a unique sync word is typically provided for each separate time slot.
`So a unique sync word for a separate time slot in a frequency sub-band and
`the sync word is located at pre-defined position within the time slot. So this
`is matching up to the bursts that I showed previously where we've got sync
`information. It's unique for each time slot and it's put into a pre-defined
`position within that time slot.
`If we go to Slide 20, there's also question about whether Zak
`expresses this one-to-one ratio. The '911 patent has a one-to-one ratio of
`information. In this embodiment of Zak, this is clearly one-to-one. Zak
`says a unique sync word is typically provided for each separate time slot.
`16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner tries to -- they don't try, they do -- they argue that Zak
`is a one-to-two ratio. Their basis for that is that in an exemplary
`embodiment, Zak is looking at the ANSI 136 standard for some of its
`information, but that's not -- that reference to the ANSI 136, the Patent
`Owner relies on, first off, is by way of example and second off, it's not --
`they're not relying on ANSI 136 for the sync words. What they're relying --
`they're not relying on ANSI 136 for the ratio of sync. What they're relying
`on in Zak for ANSI 136 is an way to formulate the actual sync word which
`is different than the ratio of how you're syncing.
`Let's move on to Slide 22. And here -- now I'm going to walk
`through the actual steps, so we'll talk a little bit about the art.
`In preparing, the device prepares to transmit by setting the TC bit in
`the Common Announcement Channel in accordance with the DMR standard.
`And this is step 2 of 5 of Figure 2. As I said earlier, selecting and
`determining one step, you don't need to prepare before selecting or
`determining. This is -- you're trying to pull out of this paragraph and
`sandwich selecting and determining in between preparing and -- between the
`start in 205. Why this got important is this quote, "The transmitting device
`prepares to transmit in time slot one." Okay.
`Next slide. When Dr. Wicker was deposed, he was asked "So is the
`TC bit preparing or determining?" And he said that would be determining.
`If we go back a slide, you can see that the patent is saying the
`transmitting device, the TC bit is preparing. Then when asked "Why does
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`the patent say that it's preparing?" He says, "The sentence says the
`transmitting device prepares to transmit in one time slot."
`Now if you go back and look at the actual transcript we submitted,
`the reporter did a bad job of instead of putting in e.g. from the patent, she put
`in for example, so I think it's a little confusing, but that's supposed to be an
`e.g., and I think a little bit later, then she actually puts in just e.g. which
`should be for example.
`He said, the sentence says "The transmitting device prepares to
`transmit in one time slot. E.g., for example, this would apply to the fact that
`time slot one, the preparing would be the other elements." I actually have
`almost no idea of what their expert is really arguing here. If we continue on
`through this, the next question is the transmitting device prepares to transmit
`in time slot one, for example. This is where I was talking about the reporter
`putting in these e.g.s and it gets a little confusing.
`"If the transmitting device is repeater to repeater, for example, set
`TC bit to CAC, Common Announcement Channel, we set it to zero. You
`see that?"
`" Yes."
`" Is it your position that, for example, modifies time slot one is not
`prepares?"
`And he said, "So in this instance, what's being said is that the
`transmitting device is assumed to be a repeater. So one of the things the
`repeater is going to transmit is the set TC bit."
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`
`"Follow up, is that the preparation study? Because I believe you
`testified earlier, this was a turning step."
` "I would say it's a turning step in the sense."
`So then follow up, back to Figure 2, "Is step 205 determining?"
` Now he says, "Step 205 is literally preparing. It says prepare to
`transmit in the time slot"
`So their expert is refusing to admit the words of ETSI, the words of
`an expressed disclosure, I'm sorry, Zak, is doing the preparing. It's really
`impossible to parse out what his reasoning was and even faced with kind of
`where we are in step 205, he finally admits it's literally preparing.
`Next, let's go to Slide 26. Now we're determining if the time slot is
`desired. And ETSI does do that. The stipulated construction of the current
`desired time slot means current assigned time slot. I mean TDMA in a
`system, the users are assigned a time slot for transmission and again, we're
`assuming a two time slot system.
`This was never really contested as to whether ETSI disclosed this.
`All that was contested was later on in the process was the order.
`Zak, again, if we go to the next slide, Slide 27, it's teaching
`determining as well.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: Is counsel relying solely on Zak for teaching
`determining or are you saying that ETSI teaches determining as well?
`MR. TUCKER: Both teach determining of desired time slot.
`Now, let's move on to selecting the pattern on Slide 28. So ETSI
`teaches, expressly teaches selecting the proper pattern. This is based on
`19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`source and payload type for communication which will then be embedded.
`ETSI says the TDMA protocol consists of inbound voice, outbound voice,
`inbound data control, outbound data control mode. Different frame
`synchronization patterns will be used to distinguish the various modes.
`Now if we go forward to 29, here Motorola appears to argue that the
`references do not teach selecting a time slot based on whether it's desired or
`not, but that's not all what the claim says. The claim in the patent clearly
`relates to selecting a pattern. The timing is dictated by the system. The
`time slot occurs on whichever slot comes next. So if we jump back to Slide
`1, go back to Slide 7, sorry, if we jump back to Slide 7, we can see all
`you're doing is just simply reciting the time slots, repeating the steps for
`each time slot.
`So moving forward to Slide 29 --
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: While you're doing that, let me orient you to
`what I'm trying to get the parties to address which is the petition did seem to
`describe the moving to the second time slot as the alternate time slot at one
`point and Patent Owner making, pointed out that Claim 7 requires that you
`either transmit in the current desired time slot or what they say is another
`time slot/alternate assigned time slot.
`We understand the backdrop of what you describe and see in the
`TDMA assigning, but the question is does the claim require there be some
`transmitting at alternate time slot, whether you call it an alternate time slot
`or not, 7D, I believe I call it the 7D limitation does seem to say you select
`this sync word or you select the alternate sync word. And since sync word
`20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`is sort of supposed to be allocated time slots, you would assume that means
`the -- you're selecting a different time slot.
`I think the parties seem to be passing each other in the night and it's
`talking about the same thing, so you say it does, Slide 29 says it doesn't
`require transmitting on an alternate time slot, but then you would agree that
`it does -- the process you describe in the combination of Zak and ETSI
`would then just shift and transmit on the second time slot.
`MR. TUCKER: Well, it repeats.
`JUDGE JEFFERSON: It repeats.
`MR. TUCKER: So when you read this process repeats, when you
`read Claim 7,
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
