Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`Entered: March 20, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`____________
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`Entered: March 20, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`____________
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Nokia of America Corporation, filed a Petition (Paper 2,
`“Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15,
`16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40, and 41 (“the challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,897,828 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’828 patent”).
`Patent Owner, Intellectual Ventures II LLC, timely filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314 and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to determine whether to institute
`review.
`An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “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). For the
`reasons set forth below, we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one
`challenged claim. We, therefore, institute inter partes review of the
`challenged claims of the ’828 patent in this proceeding.
`
`A. RELATED MATTERS
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), each party identifies various
`judicial or administrative matters that would affect or be affected by a
`decision in this proceeding. Pet. 3; Paper 4 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory
`Notices).
`
`B. THE ’828 PATENT
`The ’828 patent is titled “Power Control in a Wireless Communication
`System” and describes power-control systems that can operate in multiple
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`
`modes. Ex. 1001, (54), (57). In particular, the ’828 patent describes open-
`loop power control, in which a user equipment (UE) can measure path loss
`and use it to determine the transmit power level. Id. at 2:5–16. The ’828
`patent also describes closed-loop power control, in which the network
`measures the “signal to noise-plus-interference ratio (SNIR)” and uses it to
`issue transmit power control (TPC) commands to the UE. Id. at 1:50–56,
`2:17–32. The ’828 patent discloses that a UE receiving TPC commands may
`accumulate the commands to determine the transmit power level. Id. at
`6:39–46, 7:16–19. The UE may include both open- and closed-loop
`functionality so that it may respond to either TPC commands or to a change
`in the path loss. Id. at 8:5–7.
`
`C. CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`Challenged claims 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, and 36 are independent. Claim 1 is
`illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below:
`1. A method performed by user equipment (UE), the method
`comprising:
`[1.1] receiving, by the UE, an indication of whether
`accumulation of transmit power control (TPC)
`commands is enabled;
`[1.2] determining, by the UE, a path loss of a downlink
`channel;
`[1.3] receiving, on a single physical channel by the UE if
`accumulation is enabled, an allocation of a scheduled
`uplink resource and a TPC command, wherein the TPC
`command is accumulated with other received TPC
`commands;
`[1.4] calculating, by the UE if accumulation is enabled,
`transmit power in association with an uplink
`communication based on both the path loss and the
`accumulated TPC commands; and
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`
`
`[1.5] receiving, on the single physical channel by the UE if
`accumulation is not enabled, an allocation of a
`scheduled uplink resource to transmit data at a power
`level calculated by the UE based on the path loss.
`Ex. 1001, 13:37–55.1
`
`D. PROPOSED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability, each based
`on 35 U.S.C. § 103:
`
`References
`Zeira2 and Whinnett3
`
`Zeira, Whinnett, and R1-991514
`
`Claims
`1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 22, 26,
`27, 29, 33, 34, 36, 40 and 41
`2, 9, 16, 23, 30, and 37
`
`Pet. 6. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Paul Min (Ex. 1003).
`See generally Pet. 15–60.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. 35 U.S.C. § 325(D)
`Patent Owner argues that we should deny institution because the
`Petition relies on Zeira, which was “extensively considered during
`
`
`1 We add square-bracketed annotations to separate claim limitations as
`identified by the parties. See Pet. 29–39.
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,728,292 B2 (filed June 11, 2003; iss. Apr. 27, 2004)
`(Ex. 1005).
`3 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0219919 A1 (filed Apr. 30, 2003; pub.
`Nov. 4, 2004) (Ex. 1006).
`4 3GPP TSG RAN WG1#3 TDoc R1-99151, “Adaptive Step Power Control
`(ASPC)”, Panasonic (Matsushita Communication Industrial Co., Ltd.)
`(pub. March 24, 1999) (Ex. 1007).
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`
`prosecution,” and relies on Zeira for the same limitations the Examiner
`determined are patentable over Zeira. Prelim. Resp. 13–22.
`We consider multiple factors when determining whether to exercise
`our discretion not to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), potentially
`including:
`
`(a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted
`art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the
`cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated
`during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was
`evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art
`was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between
`the arguments made during examination and the manner in
`which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner
`distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed
`out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the
`asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional
`evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant
`reconsideration of the prior art or arguments.
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586,
`slip op. at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (Paper 8) (informative). As Patent
`Owner points out, Zeira was applied a number of times during prosecution.
`Prelim. Resp. 17–19. After the Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejection over
`a combination of Zeira5 and two other references (Chen6 and Van Lieshout7)
`(Ex. 1002, 971–78), the applicant amended the claims (id. at 987–1003). The
`Examiner, in a statement of reasons for allowance, stated that Zeira teaches
`“receiving by the IE, an indication of whether accumulation of transmit
`
`
`5 The Examiner applied the international publication of Zeira,
`WO 20/57574. Ex. 1002, 227–57.
`6 Published U.S. Patent Application No. US 2005/0025056 A1.
`7 Published U.S. Patent Application No. US 2001/0036823 A1.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`
`power commands (TPC) is enabled” and “determining, by the UE, a path
`loss of a downlink channel.” Id. at 1073. According to the Examiner,
`however, none of the cited prior art, alone or in combination, teaches the
`remaining limitations of the independent claims. Id. at 1074.
`Petitioner presents the prosecution history of the ’828 patent, in
`particular showing the claim amendments made after the Examiner’s
`rejection was affirmed by the Board. Pet. 11–14. As compared to those
`claims deemed unpatentable, Petitioner submits the challenged claims differ
`because
`
`(1) the Applicant amended the previously claimed “shared
`channel” to recite a “single physical channel” and (2) the
`Applicant added conditional limitations, specifically the UE
`receives “an indication of whether accumulation of transmit
`power control (TPC) commands is enabled . . . if accumulation
`is enabled, a transmit power in association with an uplink
`communication [is] based on both the path loss and the
`accumulated TPC commands; and . . . if accumulation is not
`enabled, . . . power level [is] calculated . . . based on the path
`loss.
`Id. at 13–14 (quoting Ex. 1002, 1037–51) (alterations added by Petitioner).
`Petitioner submits that those “differences do not merit or rise to the level of
`patentability.” Id. at 14. Petitioner’s position, therefore, is that the Examiner
`made a mistake in allowing the claims. Petitioner argues also that, in light of
`Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB Apr.
`28, 2016), the Examiner should not have allowed the claims to issue.
`Pet. 14–15.
`In this proceeding, Petitioner asserts a combination of Zeira and
`Whinnett and applies Whinnett in a role similar to that of Chen as applied by
`the Examiner. Compare Ex. 1002, 976, with Pet. 29–42. Thus, the art
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`
`previously applied was very similar to the art now asserted. The Examiner,
`however, did not reject the amended claims based on prior art. See Ex. 1002,
`1011–15. Thus, we cannot compare how the Examiner applied the cited
`prior art references to the amended and now issued claims to contrast that
`with Petitioner’s assertions. We recognize the similarities between the prior
`version of the claims for which the Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejection
`and the amended claims the Examiner ultimately allowed. See Pet. 13.
`In a statement of reasons for allowance, the Examiner stated that Zeira
`discloses certain limitations in the challenged claims, but that even a
`combination of the cited prior art did not disclose other limitations.
`Ex. 1002, 1073–74. The Examiner’s statement, however, does not appear
`consistent with Zeira’s disclosures. For example, the Examiner stated that
`Zeira teaches “receiving, by the IE, an indication of whether accumulation of
`transmit power control (TPC) commands is enabled” and cited Zeira’s
`summary section. Id. at 1073 (citing id. at 232:17–233:8). But Zeira’s
`summary does not provide a disclosure supporting that Zeira teaches that
`limitation. Thus, we have concerns with the Examiner’s statements
`regarding Zeira. Although the Examiner stated that neither Zeira alone nor a
`combination of the cited references discloses other limitations of the
`challenged claims, our review of Petitioner’s contentions as discussed below
`indicates that the Examiner erred.
`In light of Petitioner’s analysis comparing the amended and now
`issued claims to the prior version of the claims rejected by the Examiner and
`affirmed by the Board, and in light of Petitioner’s convincing presentation of
`unpatentability discussed below, we decline to exercise our discretion not to
`institute review in this proceeding. See Becton, Dickinson, slip op. at 18
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`
`(factors (e) and (f)). We note additionally that our intervening, precedential
`Schulhauser case may provide additional reasons for a conclusion that
`departs from the Examiner’s allowance. As discussed below, our conclusion
`regarding Schulhauser’s applicability may affect our final decision in this
`case.
`
`B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, the Board interprets claims of an unexpired
`patent using the broadest-reasonable construction in light of the specification
`of the patent.8 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016).
`Both Petitioner and Patent Owner assert no construction is required
`for any term in the challenged claims. Pet. 16; Prelim. Resp. 12. Patent
`Owner further argues that Schulhauser is not applicable to the challenged
`claims, because the Examiner found both claimed methods were missing
`from the prior art. Prelim. Resp. 12–13.
`We conclude that, for the purpose of this Decision, there is no need to
`construe any term to resolve any issue presented by the Petition and
`Preliminary Response. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am.
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`
`8 The Petition was filed before the November 13, 2018, effective date of the
`amendment to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 changing the claim-construction
`standard applied in inter partes reviews. Changes to the Claim
`Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to
`be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42).
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`
`
`As noted above, however, our precedential Schulhauser case may
`affect the outcome in this case. In Schulhauser, we held that a method claim
`directed to two alternative outcomes based on a binary indicator is construed
`to cover two different methods, and that the broadest-reasonable
`construction encompasses either one of those methods. Schulhauser,
`2016 WL 6277792, *4. Thus, an obviousness showing for such a claim need
`only address one of the two claimed methods. Id. Although Patent Owner
`argues that Schulhauser is inapplicable to the ’828 patent, that argument is
`based on the Examiner’s statements during prosecution of the ’828 patent.
`See Prelim. Resp. 12–13. As explained above, we are persuaded, at this stage
`of the proceeding, that at least some of the Examiner’s statements were
`erroneous. Moreover, whether Schulhauser applies to the challenged claims
`does not depend on any conclusions about the prior art; rather, the prior art
`may only affect the result of applying Schulhauser. In their briefing, the
`parties should discuss the applicability of Schulhauser in addition to the
`result of applying it to the claims here.
`
`C. OBVIOUSNESS OVER ZEIRA AND WHINNETT
`Petitioner asserts that Zeira teaches a conditional open- and closed-
`loop power-control scheme, and that Whinnett teaches sending an allocation
`of a scheduled uplink resource to UEs. Pet. 29–55.
`Zeira discloses a system and method for controlling wireless
`transmission power using combined open- and closed-loop operation.
`Ex. 1005, 1:12–16, 2:57–59. In closed-loop operation, Zeira describes a
`receiving unit measuring signal interference and sending a power command
`to a transmitting unit. Id. at 3:65–4:13. Zeira also describes that a
`transmitting unit can measure path loss to implement open-loop control.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`
`Id. at 4:14–17, 5:33–37. Zeira’s combined system applies weighting to the
`various factors for determining transmission power. Id. at 6:4–49, 7:13–20.
`That weighting parameter, α, permits the network operator “to use solely
`open loop or solely closed loop power control” if desired. Id. at 7:23–27.
`Whinnett discloses a system and method for scheduling uplink
`transmissions in wireless communications. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 40–41. Whinnett
`discloses that a “UE” (“any suitable wireless communication device”) sends
`information to a “node B” (“base transceiver station”) regarding the data to
`be transmitted and the capabilities of the UE. Id. ¶¶ 42, 44. Using a
`“downlink dedicated channel or a high speed shared control channel,” the
`network device sends a “scheduling assignment message (SAM)” to the UE
`that “informs the UE of the allocated transmission time and also for example
`the maximum power that the UE is permitted to use for the uplink
`transmission.” Id. ¶ 45. The UE uses the scheduled allocation to transmit
`data. Id. ¶ 46.
`Petitioner asserts that, in Zeira, “power control is used to reduce
`undesired errors in received signals and minimize interference with other
`communications.” Pet. 54 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:43–54). Petitioner asserts that
`Whinnett furthers Zeira’s performance goals “by introducing explicit Node-
`B scheduling as a ‘feature of the enhanced uplink . . . whereby the node B
`controls the timing and power of uplink transmissions in such a way as to
`maximize uplink through put, while maintaining interference at an
`acceptable level.’” Pet. 54–55 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 10).
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`
`1. Power control process that depends on whether accumulation is enabled
`(all challenged claims)
`Zeira discloses that, “[u]nder certain conditions, the network operator
`may desire to use solely open loop or solely closed loop power control” and
`that “the operator may use solely closed loop power control by setting α to
`zero.” Ex. 1005, 1:60–65, 7:23–27; see Pet. 30. Petitioner submits that
`because Zeira’s closed-loop control uses the previous power-control factor
`when calculating the current power control factor, it includes a previous
`TPC command and, therefore, “TPC commands are being accumulated as
`claimed.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:22–29; Ex. 1002, 489–90, Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 85–86). Thus, because Zeira teaches that the network operator may use α
`to selectively use open- or closed-loop operation, Petitioner asserts that Zeira
`teaches the “indication of whether accumulation of transmit power control
`(TPC) commands is enabled” and operating with closed-loop control when
`that accumulation is enabled. Pet. 30–32.
`Patent Owner argues “Zeira does not teach the claimed control
`process that depends on whether accumulation has been enabled.” Prelim.
`Resp. 26. Patent Owner recognizes that Zeira discloses using the parameter
`α to operate in solely open-loop or solely closed-loop power control, but
`maintains that Zeira does not describe the claimed process. Id. at 27–28. But
`Patent Owner does not explain its position other than to assert that Zeira fails
`to disclose the claimed process and that “the Office has already determined
`that Zeira’s iterative process does not teach the conditional control
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`
`process.”9 Id. at 28. As discussed above, the Office’s prior determination
`appears to have been in error.
`We determine that Petitioner has shown adequately for purposes of
`institution that Zeira teaches using its α parameter to selectively control
`operation in open-loop or closed-loop power control.
`
`2. Single physical channel (all challenged claims)
`The challenged claims require “a single physical channel” carry both
`“an allocation of a scheduled uplink resource and a TPC command.” E.g.,
`Ex. 1001, 13:42–47.
`Petitioner submits that Zeira teaches sending TPC commands in a
`dedicated channel, which is a type of physical channel, and that “TPC
`commands are only sent in a physical channel.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005,
`4:31–35; Ex. 1052, 13, 38–39, 57, 60; Ex. 1053 ¶¶ 82–83). Petitioner further
`relies on Whinnett disclosing a “scheduling assignment message (SAM)”
`sent to a UE to inform it of the allocated transmission time and maximum
`permitted transmit power. Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 44–45). Because
`Whinnett discloses sending its SAM as “layer 1 (L1) signaling” over a
`“downlink dedicated channel” (Ex. 1006 ¶ 40; Ex. 1052; Ex. 1053), and
`because Zeira operates as a TDD10 system where layer 1 signaling such as
`
`
`9 Patent Owner additionally points out that the Petition does not rely on
`Whinnett to teach the recited conditional control process. Prelim. Resp. 29
`(identifying “enablement of accumulation” as the relevant limitation).
`Petitioner relies on Zeira in this regard, so Patent Owner’s argument
`regarding Whinnett is inapposite.
`10 “In Time Division Duplex (TDD) systems, both uplink and downlink
`share the same carrier frequency.” Ex. 1001, 4:35–36; accord Ex. 1005,
`1:11–12.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`
`TPC commands are transmitted on a single dedicated physical channel
`(“DPCH”) (Ex. 1052, 13, 38, 39, 57, 60), Petitioner asserts the combination
`of Zeira and Whinnett results in a system where an allocation of a scheduled
`uplink resource and a TPC command are received on a single physical
`channel, as claimed. Pet. 36–37 (additionally citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82, 83, 88,
`90; Ex. 1053, 19–20).
`Patent Owner argues that the combination does not result in use of a
`“single physical channel” as claimed. Prelim. Resp. 29–31. To that end,
`Patent Owner argues that the Examiner and Board previously determined
`Zeira does not disclose a “shared physical channel used to carry allocation
`and scheduling information from the base station to the remote transceiver.”
`Id. at 29–30 (quoting Ex. 1002, 975). Petitioner, however, submits that a
`“shared physical channel” is but one type of physical channel, and that a
`“single physical channel” is broader than a shared physical channel. Pet. 33–
`34 (citing Ex. 1052; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82–83). For the purposes of institution, we
`agree with that analysis, and, thus, a prior determination regarding a “shared
`physical channel” does not control the result for the challenged claims.
`We determine that Petitioner has shown adequately for purposes of
`institution that the combination would satisfy the claims’ requirement for
`using a single physical channel.
`
`3. Actual transmission (claims 1 and 15)
`In addition to the issues discussed above, claims 1 and 15 recite
`“receiving, by the UE” or “sending, by the wireless network” (respectively)
`“an indication of whether accumulation of TPC commands is enabled.” See
`Ex. 1001, 13:39–41, 14:43–45. Patent Owner appears to distinguish those
`recitations as requiring actual transmissions, in contrast to other claims
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`
`requiring the capability for such transmissions. See Prelim. Resp. 31–32.
`According to Patent Owner, neither setting Zeira’s parameter α to a
`particular value nor measuring path loss of a channel equates to sending the
`claimed indication. Id.
`In Zeira, the transmitting device implements the dual-mode, open-
`and-closed-loop controller using the α parameter (Ex. 1005, 7:8–20, Fig. 4),
`so it appears that the operator’s action must cause α to be sent to the UE.
`The communication of the α parameter causes Zeira’s network devices to
`operate using “solely open loop or solely closed loop power control,” and
`because only closed-loop control involves the accumulation of TPC
`commands, using the α parameter to select open- versus closed-loop control
`means the α parameter is an indication of whether accumulation of TPC
`commands is enabled. See Pet. 30–32.
`We determine that Petitioner has shown adequately for purposes of
`institution that the combination would satisfy the claims’ requirement for
`“receiving, by the UE” or “sending, by the wireless network” “an indication
`of whether accumulation of TPC commands is enabled.”
`
`4. Conclusion
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s submissions and Patent Owner’s
`arguments, and we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing with respect to unpatentability over Zeira and
`Whinnett.
`
`D. OBVIOUSNESS OVER ZEIRA, WHINNETT, AND R1-99151
`Petitioner asserts that a combination of Zeira, Whinnett, and R1-
`91511 renders obvious dependent claims 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, and 37. Pet. 55–60.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`
`In particular, Petitioner asserts that R1-91511 teaches the claimed
`“multilevel TPC command” by disclosing “Adaptive Step Power Control,”
`which uses a TPC command where “the step size is represented by the ratio
`of the amplitudes between the power control data and pilot symbol.”
`Pet. 55–56 (quoting Ex. 1007, 1–2). Petitioner asserts that, “[b]y using
`Adaptive Step Power Control as recited in R1-99151, power control systems
`can achieve better performance under any condition such as fast or slow
`changing channel environments without any additional overhead.” Pet. 58
`(citing Ex. 1007, 1, 11).
`At this time Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertions
`regarding R1-99151. At this time and on this record, we are persuaded that a
`skilled artisan would have understood the benefit offered from using R1-
`99151’s multilevel TPC command, and would have applied R1-99151’s
`teachings to the combination of Zeira and Whinnett to achieve that benefit.
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the
`combination of Zeira, Whinnett, and R1-99151.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`We have addressed all of Patent Owner’s arguments raised in the
`Preliminary Response. For the foregoing reasons, we determine the
`information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner will prevail in showing the challenged claim unpatentable. Thus,
`based on the standard in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and our evaluation of the
`present record, we institute inter partes review.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of
`the ’828 patent is instituted of the challenged claims on the grounds
`identified in the Petition.
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01641
`Patent 8,897,828 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Brianne Straka
`John Poulos
`John McKee
`QUINN EMANUEL URQHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`briannestraka@quinnemanuel.com
`johnpoulos@quinnemanuel.com
`johnmckee@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Byron Pickard
`Daniel Block
`Tyler Dutton
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`bpickard-ptab@sternekessler.com
`dblock-ptab@sternekessler.com
`tdutton-ptab@sternekessler.com
`
`James Hietala
`Russell Rigby
`Tim Seeley
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES
`jhietala@intven.com
`rrigby@intven.com
`tim@intven.com
`
`17
`
`
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
