`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Ericsson Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 8,593,936 B2
`Filing Date: January 3, 2013
`Issue Date: November 26, 2013
`
`Title: CARRIER AGGREGATION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
`SYSTEMS
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-00238
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4838-0149-1369x
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Preliminary Statement ..................................................................................... 1
`
`Technological Background and State of The Art ............................................ 2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`LTE Standard Development .................................................................. 2
`
`Release 8 PUCCH Formats (Prior Art) ................................................. 3
`
`PUCCH Format 3 .................................................................................. 8
`
`III. The ’936 Patent and the Challenged Claim ................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The ’936 Patent and Representative Embodiment .............................. 10
`
`Challenged Claim ................................................................................ 13
`
`Priority Date and Prosecution History ................................................ 15
`
`IV.
`
`Prior Art ......................................................................................................... 17
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,485,060 (“Nazar”) .................................................. 17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Nazar is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................ 17
`
`The Teachings of Nazar ............................................................ 27
`
`B.
`
`Ericsson-2, TI-1, and Motorola-1 (“the 3GPP References”) .............. 29
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The 3GPP References are Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) 29
`
`The Teachings of Ericsson-2 .................................................... 32
`
`The Teachings of TI-1 and Motorola-1 .................................... 34
`
`V.
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested .......................................................... 37
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`Claims for Which Review is Requested .............................................. 37
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge .......................................................... 37
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 37
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 38
`i
`
`

`

`VI. Claim 12 of the ’936 patent is Unpatentable ................................................. 38
`
`A.
`
`Ground #1: Claim 12 is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over
`Nazar in view of TI-1 or Motorola-1 .................................................. 38
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`A POSITA would have combined Nazar with TI-1 or
`Motorola-1 ................................................................................ 38
`
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 42
`
`B.
`
`Ground #2: Claim 12 is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over
`Ericsson-2 in view of TI-1 or Motorola-1 ........................................... 62
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`A POSITA would have combined Ericsson-2 with TI-1 or
`Motorola-1 ................................................................................ 62
`
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 65
`
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 73
`
`VIII. Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .................................................. 73
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest ........................................................................ 73
`
`Related Matters .................................................................................... 73
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ................................................................. 74
`
`Service Information ............................................................................. 75
`
`IX. Certification Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d) ...................................................... 75
`
`X.
`
`Payment of Fees ............................................................................................. 75
`
`XI. Time for Filing Petition ................................................................................. 75
`
`XII. Grounds for Standing ..................................................................................... 75
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01276 ............................................................................................. 17, 27
`
`Page(s)
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co.,
`257 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 38
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 17, 18
`
`EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of Am., Inc.,
`859 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 39
`
`Ex parte Andresen,
`212 USPQ 100 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1981) .................................................... 38
`
`In re Giacomini,
`612 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 17, 27
`
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .......................................................................... 38
`
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. Twi Pharm., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 46
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 38
`
`Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat Inc.,
`IPR2016-01713 ................................................................................................... 18
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 .................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119(e) ............................................................................................. 17, 18
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ................................................................................................ 1
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`iii
`
`

`

`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................................................................................. 73, 75
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d) ................................................................................................ 75
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2)(ii) ...................................................................................... vii
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. .................................................................................... 1, 38
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) .............................................................................................. 75
`
`MPEP § 2141.01 ...................................................................................................... 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Exhibit List
`
`1008
`
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,593,936 to Ko et al. (“the ’936 patent”)
`1002 Prosecution File History of the ’936 Patent
`1003 Declaration of Dr. Paul Min
`1004 CV of Dr. Paul Min
`1005 Complaint filed December 3, 2018 in Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-00526 (E.D. Tex.)
`1006 Plaintiff Sol IP’s First Amended Infringement Contentions Cover
`1007
`3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio
`Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA);
`Physical Channels and Modulation (Release 10), 3GPP TS 36.211 V10.1.0
`(2011-03)
`3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio
`Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA);
`Physical Channels and Modulation (Release 8), 3GPP TS 36.211 V8.7.0
`(2009-05)
`1009 E. Dahlman, S. Parkvall, J. Skold, P. Beming, 3G Evolution: HSPA and
`LTE for Mobile Broadband (2nd ed. 2008)
`1010 English Translation of Korean Patent Application No. 10-2010-0002231
`and associated translator declaration
`1011 English Translation of Korean Patent Application No. 10-2010-0009024
`and associated translator declaration
`1012 English Translation of Korean Patent Application No. 10-2010-0013352
`and associated translator declaration
`1013 English Translation of Korean Patent Application No. 10-2010-0030515
`and associated translator declaration
`1014 English Translation of Korean Patent Application No. 10-2010-0032647
`and associated translator declaration
`1015 English Translation of Korean Patent Application No. 10-2010-0076337
`and associated translator declaration
`1016 U.S. Patent No. 9,485,060 to Nazar et al. (“Nazar”)
`1017 U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/356,449 (the “Nazar Provisional”)
`1018 Ericsson, “A/N transmission in the uplink for carrier aggregation,” 3GPP
`TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #60 in San Francisco, USA, February 22-26,
`2010, R1-100909 (“Ericsson-1”)
`1019 Ericsson, “PUCCH Design for CA,” 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting
`#61bis in Dresden, Germany, June 28-July 2, 2010, R1-103506 (“Ericsson-
`2”)
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`v
`
`

`

`1023
`
`1024
`
`1020
`
`3rd Generation Partnership Project, “Final Report of 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #61bis v1.0.0 (Dresden, Germany, 28th June – 2nd July, 2010)”
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #62 in Madrid, Spain, August 23-27,
`2010, R1-104271
`1021 Texas Instruments, “Cell Specific CS Hopping and Slot Based CS/OC
`Remapping on PUCCH,” 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #52 in Sorrento,
`Italy, February 11-15, 2008, R1-080707 (“TI-1”)
`1022 Motorola, “Explanation of Changes in Draft CR on PUCCH CQI Slot-
`level CS Re-mapping,” 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #53bis in Warsaw,
`Poland, June 30-July 4, 2008, R1-082330 (“Motorola-1”)
`3rd Generation Partnership Project, “Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #52
`v1.0.0 (Sorrento, Italy, 11 – 15 February, 2008),” 3GPP TSG RAN WG1
`Meeting #52bis in Shenzhen, China, March 31-April 4, 2008, R1-081166
`3rd Generation Partnership Project, “Final Report of 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG1 #53bis v1.0.0 (Warsaw, Poland, 30 June – 4 July, 2008),” 3GPP
`TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #54 in Jeju, South Korea, August 18-22, 2008,
`R1-082771
`1025 ETRI, “Details of DFT-S-OFDM based A/N transmission,” 3GPP TSG
`RAN WG1 Meeting #62 in Madrid, Spain, August 23 – 27, 2010, R1-
`104665
`1026 Declaration of Craig Bishop
`1027 CV of Craig Bishop
`J. Dattorro, Fundamental Convex Euclidean Geometry and its
`1028
`Applications, Stanford University (2003)
`1029 Y. Jin and H. Koga, Basic Properties of the Complete Complementary
`Codes Using the DFT Matrices and the Kronecker Products, International
`Symposium on Information Theory and its Applications, ISITA2008
`Auckland, New Zealand, 7-10, December, 2008
`1030 DFT Matrix, archived at Internet Archive Wayback Machine on June 19,
`2009, at https://web.archive.org/web/20090619050217/
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DFT_matrix
`1031 Korean Patent Application No. 10-2010-0002231
`1032 Korean Patent Application No. 10-2010-0009024
`1033 Korean Patent Application No. 10-2010-0013352
`1034 Korean Patent Application No. 10-2010-0030515
`1035 Korean Patent Application No. 10-2010-0032647
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`vi
`
`

`

`1036 Korean Patent Application No. 10-2010-0076337
`1037
`3rd Generation Partnership Project, “3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #61bis
`Participant List,” 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #62 in Madrid, Spain,
`August 23-27, 2010, R1-104271
`
`
`
`Emphasis added throughout. Citations to Ex-1002, Ex-1018, Ex-1019,
`
`Ex-1022, Ex-1029, and Ex-1030 refer to the page numbers added under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.63(d)(2).
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`vii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Petitioner Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson” or “Petitioner”) respectfully requests
`
`inter partes review and cancellation of claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,593,936 (“the
`
`’936 Patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`The ’936 patent is alleged essential to LTE-Advanced Release 10 and relates
`
`to wireless communication between a user equipment (“UE”) terminal and a base
`
`station. The patent claims multiplying data symbols in two time slots by so-called
`
`orthogonal
`
`discrete
`
`Fourier
`
`transform
`
`(“DFT”)
`
`sequences,
`
`and
`
`transmitting/receiving said symbols on an uplink channel. The patent claims a
`
`sequence selection technique that defines sequence selection for the second slot
`
`based on sequence selection for the first.
`
`But the prior art is rife with these techniques. For instance, the ’936 patent
`
`refers to prior art versions of the LTE standard, including Release 8. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex-1001, 15:40-48. Release 8 includes multiple formats—called Physical Uplink
`
`Control CHannel (“PUCCH”) formats 1 and 2—for multiplying two slots of data
`
`symbols by orthogonal sequences, including DFTs, and then transmitting/receiving
`
`said symbols on the PUCCH. The claimed sequence selection technique was
`
`likewise known. Indeed, the ’936 Patent Owner’s own contemporaneous
`
`documents characterize the technique as simply applying “similar mechanisms
`
`used in [LTE] Rel-8/9.” Ex-1025, p. 1.
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`1
`
`

`

`This petition, supported by the Declaration of Dr. Paul Min (Ex-1003),
`
`explains why there is a reasonable likelihood that claim 12 of the ’936 patent is
`
`unpatentable as obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in view
`
`of the prior art cited herein, the knowledge and understanding of a POSITA, and
`
`the ’936 patent itself. Accordingly, Petitioner asks that the Board institute a trial
`
`for inter partes review of claim 12 of the ’936 patent and cancel the claim as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`II. TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND AND STATE OF THE ART1
`A. LTE Standard Development
`The technology at issue in this petition was developed by members of the
`
`Third Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”) during the LTE standard setting
`
`process. 3GPP is the organization responsible for creating and maintaining the
`
`LTE cellular standard. Many of the most innovative cellular companies in the
`
`world are members of 3GPP and participated in this process. To create the LTE
`
`standard, 3GPP held standard setting meetings where members proposed
`
`technology for inclusion into the standard.
`
`
`1 This section is supported and augmented by the Declaration of Dr. Min. Ex-1003,
`
`¶¶ 48-84.
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`2
`
`

`

`In co-pending patent infringement actions, Patent Owner Electronics and
`
`Telecommunications Research Institute, by and through its licensing agent Sol IP,
`
`LLC (collectively, “ETRI”), has alleged that claim 12 of the ’936 patent is
`
`essential to LTE-Advanced Releases 10 and later. Ex-1005, pp. 1, 58. Specifically,
`
`ETRI alleges that its claims are essential to 3GPP Technical Specification (“TS”)
`
`36.211 § 5.4.2A.2 Id. That section, titled “PUCCH format 3,” was first introduced
`
`in Release 10. Ex-1003, ¶ 83; Ex-1007, pp. 25-26.
`
`B. Release 8 PUCCH Formats (Prior Art)
`Before LTE Release 10, Release 8 first defined several PUCCH transmission
`
`formats for carrying uplink control information, including formats 1/1a/1b and
`
`2/2a/2b. Ex-1003, ¶¶ 55-79; Ex-1008, pp. 16-20 (§§ 5.4.1 - 5.4.2). For example, in
`
`PUCCH format 1, Binary Phase Shift Keying (“BPSK”) or Quadrature Phase Shift
`
`Keying (“QPSK”) symbols representing bits of acknowledgement (“ACK”) or
`
`non-acknowledgement (“NACK”) information are repeated and transmitted across
`
`a first and second slot in time. In other words, the same underlying ACK/NACK
`
`data is sent twice—once in the first slot and then immediately again in a second.
`
`
`2 Petitioner disagrees. Nevertheless, the invalidity analysis herein is based on
`
`ETRI’s allegation that practicing 36.211 § 5.4.2A infringes the Challenged Claim.
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`3
`
`

`

`Before transmission, for each slot, a UE selects and applies one of 12
`
`available cyclic shifts 3 of a length-12 sequence to the ACK/NACK symbols.
`
`Ex-1008, pp. 17-19; see also Ex-1009, pp. 399-402. Later, “the block of complex-
`
`valued symbols” is “block-wise spread” with one of several potential “orthogonal
`
`sequences (cid:1875)(cid:3041)(cid:3290)(cid:3278)(cid:4666)(cid:1861)(cid:4667).” Id. These orthogonal sequences are sometimes referred to as
`
`orthogonal “cover” or “spreading” sequences and they allow multiple UEs to
`
`transmit on the same time-frequency resources. See Ex-1009, p. 398-411.
`
`After application of the length-12 and orthogonal sequences, an Inverse Fast
`
`Fourier Transform (IFFT) operation is performed, and the resulting OFDM
`
`symbols are transmitted. The PUCCH format 1 structure is depicted below.
`
`
`3 A cyclic shift is an operation where sequences are shifted in one direction and the
`
`entry/entries that fall(s) off one end are replaced at end of the other. Ex-1003, ¶ 70.
`
`For example, sequence ABCD can be cyclically shifted to BCDA. Id.
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`4
`
`

`

`Ex-1009, pp. 400-401.
`
`
`
`In normal format 1 operation, both PUCCH slots of the subframe are
`
`comprised of four OFDM symbols for data and three for reference (shown in light
`
`gray and dark gray, respectively, above). Id. The orthogonal sequences, (cid:1875)(cid:3041)(cid:3290)(cid:3278)(cid:4666)(cid:1861)(cid:4667),
`
`for the set of four OFDM data symbols in each slot are selected from the set of
`
`length-4 sequences in Table 5.4.1-2, reproduced below:
`
`Ex-1008, p. 19. These orthogonal sequences, with entries of only +1 or -1, are
`
`typically referred to as Walsh-Hadamard (or Walsh) sequences.
`
`
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`5
`
`

`

`Under certain conditions, a “shortened” PUCCH format 1 is used. There, the
`
`final OFDM symbol of the second slot of the PUCCH transmission is devoted to
`
`non-ACK/NACK data. Ex-1008, p. 17. And since only three ACK/NACK data
`
`symbols are transmitted, the second slot’s orthogonal sequence is selected from the
`
`set of length-3 sequences in Table 5.4.1-3, reproduced below:
`
`Ex-1008, p. 19. These orthogonal sequences are constructed based on the discrete
`
`
`
`Fourier transform and are typically referred to as DFT sequences.
`
`In each of the two scenarios described above, the UE selects both its first
`
`and second slot orthogonal sequences based on a sequence index (cid:1866)(cid:3042)(cid:3030)(cid:4666)(cid:1866)(cid:3046)(cid:4667), which
`sequence index (cid:1866)(cid:3042)(cid:3030)(cid:4666)(cid:1866)(cid:3046)(cid:4667) can take the values ‘0’, ‘1’, or ‘2’.
`
`the UE derives from its assigned PUCCH resources. (The UE similarly derives its
`
`length-12 sequence from assigned resources.) In the tables above, the orthogonal
`
`As mentioned above, the length-12 and orthogonal cover sequences allow
`
`multiple UEs to transmit on the same time-frequency resources. However, the
`
`interference performance between the available length-12 and orthogonal cover
`
`sequences may not always be equal (due to channel fading or delay spread, for
`
`example). Accordingly, to randomize interference, LTE Release 8 UEs may use
`6
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`

`

`orthogonal cover and length-12 sequences that have different indexes across their
`
`two slots, which as mentioned above, contain copies of the same information.
`
`Ex-1009, p. 402. An example of such a scheme is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Ex-1009, p. 403. As shown in “Cell A” on the left above, a given UE (e.g., UE#3)
`
`may use one orthogonal cover sequence index in a first slot (e.g., index ‘0’), and a
`
`different orthogonal cover sequence index in a second slot (e.g., index‘1’). Id. This
`
`(prior art) scheme, is called “slot-level hopping” or “slot-level remapping.” The
`
`technique randomizes interference—both within a cell and between adjacent cells.
`
`Specifically, it makes it less likely that a single dominant interferer UE will
`
`interfere with both slots of the same UE. In this way, the prior art slot-level
`
`randomization scheme increases the likelihood that at least one slot from each UE
`
`will be received with sufficiently low interference to be accurately decoded. Id.
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`7
`
`

`

`PUCCH format 2 shares similarities with the format 1 methods described
`
`above. But each format is unique, and is designed to accommodate uplink
`
`messages of different sizes. Ex-1009, p. 399.
`
`PUCCH Format 3
`
`C.
`In February 2010, engineers from Petitioner Ericsson proposed a new
`
`PUCCH format for LTE-Advanced that was designed to accommodate the higher
`
`uplink ACK/NACK payloads required by the new downlink carrier aggregation.4
`
`Ex-1018 (“Ericsson-1”), p. 3. Ericsson-1 explained that “to support Rel-10 and
`
`beyond, the payloads for ACK/NACK are expected to become larger as compared
`
`to the payloads for Rel-8.” Id. Accordingly, Ericsson proposed a “new PUCCH
`
`format” based on a DFT-Spread-OFDM 5 (“DFT-S-OFDM”) structure “for
`
`transmission of multiple ACK/NACK in the context of carrier aggregation.” Id.
`
`
`4 The ’936 patent is titled: “Carrier aggregation in wireless communication
`
`systems.”
`
`5 In LTE, transmissions on the uplink are performed using Single Carrier
`
`Frequency Division Multiple Access (SC-FDMA). In particular, the SC-FDMA
`
`used in the LTE uplink is based on Discrete Fourier Transform Spread Orthogonal
`
`Frequency Division Multiplexing (DFT-S-OFDM) technology. Herein, the terms
`
`SC-FDMA and DFT-S-OFDM are used interchangeably. Ex-1003, ¶ 82.
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petitioner Ericsson depicted its proposal in the figure below:
`
`
`
`Id. In the proposed DFT-S-OFDM scheme, up to 48 coded ACK/NACK bits could
`
`be carried by multiple sub-carriers “in two slots.” Id. “6, 5 or 4 PUCCHs” from the
`
`same number of UEs could “be multiplexed within the same radio resources”—the
`
`precise number depending on “whether 1, 2 or 3 OFDM symbols are devoted to
`
`reference symbols.” Id. Ericsson-1 further taught multiplying the modulated data
`
`symbols by a “spreading cover” sequence “{w[0], w[1], …, w[K-1]}.” Id.
`
`Between Ericsson’s proposal in February 2010 and the introduction of
`
`Release 10 in 2011, 3GPP members, including Ericsson, worked to develop the
`
`proposal into what is now 3GPP TS 36.211 § 5.4.2A, PUCCH format 3. Ex-1003,
`
`¶¶ 80-84.
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`9
`
`

`

`III. THE ’936 PATENT AND THE CHALLENGED CLAIM
`A. The ’936 Patent and Representative Embodiment
`The ’936 patent is titled “Carrier aggregation in wireless communication
`
`systems.” Ex-1001, Cover. Claim 12 of the patent, which issued from a January 3,
`
`2013 application, has priority to August 9, 2010 as explained in more detail in
`
`below. Infra Section III.C.
`
`The ’936 patent discloses transmitting and receiving DFT-S-OFDM symbols
`
`multiplied by elements of orthogonal sequences and transmitted across two slots in
`
`time. An exemplary channel structure for a given slot is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Ex-1001, Fig. 6. The ’936 patent depicts the transmission of 7 DFT-S-OFDM
`
`symbols (BL#0-BL#6) across N subcarriers (frequency) over a 0.5 ms slot (time).
`
`Id. at 33:20-23. The above slot includes 2 reference signals (BL#1 and BL#5). Id.
`
`at 27:11-15. The remaining 5 OFDM symbols are used to carry the “data part” of
`
`the transmission. Id. at 27:26-30.
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`10
`
`

`

`The basic structure of the ’936 patent’s DFT-S-OFDM transmission
`
`scheme—for the same channel structure described above—is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Ex-1001, Fig. 12. In this figure, which relates to a single slot, bits are modulated
`
`into data symbols, which are then multiplied by a sequence Ri with five elements
`
`(i.e., Ri(0), Ri(1), Ri(2), Ri(2) (sic), and Ri(4)). Ex-1001, 33:20-35. The five-
`
`element spreading sequence is UE specific and enables multiplexing of up to five
`
`users within the same resource block(s). Id. at 27:17-25.
`
`In the ’936 patent specification, the sequence Ri can be comprised of two
`
`parts: an orthogonal DFT sequence, Oi, with elements Di(0), Di(1), Di(2), Di(3),
`
`and Di(4), and a scrambling sequence, Q, with elements S(0), S(1), S(2), S(3), and
`
`S(4). Ex-1001, 33:20-35. (Claim 12 of the ’936 patent does not refer to or
`
`implicate the disclosed scrambling sequence. Ex-1003, ¶ 91.) After multiplication
`
`by the sequence, DFT and IFFT processes are performed before transmission of the
`
`resultant OFDM symbols. Id. at 33:33-34, Fig. 12.
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`11
`
`

`

`In a section titled “Intra-Cell Interference Randomization,” the ’936 patent
`
`teaches a representative embodiment. Ex-1001, 30:26-31:46. There, using the
`
`Figure 12 structure, the UE selects orthogonal sequences for both the first and
`
`second slot from the “length of five” DFT sequences shown in the table below:
`
`
`
`Id. at 30:42-45.
`
`The patent further discloses that “slot-level remapping” can be performed to
`
`“enable[] a DFT sequence used in the first slot and a DFT sequence used in the
`
`second slot to be different from each other.” Id. at 30:57-59. Specifically, in the
`
`representative embodiment, “when two terminals use neighboring sequences in
`
`the first slot,” the two terminals “may use non-neighboring sequences in the
`
`second slot.” Id. at 31:3-5. Two examples of the ’936 patent’s proposed slot-level
`
`remapping are shown in the table below.
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Id. at 31:15-25.
`
`The ’936 patent second slot remapping scheme purports to address the fact
`
`that “an amount of the average interference between O0 and O2 may be less than an
`
`amount of the average interference between O0 and O1.” Id. at 31:1-3. The ’936
`
`patent provides the following example:
`
`For example, a terminal UE 1 may use O1 in the first slot
`and be remapped in the second slot to thereby use O2 in
`example 1 of Table 36. The terminal UE1 may receive a
`largest amount of interference from UE0 and UE2 using
`neighboring sequence indices in the first slot, and may
`receive a largest amount of interference from UE3 and
`UE4 using neighboring sequence indices in the second
`slot. Most interfering terminals may be diversified over
`the first slot and the second slot and thereby an amount of
`interference between the terminals may be normalized.
`
`Id. 31:26-36. While the example above refers to “Example 1” of Table 36, the ’936
`
`patent claims relate to the remapping scheme of “Example 2” of the same table.
`
`Ex-1003, ¶ 95.
`
`B. Challenged Claim
`The Challenged Claim is claim 12, which is reproduced below:
`
`12. [pre] A method of receiving data in a base station, the
`method comprising:
`[12a] receiving, from a first terminal, a subframe that
`includes a first slot and a second slot;
`[12b] extracting, from the first slot, a first data symbol
`that is multiplied by a first orthogonal sequence; and
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`13
`
`

`

`[12c] extracting, from the second slot, a second data
`symbol that is multiplied by a second orthogonal
`sequence and is transmitted from the first terminal,
`
`[12d] wherein the first orthogonal sequence, and the
`second orthogonal sequence are selected from among
`orthogonal sequences of Table 3,
`
`[12e] and the index of the second orthogonal sequence is
`determined based on the index of the first orthogonal
`sequence according to Table 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`14
`
`

`

`Priority Date and Prosecution History
`
`C.
`The ’936 patent was filed on January 3, 2013 as U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`13/733,453. 6 Ex-1001, Cover. The ’936 patent claims priority to U.S. patent
`
`application No. 13/441,058 filed on Apr. 6, 2012, which claims priority to PCT
`
`Application No. PCT/KR2011000195, filed on January 11, 2011, which itself
`
`claims priority to a series of 14 separate Korean patent applications filed between
`
`January 11, 2010 and January 11, 2011. Id. at 1:6-30.
`
`In co-pending patent infringement actions, ETRI has alleged that the
`
`Challenged Claim is entitled to a priority date of August 9, 2010, which
`
`corresponds to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2010-0076337. Ex-1006, p. 12.
`
`This more recent claim of priority notably contradict a priority claim made
`
`by ETRI during the prosecution of the ’936 patent. During U.S. prosecution, after
`
`the first and only office action, ETRI’s attorney traversed a § 103(a) rejection not
`
`on the merits, but instead by stating the following:
`
`[The reference] is not eligible as prior art under 102(e)
`against the instant application. The earliest priority date
`of [the reference] is May 4, 2010, however, that of the
`present application is January 11, 2010. The present
`application is under the benefit of 14 priorities. One
`of the priorities filed on April 2, 2010, which has been
`
`6 Because the ’936 patent’s application was filed on January 3, 2013, pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 apply to the patentability analysis presented herein.
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`15
`
`

`

`filed well before the earliest priority date of Kim,
`covers the pending claims of the present application.
`
`Ex-1002, p. 1094, (June 20, 2013 Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an
`
`Amendment). Without translations of the relevant Korean-language applications,
`
`the ’936 Examiner apparently credited ETRI’s April 2, 2010 priority claim and
`
`allowed the pending claims of the ’936 patent. Ex-1002, p. 1096 (July 22, 2013,
`
`Reasons for Allowance) (“Applicant correctly stated [the reference] does not
`
`qualify as prior art.”). The ’936 patent issued on November 26, 2013. Ex-1001,
`
`Cover.
`
`But ETRI’s priority claim during prosecution was wrong. Translations of the
`
`relevant Korean patent applications confirm that the ’936 patent claims are entitled
`
`to a priority date of no earlier than August 9, 2010. Ex-1003, ¶¶ 40-47. The ’936
`
`claims each include length-5 orthogonal sequences and slot-level remapping
`
`according to Tables [2/4] (in claims 1 and 12, respectively). Id. At least these claim
`
`elements, and indeed, discussion of interference randomization even generally,
`
`appear in the ’936 patent’s priority chain on August 9, 2010 at the earliest. Id.;
`
`compare Ex-1010, Ex-1011, Ex-1012, Ex-1013, Ex-1014 (no mention of
`
`“interference,” “randomization,” “remapping,” or Table 4 from claim 12) with
`
`Ex-1015, pp. 25-28 (disclosure of section on “Randomization of intra-cell and
`
`intra-cell interference and inter-cell interference based on DFT-S-OFDM”); see
`
`also Ex-1031 through Ex-1036. Accordingly, for this petition—consistent with
`16
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`

`

`ETRI’s priority claim in the co-pending infringement actions—Petitioner believes
`
`that the Challenged Claim is entitled to a priority date of no earlier than August 9,
`
`2010.
`
`IV. PRIOR ART
`A. U.S. Patent No. 9,485,060 (“Nazar”)
`1.
`Nazar is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`Nazar (Ex-1016), which was not considered during prosecution, is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) for the reasons described in detail below.
`
`A pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) prior art reference “‘shall have the same
`
`effect,’ including a patent-defeating effect,” as though “it was filed on the date of
`
`the [] provisional” to which it claims priority, as long as certain requirements are
`
`met. In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383–84 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 119(e)). In particular, the Board has held that a § 102(e) reference is available as
`
`prior art as of its provisional application’s filing date when the provisional
`
`provides support for: (1) at least one claim of the § 102(e) reference and (2) the
`
`subject matter on which the petitioner relies. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Capella Photonics,
`
`Inc., IPR2014-01276, Paper No. 40 at 21–22 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016). With
`
`respect to the first prong, the provisional application must disclose an invention
`
`claimed in the § 102(e) reference “in the manner provided by the first paragraph of
`
`section 112.” 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics,
`
`Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Only one claim from the later issued
`17
`
`1
`4838-0149-1369
`
`

`

`patent need be supported by the provisional. See id. at 22 n.9; Polaris Indus., Inc.
`
`v. Arctic Cat Inc., IPR2016-01713, Paper 9, at 13 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017).
`
`Here, Nazar claims the benefit of a series of 10 U.S. provisional a