Paper 27
`Entered: December 6, 2021
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC., LENOVO (UNITED STATES)
`INC., and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 3, 2021
`
`
`BEFORE: SALLY C. MEDLEY, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`KRISTI L.R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: December 6, 2021
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC., LENOVO (UNITED STATES)
`INC., and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 3, 2021
`
`
`BEFORE: SALLY C. MEDLEY, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`KRISTI L.R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`
`
` A
`
` P P E A R A N C E S
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JOSEPH A. MICALLEF, ESQUIRE
`KYLE SMITH, ESQUIRE
`SCOTT M. BORDER, ESQUIRE
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 736-8000
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MATTHEW A. ARGENTI, ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL T. ROSATO, ESQUIRE
`WES DERRYBERRY, ESQUIRE
`PATRICK M. MEDLEY, ESQUIRE
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`(206) 883-2500
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`Interdigital representatives
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`November 3, 2021, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. We're on the record.
` Good afternoon, everyone. This is the hearing for --
` MR. MICALLEF: Good afternoon.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: -- IPR -- good afternoon -- for
`2020-01413, between Petitioner, Lenovo Holding Company,
`Lenovo (United States) Inc., and Motorola, and Patent
`Owner, InterDigital Technology Corporation, involving U.S.
`Patent No. 8,199,726.
` I am Judge Medley, and with me are Judges Quinn
`and Sawert.
` At this time, we'd like the parties to please
`introduce counsel for the record beginning with the
`Petitioner.
` MR. MICALLEF: Thank you, Your Honor. This is
`Joe Micallef with Sidley Austin for the Petitioners. With
`me to my right is my associate, Kyle Smith, who will be
`making part of the argument pursuant to the Leap Program.
`And on the phone is my partner, Scott Border.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
` And for Patent Owner.
` MR. ARGENTI: Hello, Your Honor. Matt Argenti
`from Wilson Sonsini on behalf of Patent Owner,
`InterDigital. And also on the audio line are my
`co-counsel, Mike Rosato, as well as colleagues from my
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`firm, Wes Derryberry and Patrick Medley, and a number of
`representatives from InterDigital.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Great. Thank you very much.
` Since Mr. Smith is authorized to argue as a Leap
`Practitioner, Petitioner is granted an additional 15
`minutes of oral argument time. Accordingly, Petitioner
`will have 75 minutes to present arguments, and Patent
`Owner will have 60 minutes to present arguments.
` So Petitioner, you will proceed first, and you
`may reserve some of your argument time to respond to
`arguments presented by Patent Owner. Thereafter, Patent
`Owner will respond to Petitioners' presentation and may
`reserve argument time for surrebuttal.
` So Petitioners' Counsel, would you -- do you wish
`to reserve some of your time to respond?
` MR. MICALLEF: I would, Your Honor. I would like
`to reserve 30 minutes.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: 30 minutes. All right.
` And Counsel for Patent Owner, do you wish to
`reserve some of your time?
` MR. ARGENTI: 15 minutes, please, Your Honor.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. All right. Let me -- any
`questions before we begin?
` I think both of you have been before us before,
`and have argued under these circumstances, so I think you
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`know the drill. Just remember to mute yourself if you're
`not speaking, okay. And also to let us know which slide
`you're referring to when you speak, and any other exhibits
`or papers that you refer to before you get into them.
` All right. So we're ready to begin.
` Petitioner, when you're ready.
` MR. MICALLEF: Thank you, Your Honor. Joe
`Micallef.
` First I would like to thank the Panel for
`permitting Mr. Smith to argue under the Leap Program, and
`for the extra time. How we propose to do this is I'm
`going to begin this argument, do an overview of the patent
`and the prior art, and I will address the claim
`construction disputes between the parties. And then, I
`will turn it over to Mr. Smith, and I will let him deal
`with the remaining issues to be debated.
` So if I can direct your attention to our
`demonstratives. I have a number of them. I likely will
`not refer to all of them. I may jump around a little, but
`I'm happy to answer questions from the Panel about any of
`them.
` I guess I would direct your attention to begin
`with to Slide 2, which is just a listing of the grounds in
`this proceeding. All of the grounds here are based on --
`oops. Something is going wrong -- wrong with our camera.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`Okay. There.
` All the grounds are based on one of three
`obviousness, and we have two basic references: The
`Tiedemann Patent and the Li Patent. And then, there are
`-- there are combinations of those two and a -- and a
`couple of secondary references in combination also. And
`we'll talk more about that in just a moment.
` If I could direct your attention to Slide 5,
`please. This Slide is just a lead into a discussion about
`of an overview of the '726 Patent, the challenged patent
`here. The face of the patent is obviously on the slide.
`It's entitled or titled Channel Quality Measurements For
`Downlink Resource Allocation, issued from an application
`filed in 2002, it claims priority to a provisional
`application.
` If I could ask you to look at Slide 6. Slide 6
`depicts the basic system described or disclosed in the
`'726 Patent. And really, the only takeaway I would ask
`you to take from this slide is that what is disclosed as
`far as hardware in the '726 Patent is just purely
`conventional devices designed to measure channel quality
`and transmit or receive information across a wireless
`link. Nothing special about the hardware.
` If I could ask you to turn to Slide 7. On Slide
`7, of course, these -- this patent is primarily directed
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`to describing various ways to transmit or report channel
`quality information from a user equipment, a phone, to the
`system. And the various alternatives are set forth or
`listed in table 2 of the patent, which we have here under
`Slide 7.
` I've highlighted Alternatives 8 and 9. Yeah, as
`you can see here, and as you might expect, I think we're
`probably going to be discussing those alternatives a
`little bit in the next couple of hours. But I've
`highlighted them there to compare them to Claim 1 at the
`right where I've highlighted what is really the meat of
`that claim, which is the derivation and then transmission
`of these two different types of channel quality
`information. The first channel quality indication and
`then the plurality of different indications.
` And as you can see, the Alternative 8 and
`Alternative 9 each individually track that part of the
`claim very neatly. They both describe a first channel
`quality indication of some type, and then, a number of
`difference indications.
` If I could ask you to turn to Slide 9, please.
` I just want to talk at an overview level of the
`Tiedemann Patent, which is the first basic reference
`relied on in the Petition. Tiedemann also discloses a
`system using basically conventional technology for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`measuring and reporting channel quality information.
`Tiedemann also discloses a number of alternative
`techniques for reporting channel quality information. I
`have some of them set forth on this slide. Fig. 6A at the
`top there is probably Tiedemann's basic reporting message
`where the first three bits, I1, 2, and 3, identifying in
`-- or is an index collectively identifying a channel
`quality or a pilot with the best channel quality
`information. And then, the U-bits as set forth in the
`Petition and in Tiedemann indicate whether other pilots
`that the UE is Tiedemann is measuring are within a certain
`Delta of that best channel quality.
` Now, on the right of the slide, I've -- I
`apologize, our camera is just moving all over the place.
`But on the right of the slide, I've -- I've highlighted
`two alternative embodiments described in Tiedemann. The
`first one is, he says, You can just send the channel
`quality for each pilot. In Tiedemann, the Ec/Io value is
`the channel quality. I don't think there's any dispute
`about that. And he says in that first highlighted
`passage, You could just send that channel quality for each
`pilot.
` And then, of course, in the second highlighted
`passage there, he states, That it should also be clear
`that sending the Ec/Io of the largest pilot in the active
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`set, and then relative Ec/Io values relative to the
`largest pilot is another possible embodiment.
` And obviously, we relied on that -- that latter
`embodiment in the Petition, and we may be discussing it
`more. But the reason I pointed it out here is that in
`these -- in these few sentences, Tiedemann discloses two
`different embodiments. One that sends the channel quality
`for every pilot, and then, one that sends these -- the
`best channel quality and then relative channel qualities.
` If I could ask you to look at Slide 11.
` So the other basic reference we relied on is the
`Li Patent. And I guess I should stop and say that there
`is no dispute that both Li and Tiedemann are prior art
`here, so I don't think that has to be decided.
` Li also discloses a system using basically
`conventional devices for measuring and reporting channel
`quality information. His disclosure is in the context of
`an OFDM system where he reports an SINR value for each
`cluster of -- of OFDM frequencies. And then, his basic
`system is here on the Slide 11 in Fig. 5 where he includes
`the cluster ID, and then the SAI -- SINR value for the
`identified cluster, and then he includes that for each of
`the clusters he's reporting on.
` And one alternative as you can see at the bottom
`of that quote that he discloses is that the information in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`the feedback is ordered according to which clusters have
`the best performance relative to -- relative to each other
`for the subscriber.
` So that's the overview, I guess, of the prior
`art, or the base -- the main prior art references. Mr.
`Smith can get into them in more detail as we get to those
`issues if -- if the Panel has any questions. As I
`mentioned, I'm going to just deal with the claim
`construction issues before I turn it over to Mr. Smith. I
`think there are four of them.
` If I could direct your attention to Slide 15.
`The first claim phrase that I'll address is listed here in
`the left on the slide. The first channel quality
`indication indicating a channel quality of the plurality
`of downlink resources. As we pointed out in the Petition,
`we think this covers -- encompasses two things.
`Basically, and it's in this quote that's on this Slide 2,
`A channel quality indication providing quality information
`for the plurality of a downlink resources as a whole, but
`also encompasses the use of a channel quality indication
`of one resource as a reference value related to the
`plurality.
` And as the Petition pointed out, we got to that
`construction first from the claim language, which by its
`very terms says that you -- the first channel quality
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`indication is -- indicates a channel quality of one of the
`plurality. But the Petition noted that there is another
`connotation to that phrase where it could mean referring
`to a channel quality of the whole of the plurality. And
`then, we looked at the specification, and saw that there
`were two examples in that Table 2 -- two alternatives, I
`should say, which effectively tracked the key claim
`language; Alternatives 8 and 9. And so we crafted an
`interpretation that would give the claim language the full
`scope of its meaning, ordinary meaning, and read on the
`examples in the specification which track the claim
`language.
` Now, Patent Owner doesn't agree with us on that.
`In particular, they dispute that the -- this -- this claim
`language should be construed to cover a reference value,
`which would be Alternative 9 in Table 2. And that is in
`some ways very surprising to us, because it seems to me,
`or seem to us, that the -- the claim language of this
`claim language must cover at least Alternative 9. It's
`the more subtle connotation of that claim language that
`would sort of sweep in Alternative 8. But as far as
`Alternative 9, which actually uses one of the plurality as
`a reference. If you look it -- if I can ask you to turn
`to Slide 16.
` And here on this Slide, I just have Claim 1, and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`I've highlighted the key language here of the plurality
`indicating a channel quality of the plurality. Well,
`that's exactly what Alternative 9 is. It says, Use one of
`the channel qualities of the plurality as a reference. So
`it seems to us that this fits like a sock on that
`Alternative 9, and if anything, that's -- that's the
`example in the specification. But again, we think that
`there's a connotation that would sweep in Alternative 8.
`I'm not so sure that Patent Owner disputes that part, but
`I -- we don't understand how they can even argue that it
`doesn't capture Alternative 9.
` Now, this --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: I have a question with respect to
`that -- that -- that example 9. It talks about an actual
`measured value. Where does the word, indication, come in
`to play? So I think --
` MR. MICALLEF: Sorry, Your Honor.
` Well, I think --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: -- they're arguing that it has to
`be -- I believe the Patent Owner is arguing it has to be
`an actual value or metric, if you will. It can't just be
`some kind of symbol or flag, if you will. So where does
`indication come into play in that Table 2? For example,
`my --
` MR. MICALLEF: In the Table 2. In the Table 2.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`Well, I think the mean might be an indication, but I think
`there is also an encoded version, and I don't have Table
`2. I can get Table 2. There is a different -- there is a
`different alternative which talks about an encoded
`version, and that also would be an indication. But you
`know, as we pointed out in one of our briefs, I think the
`reply brief, the channel quality itself would also be an
`indication of channel quality. It's a more explicit and
`direct indication. But I don't think you could interpret
`channel quality indication as that claim phrase as
`distinguishing channel quality. It covers it. But it's
`broader than that. That's -- that's what I think the fair
`reading of that language is.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. I understand. So
`Tiedemann, for example, the I-bits are not values or
`metrics, per se, correct?
` MR. MICALLEF: Well, they're not channel quality
`values. It's an index identifying a pilot, and thereby,
`identifying pointing to the channel quality of that pilot.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: All right. And I understand that
`Patent Owner seems to agree that value like a mean, if you
`will, of the -- the -- in the Table 2, for example, 8,
`example 8, they appear to agree that that is within the
`scope of the claim language. That if you have, for
`example, a mean --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
` MR. MICALLEF: I think that's --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: -- value, that is within the
`scope of the claim language; correct?
` MR. MICALLEF: I think they agree with that.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. So I'm just trying to unpack
`everything and of all of the -- all of the grounds that
`you have --
` MR. MICALLEF: Sure.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: -- presented. And I -- and I
`understand that in the combination, the Ground 5, if you
`will, where you're combining either Tiedemann with
`Gesbert, or Li with Gesbert, you're relying on Gesbert --
` MR. MICALLEF: Yes.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: -- that actually has a mean value,
`and you're proposing to substitute that for the I-bits, if
`you will, in Tiedemann. And so do --
` MR. MICALLEF: That's correct.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: -- the -- I guess my question is
`even under their construction, would it be your position,
`then, that that ground still renders the claims unpatentable
`even under their construction?
` MR. MICALLEF: Yes, because it's a mean. Yes.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: And it seems to me --
` MR. MICALLEF: Yeah, and Alternative 8 explicitly
`says a mean.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
` JUDGE MEDLEY: -- they're arguing -- right. And
`it seems to me that their main argument, or only argument
`for the independent claims, anyway, is that the
`combination is no good, but not so much that none of the
`elements are missing with respect to the independent
`claims.
` Now, I understand that they have carried over
`other disputes with respect to some of the dependent
`claims. I'm just trying to wrap my head again around all
`the issues, and that is what it seems to be to me, and I
`just wanted to verify that with -- that with you.
` MR. MICALLEF: That is my understanding.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. MICALLEF: Sure. Thank you, Your Honor.
` So if I can just, I guess, get right to the point
`to what their argument appears to be on this first channel
`quality indication. If I could direct your attention to
`Slide 19, our Slide 19.
` So here we have some passages from the Patent
`Owner's responses. They -- they seem to be arguing that
`what this claim language requires is some quantity that
`collectively characterizes, and -- and the -- the
`plurality of the whole which is each of the plurality
`contributes equally to this quantity. That's Patent
`Owner's response at 11 there at the lower left-hand quote
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`from their response.
` And our point is the claim doesn't say anything
`like that. The specification doesn't say anything like
`that. I suppose one could argue that those might be
`characteristics of Alternative 8, but I don't think there
`is any basis for reading characteristics of one
`specification example into a claim as a requirement. I
`think that would be legal error. So I think that just
`can't be the right interpretation or a rationale that
`leads to the right interpretation.
` And I would note we put some -- some of their
`expert's testimony on this slide as well, who seem to
`agree with us that if you were to use the maximum channel
`quality, which is essentially what's in Tiedemann, what we
`pointed to in Tiedemann, the best channel quality, that
`would also in a sense collectively characterize the
`plurality as a whole, which is the argument we made in the
`Petition too, and it collectively characterizes the
`plurality as a whole because it's the best of that
`plurality. So every other one, obviously, as well.
` And I think the expert also agreed that this
`notion that -- that each of the channel qualities of the
`plurality have to contribute equally to the first channel
`quality indication is -- is erroneous, because with a
`mean, for example, Alternative 8, you know, each of the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`channel qualities do not contribute equally. You can
`imagine for just, for example, to take a silly
`hypothetical. If I have two channel qualities, one is 9
`and one is 1, the mean is going to be 5. They don't both
`contribute equally to that. So I think this -- this
`analysis is just erroneous on the facts and it's erroneous
`on the law.
` So unless there are questions about this claim
`term, I'd like to move to the next claim term that's in
`dispute, which is channel quality indication.
` And Judge Medley, you already mentioned this.
`Their -- their interpretation is it should be a metric of
`channel quality. This word, metric, though, it comes out
`of the ether. It's not in the claim, it's not in the
`specification, it's not in the prosecution history. It's
`certainly they haven't provided any evidence that the
`word, metric, is somehow a definition of the word,
`indication, or a synonym of the word, indication. Their
`expert literally just pulled it out of the ether.
` And it's -- it's -- it leads to a somewhat
`nonsensical result, if you --- if you take it literally as
`we -- as we pointed out, and this is on Slide 21. In the
`parallel litigation, the parties agreed that the phrase,
`channel quality, should be construed to mean -- and it's
`here on Slide 21 on the left -- a value quantifying how
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`efficiently downlink resources of a channel can
`communicate information. And so if you plug that into
`their proposed interpretation of channel quality
`indication, it -- it basically means a value of a value
`quantifying how effectively downlink resources of a
`channel can communicate information.
` That's gibberish. That can't be the right
`interpretation. And what's really going on here is they
`have adopted an interpretation which just reads the word,
`indication, out of the claim. They're trying to make that
`phrase the channel quality to avoid as much prior art as
`they can, but of course, they wrote that word in there,
`they -- they intentionally put indication in to broaden it
`away from channel quality. They haven't filed a motion to
`amend, which they could have done. So they're stuck with
`the words in the claim and they shouldn't be allowed to
`avoid the consequences of that through the magic of claim
`interpretation.
` Now, we pointed out in the reply, and this is on
`Slide 22, that if you need to construe this phrase, it
`should just be a piece of information from at least --
`from which at least some channel quality information may
`be inferred. In the surreply, they've -- they've made
`what I would suggest is a somewhat nit-picky argument, but
`basically they're saying the word, inferred, isn't in the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`definition of indication, the dictionary definition of the
`indication that we put into the record. But I think that
`what we've put here barely captures what's in that
`dictionary definition. I don't have a problem if you
`actually use the dictionary definition, but I think what
`we put here captures it, and is a lot more user-friendly.
`And actually, the distinction between inferred and what's
`in the dictionary definition is not going to change any of
`the issues you have to decide. There's just no
`distinction.
` So if I can move on to the next claim term in
`dispute. It's on Slide 23. And that's the plurality of
`difference indications. And once again, the dispute --
`well, the dispute here is they think it requires a
`mathematical difference, and we say that's not required.
`Just applying the normal rules of claim interpretation,
`the claim doesn't say a mathematical difference. There
`are -- the word, difference, certainly doesn't require a
`mathematical difference. In fact, the claim is even
`broader than the difference. It doesn't say a plurality
`of difference. It says a plurality of difference
`indications, which is even broader specification. There's
`no lexicographic act in the specification or a disclaimer
`that they've identified that would require this to be
`limited to mathematical differences. And once again, they
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`certainly could have filed a I motion to amend if they
`wanted to narrow this claim to cover just mathematical
`differences. They haven't done so. So there's no basis
`for limiting the claim in that manner.
` And finally, the last claim interpretation
`dispute, if I can get you to look at our Slide 24. This
`is the receiver language of Claim 2 and -- and of a couple
`of the other dependent claims. The dispute here is what
`the phrase, in response to, modifies. You know, in the
`Institution Decision, you agreed with our interpretation.
`We said it modifies receive. You said that was a
`reasonable interpretation. They -- they didn't offer a
`different one or say why that was wrong. They now say
`something else.
` But what this really comes down to in our view is
`what -- what does the spec say and how does the speak draw
`this interpretation. Our interpretation covers every
`embodiment of this claim in the specification. And we
`pointed that out in the briefs. Their interpretation,
`what they're citing, is not even an example of -- what
`they're citing in the specification is not an example of
`this claim language.
` Just a for example, they cite at the Patent
`Owner's response at page 16, they address this, and they
`cite their expert's testimony, Exhibit 2001, paragraph 56.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`And the expert in turn bases his analysis on the passage
`from the patent that begins at Column 5, Line 66 and goes
`over to the next column. That passage is a description,
`it's a textual description of Alternative 6 of Table 2.
` And if you go back and look at that, it's on our
`Slide, Slide 7, you will see that Alternative 6 is not an
`example of this -- of the claimed invention here. It
`doesn't say anything about differential values or
`difference values. So they're basing their interpretation
`on an example in the specification which is simply not an
`embodiment of the claimed invention. So we think that's
`entirely inappropriate -- inappropriate, and our
`interpretation should be adopted.
` So if there -- unless there're questions about
`the claim construction issues, I'd like to at this point
`turn the microphone over to my colleague, Mr. Smith, and
`let him address the remaining issues.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: I have one question --
` JUDGE QUINN: I do have one question -- sorry.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Go ahead, Miriam.
` MR. MICALLEF: That's fine.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Well, I understand your -- your
`citation to Column 5, the end of there, but they also cite
`to more general Column 5, Line 19, which says, The goal of
`the present invention is to return timely and accurate CQ
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`information and to determine the proper modulation coding
`to use for the downlink channel.
` So doesn't that seem to support their position or
`construction that you need to read it that way so that in
`-- you know, you -- you return the report to the base
`station, and the base station uses that information to
`determine the proper modulation and coding to use?
` MR. MICALLEF: They can use that information.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: And I understand --
` MR. MICALLEF: It doesn't -- you know, it doesn't
`have to.
` I'm sorry, I spoke over you, Your Honor. You --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: No, that was just --
` MR. MICALLEF: Did your finish your question.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: -- I mean, I understand you're
`talking about with respect to a specific embodiment, but
`this seems to be, hey, a general statement that was what
`the invention is all about, and so to read --
` MR. MICALLEF: That --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: -- claim that it -- that it's even
`broader than that. I don't know. It's just -- and I --
`and I agree the language of the claim is -- is really
`troubling to kind of wrap our heads --
` MR. MICALLEF: Right.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: -- around it, but it is -- it is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
`what is it is. And we have to come up with -- with this
`-- with what the scope, what it -- what it encompasses.
`And so --
` MR. MICALLEF: Yes, so --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: I would just like to hear your
`point.
` MR. MICALLEF: If I can address that. Yeah, that
`passage would support our interpretation too, because our
`interpretation is you have to be configured to receive it
`in response to the message, right? And so the UE, that's
`the claim language, that's the receiver configured to
`receive the subsequent transmission in response to the
`claim message, or that the up -- the uplink. So you know,
`that's the UE has to -- has to be configured with the
`right-- with the correct modulation and coding set in
`order to be configured to receive it. So I think that
`that passage would support our interpretation as well.
` The Alternative 6, though --
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. I understand.
` MR. MICALLEF: -- clearly that's not what this
`claim is about. Yeah.
` JUDGE MEDLEY: Got you. Okay. I understand your
`position. Thank you. Just wanted to follow up with that.
`Thank you.
` MR. MICALLEF: Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01413
`Patent 8,199,726 B2
` Thank you, Your Honor.
` And was there another question for me?
` JUDGE QUINN: Yes, for my question. So you have
`referred to Column 5 at the bottom there. There is
`another use of the word, indication, and I just wanted to
`get your thoughts on how that sentence that starts in
`Column 5, Line 63 through 65, that says, Soft symbol
`errors are well-known by those skilled in the art as an
`indication of downlink channel quality.
` MR. MICALLEF: That -- that I think -- and your
`question is just what my thoughts are on that relevant
`here, Your Honor?
` JUDGE QUINN: Yeah, how does that -- how does
`that help your case as far as your proposed construction
`of channel quality indication?
` MR. MICALLEF: I think that's example -- an
`example, an explicit example that unfortunately I think I
`missed of a channel quality indication that is a channel
`quality a
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
