Paper No. 39
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`
`
`Held: September 6, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`Before: AMBER L. HAGY, JASON W. MELVIN, and
`AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`JOSHUA GOLDBERG, ESQUIRE
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue NW
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`DAN GOLUB, ESQUIRE
`Volpe and Koenig, P.C.
`30 S. 17th St. 18th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on September 6, 2023,
`commencing at 2:00 p.m., via video teleconference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE MOORE: All right. Good day, everyone. We're gathered
`here for a hearing in our matter IPR 2022-00974. The case is now captioned
`Continental Automotive Systems vs. Intellectual Ventures II LLC. I'm APJ
`Moore. APJs Hagy and Melvin are also present by video. Can we have
`appearances for the Petitioner, please?
`MR. GOLDBERG: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Joshua
`Goldberg for Petitioner. With me, I have my lead counsel, David Reese, and
`also additional backup counsel, Alex Harding. Alex Harding and I will be
`presenting the argument for Petitioner today.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Thank you. And for Patent Owner?
`MR. GOLUB: This is Dan Golub. I'll be doing the arguing on
`behalf of the Patent Owner today. I am joined by Ryan O'Donnell who's
`sitting next to me, who's the lead counsel.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay. And Mr. Golub, are you lead or backup
`counsel in the case?
`MR. GOLUB: Backup.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay. All right. Well, our primary concern
`today is that we preserve everyone's right to be heard. So, if at any time you
`have a technical problem that prevents you from participating, please let us
`know immediately. I'll ask you to oh, I'm sorry -- I well, I forgot to do
`something for the court reporter, but I'll do it as we go along. Please identify
`yourself for the court reporter each time you begin speaking, and when not
`speaking, please mute your connection. Please be sure that when referring
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`to the demonstratives, papers, or exhibits, you identify the item for the
`record.
`
`And I will note that this hearing is open to the public. All right.
`Our hearing order granted each side 60 minutes. I will keep the time. And
`please let me know at the beginning of your argument if you wish to reserve
`time for rebuttal. And with that, Petitioner, you may begin when ready.
`MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, Your Honor. Again, this is Joshua
`Goldberg for Petitioner, and I'd like to reserve 45 minutes.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay.
`MR. GOLDBERG: I'd like to begin, Your Honors, on slide 21.
`We can see on this slide that the prior art references at issue both relate to
`variable bandwidth. At the top, we have Hwang. It says that to support
`scalable bandwidth from 2.5 megahertz to 20 megahertz, and then it goes on
`from there. And then McFarland at the bottom of the slide, it's talking about
`the overall occupied bandwidth can be varied.
`That's what the '641 Patent is about as well. It's titled, Methods
`and Apparatus for Multi-Carrier Communications with Variable Channel
`Bandwidth. IV doesn't seem to disagree with this. Instead, IV argues that
`one of ordinary skill in the art wouldn't have had a reasonable expectation of
`success in combining the references. IV argues that AAS map-first location,
`the channel estimation and an uplink ranging sub-channel would create
`problems. I'll get to those in a few minutes, but I'd like to first address the
`reasoning behind the combination.
`We turn to slide 22. Hwang teaches a scalable OFDM frame
`structure, including variable bands. These are shown in the table at 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
`
`
`
`4
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`bottom, 2.5 megahertz, 5 megahertz, 10 megahertz, and 20 megahertz,
`which each use a different number of subcarriers. We can see those at the
`bottom, 216, 432, 864, and 1728, respectively. But Hwang doesn't provide
`implementation details. If we go to slide 23, McFarland does. We can see
`at the top right there are a number of ways to change the number of carriers
`in active use. And Figure 9 of McFarland shows a circuit in which the IFFT
`processor itself has been designed to disable portions of its internal circuitry
`depending on how many carriers are active. McFarland calls its variable
`bands modes. And we can see at the bottom the combination of symbol rate
`and number of carriers will be called the operating mode.
`Turning to slide 24, both references scale the same way using the
`number of carriers. Again, as we discussed earlier on the bottom, Hwang,
`we can see that when you go, for example, from 2.5 MHz to 5 MHz, the
`used subcarriers goes from 216 to 432, and that correspondence goes all the
`way across to the right. And then in McFarland, the single IFFT processor
`can be used without modification to generate a different number of carriers.
`Moving to slide 25, McFarland also teaches an improvement to
`Hwang, namely how to provide accessibility for legacy devices. On the left-
`hand side, we have a quote from our expert, Dr. Akl. He says that
`specifically, by placing the header portion of Hwang's frame, such as
`preambles within a base mode, subscriber stations that do not support all
`system bandwidths would be capable of operating in the system. And
`subscriber stations entering the network would have been able to perform
`cell search based on an expected header transmission. IV complains that Dr.
`Akl never used the words reasonable expectation of success in discussing 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
`
`
`
`5
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`combination, but the law doesn't require those exact words. We turn to slide
`26. Dr. Akl talked about how the application of McFarland to Hwang would
`have been straightforward.
`And if we go to slide 29, Dr. Akl also talked about the predictable
`results of the combination. He wasn't required to do anything more. So
`what are IV's problems with this? Let's start with the AAS map-first
`location IE on slide 40. I'll note that the claims of the '641 Patent, they don't
`mention AAS map-first location IE. And for that matter, they also don't
`mention the channel estimation or the uplink ranging sub-channel that IV
`has complained about. So Dr. Akl, he didn't address these things in his first
`declaration. Contrary to what IV would have you believe, Dr. Akl did not
`propose placing AAS MAP Burst Location IE outside the base mode. Only
`IV's expert, Dr. Lomp, did that.
`We go to slide 41. Dr. Lomp and IV created the figure on this
`slide. They set up a straw man. They proposed putting AAS MAP Burst
`Location IE outside the base mode and then complained that putting it
`outside the base mode would create a problem because, and this is a quote
`from Dr. Lomp, processing of the downlink frame completely breaks down
`if a subscriber station is unable to read the AAS MAP Burst first location IE.
`He's implying that all subscriber stations must receive AAS MAP
`Burst location IE. Now as we discussed, Dr. Akl didn't address AAS MAP
`Burst Location IE in his original declaration. But in laying the foundation
`for his proposed combination of Hwang and McFarland, Dr. Akl did discuss
`what has to go into the base mode. We go to slide 43.
`JUDGE MOORE: Mr. Goldberg?
`
`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
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
`JUDGE MOORE: I just want to interrupt you for a second. I have
`to admit I'm a little confused by this whole argument, because it seems to be
`based on the idea that the base station would want to be communicating at 5
`megahertz with a handset or node or whatever it is that only communicates
`at 2.5. So I'm not understanding sort of the premise here. I thought the idea
`was that a device would come into the network, there would be some
`measure of handshaking on a narrow band. And then, you know, after it's
`established what bandwidth the handset could use, the communication
`would then, it either can continue on the narrowband or maybe a broader
`band that the handset could support. But this whole argument seems to be
`based on the idea that you're trying to push data at 5 megahertz to a handset
`that can only communicate at 2.5. So, am I missing something?
`MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I think that is the argument that
`IV is making, and I agree with you that it doesn't really make much sense
`because the base station is going to be communicating with whatever the
`device is on the bands that the device says it's able to handle.
`JUDGE MOORE: So, it gets a little more complicated there
`because your expert seems to have gone along with it, and now he's trying to
`make his theory fit, or maybe not, or he's trying to make his theory fit into
`this what seems to be a flawed premise.
`MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that's I think where the issue is, Your
`Honor. Our expert never said that you would put this material that needs to
`be in the core band outside of the core band. That is what their expert has
`said. That is what they have said about what our expert's position is, but that
`
`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
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`has never been his position. And I'll walk through with Your Honor in a
`moment what his position is, what he told IV's counsel before they filed their
`Patent Owner Response, which took a different position and
`mischaracterized what the combination was. But real quickly before I get to
`that, from the original declaration Dr. Akl recognized -- and this is the
`foundation of his obviousness position -- that McFarland teaches that the
`broadcast messages or any other messages that need to be received by
`multiple nodes must be transmitted in a mode that all nodes to which they
`are directed are able to receive. That is the base mode.
`So, again, it's kind of what Your Honor was just talking about. If
`there's a message that the base station needs to send to a particular device or
`a group of devices, it's going to put it in the bandwidth that that device is
`capable of using. And if we go to the next slide, slide 44, this is some
`deposition testimony from the original deposition of Dr. Akl where IV's
`counsel asked him about some of these issues. And they asked, do you see
`that in Figure 6 of Hwang there's a gray box called AAS MAP Burst
`Location IE? He says yes. They ask, what's your understanding of what's in
`that box? And he says, it's described in this section right above the figure so
`it contains information like system information, and an index of where the
`MAP Bursts are going to be.
`So the MAP Burst Location IE that works in conjunction with the
`SICH, so that will be, that will continue to be located in 2.5 megahertz. So
`again, that AAS MAP Burst Location IE is always staying in 2.5 megahertz
`because that's what all the devices are always able to receive. And if we go
`on to slide 45, Dr. Akl continues that the additional MAP Bursts below it
`
`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
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`and above it can go in the rest of the frame. So right here, he's talking about
`if you had broader, if you had a device that could deal with 5 or 10 or 20
`megahertz, then it can be looking at those additional Bursts that are above
`and below 2.5.
`Go to slide 46. But the Burst location will continue to be located
`in alongside the preamble and the such in the 2.5 megahertz. So both legacy
`and non-legacy can read those control information. And --, yes. If the
`legacy device can't read, receive the data outside that narrow 2.5, why, I
`guess --
`
`JUDGE MOORE: If that's the -- if the legacy device can't read,
`receive the data outside that narrow 2.5, why, -- I guess I'm not
`understanding -- why would it want to read that? Why would it want to have
`that be a (CROSSTALK) if it can't read all the data that's all of the bursts or
`the traffic associated with that.
`MR. GOLDBERG: So I want to actually go to a more expanded
`version of some of the testimony that we've just been discussing because I
`think that's going to clarify things. If we go to slide 70. What is happening
`here, Your Honors, we're talking -- that picture that we're looking at is
`dealing with --
`JUDGE MOORE: Which slide are you on? I'm sorry.
`MR. GOLDBERG: Seventy. Very last slide.
`JUDGE MOORE: Which slide?
`MR. GOLDBERG: Seven zero.
`JUDGE MOORE: Seven zero. Thank you.
`MR. GOLDBERG: That picture that we've been talking about, I
`
`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
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`think why the confusion is coming up is that it's showing what multiple
`different subscriber devices might be seeing, multiple different user
`equipment. I have these full broader quotes here because this discusses the
`difference between what legacy would see and what non-legacy would see.
`IV's counsel asks Dr. Akl, so you're proposing that in the column
`where there are MAP Bursts in Hwang, that the uplink map and the
`downlink map be positioned in the 2.5 megahertz portion? And Dr. Akl
`responds, no, I think you're mischaracterizing what I'm saying. The uplink
`map and downlink MAP Bursts can be anywhere in the entire frequency
`band. So the only thing in the 2.5 MHz is the preamble, is SICH, and then
`the MAP Bursts and the traffic bursts for the legacy. So within 2.5 are those
`Bursts for the legacy. And then he goes on, the non-legacy devices will read
`the preamble and the SICH in the 2.5 megahertz, be 5 or 10 or 20, and their
`MAP Bursts can be anywhere in the entire bandwidth. And their traffic
`bands can be about then can see the entire bandwidth, it can be anywhere in
`the bandwidth.
`So, that's what the difference is. The legacy is only seeing 2.5, and
`the AS MAP Burst IE location is within 2.5, so legacy devices are always
`able to see it. But then when you have other devices that are capable of
`seeing 5 or 10 or 20, those other devices are able to use MAP Bursts that are
`outside of the 2.5 megahertz band. And those are the additional ones that
`were being talked about.
`JUDGE MOORE: So the AAS MAP Burst location block can be
`anywhere, is that what you're saying?
`MR. GOLDBERG: So it will be within 2.5 so that any device 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
`
`
`
`10
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`able to see it. And the reason for that is if we go back to slide 43, any other
`messages that need to be received by multiple nodes must be transmitted in a
`mode that all modes to which they are directed are able to receive. The AAS
`MAP Burst Location IE, according to Dr. Lomp, IV's expert, is a message
`that every device needs to be able to see. So that's why that AAS MAP
`Burst Location IE is included in the 2.5 megahertz. That way, everybody
`can see it. Whether you're a legacy device, you can see it. Whether you're
`not a legacy device, you can see it.
`All the devices are always able to see it, which is why it's included
`within the 2.5 megahertz band. This is not an exclusive thing. If you are in
`the 5 megahertz band, that doesn't mean you don't see what's in 2.5. If
`you're within 5, you see what's in 2.5, and you see what's in 5. If you're
`within 10, you see what's in 2.5, you see what's in 5, and you see what's in
`10, and so on and so forth. So if you put something in the very middle,
`everybody's able to see it. And the reason -- go ahead.
`JUDGE MOORE: I guess I'm not clear why the 2.5 megahertz
`handset wants to see the MAP Burst locations of MAP Bursts that it can't
`read.
`
`MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, okay, okay. I think I understand what the
`issue is now, Your Honor. The AAS MAP Burst Location IE, that particular
`information, if you look at the entirety of the block, is not specific to each
`individual piece of user equipment. It's like an index that will tell this piece
`of user equipment, go look in this place for your MAP Bursts. A different
`piece of user equipment, you go look in this other place for your MAP
`Bursts. The third piece of user equipment, you go look in some other place
`
`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
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`for your MAP Bursts.
`So everybody needs to be able to see this index to know where
`they need to look, but it would tell a 2.5 MHz legacy device, you go look at
`the MAP Bursts that are within 2.5 because you're able to see them.
`Whereas if it's a 5 MHz user equipment, then it might say, go look at these
`other MAP Bursts that are in the 5 megahertz, but not within the 2.5. But all
`the devices need to see it so that they can figure out where to look.
`JUDGE MOORE: This is not point-to-point communication. This
`is all broadcast. Every handset is going to be getting all this data, even
`though it may or may not be able to receive it?
`MR. GOLDBERG: The AAS MAP Burst Location IE, yes will be
`sent to all the devices. That's broadcast, and that's why it's included within
`2.5 because it's broadcast.
`JUDGE MOORE: Okay.
`MR. GOLDBERG: So looking at Figure 48 for a second, this is
`the figure that we've been going through. And we just went through the
`testimony about this figure that was in the original Akl declaration. So
`nothing here was new. All these things were discussed during the
`deposition. IV knew about them, yet Dr. Lomp and IV created their other
`figure and argued that the AAS MAP Burst Location IE would be outside of
`2.5, even though that's something that Dr. Akl never said.
`So they created this strawman that there's going to be this problem
`when you put it outside 2.5, even though Dr. Akl never said to do that. And
`consistent with the teachings of the prior art discussed in Dr. Akl's original
`declaration, again, when questioned about the AAS MAP Burst Location IE,
`
`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
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`Dr. Akl said that it would go in the base node, where it would not create any
`of the problems that IV's counsel has talked about.
`So I want to go to the next issue right now, the channel estimation,
`we go to slide 35. On channel estimation, IV's argument seems to be that
`the combination of Hwang and McFarland won't work because the preamble
`in the combination is constrained to the base mode and doesn't reach the full
`bandwidth. In particular, they think that means channel estimation won't be
`possible for subcarriers outside the base mode. This is a somewhat strange
`argument for IV to make, given that the '641 Patent itself discloses an
`embodiment in which the preamble is constrained to the base mode, which it
`calls the core band. In column 5, at lines 18 to 20, and at the top of Figure 8.
`But in any case, channel estimation doesn't require every
`subcarrier to be in the preamble. In fact, channel estimation doesn't require
`the preamble at all.
`We go to slide 36, Dr. Akl testified with reference to multiple
`documents that channel estimation can be done using the traffic or data
`portion of the frame. So, that's the yellow over to the right in the figure. He
`points to a reference called Dowler for this. We go to the next slide he
`points to another reference called Chang. Again it's talking about data
`signals.
`
`We go to the next slide 38. He also points to Wang and Thomas
`additional references that are again using data signals. They're not using the
`preamble for channel estimation. Dr. Akl concludes in short, as of May 1,
`2004, that's the earliest claim priority date for the '641 Patent, it was
`common in the industry to estimate channel conditions using other portions
`
`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
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`of the downlink frame such as the data portion. IV chose not to question Dr.
`Akl on any of this, and it has no contrary evidence. Channel estimation
`doesn't present any problem for the combination of Hwang and McFarland
`because channel estimation can be done without the preamble. Moving to
`IV's last alleged problem with the combination, the uplink ranging sub-
`channel, it is again only a problem with a strawman.
`If we go to slide 50, in order for IV to make its argument that the
`uplink ranging sub-channel creates a problem, they rely on an uplink frame
`in Kang. This is another reference that was not part of the proposed
`combination. It was introduced by IV. They also need to assume that it was
`standard essential at the priority date of the '641 Patent, but it wasn't. And it
`doesn't match Kang, doesn't match other uplink frames of record. IV also
`assumes that uplink and downlink frames need to be the same size and in the
`same bandwidth despite Hwang requiring neither of those things.
`We go to slide 51 just to visualize what's going on here. IV found
`a reference Kang that includes a particular uplink ranging subchannel. They
`say Kang is an 802.16 system, and then conclude all 802.16 systems must
`have the same ranging subchannel. But if we go to the next slide, there's no
`evidence that the combination of Hwang and McFarland would need to have
`the same uplink ranging subchannel. We go to slide 53. Even if the
`proposed combination had to comply with the standard, which it doesn't, IV
`only points to standard post-dating the priority date of the '641 Patent for its
`argument that the standard requires what's in Kang. The standard they're
`referencing is October 2004. Again, the priority date, May 1st, 2004, well
`before that. There's no evidence that what is in Kang was required at 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
`
`
`
`14
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`time of the proposed combination before the priority date of the '641 Patent.
`If we go to slide 54, there's no reason that one would throw out the
`disclosure Hwang already provides of ranging subchannels only to replace
`them with what is in Kang. We can see here that Hwang specifically
`articulates that in uplink, the first three OFDMA symbols are used for
`control symbols, and one of the things transmitted in these three symbols is
`ranging channels. As Dr. Akl testified, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would not assume that Kang dictates the uplink frame for Hwang when
`Hwang proposes details for its own uplink frame structure.
`We go to slide 55. We also know that the structure of Kang wasn't
`required because other structures were known. Here's an example on this
`slide that shows the ranging information spanning the entire bandwidth. It's
`not something that is just on the edge. We go to slide 56. For all the reasons
`that we've just discussed, Kang structure isn't required, but even if it was,
`this still wouldn't be a problem for the combination. IV assumes that the
`same bandwidth has to be used for downlink and uplink, but that is not the
`case. First, the unified frame structure of Hwang doesn't require this.
`We go to slide 31. We can see here the highlighted line. This is
`partially what was cited by IV when it made its argument. IV just started at
`the second line that's highlighted and said that, system bandwidth should be
`kept for a unified frame structure. But we can see that's not what the
`sentence actually says in full. The sentence says that the scalability of FFT
`size with system bandwidth is what should be kept for a unified frame
`structure.
`And if we go to the next slide, we have testimony from Dr. Akl
`
`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
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`here that by unified frame structure, Hwang is simply referring to a frame
`structure having a fixed spacing between subcarriers, not a fixed bandwidth
`as IV suggests. And at the bottom of the slide, we can see in Hwang, the
`actual discussion Hwang says, fixed tone spacing for unified frame structure.
`It doesn't say fixed bandwidth.
`We go back to slide 56. Hwang also doesn't require that the UL be
`in the -- that the uplink be in the same frequency band as the downlink. We
`go to slide 57. Testimony again from Dr. Akl, by superimposing Kang's
`uplink frame next to Hwang's downlink frame at the same frequency, IV is
`assuming not only that they must be the same bandwidth, but that the two
`must operate in TDD, that's time division duplexing, occupying the same
`frequency but different time slots. Hwang expressly discloses the
`application of its proposed frame structure in either TDD or FDD, which is
`frequency division duplexing. And we can see in Hwang at the bottom of
`the slide the discussion about FDD.
`We now go to slide 58. This is 802.16 standard, but an earlier
`version that actually was in existence before the priority date. It defines
`what frequency division duplexing is. And it says that in FDD, frequency
`division duplexing operation, the uplink and downlink channels are on
`separate frequencies. The reason that this matters is that FDD actually
`requires the uplink and the downlink to be in different frequencies. Again,
`this is from the 2001 version of the standard.
`So, again, IV is just arguing against the strawman. There's no
`requirement in the combination that would cause a problem for the uplink
`ranging subchannel. None of IV's alleged problems with the combination
`
`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
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`actually exist. The combination renders obvious all of what the claims
`actually require. And unless there's any further questions on the substance,
`I'll ask my colleague, Alex Harding, to address how Hwang is authenticated
`prior art.
`JUDGE MOORE: All right. No further questions.
`MR. HARDING: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I'd like to start
`with slide 64. Hwang is authentic and it is prior art. IV has asked the Board
`to exclude Hwang because it claims that the copy of Hwang Petitioner
`provided in this case is not authentic, yet IV I does not dispute that the IEEE
`to this day provides a download link for submissions made by contributors
`prior to or during the Working Group 30 meeting for March 15th, 2000, 15th
`to 18th, 2004.
`It concedes that the Hwang Petitioners rely upon is the exact same
`Hwang that you, me, or anybody else could download directly from IEEE on
`its Working Group 30 meeting site, and it doesn't challenge any of the
`testimony of Petitioner's declarant, Mr. Randall Schwartz, where he
`explained that Hwang was made available by IEEE in the exact manner that
`he would have expected it to be made available as an attendee of that
`meeting. Your Honors, authentication is not a high burden, and those three
`undisputed points are enough for Petitioner to meet that burden.
`The reason IV offers for why it thinks Petitioner has not met its
`burden on authentication are, one, that Mr. Schwartz does not personally
`recall seeing Hwang discussed at the Working Group 30 meeting, and two,
`Hwang has some low-resolution figures and text in red line with a hyperlink
`error. Neither point is relevant to authentication because, first, Petitioner
`
`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
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`never relied on Mr. Schwartz for his personal recall, and second, IV has
`done nothing to explain why the resolution of the figures in Hwang, or its
`red line text are evidence that it is not authentic.
`With all of that in mind, I would like to walk through Mr.
`Schwartz's testimony in a little more detail. Mr. Randall Schwartz served as
`the Strategic Planning Manager for Intel between 2003 and 2005, and led
`Intel's 802.16 efforts. Mr. Schwartz submitted a declaration in this case
`explaining how IEEE published documents like Hwang, and where he
`obtained the copy of Hwang the Petitioner relies on in this case.
`In slide 64, we see that during the development of the 802.16 IEEE
`standard, submissions for consideration in the standard were made by
`contributors prior to or during the working group meetings. If we turn to
`slide 65, Mr. Schwartz testified that these submissions were made publicly
`available on the IEEE 802.16 website. By doing so, any members of the
`public who weren't able to attend or anybody who simply wasn't a member
`of IEEE could freely access the submissions and see what was under
`consideration for the standard at that meeting.
`Turning to the next slide. Mr. Schwartz testified to these facts, and
`he also attached to his declaration in Appendix D, a printout of the webpage
`where these submissions could be and still can be directly accessed. Turning
`to slide 67, Your Honors, in Appendix D to Mr. Schwartz's declaration,
`that's Exhibit 1010, and highlighted on this slide is the link to download
`IEEE 802.16d-04/19, which is titled, A New Frame Structure for Scalable
`OFDMA Systems by first author Hwang and submitted on March 11, 2004.
`Mr. Schwartz testified that he obtained Exhibit 1004 by clicking on this link
`
`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
`
`(404) 684-6008
`
`Jamison Professional Services
`East Pointe, GA
`
`www.jps-online.com
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00974
`Patent 8,953,641 B2
`and downloading the resulting document. And if Your Honors would turn to
`slide 68, he testifies to this effect in paragraph 17 of his declaration.
`Finally, in slide 69, Mr. Schwartz also testified that Hwang
`contained the expected release clause that grants IEEE the usual license to
`disseminate its contents and make the contribution available to the public.
`The Board has historically recognized IEEE as a trustworthy and reliable
`publisher of documents relating to its standards. IV doesn't dispute IEEE's
`trustworthiness. It doesn't dispute that Exhibit 1004 is available directly
`from IEEE with the relevant date that the Petitioner has relied upon, and it
`doesn't challenge