Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 32
`Entered: October 16, 2024
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. and
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`THETA IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`____________
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`In this inter partes review instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`Lenovo (United States) Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC (collectively,
`“Petitioner”) challenge the patentability of claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 (“the
`challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,129,825 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the 825
`patent”), owned by Theta IP, LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Having reviewed the
`arguments of the parties and the supporting evidence, we determine that
`Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of evidence that any of the
`challenged claims are unpatentable for the reasons set forth in this Final
`Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`A. Procedural History
`Petitioner filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of the
`challenged claims (Paper 1, “Pet.”), to which Patent Owner filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 9). On October 23, 2023, we instituted inter
`partes review as to all challenged claims on all grounds asserted by
`Petitioner. Paper 10 (“Dec.” or “Institution Decision”).
`Subsequent to institution of the trial, Patent Owner filed a Response
`(Paper 15; PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 20, “Pet. Reply”), and
`Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 22, “PO Sur-reply”). Additionally,
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude certain exhibits filed by Patent Owner
`(Paper 26; “Motion”), Patent Owner filed an Opposition to Petitioner’s
`Motion (Paper 27; “Opposition), and Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent
`Owner’s Opposition (Paper 28; “Reply to Opp.”).
`
` 2
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`
`A consolidated oral hearing with IPR2023-00698 was held on July 24,
`2024. A transcript of the hearing is part of the record. Paper 31 (“Tr.” or
`“Transcript”).
`
`B. Real Parties-in-Interest
`Petitioner identifies Lenovo (United States) Inc., Motorola Mobility
`LLC, and Lenovo Group Ltd as real parties in interest. Pet. 1. Patent Owner
`identifies itself as a real party in interest. Paper 4 (Patent Owner’s
`Mandatory Notices), 2.
`
`C. Related Matters
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), each party identifies various
`judicial or administrative matters that would affect or be affected by a
`decision in this proceeding. Pet. 3; Paper 4, 2. The parties each identify
`Theta IP, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 1:22-cv-03441 (N.D. Ill.).
`Pet. 1; Paper 4, 2. Patent Owner additionally identifies two concluded cases:
`Theta IP, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. WA:20-cv-00160 (W.D.
`Tex.) and Theta IP, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2:16-cv-527 (E.D.
`Tex.) that involved a patent related to the ’825 patent. Paper 4, 2.
`The parties also each identify two concurrently filed petitions
`challenging different patents: IPR2023–00694 and IPR2023–00698. Pet. 1–
`2; Paper 4, 2. In IPR2023-00694, a trial was not instituted for a petition
`challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,010,330. See IPR2023-00694, Paper 10
`(decision denying institution of inter partes review). Trial was instituted for
`a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,524,202 in IPR2023–00698. See
`IPR2023-00698, Paper 10 (decision instituting inter partes review).
`
` 3
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`
`D. The ’825 Patent
`The ’825 patent is titled “Power Dissipation Reduction in Wireless
`Transceivers.” Ex. 1001, code (54). The patent relates to “improving
`battery life by reducing battery power-drain of battery-powered devices
`using wireless transceivers.” Ex. 1001, code (57).
`
`1. The Written Description
`The patent describes drain on battery life resulting from power
`consumed by wireless transmitters and receivers on various types of mobile
`devices. Id. at 1:22–33. According to the patent, a reason for high power
`drain “is that electronic circuits are typically designed to function properly
`under worst-case operating conditions . . . when a desired signal reception
`strength is low, while other transceivers or nearby electronic equipment
`generate interfering signals, and other spurious noise.” Id. at 1:34–40. The
`patent explains that “[w]hen a receiver is actively received a desired signal,
`each block in the signal path has at its input the desired signal as well as
`noise and possibly interfering signals” or “interferers.” Id. at 5:20–22, 28–
`30. “The desired signal is the useful, information-carrying portion of a
`received signal.” Id. at 5:22–24. Figures 2A and 2B, reproduced below,
`show desired signals and interfering signals that may be received by a circuit
`in a wireless receiver.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 5:31–33, Figs. 2A, 2B.
`As shown in Figure 2A, “received desired signal 206 is large in
`comparison to interfering signals 208 and 210,” which represents “the best-
`case input signal.” Id. at 5:36–37, 6:14–15. The best-case input signal is “a
`robust desired signal accompanied by no or low-level interferers.” Id. at
`6:15–16. In such a case, the receiver circuit can save significant power by
`allowing noise floor 214 to rise and reducing the maximum signal power
`that can be handled with an acceptably low distortion (Smax 212). Id. at
`6:16–19, 5:46–48. For example, bias currents may be lowered to reduce the
`maximum signal handling capability. By contrast, as shown in Figure 2B,
`received “desired signal 256 is relatively weak compared to the large
`interferers 258 and 260,” which “is generally considered the worst-case
`input signal.” Id. at 5:54–56, 6:6–7.
`Figure 4 is reproduced below and illustrates “a portion of a receiver
`consistent with an embodiment of the present invention.”
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:50–51.
`In the example of Figure 4, “input signal spectrum on line 410 is
`shown as desired signal 412 and interferers 414 and 416” and the “signal
`spectrum at the output line 460 is shown as desired signal 462 and interferers
`464 and 466.” Id. at 6:55–59. Included in the portion of the receiver shown
`in Figure 4 is “optional gain element 420 [that] is placed in front of the
`filter 430 in order to increase signal levels.” Id. at 6:52–53.
`In the example shown in Figure 4, the patent explains that a
`“comparison of the signal levels provided by signal strength indicators 440
`and 450 indicates that much of the combined received signal on line 410 has
`been filtered.” Id. at 7:4–6. This indicates “that large interfering signals
`present in the input are being filtered by filter 430,” which allows optimizing
`“the bias, impedance, and gain of the gain stage 420 and filter 430” to
`reduce power dissipation. Id. at 7:8–11.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`
`2. Challenged Claims
`Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 of the ’825 patent are challenged, of which
`claims 1, 3, and 8 are independent. Illustrative claim 1 follows, with
`emphasis added identifying a disputed limitation:
`1. A method for power dissipation reduction in a receiver
`of a wireless transceiver of a battery powered portable wireless
`device, and a corresponding increase in battery life of the battery
`powered portable wireless device, the method comprising:
`receiving a wireless signal having a desired signal and an
`interferer signal, by the wireless transceiver of the battery
`powered portable wireless device, the wireless transceiver
`having a receiver signal path comprising a plurality of circuits,
`wherein the plurality of circuits includes an amplifier, a filter,
`and a mixer, and wherein the wireless transceiver comprises a
`circuit for determining a signal strength of the interferer signal
`and a circuit for determining a signal strength of the desired
`signal;
`wherein a worst-case power dissipation condition results
`when the signal strength of the desired signal is low and the
`signal strength of the interferer signal is high; and
`wherein the power dissipation reduction in the receiver is
`achieved by causing a bias current to vary in one or more of the
`plurality of circuits in the receiver signal path of the wireless
`transceiver as the signal strength of the interferer signal and the
`signal strength of the desired signal vary according to the
`following:
`(i) when the signal strength of the interferer signal is high
`and the signal strength of the desired signal is low, and the
`desired signal is larger than in the worst-case power dissipation
`condition, causing the bias current of the one or more of the
`plurality of circuits in the receiver signal path of the wireless
`transceiver to be reduced compared to the worst-case power
`dissipation condition, thereby saving power; and
`(ii) when the signal strength of the interferer signal is weak
`and the signal strength of the desired signal is weak, causing the
`
` 7
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`
`bias current of the one or more of the plurality of circuits in the
`receiver signal path of the wireless transceiver to be decreased
`compared to the worst-case power dissipation condition, thereby
`saving power.
`Ex. 1001, 12:60–13:31 (emphases added).
`
`E. Prior Art and Other Evidence
`Petitioner relies upon the references:
`Exhibit
`Name
`Patent Document
`1004
`Rauhala
`EP 0 999 649 A2 (May 10, 2000)
`1005
`Masaaki
`JP H8-228118 (Sept. 3, 1996)
`Pet. 3. Petitioner asserts Rauhala and Masaaki are prior art under pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 4.
`Petitioner relies on declaration testimony of R. Jacob Baker, P.E.,
`Ph.D. in support of its Petition (Ex. 1002) and its Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Response (Ex. 1019). Patent Owner relies on declaration testimony of
`Lawrence Larson, Ph.D. (Ex. 2015). Additionally, the parties have made of
`record deposition transcripts of Dr. Baker (Ex. 2016) and Dr. Larson
`(Ex. 1018).
`
`F. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted trial on the following grounds asserted by Petitioner:
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §1
`Reference/Basis
`1, 3, 8
`102(b)
`Rauhala
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amending 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, was effective on
`March 16, 2013. The ’825 patent claims the filing benefit of a patent that
`issued from an application filed on May 20, 2010, which is before the
`effective date of the applicable AIA amendment. Ex. 1001, code (63), 1:7–
`15. We, therefore, apply the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 for
`purposes of this proceeding.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §1
`4
`103(a)
`Dec. 7, 41.
`
`Reference/Basis
`Rauhala and Masaaki
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Legal Standards Concerning Demonstrating Unpatentability
`To prevail in challenging the patent claims, Petitioner must
`demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2012); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2017). “In an
`[inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show
`with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic
`Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35
`U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with
`particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to
`each claim”)); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (requiring a petition for inter
`partes review to identify how the challenged claim is to be construed and
`where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed
`publications relied on). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner except in
`limited circumstances not present here. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v.
`Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech.
`Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008))
`(discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).
`Petitioner asserts that certain claims of the challenge patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). As relevant here, a claim is
`anticipated if a single prior art reference discloses all the claimed limitations
`arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim.” HTC Corp. v.
`Cellular Commc’ns Equip., LLC, 877 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see
`
` 9
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`also 35 U.S.C. § 102. Although the elements must be arranged or combined
`in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis
`verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560
`F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); accord In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832
`(Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, an anticipatory reference can disclose each
`limitation of the claimed invention either expressly or inherently. Eli Lilly &
`Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Rsch. Inst. At Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr., 849
`F.3d 1073, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Furthermore, a reference can anticipate
`“without a particular disclosure of the specific combination recited in the
`disputed claims” if “that reference teaches that the disclosed components or
`functionalities may be combined and one of skill in the art would be able to
`implement the combination.” Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d
`1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (discussing Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll
`Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1379–81 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
`Petitioner asserts that a claim of the challenged patent is unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are
`such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time
`of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is
`resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the
`scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed
`subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`(4) when in evidence, objective evidence of nonobviousness.2 Graham v.
`John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`We review the grounds of unpatentability in view of the
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention (“POSITA”). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems
`encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with
`which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and
`educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d
`1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quotation marks omitted).
`Relying on declaration testimony from Dr. Baker, Petitioner asserts
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree
`in electrical engineering, electronics engineering, or the equivalent, and two
`or more years of experience in electronic circuits and mobile communication
`devices including transceivers.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–31).
`Petitioner also indicates that “[m]ore practical experience could qualify one
`not having the aforementioned education as a POSITA, while a higher level
`of education could offset lesser experience.” Id.
`Relying on declaration testimony from Dr. Larson, Patent Owner
`asserts, as Patent Owner did in its Preliminary Response, that a person of
`ordinary skill “would have had at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical or
`Electronics Engineering, along with approximately five years of relevant
`experience in the design of transceiver architecture, RF systems and
`
`2 Patent Owner has not offered objective evidence of non-obviousness. See
`generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply.
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`components, and analog and mixed signal circuits, as well as experience in
`control algorithms for such system and familiarity with wireless standards—
`with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” PO
`Resp. 24–25 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶ 48); see Prelim. Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 2005
`¶ 48); Dec. 9. Dr. Larson indicates that his opinions would not change if
`Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill were applied. Ex. 2015 ¶ 51.
`As we noted in the Institution Decision, the two proposals are
`materially similar in the educational requirement but differ in professional
`experience required. Dec. 9; compare Pet. 4 with PO Resp. 24–25. In the
`Institution Decision, we determined that Petitioner’s proposal of certain
`education plus a minimum of two years of experience was a better reflection
`of the level of skill in the prior art. Dec. 9–10. We also determined that
`Petitioner’s proposal was consistent with the problems and solutions in the
`’825 patent and prior art of record. Dec. 9–10. Accordingly, we adopted
`Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of
`determining whether to institute an inter partes review. Dec. 10.
`Following institution, Patent Owner maintained the same level of
`ordinary skill proposed in its preliminary response and did not address our
`discussion of the level of ordinary skill in the art in the Institution Decision.
`PO Resp. 24–25; see also Prelim. Resp. 24. For the reasons discussed in the
`Institution Decision, we adopt and apply for this Decision the level of
`ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used previously in our Institution
`Decision. See Dec. 8–10. In light of our review of the complete record, we
`find that this formulation is consistent with the ’825 patent, the prior art of
`record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`31. Our decision would not change, however, if we had applied Patent
`Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, the Board construes a claim using the same
`claim construction standard employed in a civil action under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, the “words of
`a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,’” as
`would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “In determining the meaning of
`the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of
`record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the
`prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
`Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips,
`415 F.3d at 1312–17).
`Additionally, we construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’
`contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The
`Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy,
`and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`1. The Circuit Limitations
`In the Institution Decision, we analyzed the claim scope of “the
`wireless transceiver comprises a circuit for determining a signal strength of
`the interferer signal and a circuit for determining a signal strength of the
`
`13
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`desired signal challenged independent claims,” which each challenged
`independent claim recites. See Ex. 1001, 13:4–7 (claim 1), 13:49–52
`(claim 3), 16:21–24 (claim 8). Dec. 11–17. Based on the claim language,
`the written description, and prosecution history, we interpreted “wherein the
`wireless transceiver comprises a circuit for determining a signal strength of
`the interferer signal and a circuit for determining a signal strength of the
`desired signal” as encompassing, but not requiring, the same circuit
`determining a signal strength of the interferer signal and determining a
`signal strength of the desired signal. Dec. 10–17.
`After institution, both parties agreed with our interpretation. Patent
`Owner, in its Patent Owner Response, agreed that the challenged claims “are
`not limited to a particular number of circuits or exact timing of their use.”3
`PO Resp. 32. Petitioner also agreed with the claim construction set forth in
`our Institution Decision. Pet. Reply 5.
`Having considered whether the construction set forth in the Institution
`Decision should be changed in light of evidence introduced during trial, we
`are not persuaded any modification is necessary. Therefore, we maintain the
`interpretation of “wherein the wireless transceiver comprises a circuit for
`
`
`3 To be sure, Patent Owner contends that the prior art does not disclose the
`determining as required by the challenged claims, particularly in light of the
`limitation “receiving a wireless signal having a desired signal and an
`interferer signal.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 35 (“Petitioners failed to show that
`Rauhala discloses ‘a circuit for determining a signal strength of the
`interferer signal and a circuit for determining a signal strength of the desired
`signal.’”); PO Sur-reply 13 (“There is simply no teaching or suggestion in
`Rauhala of the elements requiring ‘receiving a wireless signal having a
`desired signal and an interferer signal,’ and then ‘determining a signal
`strength of the interferer signal and . . . determining a signal strength of the
`desired signal’ within that received wireless signal.”).
`
`14
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`determining a signal strength of the interferer signal and a circuit for
`determining a signal strength of the desired signal” found in our Institution
`Decision as “encompassing, but not requiring, the same circuit determining a
`signal strength of the interferer signal and determining a signal strength of
`the desired signal.” Dec. 17.
`
`2. Other Claim Terms
`In addition, we discuss claim interpretation to the extent it is
`necessary in the context of analyzing the asserted grounds.
`
`D. Summary of Prior Art Disclosures
`
`1. Disclosure of Rauhala (Ex. 1004)
`Rauhala discloses “a method and an arrangement for linearizing a
`radio receiver” that can be “applied in the reception circuits of mobile
`stations.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 1. Rauhala explains that “[t]he quality of a signal in a
`radio receiver is degraded by noise and interference added to the signal on
`the transmission path, noise in the reception circuitry, as well as by
`indirectly caused by other radio signals” when a signal on a neighboring
`channel “is considerably stronger than the signal to be received.” Ex. 1004
`¶ 2. Rauhala further indicates that “the signal quality can be improved by
`using more energy in the receiver” but notes that this “shortens the battery
`life.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 3.
`Rauhala summarizes the “basic idea of the invention” as a receiver
`monitoring the signal strength on the receive channel and neighboring
`channels and determining the quality of the detected signal. Ex. 1004 ¶ 6.
`“[W]hen the signal strength is satisfactory on the receive channel and
`ordinary on the neighboring channels, the supply currents of the receiver’s
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`front-end amplifiers and at least the first mixer are kept relatively low.” Id.
`“If the signal strength goes below a certain value on the receive channel or
`exceeds a certain value on the neighboring channel, said supply currents are
`increased.” Id. Rauhala indicates that an “advantage of the invention is that
`the energy consumption of the receiver can be reduced without degrading
`the signal quality,” which “means longer life for the battery.” Id. ¶ 7.
`Figure 1 of Rauhala, shown below, is “a simplified example of a radio
`receiver without the low-frequency components.” Id. ¶ 12.
`
`
`The radio receiver depicted in Figure 1 includes antenna ANT coupled
`to a series of “linear units” of filters (F1–F4), amplifiers (A1–A3), and
`mixers (M1, M2), with each mixer connected to an oscillator (O1, O2). Id.
`As shown, the output of filter F4 is coupled to detector DET, which provides
`baseband signal sb. Id.
`Figure 4, below, is similar to Figure 1 and illustrates an example of
`supply current control for linear units.
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`
`
`
`Id. ¶ 17. In addition to the antenna, oscillators, detector DET, and linear
`units of filters, amplifiers, and mixers shown in Figure 1, Figure 4 includes
`control unit 42 that “receives from detector DET an indication about either
`the receive channel signal strength RSS or the strength of any signal on the
`reception band.” Id. (emphasis added). RSS is the receive channel strength
`(as noted above) and RSSn is the signal strength of the neighboring channel
`in which the signal strength is greater. Id. ¶ 17. Figure 4 also depicts
`another input to control unit 42—“signal a” that is received “from the
`receiver’s tuner control [that] indicates the channel.” Id. ¶ 17, Fig. 4.
`“The control unit 42 provides two one-bit control signals cA and cM”
`to various linear units. Id. ¶ 17, Fig. 4. Control signal cA is provided to
`amplifiers A1 and A2, whereas control signal cM is provided to mixer M1,
`amplifier A3, and mixer M2. Id. ¶ 17. The control signals are used to
`control the supply current provided to the respective linear units. Id.
`
`2. Disclosure of Masaaki (Ex. 1005)
`Masaaki describes “an automatic gain control circuit which improves
`intermodulation characteristics of an amplification circuit used in a radio
`receiver such as a pager, and minimizes power consumption in the radio
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`receiver.” Ex. 1005, code 57 (“Abstract”). Figure 1, shown below, “is a
`circuit block diagram of a reception unit 40 of a pager.” Id. ¶ 20.
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1, reception unit 40 “is configured by an
`antenna 21, an RF amplifier[4] 22, a bandpass filter 23, a mixer 24, a local
`oscillator 25, a bandpass filter 26, an IF amplifier[5] 27, a detection
`circuit 28, a bias control AGC [automatic gain control] circuit 41, an input
`attenuation AGC circuit 42, and an attenuation diode 43.” Id. ¶ 21.
`
`E. Asserted Anticipation of Claims 1, 3, and 8 by Rauhala
`Petitioner asserts that the three challenged independent claims—
`claims 1, 3, and 8—are anticipated by Rauhala. Pet. 20–49. Patent Owner
`contends that Rauhala fails to disclose each limitation recited in the
`independent claims. PO Resp. 33–59.
`Upon consideration of Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence
`and Patent Owner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we are not
`persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
`
`
`4 A RF amplifier is a common abbreviation for a radio frequency amplifier.
`5 An IF amplifier is a common abbreviation for an intermediate frequency
`amplifier.
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`evidence that claims 1, 3, and 8 are anticipated by Rauhala for the reasons
`that follow.
`
`1. Claim 1
`Petitioner asserts that each limitation of claim 1 is disclosed by
`Rauhala and provides an element-by-element analysis. Pet. 20–30.
`Petitioner relies on Rauhala’s disclosure of a radio receiver used in a mobile
`phone and techniques for reducing energy consumption without degrading
`signal quality that result in longer battery life. See, e.g., Pet. 20–21 (citing
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1, 6, 7, 12). Petitioner identifies amplifiers, mixers, and filters
`of the radio receiver shown in Rauhala’s Figure 1 as the recited “the wireless
`transceiver having a receiver signal path comprising a plurality of circuits,
`wherein the plurality of circuits includes an amplifier, a filter, and a mixer.”
`Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 12, 13–20, Fig. 1). For achieving a power
`dissipation reduction “by causing a bias current to vary in . . . circuits in the
`receiver signal path of the wireless transceiver as the signal strength of the
`interferer signal and the signal strength of the desired signal vary” in
`particular ways as enumerated in the claim, Petitioner identifies additional
`circuit components implemented on the receiver configuration in Figure 1
`that are used to adjust currents to these signal path components based on
`signal conditions. Pet. 22–23, 25–30. Specifically, Petitioner identifies
`controller 42 in Rauhala’s Figure 4 and Rauhala’s table in paragraph 17 that
`specifies how “the linear unit supply currents are controlled” based on
`outputs from controller 42. Pet. 24 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 17); see Pet 24
`(identifying a particular table row as disclosing the “worst-case power
`dissipation condition”); Pet. 27–30 (identifying rows in table for various
`limitations).
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`
`Petitioner also indicates that “Rauhala discloses a ‘detector DET’
`configured to provide “an indication about either the receive channel signal
`strength RSS or the strength of any signal on the reception band, which may
`include ‘RSSn [that] stands for the signal strength of the neighboring
`channel.’” Pet. 21 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 17) (alteration in original). As
`discussed previously, the scope of claim 1 encompasses, but does not
`require, the same circuit determining both a signal strength of the interferer
`signal and a signal strength of the desired signal. As such, Petitioner’s
`identifying both recited circuits as Rauhala’s detector DET is not itself
`problematic.
`
`a. The Parties’ Dispute
`The dispositive issue is whether Rauhala discloses, either expressly or
`inherently, “receiving a wireless signal having a desired signal and an
`interferer signal, by the wireless transceiver . . . wherein the wireless
`transceiver comprises a circuit for determining a signal strength of the
`interferer signal and a circuit for determining a signal strength of the desired
`signal” (hereinafter, “the disputed limitation”), as arranged or combined in
`the same way as recited in claim 1.
`
`(i) Dispute regarding receiving the desired signal and
`the interferer signal at the same time
`Patent Owner contends, based on the plain language of the claim as
`well as the specification description, that claim 1 requires the desired signal
`and the interferer signal to be received at the same time. See, e.g., PO Sur-
`reply 8 (“Simply from reading the claim language, it is clear that the desired
`signal and the interferer signal are parts of the same received wireless
`signal—in other words, they are received together.”); PO Resp. 35 (“The
`
`
`20
`
`IPR2024-00816
`Theta EX2022
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00697
`Patent 10,129,825 B2
`
`’825 Patent teaches that the desired signal and the interferer signal are part
`of the same signal input spectrum—in other words, they are received
`together.” (citing Ex. 1001, 5:20–30; 13:4–7 (claim 1))).
`In Reply, Petitioner contends that the “determining” limitations do not
`recite “a temporal requirement.” Pet. Reply 6. We agree that the
`“determining” limitations in isolation do not recite a temporal requirement.
`Patent Owner’s argument in its Response, however, additionally focuses on
`the “receiving” limitation.6 PO Resp. 35. Petitioner does n