Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9079 Filed 03/16/23 Page 1 of 62
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9080 Filed 03/16/23 Page 2 of 62
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... i
`
`Table of Authorities ................................................................................................. iii
`
`List of Common Abbreviations ............................................................................... vi
`
`Index of Exhibits .................................................................................................... viii
`
`Table of Competing Constructions ............................................................................ x
`
`Table of Agreed Constructions .............................................................................. xiv
`
`I.
`
`Technical Background ..................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`Applicable Legal Principles ............................................................................. 1
`
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 2
`
`IV. The ’366 Patent ................................................................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“the ranging signal exhibits a low peak-to-average power ratio in the
`time domain” (Claims 1, 17) ................................................................. 3
`
`“a ranging sequence selected from a set of ranging sequences”
`(Claims 1, 17) ........................................................................................ 7
`
`V.
`
`The ’908 Patent ..............................................................................................11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“wherein the portion of the frequency band used for transmission of
`the random access signal does not include control channels” (Claim 4)
` .............................................................................................................11
`
`“associated with” (Claims 1-2, 9) .......................................................13
`
`“random access signal” (Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9).......................................16
`
`VI. The ’450 Patent ..............................................................................................21
`
`A.
`
`“time-frequency resource unit” (Claims 7, 11) ...................................21
`
`VII. The ’941 Patent ..............................................................................................24
`
`A.
`
`“the antenna transmission scheme comprising a transmission diversity
`scheme or a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) scheme” (Claims
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`i
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9081 Filed 03/16/23 Page 3 of 62
`
`
`
`8, 13) ....................................................................................................24
`
`B.
`
`“the mobile station-specific transmission parameters indicate . . . a
`corresponding subchannel configuration . . . the corresponding
`subchannel configuration characterized by distributed subcarriers or
`localized subcarriers in the frequency domain” (Claims 8, 13) ..........27
`
`VIII. The ’302 Patent ..............................................................................................31
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“probing signal” (Claims 23-24, 26, 28) .............................................31
`
`The Antecedent Basis Terms in Claim 23: [1] “the probing signal is
`configured to occupy a portion of spectrum in the uplink frequency
`band not designated for transmission of uplink control signals in the
`system” [2] “a receiver configured to receive a request for a
`probing signal from a base station in the system” [3] “the probing
`signal is configured to overlap, in the time domain, with uplink
`signals transmitted over an uplink frequency band by other mobile
`devices in the system” .........................................................................33
`
`IX. The ’512 Patent ..............................................................................................34
`
`A.
`
`“wherein the first plurality of subcarriers and the second plurality of
`subcarriers are received in at least one of the time slots” (Claims 15,
`23) ........................................................................................................34
`
`B.
`
`“second pilots of a second type” (Claims 15, 23) ...............................36
`
`X.
`
`Conclusion .....................................................................................................40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`ii
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9082 Filed 03/16/23 Page 4 of 62
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
`346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 9
`
`Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fiserv Inc.,
`641 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 13
`
`Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc.,
`299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 36
`
`Alloc, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 38
`
`American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
`651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 20
`
`Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 10
`
`Aylus Networks, Inv. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................ 13, 14, 21, 30
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................ 3, 4
`
`Biosig Instr., Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`783 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 3
`
`Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc.,
`749 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................... 7, 40
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 36
`
`Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 39
`
`Huawei Techs. Co. Ltd., v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd.,
`2018 WL 1364022 (PTAB Mar. 15, 2018)................................................... 12, 13
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`iii
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9083 Filed 03/16/23 Page 5 of 62
`
`
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 24
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 2
`
`Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc.,
`264 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................... 25, 28
`
`Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`22 F.4th 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ........................................................................... 40
`
`Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.,
`525 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 39
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed Cir. 1995) (en banc) ................................................................. 1
`
`Medicines Co. v. Mylan, Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 18, 37
`
`Moleculon Rsch. Corp. v. CBS, Inc.,
`793 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .......................................................................... 26
`
`Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd.,
`133 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 20
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .................................................................................. 2, 3, 6, 7
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 1
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................. 1, 8, 10
`
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 9
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`iv
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9084 Filed 03/16/23 Page 6 of 62
`
`
`
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Sols., LLC
`824 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 10, 39
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .............................................................. 18, 19, 39
`
`Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson Pharms., Inc.,
`787 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 14, 32
`
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat U.S.A., Inc.,
`2016 WL 5027595 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 20, 2016) ................................................ 15
`
`In re Smith Int’l, Inc.,
`871 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 2
`
`SOP Servs., Inc. v. Vital Hunting Gear, Inc.,
`2013 WL 2445016 (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2013) ....................................................... 34
`
`Sunovion Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`731 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 31
`
`Tech. Props. Ltd. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., Ltd.,
`849 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 15, 24
`
`TMC Fuel Injection Sys., LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
`682 F. App’x 895 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 15
`
`United States v. Adams,
`383 U.S. 39 (1966) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 38
`
`Wireless Protocol Innovations, Inc. v. TCT Mobile, Inc.,
`771 F. App’x 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................. 20, 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`v
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9085 Filed 03/16/23 Page 7 of 62
`
`
`
`LIST OF COMMON ABBREVIATIONS
`
`’302 Patent Asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302
`
`’366 Patent Asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366
`
`’450 Patent Asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450
`
`’512 Patent Asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`
`’908 Patent Asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908
`
`’941 Patent Asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941
`
`Asserted
`Patents
`
`Collectively, the ’366 patent, the ’908 patent, the ’941 patent,
`the ’450 patent, the ’512 patent, and the ’302 patent
`
`Alberth
`Declaration
`
`Declaration of William Alberth in Support of Neo Wireless’s
`Opening Claim Construction Brief, filed on Feb. 16, 2023 as
`Dkt 127-3
`
`Defendants
`
`General Motors Co.; General Motors LLC; Ford Motor Co.; Am.
`Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda Development & Mfg. of Am.,
`LLC; Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.; Volkswagen Grp. of Am.
`Chattanooga Operations, LLC; Nissan N. Am. Inc.; Nissan Motor
`Acceptance Corp. a/k/a Nissan Motor Acceptance Co. LLC; Tesla
`Inc.; FCA US, LLC; Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC; Toyota Motor
`Corp.; Toyota Motor N. Am. Inc.; Toyota Motor Sales, USA Inc.;
`Toyota Motor Eng. & Mfg. N. Am. Inc.; Toyota Motor Credit
`Corp.
`
`DSSS
`
`direct sequence spread spectrum
`
`IPR
`
`Inter partes review
`
`Neo
`or
`Plaintiff
`
`Neo Br.
`
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC
`
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC’s Opening Claim Construction Brief,
`filed on Feb. 16, 2023 as Dkt. 127
`
`PAPR
`
`peak-to-average power ratio
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`vi
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9086 Filed 03/16/23 Page 8 of 62
`
`
`
`POPR
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Responses filed in inter partes review
`
`POSITA
`
`Person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`PTAB
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board in the PTO
`
`PTO
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`
`NOTE: All emphases in this brief have been added, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`vii
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9087 Filed 03/16/23 Page 9 of 62
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1
`
`Declaration of Robert Akl in Support of Defendants’ Responsive
`Claim Construction Brief
`
`Ex. 2
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 16/544,201 (excerpts)
`
`Ex. 3
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 13/246,677 (excerpts)
`
`Ex. 4
`
`Ex. 5
`
`Ex. 6
`
`Neo Wireless v. Dell et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-024 (W.D. Tex.),
`D.I. 44-5, Declaration of James Proctor in Support of Defendants’
`Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`Neo Wireless v. Dell et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-024 (W.D. Tex.),
`D.I. 48-1, Supplemental Declaration of James Proctor in Support
`of Defendants’ Reply Claim Construction Brief
`
`Baxley et al., "Power savings analysis of peak-to-average power
`ratio in OFDM," in IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics,
`vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 792-798, Aug. 2004, (NEO-AUTO_0002300)
`
`Ex. 7
`
`Dell et al. v. Neo Wireless, IPR2022-00277 (P.T.A.B.) Petition for
`Inter Partes Review
`
`Ex. 8
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0082356 A1
`
`Ex. 9
`
`Dell et al. v. Neo Wireless, IPR2022-00277 (P.T.A.B.) Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Ex. 10
`
`Ex. 11
`
`Dell et al. v. Neo Wireless, IPR2022-00277 (P.T.A.B.) Exhibit
`2001, Declaration of William Alberth, Jr.
`
`Dell et al. v. Neo Wireless, IPR2022-00277 (P.T.A.B.) Paper 10,
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`Ex. 12 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English
`Language (excerpts)
`
`Ex. 13
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 16/902,740 (excerpts)
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`viii
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9088 Filed 03/16/23 Page 10 of 62
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 14
`
`Ex. 15
`
`Ex. 16
`
`Ex. 17
`
`Dell et al. v. Neo Wireless, IPR2021-01486 (P.T.A.B.) Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Neo Wireless v. Dell et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-024 (W.D. Tex.),
`D.I. 56, Joint Claim Construction Statement
`
`Dell et al. v. Neo Wireless, IPR2021-01468 (P.T.A.B.) Exhibit
`2015, Correspondence between counsel for Neo Wireless and Dell
`
`Dell et al. v. Neo Wireless, IPR2021-01468 (P.T.A.B.) Paper 12,
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`Ex. 18
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/082,878 (excerpts)
`
`Ex. 19
`
`Volkswagen v. Neo Wireless, IPR2022-01537 (P.T.A.B.) Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Ex. 20
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/953,950 (excerpts)
`
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`ix
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9089 Filed 03/16/23 Page 11 of 62
`
`
`
`TABLE OF COMPETING CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Term (Claims)
`
`“the ranging signal
`exhibits a low peak-to-
`average power ratio in
`the time domain”
`(Claims 1, 17)
`
`“a ranging sequence
`selected from a set of
`ranging sequences”
`(Claims 1, 17)
`
`“wherein the portion of
`the frequency band used
`for transmission of the
`random access signal
`does not include control
`channels” (Claim 4)
`
`“associated with”
`(Claims 1-2, 9)
`
`“random access signal”
`(Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`’366 Patent
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`Alternatively, to the
`extent construction is
`deemed necessary,
`“exhibits a low peak-to-
`average power ratio in
`the time domain” means
`“exhibits a peak-to-
`average power ratio in
`the time domain of 9dBs
`or less.”
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`’908 Patent
`“wherein the portion of
`the frequency band used
`for transmission of the
`random access signal
`does not overlap with the
`portions of the frequency
`band used for control
`channels”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`
`
`Defs.’ Construction
`
`Indefinite.
`
`“a ranging sequence
`selected by the mobile
`station from a set of
`ranging sequences”
`
`“wherein the portion of
`the frequency band used
`for transmission of the
`random access signal
`does not include channels
`carrying control
`information”
`
`“identifying”
`
`“direct sequence spread
`spectrum signal”
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`x
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9090 Filed 03/16/23 Page 12 of 62
`
`
`
`Term (Claims)
`
`“time-frequency resource
`unit” (Claims 7, 11)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`’450 Patent
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`“the antenna transmission
`scheme comprising a
`transmission diversity
`scheme or a multiple-
`input multiple-output
`(MIMO) scheme”
`(Claims 8, 13)
`
`’941 Patent
`“the antenna transmission
`scheme is capable of
`comprising either a
`MIMO scheme or a
`transmission diversity
`scheme other than
`MIMO. To avoid any
`doubt, this requires
`supporting both MIMO
`and non-MIMO
`transmission diversity
`systems.”
`
`Defs.’ Construction
`
`“a combination of time
`and frequency units
`designed according to the
`application requirements
`of the application that is
`being grouped”
`
`“the mobile-station
`specific transmission
`parameters alternatively
`indicate an antenna
`transmission scheme that
`comprises a MIMO
`scheme or an antenna
`transmission scheme
`comprising a
`transmission diversity
`scheme other than
`MIMO, wherein the
`antenna transmission
`scheme is capable of
`comprising either a
`MIMO scheme or a
`transmission diversity
`scheme other than
`MIMO. To avoid any
`doubt, this requires
`supporting both MIMO
`and non-MIMO
`transmission diversity
`systems.”
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`xi
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9091 Filed 03/16/23 Page 13 of 62
`
`
`
`Term (Claims)
`“the mobile station-
`specific transmission
`parameters indicate … a
`corresponding
`subchannel configuration
`… the corresponding
`subchannel configuration
`characterized by
`distributed subcarriers or
`localized subcarriers in
`the frequency domain”
`(Claims 8, 13)
`
`“probing signal” (Claims
`23-24, 26, 28)
`
`“the probing signal is
`configured to occupy a
`portion of spectrum in
`the uplink frequency
`band not designated for
`transmission of uplink
`control signals in the
`system” (Claim 23)
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`“the mobile station-
`specific transmission
`parameters indicate … a
`corresponding
`subchannel
`configuration . . the
`corresponding
`subchannel configuration
`characterized by
`distributed subcarriers or
`localized subcarriers in
`the frequency domain,
`wherein the subchannel
`configuration is capable
`of comprising either
`localized or distributed
`subcarriers. To avoid any
`doubt, this requires
`supporting both localized
`and distributed
`subchannel
`configurations.”
`’302 Patent
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`“the probing signal is
`configured to reside
`within a portion of
`spectrum in the uplink
`frequency band not
`designated for
`transmission of uplink
`control signals in the
`system.”
`
`Defs.’ Construction
`“the mobile station-
`specific transmission
`parameter alternatively
`indicates either
`distributed subcarriers or
`localized subcarriers in
`the frequency domain as
`subchannel
`configurations”
`
`“direct sequence spread
`spectrum signal”
`
`“the probing signal is
`configured to occupy a
`portion of spectrum in
`the uplink frequency
`band not designated for
`transmission of uplink
`control signals in the
`Orthogonal Frequency
`Division Multiplexing
`(OFDM) communication
`system”
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`xii
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9092 Filed 03/16/23 Page 14 of 62
`
`
`
`Term (Claims)
`“a receiver configured to
`receive a request for a
`probing signal from a
`base station in the
`system” (Claim 23)
`
`“the probing signal is
`configured to overlap, in
`the time domain, with
`uplink signals transmitted
`over an uplink frequency
`band by other mobile
`devices in the system”
`(Claim 23)
`
`
`“wherein the first
`plurality of subcarriers
`and the second plurality
`of subcarriers are
`received in at least one of
`the time slots” (Claims
`15, 23)
`“second pilots of a
`second type” (Claims 15,
`23)
`
`
`
`
`
`Defs.’ Construction
`“a receiver configured to
`receive a request for a
`probing signal from a
`base station in the
`Orthogonal Frequency
`Division Multiplexing
`(OFDM) communication
`system”
`“the probing signal is
`configured to overlap, in
`the time domain, with
`uplink signals transmitted
`over an uplink frequency
`band by other mobile
`devices in the Orthogonal
`Frequency Division
`Multiplexing (OFDM)
`communication system”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`’512 Patent
`“wherein the first
`plurality of subcarriers
`and the second plurality
`of subcarriers are
`received in at least one of
`the same time slots”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No construction
`necessary.
`
`“pilots possessing a set of
`characteristics common
`to all base stations of the
`system”
`
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`xiii
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9093 Filed 03/16/23 Page 15 of 62
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Term (Claims)
`“In a multi-cell orthogonal frequency division
`multiple access (OFDMA) wireless communication
`system comprising a plurality of base stations and
`mobile stations, a mobile station configured to
`communicate with a serving base station in a cell
`via a communication channel, the mobile station
`comprising:” (’366 Patent, Claim 1)
`“In an orthogonal frequency division multiple
`access (OFDMA) wireless communication system,
`a method for signal transmission by a mobile
`station to a serving base station via a
`communication channel, the method comprising:”
`(’366 Patent, Claim 17)
`“A mobile station comprising:” (’908 Patent, Claim
`1)
`
`“A mobile device in a wireless packet system using
`a frame structure of multiple frames for
`transmission, each frame comprising a plurality of
`time intervals, each time interval comprising a
`plurality of orthogonal frequency division
`multiplexing (OFDM) symbols, and each OFDM
`symbol containing a plurality of frequency
`subcarriers, the mobile device configured to:” (’450
`Patent, Claim 7)
`“A link adaption method by a mobile station served
`by a serving base station in an Orthogonal
`Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM)
`communication system, the communication system
`utilizing a transmission structure with time slots in
`the time domain and frequency subchannels in the
`frequency domain, the method comprising:” (’941
`Patent, Claim 8)
`
`Agreed Construction
`The preamble is limiting.
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`The preamble is limiting.
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`The preamble is limiting.
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`The preamble is limiting.
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`The preamble is limiting.
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`xiv
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9094 Filed 03/16/23 Page 16 of 62
`
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`The preamble is limiting.
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`The preamble is limiting.
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`The preamble is limiting.
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`The preamble is limiting.
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`Term (Claims)
`“A mobile station served by a serving base station
`in an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
`(OFDM) communication system, the
`communication system utilizing a transmission
`structure with time slots in the time domain and
`frequency subchannels in the frequency domain,
`the mobile station comprising a receiver configured
`to:” (’941 Patent, Claim 13)
`“A mobile device in an Orthogonal Frequency
`Division Multiplexing (OFDM) communication
`system, the mobile device comprising” (’302
`Patent, Claim 23)
`“An orthogonal frequency division multiple access
`(OFDMA)-compatible mobile station that uses
`subcarriers in a frequency domain and time slots in
`a time domain, the OFDMA-compatible mobile
`station comprising:” (’512 Patent, Claim 15)
`“A method performed by an orthogonal frequency
`division multiple access (OFDMA)-compatible
`mobile station that uses subcarriers in a frequency
`domain and time slots in a time domain, the
`method comprising:” (’512 Patent, Claim 23)
`“time-frequency coordinate” (’450 Patent, Claim 7) “one-dimensional time-
`frequency coordinate”
`“wherein a modular coding
`scheme is applied to the
`time-frequency resource
`units in the segment of
`time-frequency resource”
`“designed to”
`
`“wherein modular coding is applied to the time-
`frequency resource units in the segment of time-
`frequency resource” (’450 Patent, Claim 11)
`
`“configured to”1 (’366 Patent, Claims 1 & 5;
`’908 Patent, Claims 1–3 & 9; ’450 Patent, Claim 7;
`’941 Patent, Claims 13 & 14;
`’302 Patent, Claim 23; ’512 Patent, Claim 15)
`
`
`1 The parties agreed to this proposed construction after submission of the Joint
`Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. 114) and after conferring to narrow the issue
`for claim construction.
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`xv
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9095 Filed 03/16/23 Page 17 of 62
`
`
`
`Defendants respectfully submit their responsive claim construction brief, in
`
`response to Neo’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 127).
`
`I.
`
`TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`
`For an overview of relevant technology background, Defendants respectfully
`
`refer the Court to their First Technology Tutorial (submitted on January 18, 2023),
`
`and respectfully incorporate the transcript of the first technology tutorial (Dkt. 123).
`
`For an overview of the Asserted Patents, Defendants respectfully refer the
`
`Court to their Second Technology Tutorial (submitted on February 13, 2023).
`
`II. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`Claim construction is a matter of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`
`52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed Cir. 1995) (en banc). “Words of a claim are generally given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the meaning a term would have to
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art after reviewing the intrinsic record at the time of
`
`the invention.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351,
`
`1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of
`
`a disputed term” and is usually dispositive. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Thus, claim terms should be construed in light of
`
`the specification “with a view to ascertaining the invention.” United States v. Adams,
`
`383 U.S. 39, 49 (1966). “The correct inquiry” for purposes of claim construction “is
`
`not whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`1
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9096 Filed 03/16/23 Page 18 of 62
`
`
`
`claim term.” In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Rather,
`
`the correct construction must “correspond[] with . . . how the inventor describes his
`
`invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is consistent with the
`
`specification.” Id. at 1383 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, patent claims must “particularly point[] out and
`
`distinctly claim[] the subject matter” regarded as the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
`
`Claims must “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with
`
`reasonable certainty,” in light of the specification and prosecution history. Nautilus,
`
`Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014). This standard requires
`
`that a patent must “be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed,
`
`thereby apprising the public of what is still open to them.” Id. at 909 (cleaned up).
`
`That is, “[t]he claims, when read in light of the specification and the prosecution
`
`history, must provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art.” Interval
`
`Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Claims that fail
`
`to do so are indefinite under § 112 and are invalid. See Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 902.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have a bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or an
`
`equivalent field, or an advanced degree in those fields, as well as at least 3-5 years
`
`of academic or industry experience in mobile wireless communications, or
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`2
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9097 Filed 03/16/23 Page 19 of 62
`
`
`
`comparable industry experience. Ex. 1 (Akl Decl.) ¶¶ 28-29.
`
`IV. THE ’366 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`“the ranging signal exhibits a low peak-to-average power ratio in
`the time domain” (Claims 1, 17)
`
`This term is indefinite because there is no “point of comparison for skilled
`
`artisans to determine an objective boundary” for what constitutes a low peak-to-
`
`average power ratio (“PAPR”). Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1363-64
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018). The patent is thus invalid because “its claims, read in light of the
`
`specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with
`
`reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.”
`
`Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 901. While absolute or mathematical precision is not required,
`
`see Neo Br. at 5, Neo cites no case—and none exists—finding a term of degree
`
`definite when the patent does not provide any guidance on the scope of the term.
`
`This problem is even more pronounced here because the PTO found the same term
`
`indefinite during prosecution of related applications. Ex. 2 (’201 PH, Dec. 21, 2020
`
`Off. Action) at 2; Ex. 3 (’677 PH, Apr. 19, 2013 Off. Action) at 4-5, (’677 PH Oct.
`
`31, 2013 Off. Action) at 4-7, (’677 PH, May 12, 2014 Off. Action) at 4-9.
`
`The law is clear. When the claims use a word of degree (such as “low”), “the
`
`court must determine whether the patent provides some standard for measuring that
`
`degree.” Biosig Instr., Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(quotations and citations omitted). For example, the Federal Circuit found the term
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`3
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 131, PageID.9098 Filed 03/16/23 Page 20 of 62
`
`
`
`“minimal redundancy” indefinite because the claim language was not reasonably
`
`clear and “[t]he specification contain[ed] no point of comparison for skilled artisans
`
`to determine an objective boundary.” Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1363-64. The
`
`prosecution history also added no clarity for “how much redundancy is permitted.”
`
`Id. The same is true here.
`
`Every asserted claim of the ’366 patent requires a “ranging signal