Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11670 Filed 11/26/23 Page 1 of 61
`
`Exhibit A
`
`
`
`Exhibit A
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11671 Filed 11/26/23 Page 2 of 61
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`In Re: Neo Wireless, LLC Patent Litigation
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`Case No. 2:22-md-03034-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`June 21, 2023
`
`1
`
`
`
`“low peak-to-average power ratio”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11672 Filed 11/26/23 Page 3 of 61
`
`’366 Patent
`Claims 1 and 17
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`Indefinite.
`
`Neo’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No
`construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively, to the extent construction
`is deemed necessary, “exhibits a peak-
`to-average power ratio in the time
`domain of 9dBs or less.”
`
`DISPUTE
`Whether the term “low peak-to-average power ratio” provides “enough certainty to
`one of skill in the art when read in context of the invention.”
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`2
`
`
`
`“Low PAPR” is a Commonly Used Term in the Art
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11673 Filed 11/26/23 Page 4 of 61
`
`Cimini Decl. (Dkt. 134-2) at ¶ 63 (describing the Jeong reference)
`
`Cimini Decl. (Dkt. 134-2) at ¶ 147 (citing prosecution history of 366 patent)
`
`Cimini Decl. (Dkt. 134-2) at ¶ 147 (describing the Chayat reference)
`
`3
`
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence Provides Further Support
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11674 Filed 11/26/23 Page 5 of 61
`
`’366 Patent 4:33-41
`
`’366 Patent 7:2-7 (Claim 1 preamble)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Confirmed by Consensus Expert Testimony
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11675 Filed 11/26/23 Page 6 of 61
`
`Dr. Alberth,
`Neo’s Technical
`Expert
`
`“[Expert testimony] reinforce[s] the conclusion that ‘mass production’ is a term that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know and use.”
`Tecnomatic S.p.A v. ATOP S.p.A., No. 2:18-cv-12869, 2021 WL 1410036, at *20 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 23, 2021)
`“[A] POSITA would understand that a ‘low’ PAPR is (1) based on the transmitter and signaling system
`being considered and (2) that the PAPR of the target signal is low relative to the baseline PAPR of the
`signal of the system such that it does not hinder the efficiency of the power amplifer[.]” (Alberth Decl.
`(ECF No. 127-3), at ¶24).
`“The POSITA at the time of the invention would understand the baseline PAPR of the system and
`understand that “low” means less than the system baseline PAPR so that the transmitter design is
`unaffected.” Id.
`“When those in the field refer to ‘low’ or ‘high’ PAPR, they are comparing the PAPR of one signal to
`the PAPR of another signal or a PAPR baseline.” (Akl Decl. (ECF No. 131-2), at ¶43).
`
`Dr. Alberth
`Neo’s Technical
`Expert
`Dr. Akl,
`Defendants’
`Technical Expert
`Dr. Cimini,
`VW’s IPR Technical
`Expert
`
`“A POSA would have understood that, when modulated via OFDM, GCS sequences, for example,
`exhibit low PAPR. (Cimini Decl. (ECF No. 131-2), at ¶64).
`
`5
`
`
`
`“selected from a set of ranging sequences”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11676 Filed 11/26/23 Page 7 of 61
`
`’366 Patent
`Claims 1 and 17
`
`Neo’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No
`construction necessary.
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“a ranging sequence selected by said
`apparatus from a set of ranging
`sequences”
`
`DISPUTE
`Whether the sequence must be “selected” by the mobile station, despite the claim
`language not being so limited
`
`6
`
`
`
`Narrowing Plain Language Requires Clear and
`Unmistakable Disclaimer
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11677 Filed 11/26/23 Page 8 of 61
`
`What is the Plain and Ordinary Meaning?
`“The construction of claims is simply a way of elaborating the normally terse claim language[ ] in order to
`understand and explain, but not to change, the scope of the claims” Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng'g Corp., 216 F.3d 1343,
`1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Has the patentee acted as lexicographer?
`“[T]he specification may reveal a special definition
`given to a claim term by the patentee that differs
`from the meaning it would otherwise possess.”
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.
`
`Clear and Unmistakable Disclaimer?
`“Absent a clear disavowal in the specification or the
`prosecution history, the patentee is entitled to the
`full scope of its claim language.”.” Home Diagnostics,
`Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1358
`(Fed.Cir.2004)
`
`7
`
`
`
`Disclosing a Single Embodiment is Not Disclaimer
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11678 Filed 11/26/23 Page 9 of 61
`
`“We have also expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes
`only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as
`being limited to that embodiment…. Therefore, we conclude that
`disclosing only the Probelec XB 7081 embodiment, without more, does
`not result in a clear disavowal of claim scope.”
`Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 797–98 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (emphasis added; citations and quotations
`omitted)
`
`8
`
`
`
`Recent Cases Are Consistent
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11679 Filed 11/26/23 Page 10 of 61
`
`Medicines Co. v. Mylan, Inc., 853 F.3d 1296,
`1307 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`“There is no contention that ‘efficient mixing’ carries an accepted meaning to one of
`ordinary skill in the art. We therefore turn to the remainder of the specification, ‘the single
`best guide to the meaning of a disputed term’ and ‘a concordance for the claims’ to
`determine the process of efficient mixing.”
`
`Wireless Protocol Innovations, Inc. v. TCT
`Mobile, Inc., 771 F. App’x 1012, 1018 (Fed.
`Cir. 2019).
`
`“For a phrase like ‘grant pending absent state’ that hardly has a plain ordinary meaning,
`specification language of this sort has decisive significance in identifying the proper
`construction of the claim term.”
`
`Sunovion Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA,
`Inc., 731 F.3d 1271, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`“[W]e agree with the district court that there is no plain or ordinary meaning to the claim
`term ‘essentially free’ because terms of approximation such as “essentially” are capable of
`multiple meanings. … Turning therefore to the intrinsic record of the patent, we likewise find
`no reason to disturb the district court's interpretation because the specification of the ’673
`patent offers no guidance on the issue and the prosecution history shows that the applicants
`repeatedly defined their invention as the dextrorotatory isomer of zopiclone containing less
`than 0.25% of the levorotatory isomer.”
`
`9
`
`
`
`The Claim Distinguishes Between Actions Expressly
`Taken by Claimed Mobile Station and Those Not
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11680 Filed 11/26/23 Page 11 of 61
`
`10
`
`
`
`“does not include control channels”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11681 Filed 11/26/23 Page 12 of 61
`
`’908 Patent
`Claim 4
`
`Neo’s Proposal
`“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”
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“wherein the portion of the frequency
`band used for transmission of the random
`access signal does not include channels
`carrying control information”
`
`DISPUTE
`Whether the patentee meant “control information” when it said “control channel”
`
`11
`
`
`
`Defendants’ High-Level Technology Tutorial
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11682 Filed 11/26/23 Page 13 of 61
`
`“When the base station
`communicates with UEs, it
`groups the transmitted
`information into channels,
`based on the type of
`information. Two
`frequently used channels
`in the downlink are called
`the physical downlink
`control channel…”
`
`12
`
`
`
`Uplink Physical Channels
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11683 Filed 11/26/23 Page 14 of 61
`
`Frequency
`
`Time
`
`13
`
`
`
`The Claims Could Have Been Written That Way
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11684 Filed 11/26/23 Page 15 of 61
`
`4. The mobile station of Claim 1, wherein the portion of the
`frequency band used for transmission of the random access
`signal does not include control channels.
`
`4. The mobile station of Claim 1, wherein the portion of the
`frequency band used for transmission of the random access
`signal does not include control channels information.
`
`14
`
`
`
`“associated with”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11685 Filed 11/26/23 Page 16 of 61
`
`’908 Patent
`Claims 1, 2, 9
`
`Neo’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No
`construction necessary.
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“identifying”
`
`DISPUTE
`Whether Neo clearly and unmistakably narrowed the plain English words “associated
`with” to mean “identifying”
`
`15
`
`
`
`Specification
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11686 Filed 11/26/23 Page 17 of 61
`
`’908 Patent 8:45-55
`
`16
`
`
`
`Neo’s Arguments in the Dell IPR
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11687 Filed 11/26/23 Page 18 of 61
`
`“The MAC ID is thus, at most, ‘associated with’ the user
`terminal 120, which is the ‘mobile station,’ and not with
`the access point, which is the ‘base station.’”
`ECF No. 131-10, Page ID.9681
`“But the MAC ID that Petitioner alleges is the claimed
`‘sequence’ is ‘associated with’ the user terminal 120, not
`the access point 110. In other words for this claim
`limitation, the Petition switches positions from what it is
`saying for the other limitations—that the claimed ‘base
`station’ is the access point 110—and instead asserts that
`the claimed ‘base station’ is the user terminal 120.”
`ECF No. 131-10, Page ID.9683
`
`“When Walton refers to ‘the user terminal’s assigned
`MAC ID’ it is referring to a MAC ID ‘associated with’ the
`mobile station, not with the base station.”
`ECF No. 131-10, Page ID.9686
`
`“[T]he Petition has switched to a new position
`inconsistent with the rest of its Walton arguments. The
`Petition is now reading Walton’s user terminal, rather
`than its access point, to correspond to the claimed ‘base
`station[.]’”
`ECF No. 131-10, Page ID.9686
`“When Walton refers to ‘the user terminal’s assigned
`MAC ID’ it is referring to a MAC ID ‘associated with’ the
`mobile station, not with the base station.”
`ECF No. 131-10, Page ID.9686
`“Walton’s alleged ‘base station’ assigns a sequence to the
`alleged ‘mobile station,’ meaning that Walton at most has
`a ‘sequence associated with the mobile station.’ In sum,
`the MAC ID is associated with Walton’s user terminal 120,
`not its access point 110.”
`ECF No. 131-10, Page ID.9689
`
`17
`
`
`
`“random access signal”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11688 Filed 11/26/23 Page 19 of 61
`
`’908 Patent
`Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9
`
`Neo’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No
`construction necessary.
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“direct sequence spread spectrum signal”
`
`DISPUTE
`Whether the specification, as a whole, demonstrates a clear and unmistakable
`disavowal of claim scope by the inventors, limiting the scope of an otherwise well-
`understood term in the art.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Undisputed: Random Access Signals Were Well-Known
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11689 Filed 11/26/23 Page 20 of 61
`
`“[A] ‘random access signal’ was an extremely well-known term in
`the art at the time of this patent, and would not have had inherent
`limitations in the mind of a POSITA with respect to the type of
`signal used for the random access signal.”
`
`Declaration of Mr. William Alberth ¶ 43
`
`19
`
`
`
`Use of Specification for Unclear or Uncertain Terms
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11690 Filed 11/26/23 Page 21 of 61
`
`“Claim terms ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,’ but we agree with the district court
`that there is no plain or ordinary meaning to the claim term ‘essentially free’ because terms of
`approximation such as ‘essentially’ are capable of multiple meanings. Turning therefore to the intrinsic
`record of the patent, . . . .”
`Sunovion Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 731 F.3d 1271, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (emphasis added)
`
`“For a phrase like ‘grant pending absent state’ that hardly has a plain ordinary meaning, specification
`language of this sort has decisive significance in identifying the proper construction of the claim term.”
`Wireless Protocol Innovations, Inc. v. TCT Mobile, Inc., 771 F. App’x 1012, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (emphasis added)
`
`“Rather than providing an unambiguous, clear meaning, therefore, the claim language leaves uncertainty
`about whether, . . . . In such circumstances, we turn to the specification to resolve the uncertainty. . . .
`Where, as here, the claim language itself leaves interpretive questions unanswered, ‘[t]he
`construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of
`the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.”
`World Class Tech. Corp. v. Ormco Corp., 769 F.3d 1120, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (emphasis added) (alteration in original)
`
`20
`
`
`
`Statements in Specification
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11691 Filed 11/26/23 Page 22 of 61
`
`’908 Patent 2:42-64
`
`21
`
`
`
`Single Embodiment or Use in All Embodiments is
`Not Enough to Limit Claims
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11692 Filed 11/26/23 Page 23 of 61
`
`“It is likewise not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular
`limitation. We do not read limitations from the specification into claims; we do not redefine words. Only
`the patentee can do that. To constitute disclaimer, there must be a clear and unmistakable disclaimer.”
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comp. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis added)
`
`“[E]ven if all of the embodiments discussed in the patent included a specific limitation, it would not
`be proper to import from the patent’s written description limitations that are not found in the claims
`themselves.”
`Cadence Pharms. Inc. v. Exela PharmSci Inc., 780 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis added)
`
`“Similarly, the descriptions of ‘the present invention,’ which also appear within the discussion of the
`preferred embodiment, are not limiting here.”
`Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 798 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
`22
`
`
`
`“Intentional Disclaimer, or Disavowal, of Claim Scope”?
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11693 Filed 11/26/23 Page 24 of 61
`
`“In other cases, the specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor. In that instance as well,
`the inventor has dictated the correct claim scope, and the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive.”
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`
`“The above detailed description of the embodiments of
`the invention is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit
`the invention to the precise form disclosed above or to
`the particular field of usage mentioned in this disclosure.”
`’908 Patent 10:28-31
`
`“[T]he teachings of the invention provided herein can be
`applied to other systems, not necessarily the system
`described above. The elements and acts of the various
`embodiments described above can be combined to
`provide further embodiments.”
`’908 Patent 10:35-39
`
`“[V]arious equivalent modifications are possible within
`the scope of the invention, as those skilled in the art
`will recognize.”
`’908 Patent 10:33-35
`
`“In general, the terms used in the following claims should
`not be construed to limit the invention to the specific
`embodiments disclosed in the specification, unless the
`above Detailed Description section explicitly defines such
`term. Accordingly, the actual scope of the invention
`encompasses not only the disclosed embodiments, but
`also all equivalent ways of practicing or implementing the
`invention under the claims.”
`’908 Patent 10:60-67
`
`23
`
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11694 Filed 11/26/23 Page 25 of 61
`
`8. The mobile station of claim 1, wherein the random access
`signal is a spread spectrum signal.
`
`’908 Patent 11:54-55, claim 8
`
`24
`
`
`
`“time-frequency resource unit”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11695 Filed 11/26/23 Page 26 of 61
`
`’450 Patent
`Claims 7 and 11
`
`Neo’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. No
`construction necessary.
`
`Volkswagen IPR
`“well-known” term
`
`“ordinary and customary meaning”
`should apply because no terms
`“require explicit construction”
`IPR2022-01567, Paper 2 at 1, 18
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“a combination of time
`and frequency units
`designed according to the
`application requirements
`of the application that is
`being grouped”
`
`DISPUTE
`Whether disclaimer applies such that a time-frequency resource unit can only be
`grouped by application type
`
`25
`
`
`
`“time-frequency resource unit”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11696 Filed 11/26/23 Page 27 of 61
`
`’450 Patent
`Claims 7 and 11
`
`’450 Patent at claim 7
`
`26
`
`
`
`“time-frequency resource unit”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11697 Filed 11/26/23 Page 28 of 61
`
`’450 Patent
`Claims 7 and 11
`
`The claim language itself further elaborates on “time-frequency resource units.”
`
`Claim
`language
`
`receive a signal containing information from the base station over a
`segment of time-frequency resource, the segment having a starting time-
`frequency coordinate and the segment comprising N time-frequency
`resource units within a time interval, each unit containing a set of
`frequency subcarriers in a group of OFDM symbols, where N=2, 4, or 8;
`
`27
`
`
`
`“time-frequency resource unit”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11698 Filed 11/26/23 Page 29 of 61
`
`’450 Patent
`Claims 7 and 11
`
`Defendant’s proposal applied to the claim language
`
`Claim
`language
`
`Defendant’s
`proposal
`
`receive a signal containing information from the base station over a
`segment of time-frequency resource, the segment having a starting time-
`frequency coordinate and the segment comprising N time-frequency
`resource units within a time interval, each unit containing a set of
`frequency subcarriers in a group of OFDM symbols, where N=2, 4, or 8;
`
`receive a signal containing information from the base station over a
`segment of time-frequency resource, the segment having a starting time-
`frequency coordinate and the segment comprising N combination[s] of
`time and frequency units designed according to the application
`requirements of the application that is being grouped within a time
`interval, each unit containing a set of frequency subcarriers in a group of
`OFDM symbols, where N=2, 4, or 8;
`
`28
`
`
`
`“time-frequency resource unit”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11699 Filed 11/26/23 Page 30 of 61
`
`’450 Patent
`Claims 7 and 11
`
`Defendant’s proposal creates confusion and antecedent basis issues.
`
`Defendant’s
`proposal
`
`receive a signal containing information from the base station over a
`segment of time-frequency resource, the segment having a starting time-
`frequency coordinate and the segment comprising N combination[s] of
`time and frequency units designed according to the application
`requirements of the application that is being grouped within a time
`interval, each unit containing a set of frequency subcarriers in a group of
`OFDM symbols, where N=2, 4, or 8;
`
`Which “unit”?
`
`What application?
`
`29
`
`
`
`“time-frequency resource unit”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11700 Filed 11/26/23 Page 31 of 61
`
`’450 Patent
`Claims 7 and 11
`
`Neo’s IPR argument was that IPR references did not suggest one-dimensional “time-frequency.”
`
`IPR2021-01486, POPR (ECF No. 131-15) at 2
`
`30
`
`
`
`“time-frequency resource unit”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11701 Filed 11/26/23 Page 32 of 61
`
`’450 Patent
`Claims 7 and 11
`
`Neo’s IPR argument was that IPR references did not suggest one-dimensional “time-frequency.”
`
`IPR2021-01486, POPR (ECF No. 131-15) at 10
`
`31
`
`
`
`“time-frequency resource unit”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11702 Filed 11/26/23 Page 33 of 61
`
`’450 Patent
`Claims 7 and 11
`
`Neo responded to Dell’s IPR asserted IEEE 802.16-2004 (WiMAX) reference with an exemplary
`embodiment of the invention described in a WiMAX wireless network (incl. Fig. 6).
`
`’450 Patent at Fig. 6, 5:32-37
`
`32
`
`
`
`“time-frequency resource unit”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11703 Filed 11/26/23 Page 34 of 61
`
`’450 Patent
`Claims 7 and 11
`
`WiMAX is an exemplary network—but even Figure 6’s WiMAX embodiment describes
`application-based grouping as an example.
`
`’450 Patent at 1:42-52, 6:3-11
`
`33
`
`
`
`“time-frequency resource unit”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11704 Filed 11/26/23 Page 35 of 61
`
`’450 Patent
`Claims 7 and 11
`
`Contrasting or distinguishing prior art, even in the context of disclosures of preferred
`embodiments, does not rise to the level of clear disavowal of claim scope.
`
`“Additionally, distinguishing the double desmear process as ‘contrary to’ or ‘in stark
`contrast’ with the single desmear process, which again appears within the context of
`disclosures of the preferred embodiment, are not clear and unmistakable limiting
`statements. We have held that ‘[m]ere criticism of a particular embodiment ... is not
`sufficient to rise to the level of clear disavowal.’ Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366. Thus, comparing
`and contrasting the present technique to that of the prior art does not ‘rise to the level of
`[a] clear disavowal’ of claim scope. Id.”
`
`Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 797–98 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (emphasis added)
`
`34
`
`
`
`“time-frequency resource unit”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11705 Filed 11/26/23 Page 36 of 61
`
`’450 Patent
`Claims 7 and 11
`
`The specification describes other ways to organize resources.
`
`’450 Patent at 8:6-19, 8:55-57
`
`35
`
`
`
`“time-frequency resource unit”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11706 Filed 11/26/23 Page 37 of 61
`
`’450 Patent
`Claims 7 and 11
`
`Neo’s unrebutted expert testimony explains that the invention is not limited to grouping by
`application and that POSITAs would have understood other groupings to work with the invention.
`
`Dr. Alberth’s Decl. (ECF No. 127-3) at ¶ 41
`
`36
`
`
`
`“time-frequency resource unit”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11707 Filed 11/26/23 Page 38 of 61
`
`’450 Patent
`Claims 7 and 11
`
`Court’s Preliminary Construction
`
`“a regularly shaped unit having a fixed number of symbols and subcarriers”
`
`receive a signal containing information from the base station over a segment of
`time-frequency resource, the segment having a starting time-frequency
`coordinate and the segment comprising N regularly shaped unit[s] having a fixed
`number of symbols and subcarriers within a time interval, each unit containing
`a set of frequency subcarriers in a group of OFDM symbols, where N=2, 4, or 8;
`
`37
`
`
`
`“time-frequency resource unit”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11708 Filed 11/26/23 Page 39 of 61
`
`’450 Patent
`Claims 7 and 11
`
`Proposed Modification to Court’s Preliminary Construction
`
`“a regularly shaped unit having a fixed number of symbols and subcarriers”
`
`receive a signal containing information from the base station over a segment of
`time-frequency resource, the segment having a starting time-frequency
`coordinate and the segment comprising N regularly shaped time-frequency
`resource units within a time interval, each unit containing a set of frequency
`subcarriers in a group of OFDM symbols, where N=2, 4, or 8;
`
`38
`
`
`
`“the antenna transmission scheme comprising”
`’941 Patent
`Claims 8 and 13
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11709 Filed 11/26/23 Page 40 of 61
`
`Neo’s Proposal
`“the mobile station-specific 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”
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“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”
`
`DISPUTE
`Whether “alternatively indicate” means the system can support no options other than
`the stated alternatives
`
`39
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposal Stems from a Misreading of a
`Prior, Agreed Construction
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11710 Filed 11/26/23 Page 41 of 61
`
`“We believe this should remove any confusion that the system must not
`simultaneously be MIMO and non-MIMO, and this also preserves the
`requirement that there must be support for both types of systems (e.g.,
`not just MIMO-only).”
`
`ECF No. 131-17, PageID.9883-84
`
`40
`
`
`
`The Claims Do Not Affect Other Transmissions
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11711 Filed 11/26/23 Page 42 of 61
`
`41
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11712 Filed 11/26/23 Page 43 of 61
`
`“characterized by distributed subcarriers or
`localized subcarriers . . .”
`Neo’s Proposal
`“the mobile station-specific 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”
`
`’941 Patent
`Claims 8 and 13
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“the mobile station-specific transmissions parameter
`alternatively indicates either distributed subcarriers or
`localized subcarriers in the frequency domain as
`subchannel configurations”
`
`DISPUTE
`Whether the claimed parameters must separately “indicate” (e.g., by a distinct flag or
`variable) the type of subchannel configuration being assigned
`
`42
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposal Significantly Alters the Claim
`Language
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11713 Filed 11/26/23 Page 44 of 61
`
`the mobile station specific parameters indicate an antenna
`transmission scheme and a corresponding subchannel
`configuration, the antenna transmission scheme
`comprising a transmission diversity scheme or a multiple-
`input multiple-output (MIMO) scheme and the
`corresponding subchannel configuration characterized by
`distributed subcarriers or localized subcarriers in the
`frequency domain; and
`
`43
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposal Significantly Alters the Claim
`Language
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11714 Filed 11/26/23 Page 45 of 61
`
`the mobile station specific parameters indicate an antenna
`transmission scheme and a corresponding subchannel
`configuration, the antenna transmission scheme
`comprising a transmission diversity scheme or a multiple-
`input multiple-output (MIMO) scheme and the
`corresponding subchannel configuration mobile station-
`specific transmission parameter characterized by
`alternatively indicates either distributed subcarriers or
`localized subcarriers in the frequency domain as
`subchannel configurations; and
`
`44
`
`
`
`The PTAB Specifically Did Not Resolve the Issue
`Pressed Here
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11715 Filed 11/26/23 Page 46 of 61
`
`“[W]e decline to speculate on whether the argued limitation ‘require[s] the
`subchannel configuration to explicitly include a “localized” or “distributed”
`indicator’ . . . .”
`
`IPR2021-01468, Paper 12 (ECF No. 131-18), at 18
`
`45
`
`
`
`“probing signal”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11716 Filed 11/26/23 Page 47 of 61
`
`’302 Patent
`Claims 23, 24, 26, 28
`
`Neo’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No
`construction necessary.
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“direct sequence spread spectrum signal”
`
`DISPUTE
`Whether the specification, as a whole, demonstrates a clear and unmistakable
`disavowal of claim scope by the inventors, limiting the scope of an otherwise well-
`understood term in the art.
`
`46
`
`
`
`Undisputed: Probing Signals Were Well-Known
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11717 Filed 11/26/23 Page 48 of 61
`
`“[T]he term ‘probing signal’ was an extremely well-known term in the
`art at the time of this patent, and a POSITA would have a clear
`understanding of its meaning in the context of these claims and the
`specification without any limitation on the type of system—spread
`spectrum, DSSS, or otherwise—used to generate the signal.”
`
`Declaration of Mr. William Alberth ¶ 44
`
`47
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11718 Filed 11/26/23 Page 49 of 61
`
`The “Antecedent Basis Terms”
`(ECF No. 131, PageID.9127)
`Neo’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No construction necessary.
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No construction necessary.
`
`’302 Patent
`Claim 23
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“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”
`“a receiver configured to receive a request for a probing signal
`from a base station in the Orthogonal Frequency Division
`Multiplexing (OFDM) communication system”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning. No construction necessary.
`
`“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”
`DISPUTE
`Whether Defendants’ proposed additional language is necessary to aid (or even helps) the jury.
`
`48
`
`
`
`“wherein the first plurality of subcarriers and the second
`plurality of subcarriers are received in at least one of the
`time slots”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11719 Filed 11/26/23 Page 50 of 61
`
`’512 Patent
`Claims 15 and 23
`
`Neo’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`“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.
`
`Court’s Preliminary
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`DISPUTE
`Whether the plain claim language reflects that there is at least one time slot where the first and
`second plurality of subcarriers are both received
`
`49
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11720 Filed 11/26/23 Page 51 of 61
`
`“wherein the first plurality of subcarriers and the second
`plurality of subcarriers are received in at least one of the
`time slots”
`Neo’s unrebutted expert testimony is the only record evidence of a POSITA’s understanding of
`the plain meaning of the term.
`
`’512 Patent
`Claims 15 and 23
`
`Dr. Alberth’s Decl. (ECF No. 127-3) at ¶¶ 48, 51
`
`50
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11721 Filed 11/26/23 Page 52 of 61
`
`“wherein the first plurality of subcarriers and the second
`plurality of subcarriers are received in at least one of the
`time slots”
`Neo’s expert testimony is the only evidence of a POSITA’s understanding of the plain meaning.
`
`’512 Patent
`Claims 15 and 23
`
`Dr. Alberth’s Decl. (ECF No. 127-3) at ¶ 50
`
`51
`
`
`
`“wherein the first plurality of subcarriers and the second
`plurality of subcarriers are received in at least one of the
`time slots”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11722 Filed 11/26/23 Page 53 of 61
`
`’512 Patent
`Claims 15 and 23
`
`Figure 2 does not contradict Neo’s proposal.
`
`’512 Patent at Fig. 2, 3:54-59, 4:14-22
`
`52
`
`
`
`“wherein the first plurality of subcarriers and the second
`plurality of subcarriers are received in at least one of the
`time slots”
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11723 Filed 11/26/23 Page 54 of 61
`
`’512 Patent
`Claims 15 and 23
`
`Figure 2 is not excluded by Neo’s proposal.
`
`Neo’s Proposal
`“wherein the first plurality of subcarriers and
`the second plurality of subcarriers are
`received in at least one of the same time
`slots”
`
`No requirement that both
`pluralities of subcarriers are
`received in every time slot.
`
`’512 Patent at Fig. 2
`
`53
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 201-1, PageID.11724 Filed 11/26/
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
