Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: July 7, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ZTE CORPORATION and ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151 B2
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: July 7, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ZTE CORPORATION and ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151 B2
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) INC. (“Petitioners”) filed a Petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1-6, 8, 9, 16-21, 23, and 24 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151 (Ex. 1001, “the ’151 patent”) pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. §§ 311-319. Paper 1 (“Pet”). Patent Owner, InterDigital Technology
`Corp. (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition on
`April 17, 2014. Paper 9. (“Prelim. Resp.”) We have jurisdiction under 35
`U.S.C. § 314.
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`THRESHOLD – The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311
`and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1-6, 8, 9, 16-21, 23, and 24 (i.e. “the
`challenged claims”) are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a).1 Pet. 6.
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we are
`not persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail
`in establishing the unpatentability of the challenged claims. We,
`
`
`1 We do not consider Petitioner’s allegation that “InterDigital’s employees
`did not invent the subject matter” (Pet. 4) of the challenged claims of the
`’151 patent, because such matters are not within our jurisdiction under 35
`U.S.C. § 311(b). Pet. 1-4.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`consequently, deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review of
`the ’151 patent based on any of the asserted grounds.
`
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner asserts that the ’151 patent is the subject of the following
`
`judicial or administrative matters, Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or
`4G Capabilities and Components Thereof, U.S.I.T.C Inv. No. 337-TA-868;
`InterDigital Commc’ns Inc. v. Huawei Techs. Co., Ltd., Case No. 13-cv-
`00008-RGA (D. Del.), filed January 2, 2013; InterDigital Commc’ns Inc. v.
`ZTE Corp., Case No. 13-cv-00009-RGA (D. Del.), filed January 2, 2013;
`InterDigital Commc’ns Inc. v. Nokia Corp., Case No. 13-cv-00010-RGA
`(D. Del.), filed January 2, 2013; and InterDigital Commc’ns Inc. v. Samsung
`Elec. Co. Ltd., Case No. 13-cv-00011-RGA (D. Del.), filed January 2, 2013.
`Pet. 4.
`
`
`B. The ’151 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’151 patent describes a system and method of wireless
`communication that provides channel assignment information used to
`support an uplink shared channel (“UL”) and a downlink shared channel
`(“DL”). Ex. 1001, 1:16-20. The system includes at least one Node-B or
`base station that dynamically allocates radio resources for both UL and DL
`transmissions from and to a wireless transmit/receive unit (“WTRU”) via a
`common control channel. Id. at 2:19-29. The communication of radio
`resource assignment information between Node-B and the WTRU includes a
`specific indicator of whether the radio resource assignment is for either UL
`or DL transmission. Id. at 3:40-45. The WTRU is configured to determine
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`whether the transmission is for assigning UL or DL radio resource
`assignment. Id. at 3:48-50. In one embodiment, the specific indicator may
`be contained in one or more unused bits, referred to as the impossible code
`combinations, in the channelization code set mapping in the current High
`Speed Download Packet Access (HSDPA). Id. at 3:51-4:3. The system may
`also include a radio network controller (“RNC”) that controls Node-B to
`transmit a message to the WTRU indicating which time slots support UL
`channel transmission and which time slots support DL channel
`transmissions. Id. at 2:34-40.
`Figure 1 of the ’151 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a wireless communication system showing
`communication between Node-B and the WTRU 106 via the control
`channel, DL, and UL. Id. at 3:24-29. The control channel transmits
`assignment information for both UL and DL transmissions to the WTRU
`from Node-B. Id. at 3:30-32. Downlink transmission from Node-B to the
`WTRU is transmitted via the DL, and uplink transmission from the WTRU
`to Node-B is transmitted via the UL. Id. at 3:26-32.
`Figure 3 of the ’151 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts a flowchart that includes the steps of transmitting a
`message for radio resource assignment via the common control channel from
`Node-B to the WTRU, which receives and demodulates the message at step
`204. Id. at 5:25-50. The WTRU then determines if the message is intended
`for the WTRU at step 206, and if the message is intended for the WTRU at
`step 206, another determination is made regarding whether the message is
`for the assignment of radio resources for DL transmission or UL
`transmission at step 208. Id. Depending on the determination made in step
`208, the WTRU receives data via the DL channel or transmits data via the
`UL channel. Id.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-6, 8, 9, 16-21, 23, and 24 of the ’151
`patent, of which claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
`the challenged claims, and is reproduced below:
`1. A method for utilizing channel assignment
`information for an uplink shared channel or a downlink shared
`channel, the method comprising:
`a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) receiving
`downlink control information including downlink or uplink
`channel assignment information via a same physical downlink
`control channel, both downlink channel assignment information
`and uplink channel assignment information being received via
`the same physical downlink control channel;
`the WTRU determining whether the downlink control
`information is intended for the WTRU based on WTRU identity
`(ID)-masked cyclic redundancy check (CRC) parity bits, and if
`so determining whether the channel assignment information is
`for assigning radio resources for the uplink shared channel or
`the downlink shared channel; and
`the WTRU utilizing the radio resources for the uplink
`shared channel or the downlink shared channel.
`
`D. The Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art references (Pet. 6) and the
`declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti (Ex. 1002):
`
`References Patents/Printed Publications
`Siemens
`3GPP TSG RAN WG 1 #30, Tdoc
`004
`R1-030004, Siemens, “Downlink
`Control Channel Configuration for
`Enhanced Uplink Dedicated
`Transport Channel,”
`San Diego, USA.
`
`Date
`January 7-
`10, 2003
`
`Exhibit
`1003
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`
`3GPP
`
`3GPP TS 25.212 V5.2.0,
`3rd Generation Partnership Project;
`Technical Specification Group
`Radio Access Network;
`Multiplexing and Channel Coding
`(FDD) (Release 5), 2002-2009.
`TSG-RAN Working Group 1 #22,
`InterDigital Comm. Corp.,
`“Implicit UE Identification for
`HSDPA Downlink Signaling,”
`Torino, Italy.
`ETSI SMG2 UMTS L1 Expert
`Group, Motorola, “Mechanisms for
`Managing Uplink Interferences and
`Bandwidth,” Espoo, Finland.
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1/2 Joint
`Meeting on HSDPA, Siemens,
`“Signaling Requirements for
`HSDPA in TDD Mode,”
`Sophia Antipolis, France.
`
`September,
`2002
`
`1004
`
`August 27-
`31, 2001
`
`1005
`
`December
`14-18, 1998
`
`1006
`
`April 5-6,
`2001
`
`1007
`
`InterDigital
`810
`
`Motorola
`683
`
`Siemens
`010
`
`
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-6, 8, 9, 16-21, 23, and 24 of the
`’151 patent based on the following statutory grounds. Pet. 6.
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Claims
`Challenged
`1-6, 8, 9, 16-
`21, 23, and
`24
`1-6 and 16-
`21
`
`Siemens 004
`
`§ 102(b)
`or § 103(a)
`
`Siemens 004 and Admitted Prior
`Art (APA)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Siemens 004 and 3GPP
`
`Siemens 004 and InterDigital
`810
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Siemens 004 and Motorola 683
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1-6 and 16-
`21
`1, 2, 16, and
`17
`8 and 23
`
`Siemens 004 and Siemens 010
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`8 and 23
`
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
`
`given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Claim
`Construction); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
`Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim
`terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would
`be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the
`specification “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`Petitioner proposes using constructions from the pending district court
`and ITC proceedings for the following four claim terms: “same physical
`downlink control channel”; “channel assignment information”; “shared
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`channel”; and “based on WTRU identity (ID )-masked cyclic redundancy
`check (CRC) parity bits.” Pet. 7-9. For three of the claim terms: “same
`physical downlink control channel”; “channel assignment information”; and
`“based on WTRU identity (ID)-masked cyclic redundancy check (CRC)
`parity bits;” Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner should be bound in the
`instant proceeding by the broad construction it has proposed in the related
`judicial and administrative proceedings. Pet. 7-10. However, Petitioner
`does not proffer specific arguments directed to the interpretation of these
`claim terms in the instant proceeding. Thus, for purposes of this decision,
`we do not construe expressly at this time the claim terms “same physical
`downlink control channel”; “channel assignment information”; and “based
`on WTRU identity (ID )-masked cyclic redundancy check (CRC) parity
`bits.”
`With respect to the claim term “shared channel,” Petitioner argues that
`this term should be construed to mean a “channel that can convey
`information to or from a plurality of WTRUs.” 2 Pet. 9. Taking the position
`that the term “shared channel” is properly construed as “a radio resource that
`can convey information to or from a plurality of WTRUs,” Patent Owner
`points to intrinsic evidence from the surrounding claim language and
`specification in support of their construction. Prelim. Resp. 8. For example,
`the specification states that “the control channel ‘conveys radio resource
`allocation information to a plurality of wireless transmit/receive units
`(WTRUs).’” Id. at 9, citing Ex. 1001, 1:33-36. Petitioner’s bald assertion,
`that the Patent Owner’s proposed construction from the district court and
`
`2 We note that the body of claim 1 refers specifically to an “uplink shared
`channel” or a “downlink shared channel,” and not generally to a “shared
`channel”.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`ITC proceedings “is incorrect,” and that there is no reason to define “shared
`channel” as “a radio resource” is not persuasive.3 Pet. 9. For purposes of
`this decision, and based on the record before us, we adopt Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction of the claim term “shared channel” to mean “a radio
`resource that can convey information to or from a plurality of WTRUs” as
`the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.4
`For purposes of this decision, we need not construe expressly any of
`the other terms in the challenged claims at this time.
`
`
`B. Anticipation Based On Siemens 004
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-6, 8, 9, 16-21, 23, and 24 as anticipated
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Siemens 004, or alternatively, as rendered
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Siemens 004.5 Pet. 15-33. In
`support thereof, Petitioner provides claim charts that identify the disclosure
`in Seimens 004 alleged to anticipate the subject matter in claims 1-6, 8, 9,
`16-21, 23, and 24. Id. at 51-55. Petitioner further relies on the declaration
`of Dr. Madisetti to support the analysis advocated in the Petition. Ex. 1002.
`We have considered the arguments and evidence presented, and are not
`
`
`3 Petitioner’s mere reference to claim construction arguments from another
`proceeding, without informing us how these arguments are relevant to the
`instant proceeding, are afforded minimal weight. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(5).
`4 We note that our construction conforms to the definition of “shared
`channel” from the 3GPP Dictionary. See Ex. 2008, 25.
`5 While Petitioner alleges claims 1-6, 8, 9, 16-21, 23, and 24 are
`alternatively unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Siemens 004 (Pet.
`6), Petitioner advances no separate obviousness argument in this regard.
`Thus, we consider Petitioner’s challenge to the claims only on the basis of
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`persuaded that Siemens teaches the “uplink shared channel,” as recited in the
`preamble, and further in the second determining step of “whether the
`channel assignment information is for assigning radio resources for the
`uplink shared channel,” as required by each of the challenged claims. A
`detailed analysis of our determination follows after a brief overview of
`Siemens 004.
`
`1. Overview of Siemens 004 (Ex. 1003)
`Siemens 004 is a feasibility study presented to the TRG-RAN
`Working Group 1 by Siemens, and titled “Downlink Control Channel
`Configuration for Enhanced Uplink Dedicated Transport Channel.”
`Ex. 1003, 1. In particular, Siemens 004 discusses re-use of the existing High
`Speed Shared Control Channel (HS-SCCH) also for downlink control
`information of the enhanced uplink dedicated transport channel (EU-DCH).
`Id. Siemens discloses that the same shared control channel may “be used for
`ED-DCH and HSDPA users in time multiplex.” Id. Siemens also describes
`re-use of the existing HS-SCCH part 1 coding format, and more specifically
`the “8 unused codewords within the channelisation code-set field . . .” for
`EU-DCH downlink signaling. Id. Siemens 004 further suggests that with
`re-use of the HS-SCCH channel and coding format, “detection based on the
`implicit UE-ID and decoding of part 1 is identical for HSDPA and EU-DCH
`data transmission and receiver implementation is notably simplified.” Id. at
`2.
`
`
`2. Claim 1
`Before delving into the specific arguments regarding the limitations
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`allegedly taught by Siemens, we address Patent Owner’s argument that
`Siemens 004 does not disclose the “uplink shared channel” required by each
`claim, but instead discloses the opposite, an uplink dedicated channel.
`Prelim. Resp. 1, 3. The term “uplink shared channel” is initially found in the
`preamble of claim 1, which recites “[a] method for utilizing channel
`assignment information for an uplink shared channel or a downlink shared
`channel.” Ex. 1001, 5:58-60 (emphasis added).
`Petitioner relies on the definitions of “uplink channel” and “shared
`channel” proffered by Dr. Madisetti to support their argument that Siemens
`004 discloses the preamble of claim 1, and in particular that the EU-DCH of
`Siemens 004 discloses the recited “uplink shared channel.” Pet. 18-21;
`citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 157-159. According to Dr. Madisetti, the EU-DCH
`described in Siemens 004 “is an ‘uplink channel’ because it is a channel
`used to convey information from a handset to a base station. In addition, the
`EU-DCH is a ‘shared channel’ because it can convey information from a
`plurality of handsets.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 159.
`Pointing to the definitions of “dedicated channel” and “shared
`channel” from the 3GPP Dictionary in support of their position, Patent
`Owner counters that a dedicated channel is the opposite of a shared channel
`because “a dedicated channel is dedicated to a specific UE, whereas shared
`channels are dynamically shared between several UEs.” Prelim. Resp. 16,
`citing Ex. 2008, 10, 25. Patent Owner maintains that Siemens 004
`“consistently refers to an Enhanced Uplink Dedicated (emphasis omitted)
`Channel” and not “an uplink shared (emphasis omitted) channel,” as
`described in the ’151 patent, and that there is no disclosure in Siemens 004
`that suggests that the EU-DCH channel is the same as the enhanced uplink
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`shared channel described and claimed in the ’151 patent. Prelim. Resp. 17-
`18.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument has persuaded us that Petitioner has not
`identified sufficiently in Siemens 004 that the EU-DCH channel is the same
`as the claimed uplink shared channel, because the EU-DCH is described as a
`dedicated channel. Likewise, Dr. Madisetti, does not provide sufficient and
`persuasive evidence demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have understood the Siemens 004 EU-DCH channel to be the same as
`the claimed uplink shared channel. Id. at 18, see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 151-166.
`Indeed, Patent Owner has provided credible evidence showing that the EU-
`DCH channel described in Siemens 004 is not the same channel as the
`“uplink shared channel” recited in the preamble of claim 1.
`We next consider use of the term “uplink shared channel” within the
`body of claim 1. In particular, the second determining limitation recites
`“determining whether the channel assignment information is for assigning
`radio resources for the uplink shared channel or the downlink shared
`channel.” Ex. 1001, 6:4-7 (emphasis added).
`Petitioner argues that the second determining limitation is met
`because “the HS-DSCH described in Siemens 004 is a ‘downlink shared
`channel,’ the EU-DCH described in Siemens 004 is an ‘uplink shared
`channel,’ and the HS-SCCH transmits ‘channel assignment information’ for
`the HS-DSCH and EU-DCH.” Pet. 26. Petitioner relies on the declaration
`of Dr. Madisetti to explain how
`a person of ordinary skill in the art reviewing Siemens 004
`would have understood, if the channelization-code-set includes
`one of the 120 codewords used for HSDPA, then a WTRU
`could determine whether information in the HS-SCCH is for the
`HS-DSCH, which is the “downlink shared channel”; similarly,
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`
`if the codeword is one of the 8 codewords not used for HSDPA,
`then the WTRU could determine whether information in the
`HS-SCCH is for the EU-DCH, which is the “uplink shared
`channel.”
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 197. Dr. Madisetti opines that Siemens 004 discloses the second
`determining limitation because both Siemens 004 and the ’151 patent
`describe the use of the channelization-code-set field of the HS-SCCH to
`determine whether “the channel assignment information is for assigning
`radio resources to the HS-DSCH or the Enhanced Uplink channel . . .” and
`because Siemens 004 discloses “the same channels used in exactly the same
`way” as the ’151 patent. Id. ¶¶ 200-203.
`
`Patent Owner counters that Siemens 004 does not disclose the “second
`determining” limitation. Prelim. Resp. 18. Explaining further, Patent
`Owner reasons that because Siemens 004 does not disclose an “uplink
`shared channel,” it follows that Siemens 004 does not disclose “channel
`assignment information . . . for the uplink shared channel.” Prelim. Resp.
`18. Moreover, Patent Owner contends that Siemens is silent regarding
`channel assignment information even for the “Enhanced Uplink Dedicated
`Channel that is disclosed.” Id. While admitting that Siemens discloses
`usage of unused codewords for EU-DCH downlink signaling, Patent Owner
`submits that Siemens 004 does not disclose the use of codewords to provide
`channel assignment information for assigning radio resources for the uplink
`shared channel, nor in determining whether the channel assignment
`information is for “assigning radio resources for the uplink shared channel or
`the downlink shared channel.” Id. at 19. Thus, Patent Owner suggests that
`the Siemens 004 EU-DCH downlink signaling need not be channel
`assignment information, and instead, could be other control information (i.e.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`H-ARQ which relates to error correction). Id.
`
`Aside from arguments made with respect to use of the claim term
`“uplink shared channel” in the preamble, Petitioner does not proffer
`additional arguments regarding further use of the claim term “uplink shared
`channel” in the second determining limitation. Because Petitioner failed to
`show, with sufficient evidence, that the EU-DCH channel from Siemens 004
`is an “uplink shared channel,” as used in the preamble of claim 1,
`Petitioner’s further argument that the second determining limitation in the
`body of the claim is met because “the EU-DCH [channel] . . . is an ‘uplink
`shared channel”’ (Pet. 26) is likewise unpersuasive for the reasons discussed
`above. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that
`Siemens 004 discloses the step of “determining whether the channel
`assignment information is for assigning radio resources for the uplink shared
`channel or the downlink shared channel,” because Siemens 004 does not
`disclose an “uplink shared channel.”
`
`Based on the current record, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s
`argument that EU-DCH channel described in Siemens 004 is an “uplink
`shared channel,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to its
`contention that claim 1 is anticipated by Siemens 004.
`
`
`3. Claims 2-6, and 9
`Petitioner asserts that Siemens 004 discloses each of the limitations of
`
`dependent claims 2-6, including: the WTRU ID-masked CRC parity bits
`derived from sixteen-bit CRC of claim 2; the downlink control modulation
`and coding scheme information of claim 3; the downlink control modulation
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`information new data indicator of claim 4; the downlink control information
`redundancy version of claim 5; and the downlink control information hybrid
`automatic repeat request information of claim 6. Pet. 28-29. With respect to
`dependent claim 9, Petitioner asserts that Siemens 004 likewise discloses
`each limitation, including that the downlink control information indicates
`whether the channel assignment information is for the uplink shared channel
`or the downlink shared channel. Pet. 31-32.
`
`As discussed above with respect to claim 1, our determination
`concerning the insufficiency of the evidence with respect to the uplink
`shared channel limitation of independent claim 1 applies equally to
`dependent claims 2-6, and 9. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to its contention that
`claims 2-6, and 9 are anticipated by Siemens 004.
`
`
`4. Claim 8
`Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the “physical
`
`downlink control channel carries both downlink and uplink channel
`assignment information simultaneously.” Ex. 1001, 6:24-26 (emphasis
`added). Initially, Petitioner challenges whether the ’151 patent discloses a
`physical downlink control channel that would carry both downlink and
`uplink channel assignment information simultaneously. Pet. 30 (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 258). This argument is not persuasive, because it is inconsistent
`with the specification, which states that the common control channel
`occupies “a shared DL radio resource space, as defined by a set of SF-12R
`channelization codes, for both DL and UL transmissions simultaneously, and
`the WTRU 106 is configured to recognize whether a particular transmission
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`is intended for assigning radio resources for the DL or the UL
`transmissions.” Ex. 1001, 3:45-50.
`
`Next, Petitioner notes that Patent Owner may interpret claim 8 to
`mean that “downlink and uplink channel assignment information are
`received simultaneously but on different control channels,” and proffers
`arguments directed to this interpretation. Id. at 30-31. Because Petitioner
`did not propose how the claim terms should be construed properly, as
`required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), and generally we interpret the claim
`terms according to their ordinary and customary meaning, Petitioner’s
`arguments are unconvincing.
`
`Based on the record before us, our determination concerning the
`insufficiency of the evidence with respect to independent claim 1 equally
`applies to dependent claim 8. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated
`a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to its contention
`that claim 8 is anticipated by Siemens 004.
`
`
`5. Claims 16-21, 23, and 24
`Petitioner argues that independent claim 16 is nearly identical to claim
`
`1, but notwithstanding any differences, Siemens 004 discloses each and
`every limitation of claim 16 for the reasons provided with respect to claim 1.
`Pet. 32-33. Further, Petitioner argues that Siemens 004 discloses each and
`every limitation of claims 17-21, 23, and 24, which depend from claim 16,
`and recite the same limitations as claims 2-6 and 8-9 respectively. Pet. 33-
`34. Based on the record before us, our determination concerning the
`insufficiency of the evidence with respect to independent claim 1 equally
`applies to claims 16-21, 23, and 24. Accordingly, Petitioner has not
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to its
`contention that claims 16-21, 23, and 24 are anticipated by Siemens 004.
`
`
`C. Obviousness Based On Siemens 004
`1. Discussion Concerning the Grounds of Obviousness
`
`Petitioner asserts additional grounds based, in part, on Siemens 004.
`See Section II(E) above. In response to these asserted grounds, Patent
`Owner argues that Petitioner fails to identify any disclosure in the APA,
`3GPP, InterDigital 810, Motorola 683, and Siemens 010 respectively,
`directed to the “uplink shared channel” that is missing from Siemens 004.
`Neither does the Petition provide any motivation to modify Siemens 004 to
`include this missing element, according to Patent Owner. Prelim. Resp. 23-
`38.
`Having considered Petitioner’s arguments concerning the combination
`
`of Siemens 004 with each of the APA, 3GPP, Interdigital 810, Motorola
`683, and Siemens 010, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in demonstrating
`obviousness of the challenged claims. For the reasons provided above with
`regards to the anticipation analysis of Siemens 004, we determine that
`Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that Siemens 004 discloses an
`“uplink shared channel.” Moreover, Petitioner does not rely on any
`disclosure of the secondary references to solve the noted deficiency of
`Siemens 004.
`
`Thus, we have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence presented on the ground
`of unpatentability of the challenged claims and considered all of the
`arguments presented in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Based on the
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`foregoing analysis, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail as to its contention that claims 1-
`6, 8, 9, 16-21, 23, and 24 would have been obvious over the combinations of
`Siemens 004 with the APA; 3GPP; Interdigital 810; Motorola 683, and
`Siemens 010 respectively.
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is
`unpatentable based on the asserted grounds. We, therefore, do not institute
`an inter partes review on any of the asserted grounds as to any of the
`challenged claims.
`
`
`V. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that an inter partes review as to claims 1-6, 8, 9, 16-21,
`23, and 24 the ’151 patent is DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00275
`Patent 7,941,151
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Charles M. McMahon
`Hersh H. Mehta
`BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
`cmcmahon@brinksgilson.com
`hmehta@brinksgilson.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jonathan D. Link
`Julie M. Holloway
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`jonathan.link@lw.com
`julie.holloway@lw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
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
