Paper No. 4
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC;
`AND SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC;
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, LP
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`Case IPR2014-00515
`Patent 8,023,580
`___________
`
`
`
`
`
`AMENDED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,023,580
`
`
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW .......................................................................... 1
`A. Certification The `580 Patent May Be Contested By Petitioner ..... 1
`B.
`Fee For Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103) ... 1
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. §42.8) ................................................ 1
`1.
`Real Parties-In-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)) ........................................ 1
`2.
`Related Matters (§ 42.8 (b)(2)) ................................................... 2
`3.
`Lead And Backup Counsel (§ 42.8(b)(3)) .................................. 2
`4.
`Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4)) ............................................. 2
`D.
`Proof Of Service (§ 42.6(e) and § 42.105(a)) ..................................... 2
`II.
`42.104(B)) ........................................................................................................ 2
`III. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE `580 PATENT .... 3
`A.
`Subject Matter Of The `580 Patent ................................................... 3
`B.
` ............................................................................................................... 6
`C.
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ................................................ 7
`D. How The Challenged Claims Are To Be Construed ........................ 7
`1.
`“Second Modulation Method” (Claims 23, 32, 40, 49) .............. 8
`IV. PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ................................. 9
`A. Claims 23, 25, 29, 30, 32, 34, 38, 40-41, 43-44 And 47 Are
`Anticipated By The Draft 802.11 Standard ...................................... 9
`1.
`The Draft 802.11 Standard Is Prior Art ...................................... 9
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED (§
`
`Effective Filing Date And Prosecution History Of The `580 Patent
`
`“First Modulation Method” (Claims 23, 32, 40, 41, 49) And
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`The Draft 802.11 Standard Anticipates Or Renders Obvious
`
`The Draft 802.11 Standard Anticipates Or Renders Obvious
`
`Overview Of The Draft 802.11 Standard .................................. 11
`2.
`3.
`Claims 23, 25 And 30 ............................................................... 13
`4.
`Claims 32, 34 and 38 ................................................................ 26
`5.
`And 47 ....................................................................................... 29
`V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 39
`
`The Draft 802.11 Standard Anticipates Claims 40-41, 43-44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ......................................................... 10
`
`In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................ 10
`
`In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................ 7
`
`In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................... 8
`
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................ 10
`
`Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. AB Fortia, 774 F.2d 1104 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ......................... 10
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ...................................................................................... 3, 6, 9, 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................................................................3, 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48764 .................................................................................................... 7
`
`Other Authorities
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(2) ............................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(3) ............................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 2
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`37 CFR § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`Attachment A: Proof of Service of the Petition
`
`Attachment B: List of Evidence and Exhibits Relied Upon in Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A.
`Certification The `580 Patent May Be Contested By Petitioner
`Petitioner certifies that U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580 (“the `580 patent”) (Ex.
`
`1101) is available for inter partes review. Petitioner certifies that it is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting inter partes review of the claims of the `580 patent on
`
`the grounds identified in this Petition. Neither Petitioner nor any party in privity
`
`with Petitioner has filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the
`
``580 patent. The `580 patent has not been the subject of a prior inter partes review
`
`by Petitioner or a privy of Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner also certifies this petition for inter partes review is filed within
`
`one year of the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement of a patent.
`
`Such a complaint was filed against all petitioners on March 15, 2013, Civil Action
`
`No. 2:13-cv-00213 (E.D. Tex. 2013), in the Eastern District of Texas. Ex. 1102.
`
`The first petitioner to be served was served with the complaint on March 20, 2013,
`
`Ex. 1103. This petition thus complies with 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`B.
`Fee For Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103)
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 CFR § 42.15(a)
`
`to Deposit Account No. 04-1073. Should any further fees be required by the
`
`present Petition, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) is hereby authorized
`
`to charge the above referenced Deposit Account.
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. §42.8)
`1. Real Parties-In-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`The real parties-in-interest are Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.; Samsung
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC; and
`
`Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC. (Collectively, “Petitioner”).
`
`2. Related Matters (§ 42.8 (b)(2))
`The `580 patent is a subject of an action styled as Rembrandt Wireless Tech., LP v.
`
`Samsung Elect. Co. LTD., No. 2:13-cv-00213 (E.D. Tex. 2013) (“the Litigation”),
`
`served on Petitioner March 20, 2013, Ex. 1103. Petitioner has also filed Petitions
`
`IPR-2014-5014, 5018 & 5019 for the `580 patent.
`
`3. Lead And Backup Counsel (§ 42.8(b)(3))
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Jeffrey A. Miller
`Reg. No. 35, 287
`millerj@dicksteinshapiro.com
`(650) 690-9554
`
`Backup Counsel
`Daniel G. Cardy
`Reg. No. 66,537
`cardyd@dicksteinshapiro.com
`(202) 420-3033
`
`4. Service Information (§ 42.8(b)(4))
`Service on Petitioner may be made by mail or hand delivery to Jeffrey A.
`
`Miller, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, 1841 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Tel:
`
`(650) 690-9500, Fax: (650) 690-9501. Please also direct all correspondence to
`
`lead counsel at millerj@dicksteinshapiro.com, with a courtesy copy sent to
`
`Samsung.Rembrandt@dicksteinshapiro.com.
`D.
`Proof Of Service (§ 42.6(e) and § 42.105(a))
`Proof of service of this petition is provided in Attachment A.
`
`II.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED (§
`42.104(B))
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 23, 25, 29-30, 32, 34, 38,
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`40-41, 43-44 and 47 because they are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or
`
`rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by P802.11 Draft Wireless LAN Medium
`
`Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specification, 23 May 1996,
`(“Draft 802.11 Standard” or “Draft”) (Ex. 1105).1
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of the claims, the evidence relied upon,
`
`and the precise reasons why the claims are unpatentable are provided in § IV. The
`
`evidence relied upon in support of this petition is listed in Attachment B.
`III. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE `580 PATENT
`A.
`Subject Matter Of The `580 Patent
`The `580 patent is directed to the “fields of data communications and
`
`modulator/demodulators (modems), and, more particularly, to a data
`
`communications system in which a plurality of modulation methods are used to
`
`facilitate communication among a plurality of modem types.” Ex. 1101, `580
`
`patent, 1:19-23. The `580 patent identifies a problem with communications
`
`systems where “communication between modems is generally unsuccessful unless
`
`a common modulation method is used.” Id. at 1:45-47. The `580 patent describes
`
`a “multipoint network architecture,” which the `580 patent asserts utilizes a
`
`
`1 The Draft 802.11 Standard eventually published in final form as the IEEE Std
`802.11-1997(Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer
`
`(PHY) Specifications), IEEE Standards Board, Approved Jun. 26, 1997 (“802.11
`
`Standard” or “Standard”). Ex. 1106. The text of the Draft 802.11 Standard and the
`
`final version are virtually identical.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`“master” modem and at least two “tributary” (or “trib”) modems. The `580 patent
`
`notes that where “…one or more of the trib modems are not compatible with the
`
`modulation method used by the master, those tribs will be unable to receive
`
`communications from the master.” Id. at 1:54-61. Ex. 1116, ¶50 (Goodman
`
`Declaration).
`
`Because of these issues, the `580 patent asserts that “…communication
`
`systems comprised of both high performance and low or moderate performance
`
`applications can be very cost inefficient to construct.” Ex. 1101 at 1:66-2:1. The
`
``580 patent asserts that the solution used at the time to overcome incompatible
`
`modulation schemes was the use of high performance modems for all users,
`
`regardless of need, which resulted in higher costs. Id. at 2:8-16. Thus, the `580
`
`patent asserts that “…what is sought, and what is not believed to be provided by
`
`the prior art, is a system and method of communication in which multiple
`
`modulation methods are used to facilitate communication among a plurality of
`
`modems in a network, which have heretofore been incompatible.” Id. at 2:17-20
`
`(emphasis added). Ex. 1116, ¶51.
`
`The purported invention of the `580 patent is a system like that shown in
`
`Figure 3, in which a master transceiver 64 is capable of transmitting and receiving
`
`data having what the patent identifies as “type A” modulation and “type B”
`
`modulation. Ex. 1101 at 5:23-33. Master transceiver 64 can communicate with
`
`tribs, e.g., trib 66, each of which communicates with either type A or type B
`
`modulation (shown as “type X” in Figure 3), but not both. Id. at 5:34-46. Figure 4
`
`shows an exemplary network in which master transceiver 64 can communicate
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`with either type A or type B modulation. Trib 66a communicates with type A
`
`modulation, while trib 66b communicates with type B modulation. Ex. 1116, ¶52.
`
`In the example given in the specification, type A modulation is the primary
`
`modulation method, which, as seen in Figure 5, means that the master transceiver
`
`64 initially transmits a sequence 104 using type A modulation. Ex. 1101 at 5:57-
`
`67. If master transceiver 64 wishes to communicate with trib 66b, it can only do so
`
`with type B modulation. To switch from type A modulation to type B modulation,
`
`master transceiver 64 transmits a training sequence 106 to type A trib 66a to notify
`
`it of an impending modulation scheme change. Id. at 6:3-6. Then, master
`
`transceiver 64 sends a new transmission in sequence 108, this time using type B
`
`modulation, containing a trib address as well as data intended for that addressed
`
`trib. Id. at 6:8-15. Thereafter, master transceiver 64 transmits a trailing sequence
`
`using type A modulation, which informs the trib 66a that the type B modulation
`
`transmission is complete. The type B trib 66b simply goes back to ignoring type A
`
`transmissions after not receiving a poll request in the particular time interval
`
`defined for type B transmissions, or after transmission of the particular quantity of
`
`data. Id. at 6:19-25. Ex. 1116, ¶53.
`
`Similar to the above, master transceiver 64 can communicate with a type A
`
`trib, e.g., trib 66a, by transmitting a training sequence with type A modulation that
`
`contains an address for a particular trib. The training sequence is followed by data,
`
`which is then received by the addressed trib. Master transceiver 64 then transmits
`
`a trailing sequence using type A modulation, which indicates the end of a
`
`communication session. Ex. 1101 at 6:49-58. Ex. 1116, ¶54.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`B.
`Effective Filing Date And Prosecution History Of The `580 Patent
`The `580 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 12/543,910. The `910
`
`application was a continuation of U.S. Application No. 11/774,803, which issued
`
`as U.S. Patent No. 7,675,965. The `803 application was a continuation of U.S.
`
`Application No. 10/412,878, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,248,626. The `878
`
`application was a continuation-in-part of U.S. Application No. 09/205,205, which
`
`became U.S. Patent 6,614,838. The `580, `965, `626, and `838 patents claim the
`
`benefit of the filing date of U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/067,562, filed Dec. 5,
`
`1997. The effective filing date of the challenged claims is December 5, 1997.
`
`The `580 patent was filed on August 19, 2008 with 100 claims. Ex. 1109.
`
`On September 1, 2010, an Office Action was mailed in which a number of claims
`
`were objected to due to an antecedent basis issue but were otherwise deemed
`
`allowable, while other claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) & 103(a).
`
`Ex. 1110. Application claim 1, which would issue as claim 1, was one such claim
`
`that was deemed allowable but for the antecedent basis issue. Id. at p. 2. On
`
`March 1, 2011, Patent Owner filed a response to the Office Action (“3/1/2011
`
`Reply”). Ex. 1111. In that response, Patent Owner amended many pending
`
`claims, including application claim 1 (issued claim 1), cancelled other claims and
`
`added forty-eight claims. Included within the added claims was independent claim
`
`123, which would issue as claim 58. Id. at p. 15. On March 10, 2011, Patent
`
`Owner refiled the claims in response to a Notice Of Non-Compliant Amendment.
`
`Ex. 1112.
`
`On May 11, 2011, Patent Owner filed a paper making further amendments to
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`pending claims 1 and 95. Ex. 1113. The application was allowed on July 22,
`
`2011, although no Statement of Reasons for Allowance was provided. Ex. 1114.
`
`On July 26, 2011, Patent Owner filed an Amendment After Allowance further
`
`amending claims that, after entry, issued as claims 40, 49, and 54. Ex. 1115.
`C.
`Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the `580 patent would
`
`have had a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering that included coursework in
`
`communications systems and networking, and at least five years of experience
`
`designing network communication systems. Ex. 1116, ¶57.
`D. How The Challenged Claims Are To Be Construed
`In this proceeding, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification. 37 CFR § 42.100(b). In determining the
`
`broadest reasonable construction of a claim term, the Panel should consider subject
`
`matter that Patent Owner contends infringes the claims or meanings for claim
`terms that Patent Owner has proposed in past or in current litigation.2 See, e.g., Ex.
`1107. Also, if Patent Owner contends terms in the claims should be read to have a
`
`special meaning, those contentions should be disregarded unless Patent Owner also
`
`amends the claims in a manner compliant with 35 U.S.C. § 112 to make the claims
`
`expressly correspond to the contended meaning. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48764 at II.B.6
`
`(August 14, 2012); cf. In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`The standard of claim construction used in this proceeding differs from the
`
`
`2 In the Litigation, Patent Owner has served Infringement Contentions. Ex. 1107.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`standard used to interpret claims in a judicial proceeding. Consequently,
`
`constructions the Panel adopts in this proceeding and positions Petitioner takes in
`
`respect of those constructions are not relevant to or binding upon Petitioner in
`
`current or subsequent litigation. See In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1989). In particular, Petitioner reserves the right to submit constructions in this
`
`proceeding that differ from those it proposes or adopts in Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-
`
`00213, now pending in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`Petitioner addresses the meaning of certain claim terms in the course of
`
`comparing the claims to the prior art. In addition to those, Petitioner submits the
`
`following terms for construction.
`
`1. “First Modulation Method” (Claims 23, 32, 40, 41, 49) And
`“Second Modulation Method” (Claims 23, 32, 40, 49)
`The broadest reasonable interpretation for the claim term “first modulation
`
`method” in light of the specification and the claim language is “a process of
`
`varying characteristic(s) of a carrier wave that is different from a second
`
`modulation method.” Similarly, the broadest reasonable interpretation for the term
`
`“second modulation method” is “a process of varying characteristic(s) of a carrier
`
`wave that is different from a first modulation method.”
`
`The specification of the `580 patent does not supply an explicit definition for
`
`these terms. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation is easy to determine.
`
`For example, the words “first” and “second” indicate the modulation methods are
`
`different. Indeed, the “Summary” portion of the `580 patent uses these terms in
`
`manner that indicates that they are not the same, stating that “[f]irst information in
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`the first portion may indicate which of the first modulation method or the second
`
`modulation method is used for modulating second information in the payload
`
`portion.” Ex. 1101, 2:35-38 (emphasis added). Moreover, the patent states that the
`
`purported invention allows master transceivers to communicate with modems/tribs
`
`having incompatible modulation methods. See Ex. 1101, 2:55-57, and Figures 3-7.
`
`This demonstrates that the “first” and “second” modulation methods are different.
`
`Ex. 1116, ¶58-63.
`
`As for the “modulation methods” portion of the claim phrase, the ordinary
`
`meaning of “modulation” is “[t]he process by which some characteristic of a
`
`carrier is varied in accordance with a modulating wave.” See Ex. 1108, “The IEEE
`Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms,” 6th Ed., 1996, p. 662.
`Petitioner submits that this definition of “modulation” is correct. Ex. 1116, ¶64.
`IV. PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`Claims 23, 25, 29, 30, 32, 34, 38, 40-41, 43-44 And 47 Are
`Anticipated By The Draft 802.11 Standard
`1. The Draft 802.11 Standard Is Prior Art
`As discussed in detail in the Declaration of Robert O’Hara, Ex. 1104, the
`
`Draft 802.11 Standard was completed on May 20, 1996, and was available to
`
`anyone who wanted to view it on May 23, 1996. See Ex. 1104. ¶¶4-5, 10, 12.
`
`Thus, the Draft 802.11 Standard was published as of May 23, 1996, making it prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Given the facts presented in the O’Hara declaration, there can be no doubt
`
`that the Draft 802.11 Standard is a “printed publication.” The key inquiry of
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`whether a reference constitutes a “printed publication” is whether the reference has
`
`been made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” In re
`
`Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Cronyn, 890
`
`F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “A reference is publicly accessible upon a
`
`satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made
`
`available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject
`
`matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Kyocera Wireless
`
`Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotations and
`
`citations omitted). Dissemination of a printed reference “without restriction to at
`
`least six persons” has been held to be sufficient for purposes of establishing
`
`“publication,” when “between 50 and 500 persons interested and of ordinary skill
`
`in the subject matter were actually told of the existence of the paper and informed
`
`of its contents by [an accompanying] oral presentation.” Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. AB
`
`Fortia, 774 F.2d 1104, 1109 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`Mr. O’Hara was one of the main editors of the Draft IEEE 802.11 Standard,
`
`and was one of its creators. Ex. 1105, p. iii. Ex. 1104, ¶¶1. As Mr. O’Hara
`
`declares, the Draft 802.11 Standard was available to all members of the 802.11
`
`Working Group’s email list, a list that contained “all or nearly all of the 90
`
`individuals listed in the Forward” of the Draft 802.11 Standard. See Ex. 1104, ¶9.
`
`Moreover, IEEE records show that 49 individuals attended a July 8-12, 1996
`
`meeting of the 802.11 Working Group, where the Draft 802.11 Standard was
`
`discussed and distributed on diskettes and available on a wireless LAN in
`
`operation. Id. at ¶12. Thus, the Draft 802.11 Standard had been distributed to
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`interested parties no later than July 8, 1996. Because the Draft 802.11 Standard
`
`was available to any interested parties, it is a printed publication. Mass. Inst. of
`
`Tech, 774 F.2d at 1109. Because the Draft 802.11 Standard was published more
`
`than a year prior to the Provisional application from which the `580 patent claims
`
`priority, it qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`2. Overview Of The Draft 802.11 Standard
`The Draft 802.11 Standard is directed to a wireless local area network
`
`having transceivers in an access point and various mobile stations. Ex. 1105,
`
`Abstract, p. 1 (“The purpose of this standard is to provide wireless connectivity to
`
`automatic machinery, equipment, or stations that require rapid deployment, which
`
`may be portable or hand-held, or which may be mounted on moving vehicles
`
`within a local area.”). The Draft 802.11 Standard discloses transceivers (access
`
`points and stations) that can communicate at two different data rates. Each data
`
`rate is transmitted using a different type of modulation method: differential binary
`
`phase shift keying (“DBPSK”) when operating at one Megabit per second
`
`(“Mbps”) and differential quadrature phase shift keying (“DQPSK”) when
`
`operating at two Mbps. Ex. 1105 at p. 227. See also Ex. 1116, ¶¶66-67.
`
`The format of messages transmitted using equipment compliant with the
`
`Draft 802.11 Standard, will now be discussed. Draft 802.11 Standard refers to data
`to be transmitted as an “MSDU.”3 The Draft 802.11 Standard teaches that an
`
`
`3 An “MSDU” is “Information that is delivered as a unit between MAC service
`access points (SAPs).” Ex. 1105, p. 5.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`MSDU is fragmented into smaller “MAC level frames,” known as “MAC Protocol
`
`Data Units,” or “MPDUs.” Ex. 1105, p.
`
`71-72 & Fig. 37 (“The process of
`
`partitioning a MAC service data unit
`
`(MSDU) into smaller MAC level
`
`frames, MAC protocol data units
`
`(MPDUs), is called fragmentation.”).
`
`The manner in which an MSDU is
`
`fragmented into a succession of MPDUs
`
`is shown in Figure 37, and is at the top
`
`of the annotated drawing to the right.
`
`Ex. 1116, ¶¶68-71.
`
`The data fields within each MAC frame/MPDU, which are used to transmit a
`
`larger MSDU, are shown in Fig. 12 of the Draft 802.11 Standard. As can be seen,
`
`each MPDU comprises several address fields and a frame body. The frame body
`
`contains the data that the system is transmitting to the intended recipient. Ex. 1105,
`
`p. 42. Finally, the Draft 802.11 Standard teaches that a PLCP Preamble and PLCP
`Header is prepended onto each MPDU to form a PPDU.4 Ex. 1105, p. 226. Figure
`76 from the Draft 802.11 Standard, which shows the PPDU, is reprinted in the
`
`annotated figures immediately below the MPDU to show how the PLCP Header is
`
`
`4 PLCP stands for “physical layer convergence protocol.” PPDU stands for
`“physical layer convergence protocol data unit.”
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`prepended to the MPDU. The PLCP Header contains several fields, one of which
`
`is the SIGNAL field. As will be discussed, the SIGNAL field carries data
`
`indicating which type of modulation method (DBPSK or DQPSK) will be used to
`
`transmit the MPDU portion of the PPDU. See Ex. 1105, p. 226-27, 230. Ex. 1116,
`
`¶¶72-76.
`
`3. The Draft 802.11 Standard Anticipates Or Renders Obvious
`Claims 23, 25 And 30
`Turning to claim 23, the Draft 802.11 Standard discloses a “communications
`
`device” including a processor,
`
`with the exemplary network
`
`from the Draft 802.11 Standard
`
`reprinted on the right. The Draft
`
`802.11 Standard discloses access
`
`points (abbreviated as “AP”) and
`
`mobile stations (abbreviated as
`
`“STA”), which are “[a]ny device
`
`which contains an 802.11
`
`conformant [Media Access Control] MAC and PHY interface to the wireless
`
`medium.” Ex. 1105, p. 5. The Draft 802.11 Standard teaches that an access point
`
`is “[a]ny entity that has station functionality and provides access to the distribution
`
`services, via the wireless medium (WM) for associated stations.” Ex. 1105, p. 3
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, access points have the same functionality as stations, as
`
`well as additional features. It is well-known that “Media Access Control” is
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`implemented in a “processor.” See Ex. 1116, ¶¶77-81.
`
`Claim 23 requires “a memory having stored therein executable instructions
`
`for execution by the processor.” The Draft 802.11 Standard inherently discloses “a
`
`memory” like that recited in claim 23 since any access point or station having
`
`MAC would necessarily store instructions for controlling transmissions. See id. at
`
`¶¶82-83. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to implement the teachings of the Draft 802.11 Standard with a processor and
`
`memory that stores executable instructions that implements the functionality of the
`
`Standard. Id. at ¶84.
`
`The executable instructions recited in claim 23 “direct transmission of a first
`
`data with a first modulation method followed by a second data with a second
`
`modulation method.” As discussed, the Draft 802.11 Standard teaches that
`
`stations (and hence any access point) transmit messages in a format it refers to as a
`
`physical layer convergence protocol
`
`(“PLCP”) data unit (“PPDU”).” The format
`
`of a PPDU is shown in Figure 76 of the
`
`Draft 802.11 Standard, reprinted on the right.
`
`Each PPDU comprises, inter alia, a PLCP
`
`Header and an MPDU. Each PLCP Header has several fields, one of which is the
`
`“SIGNAL” field. Ex. 1105, p. 226. See also Ex. 1116, ¶85-88. The SIGNAL
`
`field meets the “first data” limitation of claim 23, while the MPDU meets the
`
`“second data” limitation of claim 23. Id. at ¶89.
`
`Claim 23 requires that the “first data” be transmitted with “a first modulation
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`method. Initially, it is noted that the Draft 802.11 Standard teaches that the access
`
`point can transmit using a first modulation method and a second modulation
`
`method since they teach transmitting using DBPSK (a “first modulation method”)
`
`and DQPSK (a “second modulation method”). Ex. 1105, p.224 (“The DSSS
`
`system uses baseband modulations of differential binary phase shift keying
`
`(DBPSK) and differential quadrature phase shift keying (DQPSK) to provide
`
`the 1 and 2 Mbit/s data rates, respectively.”) (emphasis added). Moreover, just as
`
`required by claim 23, the Draft 802.11 Standard requires that the PLCP Header,
`
`which includes the SIGNAL field, is always transmitted using DBPSK. Id. at
`
`p. 226 (“The entire PLCP Preamble and Header shall be transmitted using the 1
`
`Mbit/s DBPSK modulation described in 15.4.7.”) (emphasis added). Ex. 1116,
`
`¶89-92.
`
`Claim 23 also requires that the “first data” be “followed by a second data
`
`with a second modulation method.” As seen in figure 76 from the Draft 802.11
`
`Standard, the MPDU (the “second data”) follows the SIGNAL field (the “first
`
`data”). Ex. 1116, ¶93.
`
`The Draft 802.11 Standard teaches that the MPDU may be transmitted using
`
`either DBPSK or DQPSK, meaning that they disclose claim 23’s requirement that
`
`the “second data” be transmitted with “a second modulation method,” since
`
`DQPSK is a “second modulation method.” See e.g., Ex. 1105, p. 230 (“The IEEE
`
`802.11 SIGNAL field shall indicate the modulation that shall be used to
`
`transmit the MPDU. The transmitter and receiver shall initiate the modulation
`
`indicated by the IEEE 802.11 SIGNAL field starting with the first symbol (1 bit for
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`REMBRANDT EXHIBIT 2207
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`
`DBPSK or 2 bits for DQPSK) of the MPDU.”). Ex. 1116, ¶94.
`
`DBPSK is plainly a different “modulation method” than DQPSK. This can
`
`be seen in in the figure reprinted here,
`
`where the upper waveform shows a
`
`how “11000110” is modulated onto a
`
`carrier using DBPSK, while the bottom
`
`waveform shows how the same data is modulated onto a carrier using DQPSK.
`
`See id. at ¶95. These two modulation methods are plainly different from one
`
`another since a modem designed to demodulate one tra