Thomas Engellenner
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 204-5100 (telephone)
`(617) 204-5150 (facsimile)
`
`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 No. IPR2014-00518
`Patent 8,023,580
`
`___________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 CFR § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iv
`
`UPDATED TABLE OF EXHIBITS ......................................................................... v
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF THE ’580 PATENT ............................................................ 2
`II.
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........ 5
`A.
`Legal Standard ...................................................................................... 5
`B. A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ................................................ 6
`C.
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 8
`“First Modulation Method” And “Second Modulation
`1.
`Method” ..................................................................................... 8
`“At Least Two Types Of Modulation Methods” ..................... 11
`2.
`“Master” And “Slave” .............................................................. 16
`3.
`IV. SUMMARY OF ALLEGED PRIOR ART .................................................. 19
`A. Admitted Prior Art (“APA”) .............................................................. 19
`B. U.S. Patent No. 5,706,428 Of Boer (“Boer”) ..................................... 19
`C.
`The Upender/Koopman Article .......................................................... 21
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................ 21
`A.
`Petitioner Has The Burden Of Proof .................................................. 21
`B.
`Legal Standard For Obviousness........................................................ 22
`Each Prior Art Reference Must Be Considered In Its Entirety .......... 24
`C.
`VI. ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. 25
`A. Dr. Goodman’s Declaration Regarding Motivation To Combine
`The Alleged APA With Boer Is Unreliable ....................................... 25
`Dr. Goodman Failed To Fully Consider The
`1.
`Upender/Koopman Article As A Whole .................................. 25
`Dr. Goodman Has No Understanding Of The Conclusion
`Reached In The Article ............................................................ 28
`Dr. Goodman’s Reasoning Is Flawed Because
`“Simplicity and Determinacy” Are At Odds With
`“Flexibility and Efficiency” ..................................................... 29
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`4.
`
`2.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`Dr. Goodman’s Declaration Is Unreliable Because It Is
`Unclear What Level Of Skill He Equated With One Of
`Ordinary Skill In The Art ......................................................... 32
`B. Dr. Koopman, The Coauthor Of The Article, Testified That The
`Teachings Of Upender/Koopman Do Not Support Combination
`Of The Alleged APA with Boer ......................................................... 32
`Combining Boer And The Alleged APA Would Reduce
`1.
`Flexibility And Efficiency ....................................................... 35
`There Are Fundamental Tradeoffs Between Master/Slave
`Polling And CSMA/CA Protocols Which Teach Away
`From Using Master/Slave In Boer ........................................... 38
`Boer Also Teaches Away From a Master/Slave Configuration ......... 40
`The Petition Fails To Prove The Alleged Prior Art Discloses
`Using At Least Two Types Of Modulation Methods ........................ 44
`The Intrinsic Record Demonstrates That Simply
`1.
`Degrading Performance By Utilizing Fewer Bits Per
`Symbol Is Not What The ’580 Patent Means By “Two
`Types of Modulation Methods” ............................................... 45
`DBPSK and DQPSK Cannot Be Incompatible With One
`Another Within The Meaning Of The ’580 Patent .................. 46
`DBPSK And DQPSK Are Both Phase Modulation
`Techniques Within The Same Family ..................................... 47
`PPM As Used In Boer’s PPM/DQPSK Is Not A
`Modulation Method ................................................................. 48
`PPM/DQPSK And DBPSK Are Both Phase Modulation
`Techniques And Not In Different Families ............................. 53
`The Challenged Claims Are Not Rendered Obvious By The
`Combination Of Alleged APA And Boer .......................................... 53
`The Petition Does Not Prove The Combination Of
`1.
`Alleged APA And Boer Renders Independent Claim 1
`Obvious .................................................................................... 53
`The Petition Does Not Prove The Combination Of
`Alleged APA And Boer Renders Independent Claim 54
`Obvious .................................................................................... 56
`The Petition Does Not Prove The Combination Of
`Alleged APA And Boer Renders Dependent Claim 57
`Obvious .................................................................................... 57
`The Petition Does Not Prove The Combination Of
`Alleged APA And Boer Renders Claims 58, 61, 62, 66,
`70, and 76-79 Obvious ............................................................. 57
`
`E.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`5.
`
`The Petition Does Not Prove The Combination Of
`Alleged APA And Boer Renders Claim 66 Obvious ............... 58
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Abbott Labs. v. Novopharm Ltd., 323 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................ 14
`
`Page(s)
`
`Advanced Fiber Techs. Trust v. J&L Fiber Servs., 674 F.3d 1365
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 13
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............. 6, 13
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. AIP Acquisition, LLC, 2014 WL 2364452
`(Patent Tr. & App. Bd., May 27, 2014) ............................................................. 13
`
`Environmental Designs Ltd v. Union Oil, 713 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ................ 8
`
`Grain Processing Corp. v. American-Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902
`(Fed. Cir. 1988)) ................................................................................................. 23
`
`Hodosh v. Block Drug Co., Inc., 786 F.2d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ..................... 25, 28
`
`In Heart Failure Techs., LLC v. CardioKinetix, Inc., IPR2013-00183,
`Paper No. 12 (July 31, 2013) .............................................................................. 23
`
`In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ........................................................ 25
`
`In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................... 23
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................... 6
`
`In re Wesslau, 147 U.S.P.Q. 391 (C.C.P.A. 1965) ................................................. 24
`
`InTouch Tech., Inc. v. VGO Comm’s, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8745
`(Fed. Cir. May 9, 2014) ...................................................................................... 23
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................... 22, 23
`
`Macronix Int’l v. Spansion LLC¸ IPR2014-00106,
`Paper 13 (Apr. 24, 2014) ............................................................................... 6, 13
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC, et al. v. Arendi S.A.R.L., IPR2014-00203,
`Paper No. 10 (June 5, 2014) ............................................................................... 23
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ....................... 6, 8
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...................... 22
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................... 14
`
`W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 220 U.S.P.Q. 303
`(Fed. Cir. 1983). .................................................................................................. 24
`
`Wowza Media Systems, LLC et al. v. Adobe Systems Inc., IPR2013-00054,
`Paper No. 12 (April 8, 2013) ........................................................................ 23, 24
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ........................................................................ 5
`
`MPEP § 2111 ............................................................................................................. 8
`
`MPEP § 2141 ........................................................................................................... 22
`
`MPEP § 2145(X)(D)(1)(3) ....................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`UPDATED TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/067,562,
`dated December 5, 1997.
`
`Proakis, John G. and Masoud, Salehi,
`COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS ENGINEERING 438-44
`(Prentice Hall, Inc. 1994) (“Proakis I”).
`
`Proakis, John G. and Masoud, Salehi,
`COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS ENGINEERING 643-44
`(Prentice Hall, Inc. 1994) (“Proakis II”).
`
`Gast, Matthew S., 802,11 WIRELESS NETWORKS, THE
`DEFINITIVE GUIDE 182-185 (O’Reilly & Assocs., Inc.
`2002).
`
`MODERN DICTIONARY OF ELECTRONICS, SIXTH ED.,
`REVISED AND UPDATED 932 (Butterworth-
`Heinemann 1997).
`
`COMPREHENSIVE DICTIONARY OF ELECTRICAL
`ENGINEERING 397 (CRC Press LLC 1999).
`
`Amended Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,023,580, Case IPR2014-00515, Paper 4
`(April 3, 2014).
`
`Previously filed
`
`Exhibit #
`
`2201
`
`2202
`
`2203
`
`2204
`
`2205
`
`2206
`
`2207
`
`
`New
`
`Exhibit #
`
`2208
`
`2209
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Declaration of Dr. Philip Koopman, Ph.D.
`
`Upender, B. & Koopman, P., "Embedded
`Communication Protocol Options," Proceedings of
`Embedded Systems Conference 1993, Santa Clara,
`
`-vi-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`2210
`
`2211
`
`2212
`
`2213
`
`2214
`
`2215
`
`2216
`
`2217
`
`pp. 469-480, October 1993.
`
`Tanenbaum, A.S. COMPUTER NETWORKS, THIRD ED.
`pp. xv-xvii and 1-15 (Prentice Hall PTR 1996)
`
`Transcript of Deposition of David Goodman, Ph.D.
`and Exhibits in IPR2014-00518 and IPR2014-00519
`(November 7, 2014)
`
`Redacted Rough Transcript of Deposition of David
`Goodman, Ph.D. in Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP
`v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:13-
`CV-213-JRG-RSP (November 18, 2014)
`
`Redacted Rough Transcript of Deposition of David
`Goodman, Ph.D. in Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP
`v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:13-
`CV-213-JRG-RSP (November 19, 2014)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Christopher Jones, Ph.D.
`
`MODERN DICTIONARY OF ELECTRONICS, SIXTH ED.,
`REVISED AND UPDATED 663 (Butterworth-
`Heinemann 1997).
`
`MICROSOFT PRESS COMPUTER DICTIONARY, THIRD
`ED. 313 (MICROSOFT PRESS 1997)
`
`D.K. Sharma, et al., “Analog & Digital Modulation
`Techniques: An Overview,” TECHNIA –
`International Journal of Computing Science and
`Communication Technologies, vol. 3, n. 1, 551-61
`(July 2010)
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP (“Patent Owner”)
`
`respectfully submits this Response1 to the Amended Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (Paper No. 4, “Petition”) filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, and
`
`Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC (collectively, “Petitioner”).
`
`In the Institution Decision, the Board relied on the Petitioner’s expert Dr.
`
`Goodman’s reference to an article published in Embedded Systems Programming
`
`Magazine entitled “Communication Protocols for Embedded Systems” (“the
`
`Upender/Koopman article,” Ex. 1218) as providing motivation to combine the
`
`Admitted Prior Art (“APA”) and U.S. Patent 5,706,428 to Boer et al. (“Boer,” Ex.
`
`1204). It is respectfully submitted that the Board’s reliance on this aspect of Dr.
`
`Goodman’s declaration was misplaced, because Dr. Goodman did not fully, let
`
`alone carefully, read the 7-page Upender/Koopman article upon which he relies,
`
`and he lacks an understanding of the article’s ultimate conclusion:
`
`Q. Did you read the entire Upender article?
`
`
`1 Patent Owner’s Response is being supported by the Declarations of Dr. Philip
`
`Koopman and Dr. Christopher Jones, filed herewith as Exhibits 2208 and 2214,
`
`respectively.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`A. I don’t recall reading it from beginning to end. I have looked at
`various parts of it.
`
`* * *
`Q. Do you have an understanding as to why Upender reaches the
`conclusion that the CSMA/CA is the most, the best protocol?
` Mr. Miller: Objection, foundation.
`I don’t – no. I didn’t read it carefully enough to find out why. I
`A.
`don’t know. I can’t say why.
`
`(Ex. 2211 at 97:10-14 and 98: 15-21 (emphasis added).)
`
`In stark contrast to Dr. Goodman, who failed to fully read the
`
`Upender/Koopman article, Patent Owner submits herewith the Declaration of Dr.
`
`Koopman, a co-author of the article who has a deep understanding of its meaning.
`
`Dr. Koopman’s Declaration provides a detailed analysis as to why his article would
`
`not have motivated one of ordinary skill to combine the cited references.
`
`In addition, for the reasons described in detail below, Patent Owner requests
`
`that the Board reconsider its analysis in the Institution Decision regarding “types of
`
`modulation methods.” The modulation described in Boer is not of different
`
`“types” according to the teachings of the ’580 Patent.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’580 PATENT
`
`The ’580 Patent, entitled “System and Method of Communication Using at
`
`Least Two Modulation Methods” and invented by Gordon Bremer, claims priority
`
`to a provisional application, U.S. Serial No. 60/067,562 (Ex. 2201), filed on
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPPR2014-000518
`UU.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,0233,580
`
`
`
` in
`
`
`
`Decembber 5, 19977. In varioous embodiiments, thee ’580 Pateent disclosees systems
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`which nnetwork deevices may communiccate with oother netwoork devicees accordinng to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a masteer/slave rellationship uusing diffeerent types
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of modulaation methoods. (Ex. 11201
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at Abstrract.)
`
`
`
`TThe use of mmultiple tyypes of moodulation mmethods in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`taught bby the ’5800 Patent cann, for exammple, permmit selectionn of the m
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`best suited for a particular appplication.. (Ex. 120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 at 1:66-22:33). Annnotated Figgure
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4 showss an emboddiment of tthe patenteed technoloogy where
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`some deviices in the
`
`
`
`a master/sslave systemm as
`
`
`
`
`
`odulation ttype
`
`
`
`networkk communiicate usingg one type oof modulattion methood (e.g., ammplitude
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`modulattion), whille other devvices commmunicate uusing a diffferent typee of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`modulattion methood (e.g., freequency mmodulation)):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inndependennt claim 1 iis representative of vaarious aspeects of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`above-
`
`
`
`describeed system:
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`1. A communication device capable of communicating according to a
`master/slave relationship in which a slave communication from a
`slave to a master occurs in response to a master communication from
`the master to the slave, the device comprising:
`a transceiver, in the role of the master according to the
`master/slave relationship, for sending at least transmissions
`modulated using at least two types of modulation methods,
`wherein the at least two types of modulation methods comprise
`a first modulation method and a second modulation method,
`wherein the second modulation method is of a different type
`than the first modulation method, wherein each transmission
`comprises a group of transmission sequences, wherein each
`group of transmission sequences is structured with at least a
`first portion and a payload portion wherein first information in
`the first portion indicates at least which of the first modulation
`method and the second modulation method is used for
`modulating second information in the payload portion, wherein
`at least one group of transmission sequences is addressed for an
`intended destination of the payload portion, and wherein for the
`at least one group of transmission sequences:
`the first information for said at least one group of transmission
`sequences comprises a first sequence, in the first portion and
`modulated according to the first modulation method, wherein
`the first sequence indicates an impending change from the first
`modulation method to the second modulation method, and
`the second information for said at least one group of transmission
`sequences comprises a second sequence that is modulated
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`according to the second modulation method, wherein the
`second sequence is transmitted after the first sequence.
`
`(emphasis added). Independent claim 58 is similar to claim 1 in that claim 58 also
`
`recites a communication device comprising a transceiver, in the role of the master
`
`according to a master/slave relationship, capable of transmitting using at least two
`
`types of modulation methods.
`
`As discussed in detail below, a salient feature of the invention claimed in
`
`each of independent claims 1 and 58 is that each master/slave polling transaction
`
`starts with the master sending header information using a first type of modulation,
`
`and then optionally switches to a second type of modulation depending on the
`
`capabilities of the particular tributary transceiver that is under the control of the
`
`master for a particular message exchange. This approach can permit more
`
`advanced tributary transceivers to send data at much higher data rates without
`
`requiring all tributary transceivers to support potentially expensive high-speed data
`
`rate capabilities.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A. Legal Standard
`In an inter partes review, a claim of an unexpired patent is construed using
`
`the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.100(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012). Typically, a claim term is given its ordinary and customary meaning in
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`the context of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc);
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, a
`
`“claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own
`
`lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either
`
`the specification or prosecution history.” Macronix Int’l v. Spansion LLC¸
`
`IPR2014-00106 (Paper 13 at 6, Apr. 24, 2014) (quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
`
`Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
`
`B. A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering that included coursework in communications systems and
`
`networking, and two years of work experience in electronic communications. (Ex.
`
`2208 at ¶29 and Ex. 2214 at ¶22.) Given the depth and comprehensive disclosure
`
`of the specification, a newly graduated student would become fluent in the
`
`specifics of the technology within about two years after graduation. (See Ex. 2208
`
`at ¶28.)
`
`Petitioner alleges that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art 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.” (Paper 4 at 9.)
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`Petitioner, however, provides no rationale for its definition, including why a
`
`Master’s degree in electrical engineering is necessary or why “at least five years of
`
`experience” is needed to qualify as one of ordinary skill in the art. (Ex. 2208 at
`
`¶26; see also Ex. 2214 at ¶25.) Petitioner’s definition is exceedingly high,
`
`conclusory, and unsupported by any evidence. (Ex. 2208 at ¶¶25-26 and Ex. 2214
`
`at ¶25.)
`
`Petitioner’s definition is further flawed because its use of the open-ended
`
`term “at least,” without a ceiling, makes it a “moving target” and would include
`
`persons who are far over-qualified to be considered of “ordinary skill” in the art.
`
`(Ex. 2208 at ¶27 and Ex. 2214 at ¶25.) Someone with the proposed Master’s
`
`degree and more than 15 years of practical experience, for example, is not “a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art” because that person would possess a much
`
`higher level of understanding of the technology disclosed in the ’580 Patent than a
`
`similar person with the five years of experience, yet such a person would meet
`
`Petitioner’s definition. (Ex. 2208 at ¶27 and Ex. 2214 at ¶25.) Petitioner’s expert,
`
`Dr. Goodman, testified that even a person having 10 years or 20 years of
`
`experience would still be considered to be of ordinary skill. (Ex. 2211 at 65:13-
`
`66:16.)
`
`Given the open-ended nature of Petitioner’s definition, the entirety of Dr.
`
`Goodman’s analysis is implicated as contrary to the law, which is premised on the
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`perspective of a person of “ordinary” skill in the art. 2 Indeed, there is no way to
`
`tell whether Dr. Goodman used someone with 10 years of experience, someone
`
`with 20 years of experience, or someone with even more or less experience, as his
`
`benchmark in formulating his opinions.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`1.
`“First Modulation Method” And “Second Modulation
`Method”
`
`Claim Term
`First Modulation
`Method (Claims 1,
`13, 21, 22, 54, 58,
`70, 76, 78, 79)
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`“a first method for varying
`one or more characteristics
`of a carrier in accordance
`with information to be
`communicated”
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`“a process of varying
`characteristic(s) of a carrier
`wave that is different from a
`second modulation method”
`
`
`2 A determination of the person having “ordinary” skill does not merely provide a
`
`floor (i.e., to exclude “laymen”), but also a ceiling so as to exclude the “geniuses”
`
`in the relevant art when applying the relevant legal standards to the challenged
`
`claims. Environmental Designs Ltd v. Union Oil, 713 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`See also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (claim construction is based on the
`
`specification “as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art”)
`
`(emphasis added); MPEP § 2111.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`Claim Term
`Second
`Modulation
`Method (Claims 1,
`13, 20, 22, 54, 58,
`70, 77, 79)
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`“a second method for
`varying one or more
`characteristics of a carrier in
`accordance with information
`to be communicated”
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`“a process of varying
`characteristic(s) of a carrier
`wave that is different from a
`first modulation method”
`
`A “modulation method” is a term that is generally recognized in the
`
`electronic communications arts to mean a technique for varying one or more
`
`characteristics of a carrier wave in a predetermined manner to convey information.
`
`(Ex. 2214 at ¶31.) This definition is supported by several dictionaries often used in
`
`the field, including for example, The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Terms, 6th Ed. (1996) (Ex. 2206), Modern Dictionary of Electronics
`
`(6th ed., 1997) (Ex. 2215), Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary (3rd ed., 1997)
`
`(Ex. 2216), and Analog & Digital Modulation Techniques: An Overview (2010) by
`
`D.K. Sharma (Ex. 2217). (See also Ex. 2214 at ¶31.) Each of these publications
`
`describe “modulation” consistent with this common understanding at the time of
`
`the invention of the ’580 Patent. (Ex. 2214 at ¶31.)
`
`The ’580 Patent uses the term “modulation” consistent with this well-known
`
`meaning as a method for varying characteristics of a carrier wave. (Ex. 2214 at
`
`¶32.). For example, at column 2, lines 1-8, the ’580 Patent provides various
`
`examples of carrier wave modulation techniques:
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`For example, some applications (e.g., internet access) require high
`performance modulation, such as quadrature amplitude modulation
`(QAM), carrier [sic] amplitude and phase (CAP)3 modulation, or
`discrete multitone (DMT) modulation, while other applications (e.g.,
`power monitoring and control) require only modest data rates and
`therefore a low performance modulation method.
`
`Ex. 1201 at 2:1-8.
`
`Persons having ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that
`
`modulation methods, such as QAM, CAP, and DMT described above are carrier
`
`wave modulation techniques. (Ex. 2214 at ¶¶33-36.). Indeed, all of the
`
`modulations in the ’580 Patent are similar in that they share the common attribute
`
`that information is related through alteration of a carrier wave. (Ex. 2214 at ¶36.)
`
`Importantly, this allows all tribs to demodulate the first portion of the modulated
`
`carrier (because it is a carrier wave modulation) and then optionally demodulate
`
`the second portion depending on whether or not the modulation for that second
`
`portion is changed to a different, more spectrally efficient modulation that the trib
`
`may or may not be capable of demodulating. (Id.)
`
`
`3 The reference to Carrier Amplitude Modulation appears to be a typographical
`
`error in the ’580 Patent. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`CAP is an acronym for Carrierless Amplitude and Phase modulation, as discussed
`
`otherwise herein. (Ex. 2214 at ¶32).
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`Indeed, in light of the definition of “modulation” provided in The IEEE
`
`Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (which is cited above and
`
`also relied upon in the Petition (Paper 4 at page 11) and Dr. Goodman’s
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1220 at ¶62)), there appears to be no significant difference
`
`between Patent Owner’s proposed construction and the Petitioner’s, with the lone
`
`caveat being that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that modulation
`
`does not randomly or indiscriminately vary the characteristics of a carrier wave.
`
`(Ex. 2214 at ¶37.).
`
`2.
`
`“At Least Two Types Of Modulation Methods”
`
`Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`“different families of
`modulation techniques”
`
`Claim Term
`Types of
`Modulation
`Methods (Claims
`1, 58)
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`“at least two incompatible
`processes of varying
`characteristic(s) of a carrier
`wave”
`
`“Types” of modulation should be properly construed as “different families
`
`of modulation techniques.” (Ex. 2214 at ¶¶38,41.) During prosecution of the ’580
`
`Patent, claims were amended to recite “at least two types of modulation methods, .
`
`. . wherein the second modulation method is of a different type than the first
`
`modulation method . . . .” (Ex. 1209 at 07/23 (underlining in original indicating
`
`amendments to the claim language).) Concurrent with this amendment to the
`
`claims, the Patentee unambiguously indicated that “the language of independent
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`claim 1 has been clarified to refer to two types of modulation methods, i.e.,
`
`different families of modulation techniques, such as the FSK family of
`
`modulation methods and the QAM family of modulation methods.” (Ex. 1209 at
`
`20/23 (bold and underlining added, italics in original.) In light of the Patentee’s
`
`express definition for “types” presented during prosecution, this claim term should
`
`be construed according to the special definition provided by the applicant (i.e.,
`
`“different families of modulation techniques”). (See Ex. 2214 at ¶38.)
`
`As indicated by the definition of “modulation” provided by the Modern
`
`Dictionary of Electronics (6th ed., 1997)4, a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that a carrier wave is fundamentally characterized by its
`
`frequency, phase, and amplitude (e.g., for a sine wave, A(t) = Asin(2πf t + ϕ),
`
`where A denotes amplitude, f denotes frequency, and ϕ denotes phase of the wave).
`
`(Ex. 2214 at ¶40.)
`
`
`4 “The process, or results of the process, whereby some characteristic of one signal
`
`is varied in accordance with another signal. The modulated signal is called the
`
`carrier and may be modulated in three fundamental ways: by varying the amplitude
`
`(amplitude modulation), by varying the frequency (frequency modulation), or by
`
`varying the phase (phase modulation).”) (Ex. 2215 at 663.)
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`As such, the characteristic(s) of the carrier waveform that can be modified in
`
`carrier wave modulation techniques is one or more of the wave’s frequency, phase,
`
`and amplitude. (Ex. 2214 at ¶40.) Accordingly, carrier wave modulations can be
`
`classified into distinct types or families based on these fundamental characteristics
`
`of the waveform. (Ex. 2214 at ¶41.)
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction ignores the specification and prosecution
`
`history of the ’580 Patent and should therefore be rejected. Notably, Petitioner
`
`provides no case law to support its proposition that the Patentee’s statements
`
`defining the meaning of a claim term during prosecution should be ignored for
`
`purposes of claim construction. (Paper 4 at 10.) The law in an inter partes review
`
`is clear: a “claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted
`
`as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim
`
`term in either the specification or prosecution history.” Cisco Systems, Inc. v. AIP
`
`Acquisition, LLC, 2014 WL 2364452, at *6 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd., May 27,
`
`2014) (emphasis added) quoting CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002);
`
`accord Advanced Fiber Techs. Trust v. J&L Fiber Servs., 674 F.3d 1365, 1374
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012); Macronix Int’l¸ IPR2014-00106 (Paper 13 at 6, Apr. 24, 2014).
`
`Thus, the patentee’s definition in either the specification or prosecution history
`
`governs.
`
`The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that an inventor can act as his own
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00518
`U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580
`
`lexicographer if he uses a “special definition of the term [that] is clearly stated in
`
`the patent specification or file history.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90
`
`F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Further, in Abbott Labs. v. Novopharm Ltd.,
`
`323 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the Federal Circuit held that a patent
`
`specification’s use of the letters “i.e.” (Latin for “that is”) in conjunction with a
`
`claim term typically connotes a binding definition. 323 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003). In Abbott, the patentee argued for a definition that was different than
`
`it had given in an “i.e.” parenthetical in the specification, while the accused
`
`infringer argued that the “i.e.” definition was controlling. The Federal Circuit
`
`held that “i.e.” defined the claim term “co-micronization,” which was “in fact
`
`explicitly defined at column 1, lines 35