throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: Feb. 4, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
`J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Petitioner”)
`
`filed a Petition to institute an inter partes review (Paper 2, “Pet.”) of claims
`
`1, 2, 8–12, and 18–22 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,787,431 (Ex. 1001, “the ’431 patent”). Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim. Resp.”) on
`
`November 5, 2014. Paper 10.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. The standard for
`
`instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which
`
`provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition
`
`and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has established a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground on claims 1 and 2,
`
`but not claims 8–12 and 18–22. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes
`
`review of claims 1 and 2.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate the ’431 patent is at issue in five district court
`
`proceedings involving numerous parties, none of which name Petitioner as a
`
`defendant. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1.
`
`C. The ’431 Patent
`
`The ’431 patent relates to multi-carrier communication systems and
`
`methods with variable channel bandwidth. Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`The challenged claims recite methods and base stations for generating
`
`and/or transmitting information bearing signals, wherein the information
`
`bearing signals include a primary preamble having certain properties. Id. at
`
`9:33–10:9, 11:54–12:27, 13:4–47.
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims in the ’431 patent, claims 1, 8 and 18 are
`
`independent. Claims 1 and 18 are directed to methods, and claim 8 is
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`directed to a base station having circuitry configured to execute the method
`
`steps of claim 18. Therefore, claims 1 and 18 are illustrative and recite:
`
`In a variable bandwidth wireless communication system
`1.
`communicating under multiple different communication schemes that
`each have a different bandwidth, a process performed by a base
`station of generating an information bearing signal for wireless
`transmission, the process comprising:
`
`utilizing by the base station a number of subcarriers to construct a
`variable bandwidth wireless channel;
`
`utilizing by the base station groups of subcarriers, wherein each
`group includes a plurality of subcarriers;
`
`maintaining a fixed spacing between adjacent subcarriers;
`
`adding or subtracting, by the base station, groups of subcarriers to
`scale the variable bandwidth wireless channel and achieve an
`operating channel bandwidth; and
`
`wherein a core-band including a plurality of subcarrier groups,
`substantially centered at an operating center frequency of the
`different communication schemes, is utilized by the base station
`as a broadcast cannel carrying radio control and operation
`signaling, where the core-band is substantially not wider than a
`smallest possible operating channel bandwidth of the system;
`and
`
`wherein the information bearing signal has a primary preamble
`sufficient for basic radio operation and wherein:
`
`the primary preamble is a direct sequence in the time domain
`with a frequency content confined within the core-band, or
`is an orthogonal frequency-divisional multiplexing (OFDM)
`symbol corresponding to a particular frequency pattern
`within the core-band; and
`
`wherein properties of the primary preamble comprise:
`
`an autocorrelation having a large correlation peak with respect
`to sidelobes;
`
`a cross-correlation with other primary preambles having a small
`cross-correlation coefficient with respect to power of other
`primary preambles; and
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`a small peak-to-average ratio; and
`
`wherein a large number of primary preamble sequences exhibit
`the properties.
`
`18. A variable bandwidth communication method
`comprising:
`
`transmitting a broadcast channel by a cellular base station in an
`orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) core-
`band, wherein the core-band is substantially centered at an
`operating center frequency and the core-band includes a first
`plurality of sub carrier groups, wherein each subcarrier group
`includes a plurality of subcarriers, wherein the core-band is
`utilized to communicate a primary preamble sufficient to enable
`radio operations, the primary preamble being a direct sequence
`in the time domain with a frequency content confined within
`the core-band or being an OFDM symbol corresponding to a
`particular frequency pattern within the core-band
`
`wherein properties of the primary preamble comprise:
`
`an autocorrelation having a large correlation peak with respect
`to sidelobes;
`
`a cross-correlation with other primary preambles having a small
`cross-correlation coefficient with respect to power of other
`primary preambles; and
`
`a small peak-to-average ratio; and
`
`wherein a large number of primary preamble sequences exhibit
`the properties; and
`
`transmitting control and data channels by the cellular base station
`using a variable band including a second plurality of subcarrier
`groups, wherein the variable band includes at least the core-
`band.
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:33–10:2, 13:4–36.
`
`E. The Evidence of Record
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references as its basis for
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`challenging claims 1, 2, 8–12, and 18–22 of the ’431 patent.1
`
`Patents/Printed Publications
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,904,283 B2 (June
`7, 2005)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,782,750 B2
`(August 24, 2010)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,426,175 B2
`(September 16, 2008)
`Universal Mobile
`Telecommunications System
`(UMTS); UMTS Terrestrial
`Radio Access (UTRA); Concept
`evaluation (UMTS 30.06 version
`3.0.0), European
`Telecommunications Standards
`Institute (1997)
`U.S. Patent Pub. 2002/0181509
`A1 (Dec. 5, 2002)
`Nobilet et al., Spreading
`Sequences for Uplink and
`Downlink MC-CDMA Systems:
`PAPR and MAI Minimzation,
`European Transactions on
`Communications, vol. 13, no. 5,
`pp. 465–473 (2002)
`Popović, Spreading Sequences
`for Multicarrier CDMA Systems,
`IEEE Trans. Comm., vol. 47, no.
`6, pp. 918–926 (1999)
`
`Exhibit
`1002 (“Li”)
`
`1003 (“Yamaura)
`
`1004 (“Zhuang”)
`
`1007 (multiple parts)
`(“UTRA”)
`
`1005 (“Mody”)
`
`1006 (“Nobilet”)
`
`1008 (“Popovic”)
`
`
`
`Reference
`Li
`
`Yamaura
`
`Zhuang
`
`UTRA
`
`Mody
`
`Nobilet
`
`Popovic
`
`
`1 Petitioner also proffers the Declaration of Dr. Zygmunt Haas. See Ex.
`1012 (“Haas Dec.”).
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`
`
`1. Li (Ex. 1002)
`
`Li “relates to the field of wireless communications; more particularly,
`
`the invention relates to multi-cell, multi-subscriber wireless systems using
`
`orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM).” Ex. 1002, 1:11–14.
`
`2. Yamaura (Ex. 1003)
`
`Yamaura describes a method, and apparatuses for implementing the
`
`method, of radio communication “for exchanging information between a
`
`base station and a terminal station [using] multi-carrier signals by OFDM
`
`modulation scheme including plural subcarriers within a bandwidth,
`
`communicating control signals in addition to the information between the
`
`base station and the terminal station, and wherein part of the control signals
`
`. . . is transmitted by one or more specific subcarriers in the bandwidth for
`
`the multi-carrier signals.” Ex. 1003, Abstract.
`
`3. UTRA (Ex. 10072)
`
`UTRA “describes the detailed evaluation work towards the definition
`
`of the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System UMTS Terrestrial
`
`Radio Access (UTRA) within SMG2.” Ex. 1007, 5. The Beta Concept
`
`Group portion of UTRA “outlines the basic system characteristic of
`
`OFDMA which is proposed for UTRA selection” and “describes the basic
`
`concept behind the OFDMA proposal and its advantages and [features].” Id.
`
`at 175.
`
`
`2 We cite to the exhibit page numbers of Ex. 1007, rather than its original
`pagination.
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`F. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the following grounds (Pet. 3–5):
`
`Statutory Ground
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Reference
`Li, Yamaura, and Zhuang
`Li, Yamaura, Zhuang, and
`Beta
`Li, Yamaura, Mody, Nobilet,
`and Popovic
`Li, Yamaura, Mody, Nobilet,
`Popovic, and Beta
`
`Challenged Claims
`8–11 and 18–21
`1, 2, 12, and 22
`
`8–11 and 18–21
`
`1, 2, 12, and 22
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms are given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification in which they appear
`
`and the understanding of others skilled in the relevant art. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.300(b). Applying that standard, we interpret the claim terms of the
`
`’431 patent according to their ordinary and customary meaning in the
`
`context of the patent’s written description. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Philllips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). The parties propose
`
`different constructions for the terms “bandwidth,” “core-band,” and
`
`“primary preamble.” Pet. 16–18; Prelim. Resp. 11–16. Based on a review
`
`of the ’431 patent, we agree with, and Patent Owner does not dispute,
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of “peak-to-average ratio” as “peak-to-
`
`average power ratio.” Pet. 18–19, Prelim. Resp. 16. We do not find it
`
`necessary, for purposes of this decision, to construe explicitly “bandwidth”
`
`at this time.
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`1. Core-band
`
`The parties agree that the ’431 patent defines explicitly a core-band
`
`but dispute whether the definition includes the phrase “substantially centered
`
`at the operating center frequency.” Pet. 17; Prelim. Resp. 13. We note,
`
`however, that the claims all recite the phrase “substantially centered at the
`
`operating center frequency.” For example, independent claim 1 recites a
`
`“core-band, including a plurality of sub carrier groups, substantially centered
`
`at an operating center frequency of the different communication schemes.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:46–48. Independent claims 8 and 18 recite a “core-band,
`
`wherein the core-band is substantially centered at an operating center
`
`frequency.” Id. at 11:57–58, 13:9–10. Therefore, including “wherein the
`
`core-band is substantially centered at an operating center frequency” in the
`
`construction of core-band would render the language recited in claims 1, 8,
`
`and 18 superfluous. Moreover, the specification includes the disputed
`
`language before the phrase “is defined as,” implying a presumption that the
`
`disputed language is not part of the patentee’s definition. Id. at 4:67–5:4.
`
`Thus, for purposes of this decision, we determine that a core-band is defined
`
`as “a frequency segment that is not greater than the smallest operating
`
`channel bandwidth among all the possible spectral bands with which the
`
`receiver is designed to operate.”
`
`2. Primary Preamble
`
`The parties agree that a preamble is a transmission at or near the
`
`beginning of a transmission and that “primary preamble” is not a term of art.
`
`Pet. 17; Prelim. Resp.14. Additionally, the parties agree that a primary
`
`preamble occupies only the core band. Pet. 18; Prelim. Resp. 14. Patent
`
`Owner, however, argues that the primary preamble should be further limited
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`to include bandwidth information. Prelim. Resp. 14–16. Although we agree
`
`with Patent Owner that the ’541 patent describes the primary preamble alone
`
`as being sufficient for basic radio operation, we do not agree with Patent
`
`Owner that the primary preamble, therefore, must include bandwidth
`
`information. In fact, the portion of the ’431 patent that Patent Owner quotes
`
`states that the bandwidth information is provided “using a broadcast channel
`
`or a preamble.” Ex. 1001, 6:26–32 (emphasis added). Moreover, the 431
`
`patent explains that “[i]n one embodiment, relevant or essential radio control
`
`signals such as preambles, . . . bandwidth request, and/or bandwidth
`
`allocation are transmitted within the CB.” Id. at 5:8–10. Thus, although the
`
`’431 patent describes both the preambles and bandwidth information being
`
`transmitted in the core-band, it implies that the bandwidth could be separate
`
`from the primary preamble.
`
`The ’431 patent explains:
`
`primary preamble (EP), is designed to only occupy the CB[
`core-band], as depicted in FIG. 8. The EP alone is sufficient for
`the basic radio operation. The EP can be either a direct
`sequence in the time domain with its frequency response
`confined within the CB, or an OFDM symbol corresponding to
`a particular pattern in the frequency domain within the CB.
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:20–25. Therefore, for purposes of this decision, we construe a
`
`primary preamble as “a direct sequence in the time domain with its
`
`frequency response confined within the CB or an OFDM symbol
`
`corresponding to a particular pattern in the frequency domain within the CB,
`
`at or near the beginning of the transmission, which alone is sufficient for
`
`basic radio operation.”
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`B. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 8–11 and 18–21 as obvious over Li,
`
`Yamaura, and Zhuang or, alternatively, as obvious over Li, Yamaura, Mody,
`
`Nobilet, and Popovic. Pet. 20–39, 47–56. Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2,
`
`12, and 22 as obvious over Li, Yamaura, Zhuang, and UTRA or,
`
`alternatively, as obvious over Li, Yamaura, Mody, Nobilet, Popovic, and
`
`UTRA. Pet. 39–47, 56–60. Patent Owner argues Petitioner has not
`
`provided sufficient reason to combine Li, Yamaura, Zhuang, and Beta, and
`
`also argues that the combined references do not teach the recited core-band,
`
`primary preamble, or the properties of the primary preamble. Prelim. Resp.
`
`20–38.
`
`1. Claims 8–11 and 18–21: Obvious in View of Li, Yamaura, and
`Zhuang or Obvious in View of Li, Yamaura, Mody, Nobilet, and
`Popovic
`
`As discussed above, we construe a core-band to be “a frequency
`
`segment that is not greater than the smallest operating channel bandwidth
`
`among all the possible spectral bands with which the receiver is designed to
`
`operate.” Although Patent Owner asserts our construction, which is the
`
`same construction used in a prior proceeding, is incomplete, the parties agree
`
`that a core-band is not greater than the smallest operating channel bandwidth
`
`among all the possible spectral bands with which the receiver is designed to
`
`operate. Pet. 17; Prelim. Resp. 13.
`
`Patent Owner argues Petitioner has not shown that the asserted prior
`
`art teaches a core-band that is not greater than the smallest operating channel
`
`bandwidth among all the possible spectral bands with which the receiver is
`
`designed to operate. Prelim. Resp. 23–24. We have reviewed the arguments
`
`in the Petition regarding claims 8–11 and 18–21 and agree with Patent
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`Owner. Petitioner has not shown where any reference teaches a core-band
`
`that is not greater than the smallest operating channel bandwidth among all
`
`the possible spectral bands with which the receiver is designed to operate.
`
`Petitioner has neither alleged that such a teaching was inherent to one of the
`
`references nor demonstrated why such a teaching would have been obvious
`
`to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention of the ’431 patent.
`
`Therefore, the Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail with respect to its challenges to claims 8–11 or
`
`18–21.
`
`2. Claims 12 and 22: Obvious in View of Li, Yamaura, Zhuang,
`and UTRA or Obvious in View of Li, Yamaura, Mody, Nobilet,
`Popovic, and UTRA
`
`Claims 12 and 22 depend directly from claims 8 and 18, respectively.
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:25–27, 13:45–47. Petitioner introduces UTRA to its
`
`challenges of claims 12 and 22 to teach frequency division duplex (FDD)
`
`and time division duplex (TDD) modes. Pet. 45–47. Petitioner does not
`
`allege, with respect to claims 12 and 22, that UTRA teaches a core-band that
`
`is not greater than the smallest operating channel bandwidth among all the
`
`possible spectral bands with which the receiver is designed to operate.
`
`Therefore, because UTRA does not cure the deficiency identified with
`
`respect to claims 8 and 18, the Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to its challenges to
`
`claims 12 or 22 for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claims 8–
`
`11 and 18–21.
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`3. Claims 1 and 2: Obvious in View of Li, Yamaura, Zhuang, and
`UTRA
`
`Petitioner asserts Li discloses the various aspects of a base station, in
`
`a variable bandwidth wireless communication system, generating an
`
`information bearing signal using clusters of subcarriers to construct a
`
`variable bandwidth channel, and adding clusters when necessary to increase
`
`the bandwidth of the channel. Pet. 39–42. Petitioner further argues
`
`Yamaura discloses a method of communicating, in a preamble, OFDM
`
`control signals sufficient for basic radio operation (i.e., call signaling and
`
`synchronization) transmitted in any number of subcarriers centered at an
`
`operating center frequency, wherein the subcarriers are spaced at certain
`
`frequency intervals. Id. at 42, 43, 44. Petitioner asserts UTRA discloses a
`
`variable bandwidth system because it uses a variable number of bandslots to
`
`create operating channels in increments of 100 kHz. Id. at 43–44. Petitioner
`
`further argues that Yamaura could use 24 subcarriers, which is the number
`
`of subcarriers used by UTRA for its smallest operating channel bandwidth of
`
`100 kHz. Id. Petitioner asserts Zhuang teaches preambles having the recited
`
`properties. Id. at 45, 58–59. With respect to claim 2, Petitioner argues both
`
`Li and UTRA disclose an OFDMA signal and that UTRA teaches using
`
`FDD and TDD in duplex mode. Id. at 45–46.
`
`Petitioner argues that incorporating Yamaura’s control signals into
`
`Li’s OFDMA system simply is applying the known control signaling
`
`technique of Yamaura to Li’s OFDMA system that is ready for
`
`improvement, yielding a predictable result of leveraging the benefits of
`
`Yamaura’s signaling. Id. at 22–23. Petitioner points out that Yamaura
`
`mentions explicitly that other channels may be used for control and
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`synchronization, such that an ordinarily skilled artisan would look to
`
`implement known control and synchronization signaling with Li’s system.
`
`With respect to combining UTRA with Li, Petitioner asserts “[i]t
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the
`
`known technique of scaling OFDM bandwidth within an available channel
`
`bandwidth, as disclosed by Beta, to the known OFDM system with scalable
`
`bandwidth of Li to yield known and predictable results.” Id. at 43 (citation
`
`omitted).
`
`Petitioner further argues a skilled artisan would have combined
`
`Zhuang’s chirp sequences with Yamaura, which “recognizes that
`
`crosscorrelation is a useful feature of a preamble,” because “Zhuang’s
`
`preambles offer improvements in crosscorrelation, while at the same time
`
`providing benefits of good autocorrelation and low PAPR [peak to average
`
`power ratio].” Id. at 29. Petitioner alleges the combination would have been
`
`obvious to a skilled artisan because it is merely applying the known
`
`technique of Zhuang’s generalized chirp-like OFDM sequences to
`
`Yamaura’s OFDM preambles to yield a known and predictable result of
`
`providing good correlation properties and low PAPR. Id. at 29–30.
`
`Petitioner’s rationale for combination of each reference is that it is
`
`“the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for
`
`the improvement,” which yields known and predictable results. See KSR
`
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). On this record, we are
`
`persuaded by Petitoner’s mappings of the prior art to claims 1 and 2 and
`
`determine Petitioner has presented sufficient rationale for combining the
`
`references. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that it would have been
`
`obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to incorporate Yamaura’s OFDM
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`signaling with Li’s OFDMA variable bandwidth system because Yamaura
`
`teaches one way to provide control and synchronization signaling using
`
`OFDM and, as pointed out by Petitioner, Li recognizes that other channels
`
`may be used for control signals. Moreover, on this record, we agree with
`
`Petitioner that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to
`
`combine the bandwidth-scaling technique in UTRA with Li’s general
`
`disclosure of increasing bandwidth by adding clusters. Finally, we agree
`
`that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined Zhuang’s chirp-like
`
`sequences to improve crosscorrelation properties of Yamaura’s preambles in
`
`light of the fact that Yamaura recognized that crosscorrelation was a useful
`
`feature of preambles.
`
`Patent Owner argues the combination of Yamaura and Li does not
`
`teach a core-band that is not wider than a smallest operating bandwidth of
`
`the system because Petitioner does not explain how or why one would
`
`combine Yamaura and UTRA and because Petitioner’s analysis is disjointed
`
`Prelim. Resp. 36. However, Petitioner asserts that the core-band is taught by
`
`Yamaura and that both Yamaura and UTRA would be combined with Li.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner explains that Yamaura discloses using any number of
`
`subcarriers and that selecting 24 subcarriers would result in a core-band not
`
`wider than the smallest operating channel bandwidth of the combined Li-
`
`Yamaura-UTRA system, where the smallest operating channel bandwidth
`
`would be 100 kHz.
`
`Patent Owner also argues Yamaura doesn’t teach the recited primary
`
`preamble because Yamaura’s preamble does not include bandwidth
`
`information. However, our preliminary construction of “primary preamble”
`
`does not require bandwidth information. Patent Owner also argues the
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`combination of Yamaura and Zhuang does not teach the properties of the
`
`preamble because Petitioner relies, “with no sufficient explanation or
`
`rationale, on the combination of Yamaura and Zhuang.” Prelim. Resp. 37.
`
`Patent Owner also argues Petitioner has provided no reason, motivation, or
`
`suggestion to combine Li, Yamaura, Zhuang, and UTRA, and Petitioner’s
`
`challenges amount to picking and choosing disclosures without explaining
`
`how or why one would have combined the art. Prelim. Resp. 38. However,
`
`as discussed above and notwithstanding Patent Owner’s argument to the
`
`contrary, we find Petitioner’s rationale sufficient.
`
`4. Claims 1 and 2: Obvious in View of Li, Yamaura, Mody,
`Nobilet, Popovic, and UTRA
`
`In the challenge of claims 1 and 2 as obvious in view of Li, Yamaura,
`
`Mody, Nobilet, Popovic, and UTRA, Petitioner merely replaces Zhuang with
`
`the combination of Mody, Nobilet, and Popovic to teach preambles having
`
`the recited properties. Pet. 58–59. With respect to all other limitations of
`
`claims 1 and 2 and rationale for combining the other references, Petitioners
`
`arguments are the same as discussed in the section above. Therefore, in this
`
`section, we focus our discussion on the teachings of Mody, Nobilet, and
`
`Popovic, and whether Petitioner has provided sufficient rationale for
`
`combining those references with Li, Yamaura, and UTRA.
`
`Petitioner argues “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to apply the known technique of using chirp-like sequences in
`
`a preamble, as disclosed by Mody, in the known OFDM system of Yamaura,
`
`which uses preamble sequences, to yield known and predictable results.”
`
`Pet. 49 (citing Haas Dec. ¶ 63). Petitioner asserts Mody’s preambles “can be
`
`used in Yamaura’s system to provide both synchronization and channel
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`estimation in both single-input, single[-]output (SISO) and multi-input,
`
`multi-output (MIMO) systems, using any number of transmitting and
`
`receiving antennas, which is particularly useful given the benefits of MIMO
`
`systems described in Mody.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 5, Haas Dec. ¶¶ 60, 63).
`
`Thus, Petitioner concludes “Mody’s preambles allow Yamaura to be
`
`extended to utilize MIMO technology.” Id. (citing Haas Dec. ¶ 63).
`
`Nobilet and Popovic disclose chirp-like sequences and discuss the
`
`various properties of those sequences. Id. at 49–52. Petitioner argues an
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined Nobilet and Popovic with
`
`Mody because Nobilet and Popovic disclose using chirp-like sequences, as
`
`described by Mody. Id. Nobilet and Popovic disclose Zadoff-Chu
`
`sequences, which are a type of chirp-like sequence that exhibit strong
`
`correlation properties. Id. Therefore, Petitioner asserts it would have been
`
`obvious to combine the teachings of Nobilet and Popovic with the Li-
`
`Yamaura-Mody system to take advantage of the particular sequences
`
`disclosed in Nobilet and Popovic. Id.
`
`Patent Owner asserts Petitioner’s proposed combination of Yamaura,
`
`Mody, Nobilet, and Popovic relies solely on hindsight and that Petitioner
`
`identified Mody by using the claims of the ’431 patent as a template. POPR
`
`40, 45–46. Patent Owner points out that Petitioner argues Yamaura and
`
`Mody could be combined to allow Yamaura to be extended to utilize MIMO
`
`technology, but Yamaura never mentions MIMO. Id. Patent Owner argues
`
`“Petitioner’s entire rationale is based on a premise that is completely
`
`irrelevant to either a variable bandwidth system or to Yamaura’s
`
`application.” Id.
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed rationale for
`
`combining Mody and Yamaura to extend Yamaura to utilize MIMO
`
`technology does not provide a sufficient basis for combining Yamaura and
`
`Mody. Petitioner, however, alternately argues that the incorporation of
`
`Mody’s chirp-like preamble sequences with the preamble of Yamaura’s
`
`system would yield known and predictable results. Mody discloses that its
`
`preambles and training sequences may be used in either SISO or MIMO
`
`systems. Ex. 1005 ¶ 9. Therefore, we find, on this record, Petitioner has
`
`presented sufficient rationale for the combination of Mody and Yamaura.
`
`See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Similarly, we agree with Petitioner’s position that
`
`the combination of the specific chirp-like sequences, disclosed by Nobilet
`
`and Popovic, with Mody would involve the use of known improvements to a
`
`known technique, yielding known and predictable results.
`
`In sum, based on the present record, we are persuaded Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing that claims 1 and 2
`
`would have been obvious in view of Li, Yamaura, Mody, Nobilet, Popovic,
`
`and UTRA.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in demonstrating that claims 1
`
`and 2 of the ’431 patent are unpatentable on at least one challenged ground,
`
`but Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`
`demonstrating that claims 8–12 and 18–22 are unpatentable on at least one
`
`challenged ground.
`
`For the reasons given, it is:
`
`ORDER
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted for the following alleged grounds of
`
`unpatentability:
`
`(a) claims 1 and 2 of the ’431 patent are unpatentable, under
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a), as obvious over the combination of Li, Yamaura,
`
`Zhuang, and UTRA;
`
`(b) claims 1 and 2 of the ’431 patent are unpatentable, under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over the combination of Li, Yamaura, Mody,
`
`Nobilet, Popovic, and UTRA;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other grounds of unpatentability
`
`alleged in the Petition for any claim is authorized; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, the trial commences on the entry date of this decision, and
`
`notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial.
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-01195
`Patent 7,787,431
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`J. Andrew Lowes
`Andrew.lowes.ipr@haynesboone.com
`David M. O’Dell
`David.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Hebert Hart
`hhart@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Sharon Hwang
`shwang@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`Donald Coulman
`dcoulman@intven.com
`
`
`19

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket