Petitioner
`Ericsson Inc. and
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,431
`IPR2014-01195
`September 10, 2015
`
`Andrew Lowes
`Clint Wilkins
`
`Exhibit ERIC-1040
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`Ericsson Inc. and
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,787,431
`IPR2014-01195
`September 10, 2015
`
`Andrew Lowes
`Clint Wilkins
`
`Exhibit ERIC-1040
`IPR2014-01195
`
`
`
`Overview of ’431 patent
`Directed to three aspects
`
`(1) Variable-bandwidth OFDM
`“The variable channel bandwidth is realized by adjusting the number of
`usable subcarriers, whose spacing is set constant.”
`
`(‘431 patent, 4:41-42, cited in Petition for IPR, p. 6)
`
`“Radio control and operation
`signaling is realized through the
`use of a core-band (CB).”
`
`(‘431 patent, 4:64-67, cited in Petition for IPR, p. 6)
`
`
`
`(2) Core-band
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`2
`
`
`
`Overview of ’431 patent
`Directed to three aspects (cont.)
`
`(3) Primary preamble properties
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Primary preamble)
`
`(‘431 patent, Fig. 8(a))
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`3
`
`(‘431 patent, 5:28-35, similar to claim 1)
`
`
`
`Overview of Challenges
`
`• Trial instituted on claims 1 and 2
`
`• Claims 1 and 2 challenged under two sets of references:
`Second
`First
`challenge
`challenge
`Li
`Li
`Yamaura,
`Yamaura,
`UTRA (Beta)
`UTRA (Beta)
`
`Zhuang
`Mody
`Nobilet
`Popovic
`
`Ex. No.
`1002
`1003
`1007
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1008
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`4
`
`(See Decision on Institution, pp. 5 and 7)
`
`
`
`Summary of claim 1
`
`(1) Variable bandwidth
` multi-subcarrier systems
`
`(2) Core-band
`
`(3) Primary Preamble
`
`(Discussed inter alia Petition
`for IPR, pp. 3-5)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`5
`
`
`
`Overview of prior art – Li and UTRA (Beta)
`Disclose variable-bandwidth multi-subcarrier systems (OFDMA)
`
`Li
`
`“the base station first allocates multiple clusters [of subcarriers], referred to
`herein as the basic clusters, to establish a data link between the base station
`and the subscriber. The base station then subsequently allocates more clusters,
`referred to herein as the auxiliary clusters, to the subscriber to increase the
`communication bandwidth.”
`(Li, 6:43-48, discussed in, e.g., Petition for IPR, pp. 36, 41)
`
`UTRA (Beta)
`
`(UTRA (Beta), p.176, discussed in Petition for IPR,
`e.g., p. 13)
`“The OFDM air-interface utilizes a time and frequency grid for basic physical
`channel structure. … The resources (time and frequency) are allocated based on the
`type of services, operational environment/scenarios (i.e., give more flexibility).”
`(UTRA (Beta), p. 198, discussed in, e.g., Petition for IPR, pp. 13-14)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`6
`
`
`
`Overview of prior art – Yamaura
`Discloses centered control channels less than overall bandwidth (when combined with
`UTRA (Beta), discloses a “core-band”)
`“part of control signals addressed to a terminal station from a base
`station is transmitted by means of a carrier whose band is
`narrower than that for said multi-carrier signals […]”
`(Yamaura, 6:5-8, discussed in Petition for IPR, e.g., p. 10)
`
`(Yamaura, Fig. 17
`(annotated), discussed in
`Petition for IPR, e.g., p. 11)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`7
`
`
`
`Overview of prior art – Zhuang
`Discloses properties of primary preamble
`
`[1.10] and wherein properties of the
`primary preamble comprise: an
`autocorrelation having a large
`correlation peak with respect to
`sidelobes;
`[1.11] a cross-correlation with other
`primary preambles having a small
`crosscorrelation coefficient with respect
`to power of other primary preambles;
`
`[1.12] a small peak-to-average ratio
`
`[1.13] and wherein a large number of
`primary preamble sequences exhibit the
`properties
`
`“Property 2: The GCL sequences of any length
`have an ‘ideal’ cyclic autocorrelation (i.e., the
`correlation with the circularly shifted version of itself
`is a delta function)” (Zhuang, 6:7-9, cited in Petition
`for IPR, p. 29)
`“There exists a number of ‘classes’ of GCL sequences
`and if the classes are chosen carefully (see GCL
`property 3 below), sequences with those chosen
`classes will have optimal cross-correlation and ideal
`autocorrelation.” (Zhuang, 5:11-15, cited in Petition
`for IPR, p. 30)
`“The resulting waveform still enjoys low peak-to-
`average ratio (PAPR is typically <3 dB).” (Zhuang,
`6:4-6, cited in Petition for IPR, p. 31)
`“the number of pilot sequences available that
`has the ideal cyclic auto-correlation and optimal
`cyclic cross-correlation is P−1 where P is the smallest
`prime factor of Np other than ‘1’ after factoring Np
`into the product of two or more prime numbers
`including ‘1’.” (Zhuang, 4:2-6, cited in Petition for
`IPR, p. 45)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`8
`
`
`
`Areas of dispute
`
`(See, e.g., PO Response, Table of Contents)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`Five Areas of Dispute:
`• Claim construction
`
`[a] “substantially not wider”
`
`[b] “radio control and operation signaling”
`[c] “sufficient for basic radio operation”
`
`• Claim application
`[d] “different communication schemes”
`
`• Other
`
`[e] Reasons to combine references
`
`including a plurality of
`“wherein a core-band,
`subcarrier groups, substantially centered at an operating
`center frequency [d] of the different communication
`schemes, is utilized by the base station as [b] a
`broadcast channel carrying radio control and operation
`signalling, where the core-band is [a] substantially not
`wider than a smallest possible operating channel
`bandwidth of the system; and wherein the information
`bearing signal has [c] a primary preamble sufficient for
`basic radio operation”
`
`9
`
`
`
`Disputed claim elements are disclosed by prior art
`Areas of dispute – claim construction
`“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 [b] a broadcast channel carrying radio
`control and operation signalling, where the core-band is [a] substantially not
`wider than a smallest possible operating channel bandwidth of the system; and
`wherein the information bearing signal has [c] a primary preamble sufficient for
`basic radio operation”
`Prior art
`
`UTRA (Beta)
`(defines minimum
`channel bandwidth)
`
`Li
`
`Yamaura
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 13)
`
`(Petition for IPR, pp. 43-44)
`
`10
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Summary
`No dispute/no material differences
`
`Claim Term Petitioner’s Construction
`
`PO’s Construction
`
`Bandwidth
`
`A frequency range that a
`component, circuit, or system
`passes or uses
`
`A width of a frequency
`band
`
`Core-Band
`
`a frequency segment that is not
`greater than the smallest
`operating channel bandwidth
`among all the possible spectral
`bands that a receiver is designed
`to operate with
`
`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
`
`Primary
`preamble
`
`a signal transmitted near the
`beginning of a transmission,
`such as a frame or time slot, and
`occupying only the core-band
`
`a signal transmitted by the
`base station near the
`beginning of each frame
`and occupying only the
`coreband
`
`Peak-to-
`average ratio peak-to-average power ratio
`
`Same
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`Board’s Preliminary
`Construction
`“We do not find it necessary, for
`purposes of this decision, to
`construe explicitly ‘bandwidth’ at
`this time.” (Decision to Institute,
`p. 7)
`
`Adopted Petitioner’s construction
`
`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
`Same
`
`(PO Response, pp. 10-11)
`
`11
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Summary
`Disputed claim terms (PO newly proposed constructions)
`
`Claim Term
`
`[a]
`
`substantially not
`wider
`
`a broadcast
`channel carrying
`radio control and
`operation
`signaling
`a primary
`preamble
`sufficient for
`basic radio
`operation
`
`[b]
`
`[c]
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`No construction necessary.
`Alternatively, narrower than
`or equal to in width within a
`degree of accuracy that
`accounts for process and
`operational tolerances
`
`PO’s Construction
`
`significantly narrower
`
`
`
`A broadcast channel carrying
`control signaling that affects
`operation of a receiver
`
`A broadcast channel carrying
`radio control signals and
`radio operation signals
`
`a primary preamble
`containing information to
`establish radio operation
`
`a primary preamble including
`radio control channels and
`data channels sufficient for the
`mobile station to operate at a
`primary state
`
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`(PO Response, p. 14-15
`
`12
`
`
`
`[a] “substantially not wider” – Petitioner construction
`
`Claim language
`
`“the core-band is substantially not wider than a smallest possible
`operating channel bandwidth of the system”
`
`Petitioner Construction
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively, narrower than or equal to in width within a
`degree of accuracy that accounts for process and operational
`tolerances
`
`Supporting arguments
`
`• Consistent with disclosure and provisional application
`• Consistent with file history
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`(See Petitioner Reply, pp. 2-5)
`
`13
`
`
`
`[a] “substantially not wider” – Petitioner construction
`
`Petitioner construction consistent with disclosure and provisional
`application
`“core band … is defined as a frequency segment that is not greater than
`the smallest operating channel bandwidth …”
`(’431 patent, 4:67-5:4, cited in Petitioner Reply, p. 3)
`
`
`
`“A core band … is defined as the frequency segment that must be less than
`or equal to the smallest operating channel bandwidth …”
`(Provisional application (incorporated by reference
`into ’431 patent), ERIC-1035, p. 7, cited in Petitioner
`Reply, p. 3)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`14
`
`
`
`[a] “substantially not wider” – Petitioner construction
`
`Petitioner construction consistent with file history
`• Applicant addressed term “substantially” in file history as a term of
`approximation in response to Section 112 rejection
`
`(File history, ERIC-1010, p. 160,
`discussed in Petitioner Reply, pp. 2-3)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`15
`
`
`
`[a] “substantially not wider” – construction
`Why PO construction is wrong
`PO Position
`“In the context of the ’431 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand ‘substantially not wider’ to mean a bandwidth that
`is ‘significantly not wider,’ for example, ‘significantly narrower than,’
`the smallest possible operating channel bandwidth.”
`
`(PO Response, p. 18)
`
`Issues with PO construction
`
`(1) No express disclaimer of embodiments that are “less than or equal to”
`o PO reading “substantially not wider” to exclude embodiments that
`are “less than or equal to” but not “significantly less than.”
`(2) Applicant addressed term “substantially” in file history as a term of
`approximation in response to Section 112 rejection
`(3) “[T]he detailed description gives no indication of how to determine when
`one bandwidth is ‘significantly narrower than,’ as opposed to simply
`“narrower than,’ another bandwidth.”
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`(See Petitioner Reply, p. 2-5)
`
`16
`
`
`
`[a] “substantially not wider” – construction
`Why PO construction is wrong
`
`(1) No express disclaimer of embodiments that are “less than or equal to”
`
`“core band … is defined as a frequency segment that is not greater than
`the smallest operating channel bandwidth …”
`(’431 patent, 4:67-5:4, cited in Petitioner Reply, p. 3)
`
`“A core band … is defined as the frequency segment that must be less than
`or equal to the smallest operating channel bandwidth …”
`(Provisional application, ERIC-1035, p. 7, cited in
`Petitioner Reply, p. 3)
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`17
`
`
`
`[a] “substantially not wider” – construction
`Why PO construction is wrong
`
`(2) Applicant addressed term “substantially” in file history as a term of
`approximation in response to Section 112 rejection
`
`(File history, ERIC-1010, p. 160,
`discussed in Petitioner Reply, pp. 2-3)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`18
`
`
`
`[a] “substantially not wider” – construction
`Why PO construction is wrong
`
`(3) “[T]he detailed description gives no indication of how to determine when
`one bandwidth is ‘significantly narrower than,’ as opposed to simply ‘narrower
`than,’ another bandwidth. As a result, the PO’s Expert could not give any
`explanation based on the ’431 patent about where to draw the line.”
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 4)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`(Zeger Depo, ERIC-1031,
`p. 100, cited in Petitioner
`Reply, p. 4)
`
`19
`
`
`
`[a] “substantially not wider” – applying prior art
`
`Disclosure of “substantially not wider” – includes “equal to”
`Yamaura combined with UTRA (Beta) discloses a core band of 100
`kHz, which is equal to the smallest operating channel bandwidth of
`100 kHz
`
`(See Petition for IPR, pp. 43-44)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`20
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Summary
`Disputed claim terms (PO newly proposed constructions)
`
`Claim Term
`
`[a]
`
`substantially not
`wider
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively, narrower than or
`equal to in width within a
`degree of accuracy that
`accounts for process and
`operational tolerances
`
`PO’s Construction
`
`significantly not wider
`
`
`
`
`[b]
`
`[c]
`
`a broadcast
`channel carrying
`radio control and
`operation
`signaling
`a primary
`preamble
`sufficient for
`basic radio
`operation
`
`A broadcast channel carrying
`control signaling that affects
`operation of a receiver
`
`A broadcast channel carrying
`radio control signals and radio
`operation signals
`
`a primary preamble containing
`information to establish radio
`operation
`
`
`
`a primary preamble including
`radio control channels and
`data channels sufficient for the
`mobile station to operate at a
`primary state
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`21
`
`
`
`[b] “radio control and operation signaling” – construction
`
`Claim language
`“a broadcast channel carrying radio control and operation signaling”
`
`Petitioner’s Position
`
`“radio control and operation signaling” refers to a single concept
`
`•
`
`• The concept is control signaling that affects the operation of a receiver
`(See Petitioner Reply, pp. 5-8)
`
`PO Position
`
`“radio control and operation signaling” = radio control signals +
`
`
`
`
` radio operation signals
`(See PO Response, pp. 15-16)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`22
`
`
`
`[b] “radio control and operation signaling” – construction
`Support for Petitioner’s position
`• The term “radio control and operation signaling” is used only once in
`the detailed description, and term is used as a single concept
`o “Radio control and operation signaling is realized through the use of a
`core-band (CB).”
`
`(’431 patent, 4:66-67, cited in Petitioner Reply, p. 6)
`
`
`• The term “signaling” has an ordinary and customary meaning in the
`telecommunications field – information to set up or tear down calls
`o “Signaling In any telephone system – inside an office or across the
`country – some form of signaling mechanism is required to set up and
`tear down the calls.”
`(Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, ERIC-1030, p. 800, cited in
`
`Petitioner Reply, p. 8)
`• Petitioner’s position as single concept is consistent with the fact that
`it is a “broadcast channel” that carries the “radio control and
`operation signaling”
`(See Supp. Haas Decl., ERIC-1034, ¶ 12, cited in Petitioner
`Reply, p. 7)
`
`• Petitioner’s expert says POSA understands “control and operation”
`is understood as a single concept
`
`(See Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 7, cited in Petitioner Reply, p. 5)
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`23
`
`
`
`[b] “radio control and operation signaling” – construction
`Why PO construction is wrong
`
`• Claim language – “a broadcast channel carrying radio control and operation
`signaling”
`
`• PO argues that “radio controls signals include signals to set up radio
`operation”
`(PO Response, p. 15)
`
`• PO argues that examples of “radio operation signals” include “a set of data
`channels and their related dedicated control channels”
`
`(PO Response, p. 15)
`• However – there are two issues with PO’s positions
`[1] PO’s examples contradict the ordinary and customary meaning of
`“signaling”
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 7)
`
`[2] A “broadcast channel” is for all users but a “dedicated” channel is for a
`specific user
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 7)
`
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`24
`
`
`
`[b] “radio control and operation signaling” – construction
`Why PO construction is wrong
`
`
`
`PO argument: “Thus, [1] a set of data channels and [2] their related
`dedicated control channels are examples of operation signaling.” (PO Response, p. 16)
`[1] PO’s example of “data channels” contradict the ordinary and
`customary meaning of “signaling” – signaling is call set up or tear down
`“Signaling. In any telephone system – inside an office or across
`the country – some form of signaling mechanism is required to set
`up and tear down the calls.”
`
`(Newton’s Telecom Dictionary,
`ERIC-1030, p. 800, cited in
`Petitioner Reply, p. 8)
`
`
`
`[2] PO’s example of a “dedicated” channel contradicts use of “broadcast
`channel” – a “broadcast channel” is for all users
`“Broadcast Channel BCCH. A wireless term for the logical
`channel used in certain cellular networks to broadcast signaling
`and control information to all cellular phones.”
`
`(Newton’s Telecom Dictionary,
`ERIC-1030, p. 128, cited in
`Petitioner Reply, p. 7)
`
`(WCDMA for UMTS, ERIC-1032,
`p. 71, cited in Petitioner Reply, p.
`7)
`
`
`
`“a common channel is a resource divided between all or a group of
`users in a cell, whereas a dedicated channel resource, identified by
`a certain code on a certain frequency, is reserved for a single user
`only.”
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`25
`
`
`
`[b]“radio control and operation signaling” – applying prior art
`
`• Yamaura discloses “a broadcast channel carrying radio control and
`operation signaling” even under PO’s construction
`
`“The broadcast burst consists of BCH for the multiple addressing of broadcast
`preamble and base station information, FCH to inform each terminal station
`of the traffic channel allocation in the same frame …. In the case of this
`embodiment, the two subcarriers SC1 and SC2 shown in FIG. 16 are used for
`transmission of specific control signals in the sections of broadcast preamble,
`BCH, and FCH in the broadcast burst.”
`
`(Yamaura, ERIC-1003, 21:7-15)
`
`o Yamaura’s BCH is a control signal because it provides base station
`information, and Yamaura’s FCH is an operation signal because it contains
`information to establish and maintain a traffic channel.
`(Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 28, cited in
`Petitioner Reply, p. 15)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`26
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Summary
`Disputed claim terms (PO newly proposed constructions)
`
`Claim Term
`
`[a]
`
`substantially not
`wider
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively, narrower than or
`equal to in width within a
`degree of accuracy that
`accounts for process and
`operational tolerances
`
`PO’s Construction
`
`significantly not wider
`
`
`
`
`[b]
`
`[c]
`
`a broadcast
`channel carrying
`radio control and
`operation
`signaling
`a primary
`preamble
`sufficient for
`basic radio
`operation
`
`A broadcast channel carrying
`control signaling that affects
`operation of a receiver
`
`A broadcast channel carrying
`radio control signals and radio
`operation signals
`
`a primary preamble containing
`information to establish radio
`operation
`
`
`
`a primary preamble including
`radio control channels and
`data channels sufficient for the
`mobile station to operate at a
`primary state
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`27
`
`
`
`[c] “a primary preamble sufficient for basic radio operation” – construction
`
`Claim language
`“a primary preamble sufficient for basic radio operation”
`
`Primary preamble
`
`• Denotes a location in time – “at or near the beginning of the transmission”
`
`
`(Decision to Institute, p. 9)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`28
`
`
`
`[c] “a primary preamble sufficient for basic radio operation” – construction
`
`Support for Petitioner’s position
`
`Petitioner construction
`
`(a primary preamble) containing information to establish radio operation
`
`
`Support
`• The only definitive statement in the ’431 patent about what
`information may be contained in a preamble is that “[t]he DL
`preamble is used at a base station to broadcast radio network
`information such as synchronization and cell identification.” ’431
`patent, 3:54-56.
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 9)
`o This description is consistent with basic radio operation because
`synchronization and cell identification are needed to establish
`basic radio operation.
`(Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 17, cited in Petitioner Reply, p. 9)
`• Also, the primary preamble from the base station has auto-
`correlation, cross-correlation, etc. properties that allow it to be readily
`and reliably identified by a mobile station
`
`(PO Response, p. 10)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`29
`
`
`
`[c] “a primary preamble sufficient for basic radio operation” – construction
`
`Why PO construction is wrong
`
`PO construction
`(a primary preamble) “including radio control channels and data
`channels sufficient for the mobile station to operate at a primary
`state”
`Issues with PO construction
`
`1) PO conflates core-band with primary preamble when formulating
`construction
`
`2) Temporal location of primary preamble near beginning of frame
`not consistent with PO’s construction
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 10)
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 10)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`30
`
`
`
`[c] “a primary preamble sufficient for basic radio operation” – construction
`
`Why PO construction is wrong
`
`1) PO conflates core-band with primary preamble when formulating
`construction
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 10)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`(PO Response, p. 19, cited in
`Petitioner Reply, p. 10)
`
`31
`
`
`
`[c] “a primary preamble sufficient for basic radio operation” – construction
`
`Why PO construction is wrong
`
`1) PO conflates core-band with primary preamble when formulating
`construction (cont.)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`32
`
`(’431 patent, 5:8-18, cited in PO
`Response, p. 19)
`
`
`
`[c] “a primary preamble sufficient for basic radio operation” – construction
`
`Why PO construction is wrong
`
`2) Temporal location of primary preamble near beginning of
`frame not consistent with PO’s construction
`
`“There is no reason why data channels would be near the beginning of a
`frame to be ‘sufficient for basic radio operation.’ Instead, it makes more sense
`that the beginning of a frame would allow a mobile station to synchronize
`and provide base station information.”
`(Supp. Haas Decl., ERIC-
`1034, ¶ 20, cited in
`Petitioner Reply, p. 10)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`33
`
`
`
`[c] “a primary preamble sufficient for basic radio operation” – applying prior art
`
`Yamaura
`“The broadcast burst consists of BCH for the multiple addressing of broadcast
`preamble and base station information, FCH to inform each terminal station
`of the traffic channel allocation in the same frame …. In the case of this
`embodiment, the two subcarriers SC1 and SC2 shown in FIG. 16 are used for
`transmission of specific control signals in the sections of broadcast preamble,
`BCH, and FCH in the broadcast burst.”
`(Yamaura, 21:7-15, cited in Petitioner Reply, p. 16)
`
`“The advantage of transmitting narrow-band signals from the base station is
`that the terminal station can recognize the break of MAC frame”
`(Yamaura, 10:47-49, cited in Petitioner Reply, p. 17)
`
`Decision to Institute
`“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.”
`(Decision to Institute, p. 12)
`“On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s mappings of the prior
`art to claims 1 and 2”
`
`(Decision to Institute, p. 13)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`34
`
`
`
`[d] “a core-band … substantially centered at an operating frequency of
`the different schemes” – applying prior art
`
`Li – “different schemes”
`
`first
`scheme
`
`second
`scheme
`
`(Li, 6:43-48, discussed in Petition for IPR, pp. 39-40;
`also discussed in Petitioner Reply, pp. 12-13)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`35
`
`
`
`[d] “a core-band … substantially centered at an operating frequency of
`the different schemes” – applying prior art
`
`Yamaura + Li
`
`(Supp. Haas Decl., p. 12, included in Petitioner Reply, p. 13)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`(Supp. Haas Decl., ¶ 25, cited in Petitioner Reply, p. 14)
`
`36
`
`
`
`[e] Reasons to combine
`
`• Detailed reasons to combine the following three pairs of references has
`been provided in the Petition and in the Petitioner Reply:
`(1) Li and Yamaura,
`(2) Li and UTRA (Beta), and
`(3) Yamaura and Zhuang.
`
`
`
`
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 22)
`
`•
`
`“Yamaura and Beta would be combined through Li, by adding features
`to Li’s system. PO’s primary argument is not to the merits, but to the
`way the reasons to combine were organized in the Petition .”
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 21)
`
`“[there is] no legal authority for its proposition that a reason to combine
`three references cannot be established by discussing the references in
`separate pairs”
`
`(IPR2014-00222, Valeo North America, Inc., et al. v. Magna Electronics, Inc., Paper 55, p. 24, cited in Petitioner
`Reply, p. 21)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`37
`
`
`
`[e] Reasons to combine – Li + Yamaura
`Yamaura provides implementation details for Li’s “other channels”
`
`Li
`“The techniques described herein are directed to subcarrier allocation for data traffic
`channels. In a cellular system, there are typically other channels, pre-allocated for the
`exchange of control information and other purposes. These channels often include
`down link and up link control channels, uplink access channels, and time and
`frequency synchronization channels.”
`
`(Li, 5:11-17, discussed in Petition for IPR,
`pp. 20-23 and Petitioner Reply, pp. 18-19)
`
`Li+Yamaura
`“Thus, while Li recognizes that OFDM-based communication systems typically include
`control and synchronization channels, Yamaura teaches a particular implementation of
`control and synchronization signaling that has advantageous over other existing
`methods.”
`
`(Haas Decl., ¶ 51, cited in Petition for IPR, pp. 22-23)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`38
`
`
`
`[e] Reasons to combine – Li + UTRA (Beta)
`UTRA (Beta) provides scaling Li’s overall bandwidth and provides smallest operating
`channel bandwidth
`
`• Li – variable bandwidth within a designated operating channel
`
`(Petition for IPR, p. 42)
`• UTRA (Beta) – uses variable bandwidth and specifies different
`operating channel bandwidths
`(Haas Decl. (ERIC-1012),
`¶¶70-71, cited in Petition for
`IPR, pp. 42-43)
`
`(Haas Decl., ¶70, cited in
`Petition for IPR, pp. 42-
`43)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`39
`
`
`
`[e] Reasons to combine – Yamaura + Zhuang
`Zhuang provides further details for Yamaura’s preambles
`
`Petitioner
`“Yamaura recognizes that crosscorrelation is a useful feature of a preamble.
`Zhuang’s preambles offer improvements in crosscorrelation, while at the same
`time providing benefits of good autocorrelation and low PAPR. It 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 in an OFDM system, as disclosed by
`Zhuang, in the known OFDM system of Yamaura, which uses preamble
`sequences (see, e.g., ERIC-1012, ¶¶ 43 and 48), to yield known and predictable
`results (including the benefits provided by Zhuang’s good correlation properties
`and low PAPR).”
`(Petition for IPR, pp. 29-30)
`
`Board
`“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.”
`(Decision to Institute, p. 14)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`40
`
`
`
`Conclusions
`
`• There is no dispute that Li and UTRA (Beta) disclose the variable
`bandwidth aspects of claim 1
`
`• There is no dispute that Zhuang discloses claimed properties of a primary
`preamble, including auto-correlation and cross-correlation properties
`
`• Li, Yamaura and UTRA (Beta) disclose the disputed claim elements
`discussed herein
`
`• Detailed reasons to combine have been provided for Li, Yamaura, UTRA
`(Beta), and Zhuang
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`41
`
`
`
`BACKUP SLIDES
`
`BACKUP SLIDES
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`ERIC-1040
`
`42
`42
`
`
`
`Replacing Zhuang with Mody, Nobilet, and Popovic in Challenge #2
`
`• The disputed claim elements are addressed by references other
`than Mody, Nobilet, and Popovic
`
`
`• Yamaura+Mody
`“It 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.”
`(Haas Decl., ¶ 63, cited in
`Petition for IPR, p. 49)
`
`
`
`(Decision to Institute, p. 17)
`
`• Adding Nobilet, Popovic
`“It would have been obvious to [a POSA] to apply the known technique of using Zadoff-Chu
`sequences in a preamble, as disclosed by Mody in view of Nobilet, in the known OFDM
`system of Yamaura, which uses preamble sequences, to yield known and predictable results.”
`“Popovic confirms a mathematical property of Zadoff-Chu sequences discussed in Nobilet.”
`(Haas Decl., ¶ 68-69, cited in Petition for IPR, p. 50)
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`43
`
`
`
`[c] “a primary preamble sufficient for basic radio operation” – construction
`
`Unclear what is a “primary state”
`
`•
`
`“[T]he PO’s proposed construction does not add clarity but rather adds
`ambiguity and confusion. For example, the PO’s construction begs the
`question of what is a primary state. The ’431 specification does not
`provide any explanation. “
`
`(Petitioner Reply, p. 10)
`
`(PO Response, p. 19)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`44
`
`
`
`Reasons to combine
`Claim 1 does not address problem stated by PO
`
`“A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have consulted Li and Yamaura
`simultaneously when attempting to solve the problem described in the ’431 patent;
`namely, to permit roaming by allowing at least basic radio operation through the
`transmission of radio control signals and operation signals in a primary preamble,
`then later transitioning to normal full-bandwidth operation.”
`
`(PO Response, p. 43)
`
`Claim 1 does not address “roaming” or “transitioning to normal full-bandwidth
`operation”
`PO expert, Dr. Zeger, on “roaming”:
`
`(Zeger Depo, p. 141, cited
`in Petitioner Reply, p. 20)
`
`Dr. Zeger on “transitioning to normal full-bandwidth operation”:
`
`(Zeger Depo, p. 142, cited
`in Petitioner Reply, p. 20)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`45
`
`
`
`[d] “a core-band … substantially centered at an operating frequency of
`the different schemes” – applying prior art
`Yamaura
`
`(Haas Decl., ¶ 41, cited in
`Petition for IPR, p. 43)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`46
`
`
`
`[b]“radio control and operation signaling” – applying prior art
`
`“[t]he broadcast burst consists of BCH for the multiple addressing of broadcast
`preamble and base station information, FCH to inform each terminal station of the
`traffic channel allocation in the same frame, and ACH for reply to RCH used for
`calling from the terminal station. In the case of this embodiment, the two
`subcarriers SC1 and SC2 shown in FIG. 16 are used for transmission of specific
`control signals in the sections of broadcast preamble, BCH, and FCH in the
`broadcast burst.”
`(Yamaura, 21:7-15, cited in Petition for IPR, pp. 10-11)
`
`(Yamaura, Figs. 16-17 (annotated), included in Petition for IPR, p. 11)
`
`
`
`ERIC-1040
`
`47
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
